Detailed analytical report of the public consultation on ... · Detailed analytical report of results of the public consultation by the Directorate General for the Environment of

Detailed analytical report of the public consultation on ivory trade

in the European Union

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment

May 2018

Lindsey Harris, Louisa Musing, Natalie Mills and Amy Collis

A TRAFFIC Report prepared for the European Commission

Contract 070202/2016/736963/SER/ENV.F3

Report prepared by TRAFFIC for the European

Commission under Contract

070202/2016/736963/SER/ENV.F3

All material appearing in this publication is

copyrighted and may be reproduced with

permission. Any reproduction in full or in part of

this publication must credit the European

Commission as the copyright owner.

The information and views expressed in this

publication are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect those of the European

Commission or TRAFFIC.

The designation of geographical entities in this

publication, and the presentation of the material,

do not imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of the European

Commission TRAFFIC or its supporting

organisations concerning the legal status of any

country, territory, or area, its authorities, or

concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or

boundaries.

The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered

Trademark ownership is held by WWF.

Suggested citation:

Harris, L.; Musing, L.; Mills, N.; and Collis, A. (2018). Detailed analytical report of the public

consultation on ivory trade in the European Union.

TRAFFIC report prepared for the European

Commission.

ISBN: 978-1-85850-430-8

EAN: 9781858504308

Detailed analytical report of results of the public consultation by the Directorate General for the Environment of the

European Commission on ivory trade in the European Union, May 2018 1

Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

2. Approach to the consultation ............................................................................................. 4

3. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 The analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Limitations to the method and use of results ............................................................................. 6

4 Responses to the consultation ........................................................................................... 8

4.1 Number of replies received .............................................................................................................. 8

4.2 Distribution by type of organisation ........................................................................................... 8

4.3 Distribution of responses by country ........................................................................................ 10

4.4. Distribution of responses directly attributed to have been influenced by an outreach campaign

.............................................................................................................................................................. 11

5 Section B: Information on involvement in ivory trade ..................................................... 11

5.1 Types of ivory items traded by organisations ................................................................................. 13

5.1.1 Number of items sold/purchased annually .......................................................................... 13

5.1.2. Proportion of items made from 100% ivory ........................................................................ 15

5.1.3. Total value of annual trade in ivory items .......................................................................... 15

5.1.4. Type of trade (domestic/EU/international) ......................................................................... 16

5.2 Annual company income .......................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Proportion of turnover reliant on ivory trade and whether this amount has increased or

decreased over the last 12 months ...................................................................................................... 18

5.4 Proportion of ivory items used for commercial purposes that are antique ............................. 19

5.5 Value assessments of ivory items ............................................................................................. 19

5.6. Level of knowledge on regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in

the EU .................................................................................................................................................... 20

5.7. Source of information used to stay up to date with regulations .............................................. 20

5.8. Assessing legality of ivory items ............................................................................................... 21

5.9. Proportion of ivory items purchased in the EU that are later re-exported outside the EU ..... 22

5.10. Ivory items most commonly sought after in the EU for re-export outside the EU ............... 22

6. Section C: Information on the illegal trade of ivory in the EU ......................................... 23

6.1 Scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade to/from/within

the EU .................................................................................................................................................. 23

6.2. Scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking 27

6.3. Proportion of ivory illegally trade to/from/within the EU that originates from elephants which

have been illegally killed in the last 10 years ........................................................................................ 30

*6.4. Main ivory items involved in illegal trade in ivory in/from the EU, and relevant supporting

evidence ................................................................................................................................................ 34



6.5. Extent of illegal trade in ivory within the domestic EU market, on import, (re-)export or in transit

through the EU. ..................................................................................................................................... 35

*6.6. Links between illegal trade in the EU and illegal international ivory trade ................................. 36

*6.7. Significant problems in relation to illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU, and relevant

supporting evidence. ............................................................................................................................ 38

7 Section D: EU Priorities in relation to ivory trade ............................................................ 40

7.1. Potential EU priorities in tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU ...................... 40

7.2. Opinion on the following statement: “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal

problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on

ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other

regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and

destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.” ................................................................................. 42

7.3 Opinion on the following statement: “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the

EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant

ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules

and that they are better enforced.” ...................................................................................................... 45

7.4. Opinion on the following statement: “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that

the EU domestic elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant

ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the

problem.” .............................................................................................................................................. 48

