<P> In 1986 and 1987, CITES registered 89.5 and 297 tonnes of ivory in Burundi and Singapore respectively . Burundi had one known live wild elephant and Singapore had none . The stockpiles were recognised to have largely come from poached elephants . The CITES Secretariat was later admonished by the USA delegate for redefining the term "registration" as "amnesty". The result of this was realised in undercover investigations by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), a small underfunded NGO, when they met with traders in Hong Kong . Large parts of the stockpiles were owned by international criminals behind the poaching and illegal international trade . Well - known Hong Kong - based traders such as Wang and Poon were beneficiaries of the amnesty, and elephant expert Iain Douglas - Hamilton commented on the Burundi amnesty that it "made at least two millionaires". EIA confirmed with their investigations that not only had these syndicates made enormous wealth, but they also possessed huge quantities of CITES permits with which they continued to smuggle new ivory, which if stopped by customs, they produced the paper permit . CITES had created a system which increased the value of ivory on the international market, rewarded international smugglers and gave them the ability to control the trade and continue smuggling new ivory . </P> <P> Further failures of this "control" system were uncovered by the EIA when they gained undercover access and filmed ivory carving factories run by Hong Kong traders, including Poon, in the United Arab Emirates . They also collected official trade statistics, airway bills and further evidence in UAE, Singapore and Hong Kong . The UAE statistics showed that this country alone had imported over 200 tonnes of raw and simply prepared ivory in 1987 / 88 . Almost half of this had come from Tanzania where they had a complete ban on ivory . It underlined that the ivory traders rewarded by CITES with the amnesties were running rings around the system . </P> <P> Despite these public revelations by the EIA, and followed by media exposures and appeals from African countries and a range of well - respected organisations around the world, WWF only came out in support of a ban in mid-1989, indicating the importance of the "lethal use" principle of wildlife to WWF and CITES; even then, the group attempted to water down decisions at the October 1989 meeting of CITES . </P> <P> Tanzania, attempting to break down the ivory syndicates that it recognised were corrupting its society, proposed an Appendix One listing for the African Elephant (effectively a ban on international trade). Some southern African countries including South Africa and Zimbabwe were vehemently opposed . They claimed that their elephant populations were well managed and they wanted revenue from ivory sales to fund conservation . Although both countries were implicated as entrepôts in illegal ivory from other African countries, WWF, with strong ties to both countries, found itself in a difficult position . It is well documented that publicly it opposed the trade but privately tried to appease these southern African states . However, the so - called Somalia - Proposal, presented by the governmental delegation of the Republic of Somalia, of which nature protection specialist Prof. Julian Bauer was an official member, then broke the stalemate and the elephant moratorium with its ban of elephant ivory trade was adopted by the CITES delegates . </P>

When did the sale of ivory become illegal
find me the text answering this question