Response to consultation: 24 December 2017 RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON BANNING UK IVORY SALES, OPENED ON 6 OCTOBER 2017 DATE OF RESPONSE: 24 DECEMBER 2017 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted on behalf of: THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY UK (EIA) STOP IVORY THE DAVID SHEPHERD WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (DSWF) THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY (WCS) THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON (ZSL) The following organisations have submitted their own individual responses to the consultation but also endorse the contents of this document: BORN FREE FOUNDATION NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL TUSK TRUST 1 Response to consultation: 24 December 2017 GLOSSARY BADA: British Antiques Dealers Association Consultation Document: The consultation document accompanying this consultation, issued by DEFRA in October 2017 CEMA: Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COTES Regulations: Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 Evidence Document: The document setting out further detail to support this response. Export: Includes what are often referred to as ‘(re)exports’, which are the export out of the UK (or any other country) of ivory that had been previously been imported into the country IFAW: International Fund for Animal Welfare Impact Assessment: The impact assessment accompanying this consultation, issued by DEFRA dated 05/09/2017 IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature LAPADA: Association of Art & Antiques Dealers NAVA: National Association of Valuers and Auctioneers Netsuke: Miniature sculptures, often carved in ivory and used as toggles for attaching containers by cord to a person’s robe, invented in 17th century Japan Pre-Convention: Ivory products that were acquired before 1975 for Asian elephants and 1976 for African elephants SOFAA: Society of Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers TRAFFIC: Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network UKBF: UK Border Force UNODC: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime USFWS: US Fish & Wildlife Service 2 Response to consultation: 24 December 2017 1. Do you agree with the proposed ban? 1.1 Yes, we support the proposed ban, which would have significant positive impacts on global efforts to combat ivory trafficking as well as reduce demand for ivory, ultimately reducing the scale of the elephant poaching crisis. 1.2 While our preference would be no exemptions, to prevent creating any loopholes and difficulties for enforcement, we believe there should be only three rather than the proposed four exemptions (for the reasons we explain below). 2. Do you have any evidence to present on how our proposed ban will affect elephant conservation and the natural environment including wider species conservation? 2.1 Yes If yes, please provide evidence. Contribution of the ban to overall measures to combat poaching and conserve elephants 2.2 Various studies show that a legal domestic ivory market provides opportunities for laundering of illegal ivory, further fuelling the elephant poaching crisis1. It is very difficult to differentiate illegal ivory from legal ivory and traffickers use various techniques to launder illegal/new ivory by making it look legal/old/antique2. Therefore, the proposed UK ban on ivory trade would reduce opportunities for laundering illegal ivory and so have positive impacts on combating poaching and conserving elephants. 2.3 It is widely acknowledged, including by the Government, that demand reduction campaigns are critical in the fight to reduce poaching and illegal trade. Trade bans are an essential part of demand reduction campaigns. It is, at best, confusing for consumers to be encouraged not to buy ivory if it is still legally for sale in their country. Allowing the sale of ivory reinforces its social acceptability and makes it a desirable product to own, further fuelling the illegal market and stimulating trafficking. A report published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in 2010 concluded that “the trade in illicit ivory is only lucrative because there is a parallel licit supply, and ivory can be sold and used openly. Ivory would lose much of its marketability if buying it were unequivocally an illegal act, or if ownership of these status goods had to be concealed.”3 2.4 The Government has committed significant amounts to demand reduction campaigns particularly in Asia. That money is most effectively spent when it supports demand reduction campaigns in countries with significant domestic ivory markets (such as China). It is likely that demand reduction campaigns in China have contributed to the important decision by the Chinese government to close their domestic ivory market. 2.5 When funding demand reduction campaigns and encouraging other countries to close their markets, it is of course crucial that the UK is not open to the charge of hypocrisy. That charge could be made against us if our market were to remain largely open. So we need to ensure that ivory sales are largely banned in the UK to maximise the effectiveness of all our other efforts to end the poaching crisis. 2.6 The proposed ban on trade in ivory within the UK, and an associated ban on exports from and imports to the UK, would have a direct impact on the level of demand for ivory both here and in other countries, especially in Asia. That reduction in demand will in turn directly affect the level of poaching and the illegal trade in ivory in Africa. (See further in Section 27 of the Evidence Document for details of how the high level of the UK’s exports of legal ivory are fuelling demand in Asia.) Benefits of elephants to the natural environment 2.7 Elephants are a keystone species affecting the natural environment in a variety of ways that benefit other species. See Section 2 of the Evidence Document for further detail. 1 Bennett, E. L. (2015). Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations. Conservation Biology, 29(1), 54-60. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12377/full ; Harvey, R. (2015). Preserving the African elephant for future generations. South African Institute of International Affairs, July, available at http://www.saiia.org.za/occasional-papers/862-preserving-the-african-elephant-for-future- generations/file ; Lemieux, A. M., & Clarke, R. V. (2009). The international ban on ivory sales and its effects on elephant poaching in Africa. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(4), 451-471, available at http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/4/451.full.pdf+html?sid=e62953ae-e11d-468f-b909- c3d818429660. 2 According to WWF’s UK chief adviser on wildlife, Heather Sohl “We have evidence that ivory, which dates from after 1947 is being sold in the UK as antique ivory. It is not always easy to identify modern, post 1947 ivory, and ivory that has been poached on elephants before 1947. Some pieces of ivory are tea-stained to make it look older. They are literally dipped in tea to stain the piece”. A report by the UK House of Commons published on January 30, 2017, states that “illegal ivory items seized by police and the Border Force in the UK have been falsely antiqued, using artificial stains or ageing techniques, clearly destined for the legal antique market”. Available at http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0034/CDP-2017- 0034.pdf (page 18). 3 UNODC (2010). The globalization of crime: A transnational organized crime threat assessment. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Available at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/tocta-2010.html. 3 Response to consultation: 24 December 2017 3. Do you have any evidence to present on the impact bans in other countries or jurisdictions have had on elephant conservation and the natural environment including wider species conservation? 3.1 Yes If yes, please provide evidence. International 3.2 During the poaching crisis in the 1980s, populations of African elephants plummeted from c1.2million in 1980 to c600,000 in 1989. That decline resulted in the long-overdue decision to ban the international trade in African elephant ivory, taken at the CITES Conference of the Parties in 1989. The direct consequence of that decision was a dramatic fall in the level of poaching and a consequential increase in African elephant numbers in some regions of Africa: “It is generally accepted that the ban led to an increase in the overall number of elephants in Africa by around 140,000 between 1989 and 2007. Eighteen countries saw increased elephant populations after the ban.”4 3.3 It is probably the clearest example of a trade ban benefiting elephant populations. Bans in individual countries can have similar albeit smaller effects, depending on the size of the market for ivory in that country. China 3.4 At the CITES Conference of the Parties in 2002, China stated that a main reason for China’s growing ivory-smuggling problem was the first ‘one off’ experimental stockpile sale in 1999. The Chinese public had misunderstood the decision and thought that the international trade in ivory had been resumed and that it was acceptable to buy ivory again. This is evidence of how relaxation of trade rules can result in increased consumer demand, which needs to be satisfied in large part by poaching and the illegal trade. It illustrates the point that tightening the rules on the ivory trade reduces demand, whereas relaxing them fuels demand. 3.5 An ivory ban can only work if the largest ivory markets close their markets simultaneously. With the USA and China (including Hong Kong) having already closed or being in the process of closing their domestic ivory markets, it is crucial that the UK, the largest supplier of legal ivory to the world's ivory markets5, follows suit to ensure consistent enforcement and prevent undermining these global efforts.