*7.5. Opinions, suggestions and supporting evidence on further limitations to intra-EU trade in

elephant ivory ....................................................................................................................................... 51

7.6. Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of trade

within the EU......................................................................................................................................... 53

*7.7. Opinion on whether it would be reasonable and proportionate for the EU to take steps to

tighten the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU and the potential impact of such

measures ............................................................................................................................................... 57

*7.8. Further limitations to elephant ivory trade to and from within the EU ...................................... 58

7.9. Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of the (re-

)export of worked ivory from the EU .................................................................................................... 59

7.10 Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of the import

of worked ivory into the EU .................................................................................................................. 62

7.11 Possible impact of further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU

trade on organisations .......................................................................................................................... 65

7.12 Possible impact of further EU restrictions on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory

items on elephant poaching and international illegal ivory trade. ....................................................... 68

8 Section E: Other Information ........................................................................................... 72

8.1. Studies (published or ongoing) relating to EU ivory trade ............................................................. 72

*8.2 Final comments ............................................................................................................................. 77

Annex I: Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................... 79

Annex II – Questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 119



Acronyms

APHA Animal and Plant Health Agency (United Kingdom Government)

BADA The British Antique Dealers' Association (United Kingdom)

BfN Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Germany)

CEDEA La Confédération Européenne des Experts d'Art

CINOA The International Federation of Art & Antique Dealer Associations

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

CNCPJ Chambre Nationale des Commissaires Priseurs Judiciaires (France)

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (United Kingdom)

DIREN Direction Régionale de L'Environnement (France)

EC European Commission

EIA Environmental Investigation Agency

EU European Union

HRMC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (United Kingdom)

HSI Humane Society International

IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare

IGO Inter-governmental organisation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LAPADA The Association of Art & Antiques Dealers

MS Member States

NGO Non-governmental organisation



Detailed analytical report of the public consultation on ivory trade in the European Union

European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment

1. Introduction

The EU rules governing ivory trade are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 and Commission

Regulation (EC) No 865/2006, which extensively regulate the export, import and intra-EU trade of

ivory. Those rules are comprehensive and stricter than many domestic regulations in third countries.

In view of the increase in the export of pre-Convention raw ivory from the EU to Asia in the last

years, the 2016 EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking1 called on the European Commission to

adopt a guidance document suspending the export of raw ivory. This guidance document was

adopted in May 20172, so that the export of raw ivory from the EU is not possible any longer.

With a view to examining if further restrictions on ivory trade would be warranted at the EU level to

ensure that the EU domestic ivory market does not contribute to elephant poaching or illegal ivory

trade, the European Commission (EC) carried out a public consultation between 15 September and 8

December 2017 to gather evidence and views on ivory trade and ivory trafficking within the

European Union (EU).

This consultation aimed to compile information and views on the extent, structure and main

features of legal and illegal trade in ivory in and from the EU, as well as on the priorities that the EU

should follow in its approach against ivory trafficking.

The present detailed analytical report includes full comprehensive analysis and summary of

responses to all questions of the consultation.

2. Approach to the consultation

The public consultation had the objective to gather opinions and evidence from a wide set of stakeholders and citizens primarily from EU Member States (MS) but also international stakeholders and citizens of other countries.

The questionnaire had three sections: (1) involvement in ivory trade, (2) illegal trade of ivory in the EU and (3) EU priorities in relation to ivory.

The consultation was available online on the EC public consultation website3. It was advertised on the EC Directorate-General for Environment social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter) and through the newspaper “Environment for Europeans”4 as well as via MS through their channels.

At the end of the public consultation a stakeholder meeting on ivory trade was held in Brussels on 8th December 2017. The meeting was streamed live and recorded5.

1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:87:FIN

2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/guidance_ivory.pdf

3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-ivory-trade-eu_en

4 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/efe/themes/nature-and-biodiversity/eu-gets-tougher-ivory-trafficking_en

5 https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/stakeholders-hearing-on-the-european-commission-consultation-on-ivory-trade

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:87:FIN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/guidance_ivory.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/public-consultation-ivory-trade-eu_en

https://ec.europa.eu/environment/efe/themes/nature-and-biodiversity/eu-gets-tougher-ivory-trafficking_en

https://webcast.ec.europa.eu/stakeholders-hearing-on-the-european-commission-consultation-on-ivory-trade



3. Methodology

3.1 The survey tool

The public consultation was carried out using the survey tool “EU Survey”6. The questionnaire was

available online in six languages (English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish). The

consultation was made publicly available online to anyone with internet access and an interest in the

subject. The data were cleaned to remove any incomplete responses, duplicates or errors and

anonymised so that the full data set could be analysed.

3.2 The analysis

The full questionnaire is provided in Annex II. The introductory questions in section A (information

about the respondent) of the questionnaire were used to provide a description of the respondents’

demographic profiles (see Section 4). The core questions in sections B, C and D were analysed

considering general trends based on all received answers, then by key groups of respondents.

3.2.1 Analysis of closed questions

Answers to the 16 closed questions7 were analysed considering general trends based on all received

answers and then by organisation type based on the answers provided to question 6, section A (i.e.

“which of the following you or your organisation represents, if any...”). Respondents could select

multiple answers to these questions and when analysing by organisation type these were not

grouped, therefore there may be some overlap between categories and sums may deviate slightly

from 100%.

The report presents the results mostly in the form of absolute numbers and percentages (shares of

totals within one group) to provide a picture that is as objective as possible and indicate which

answer is the most/least favoured by the different groups of respondents. Total numbers are also

given to illustrate the overall volume of replies and to reflect interest from respondents on the

specific issues covered by each question. Percentages were rounded up or down to the nearest

whole number for ease of comparison.

3.2.2 Analysis of open questions

The methodology used for the analysis of the open questions8 followed the Commission’s Better

Regulation Toolbox, Tool #54 – Conducting the consultation activities and data analysis9. In total, the

questionnaire had 27 open questions where respondents had the opportunity to express further

comments in the form of written text (no word limit). Responses were analysed in detail to identify

recurrent points being made. Responses were categorised under a set of main points identified by

reading all the responses first, then each response was read and assigned to one or more of these

categories. A single response from one respondent could be assigned to more than one category if

the response raised multiple points. The frequency of occurrence of each category was recorded to

determine which points appeared most frequently. A summary of the main recurrent points is

presented for each question throughout the report.

In line with the Commission Better Regulation Tool #54 Conducting the consultation activities and

data analysis9, and due to the high volume of responses received to this consultation (89 813 survey

6 https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/home/welcome

7 Questions with pre-defined answers from which the respondent must choose

8 Questions where the respondents have the possibility to formulate their own response in written text.

9 https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-toolbox_en

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/home/welcome

https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-toolbox_en



submissions were received), a random sample of all the responses to each open question in Section

C and D was taken for analysis to keep the resources required to analyse the results within

reasonable limits. The exception was Section B, where only a total of 177 responses was received

and therefore all responses were analysed. All open text questions where a sample of responses was

analysed are marked with an asterisk (*).

Prior to the sample being taken, any responses that were associated with an outreach campaign (see

Section 3.3.2 below) were considered, segregated10 and analysed separately, leaving a total of 26

893 responses and 38 276 open text comments. A total of 89% (24 024 responses) of the remaining

respondents classified themselves as private individuals. To ensure the sample represented a variety

of all stakeholders and organisations who replied to the consultation, responses were grouped into

one of four mutually exclusive broad stakeholder groups: i) organisations with a commercial interest

in ivory, ii) non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations (membership or trade

associations, other/not specified), iii) public bodies including government agencies, and iv) private

individuals, based on their response to question 6, section A (i.e. “which of the following you or your

organisation represents, if any...”) (Table 1). An equal share (25%) of the sample was then taken

from each of these groups. Organisations were grouped to facilitate presentation and interpretation

of results; however, it is recognised that this approach has certain limitations as it brings together

different types of interest groups. Within the summary for each question, any differences between

the stakeholder groups were highlighted. If no differences between stakeholder groups are stated,

then it should be assumed that an equal share from all stakeholder groups stated that point. This is

designed to represent the views raised by each stakeholder group and are neither indicative nor

illustrative of the prevalence of that view across the sample.

Table 1: Sampling framework for each individual open text question

Stakeholder group Organisation type Sample

Organisations with a commercial interest in ivory

Antiques, auctions, repair/restoration, carving, musical instruments, export/import operators and/or hunting

25%

NGOs/Other organisations

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations (membership or trade associations, other/not specified)

25%

Public bodies, including government agencies

Inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), government agencies, enforcement authorities, research institutes/universities

25%

Private individuals Private individuals 25%

3.3 Limitations to the method and use of results

There are certain limitations of the data collection method used that need to be considered when

interpreting the results.

3.3.1 Representation of the population

The consultation was made publicly available online and anyone across the globe with internet

access was able to respond to the consultation.

10

By identifying prescribed or similar word sequences as stated in the outreach campaign guidance.



3.3.2 Outreach campaigns by interest groups

Guidance was disseminated by several interest groups on how participants should, in their view,

respond to this public consultation. Overall, it has not been possible to quantify the influence of such

guidance on the results in a precise manner. Some respondents may have been influenced by the

guidance without following a prescribed set of responses, i.e. using slightly different wording whilst

the direction remained the same. Others may have answered in the same way as the campaigns by

coincidence. Therefore, only the most obvious correlations and general trends could be identified. It

should be mentioned that several organisations/websites may have also disseminated the

information on the public consultation without any recommended replies and other

organisations/websites may have disseminated information to members that is not within the public

domain.

Based on the analysis of the responses to open text questions, five campaigns were identified to

have significantly influenced responses to the consultation. In summary, 62 352 responses (70%)

could have been influenced by the guidance provided by different interest groups and these

campaigns.

The five campaigns are listed below (in order of decreasing influence):

Avaaz: global online activist network https://secure.avaaz.org/page/en/

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_ivory_consultation_2/

NGOs’ joint help sheet: collaboration between Born Free Foundation, David Shepherd

Wildlife Foundation, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Eurogroup for Animals,

Humane Society International (HSI) Europe, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW),

Pro Wildlife, Robin Des Bois and World Conservation Society. Also promoted by Members of

European Parliament for Wildlife (available in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German)

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/help-sheet_0.pdf

Action for Elephants UK: grassroots group speaking out and taking action on behalf of

elephants http://actionforelephantsuk.org/ http://actionforelephantsuk.org/eu-

consultation-on-banning-ivory-trade/

Future 4 Wildlife: non-profit organisation focusing on African and European import-export

wildlife issues (South Africa) http://www.future4wildlife.org/

http://www.future4wildlife.org/guideline-eu-public-consultation-for-ivory-trade/

International Wildlife Bond: not-for-profit charity (UK) https://iwbond.org/

https://iwbond.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EU-Consultation_I01.pdf

The Avaaz campaign was by far the most influential campaign. These campaigns all showed concern

regarding the trade in elephant ivory in the EU and called upon the EC to implement a total ban on

all ivory trade to/from/within the EU. Their concerns were that the legal trade in the EU could serve

as a cover for illegal trade and create opportunities that the illegal trade can exploit, as well as

fuelling demand for ivory products globally. Banning all ivory trade to/from/within the EU was the

main priority action called for, alongside improving enforcement. Campaigns strongly disagreed that

illegal ivory trade in the EU is a marginal problem and felt that current EU regulations are not

sufficient to ensure the EU market does not contribute to illegal international trade. They strongly

agreed further restrictions should be put in place at an EU level to address illegal ivory trade and

supported a total ban. They recommended ivory items to be exempt from a ban on intra-EU trade,

(re-)export and import, if any at all, should include antiques11 with a small proportion or quantity of

11

Antique refers to ivory which was significantly altered (“worked”) from its natural state for jewellery, adornment, art,

utility, or musical instruments before 3rd

March 1947, and which has not been further crafted since.

https://secure.avaaz.org/page/en/

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/eu_ivory_consultation_2/

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/help-sheet_0.pdf

http://actionforelephantsuk.org/

http://actionforelephantsuk.org/eu-consultation-on-banning-ivory-trade/

http://actionforelephantsuk.org/eu-consultation-on-banning-ivory-trade/

http://www.future4wildlife.org/

http://www.future4wildlife.org/guideline-eu-public-consultation-for-ivory-trade/

https://iwbond.org/

https://iwbond.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EU-Consultation_I01.pdf



ivory (e.g. furniture with ivory in-lay and musical instruments). The campaigns claimed that possible

further EU regulations or guidelines would have a substantial positive impact (e.g. financial,

logistical, environmental) on individuals/organisations and against elephant poaching and

international illegal trade of ivory.

The key points of the campaigns have been considered in the analysis and presented in the relevant

sections of this report. However, it should be recognised that each of these responses, even if it

followed guidance by the campaigns, does represent an individual’s own view and this should be

taken into consideration when interpreting the results of the survey.

4 Responses to the consultation

4.1 Number of replies received

The public consultation received a high level of interest from a wide range of individuals and

organisations across the EU and beyond. In total, 89 813 survey submissions were received.

Respondents were not required to answer all the questions. Questions in section B (information

about your involvement in ivory trade) were only shown to respondents if they answered “Yes” to

question 1 “Are you or your organisation directly or indirectly involved in ivory trade?” and received

a total of 177 replies.

4.2 Distribution by type of organisation

Respondents were asked to identify which type of organisation, if any, they or their organisation

represented. Respondents could select multiple categories and had the option to tick “other” if they

did not fit into one of the existing categories. The main category of respondents was private

individuals (83 835 responses, 93.3%). Table 2 outlines the respondents by organisation.

Table 2: Answers to question 6, section A of the public consultation "Which of the following you or your organisation represents" in absolute numbers of respondents. Note: respondents could select multiple answers (n = 89 813)

Organisation type No. of responses

Private individual 83 835

Other 3778

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 1194

Research institute/University 960

Government agency 404

Antiques 363

Membership or trade association 318

Repair/restoration 271

Musical instruments (manufacture or retail) 258

Auctions 206

Hunting 163

Carving 162

Export/import operator 151

Inter-governmental organisation (IGO) 114

Enforcement authority 90

A total of 3778 respondents chose the category “Other”. Based on further information provided,

those respondents who selected “Other” were grouped together as follows (Figure 1):



Private citizens (with an interest in protecting wildlife, nature and the environment, retired,

unemployed or students, 1303 respondents);

Education (including schools, universities, teachers and professors, 231 respondents);

Health and wellbeing (sports, fitness, medicine, therapy, healthcare, 180 respondents);

Environment, conservation or animal welfare organisation (174 respondents);

Art experts, artists or craftsmen (sculptors, furniture makers, jewellers, cutlers and antiques

restorers, 137 respondents);

Cultural activities (performing arts, literature, theatre, film and television, 102 respondents);

Tourism sector (63 respondents);

Musicians/music industry (pianists, composers, singers, music events/venues, violin maker,

teachers) (49 respondents);

Academics or scientists (psychologists, zoologists, biologists, sociologists, researchers,

archaeologists) (41 respondents);

Religious organisations (27 respondents);

Other categories (including non-profit organisations, agriculture, horticulture, public sector,

political parties and museums) (212 respondents);

Other private sector (such as marketing, media & publishing, architecture, design,

information technology, finance, law, retail, energy, oil & gas, 400 respondents); and

“Not applicable”/ “none” (951 respondents).

Figure 1: Answers to “Other (please specify)” question 6, section A "Which of the following you or your organisation represents" in absolute numbers of respondents (n = 3778)

Among those who responded to question 7, section A “Your organisation’s geographical area of

activity” the majority indicated they operate at a local (3607 respondents) and/or international level

(2967 respondents). A total of 81 559 respondents of which at least 96% were private individuals

selected “not applicable” (Figure 2Figure 2).

1303

400

231

180

174

137

102

63

49

41

27

212

951

Private Individuals

Private sector organisations/ employees

Education

Health & wellbeing

Environmental, conservation or animal welfare

Art expert, artist or craftsmen

Cultural activities

Tourism

Musicians/Music industry

Academics/scientists

Religious organisation

Other

Not applicable/none

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Number of responses



Figure 2: Answers to question 7, section A of the public consultation "Your organisation's geographical area of activity" in absolute numbers (n = 89 813), Note: respondents could select multiple answers. 81 559 respondents selected “not applicable”.

4.3 Distribution of responses by country

Respondents from all 28 EU MS participated (Table 3, Figure 3). The largest groups of respondents who identified themselves from within the EU were from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). Respondents from France and Germany together represented 31.8% of all respondents. Answers from respondents who identified themselves as non-EU respondents represented 33.7% of the respondents (30 272) and mainly came from Brazil (5928), Canada (5365) and the United States of America (USA) (4436)12.

Table 3: Answers to question 4, section A "Please state your country of origin" by country, in absolute numbers (n = 89 813)

Country Number of

respondents Country

Number of respondents

Non-EU countries 30 272 Poland 267

France 14 318 Slovenia 261

Germany 14 191 Romania 249

Italy 7 334 Hungary 210

Spain 5 590 Bulgaria 173

United Kingdom (UK) 4 036 Croatia 172

Belgium 3 148 Czech Republic 164

Austria 2 484 Luxembourg 147

Netherlands 1 797 Slovakia 142

Portugal 1 463 Estonia 78

Sweden 1 056 Malta 76

Ireland 826 Lithuania 66

Greece 432 Cyprus 56

Denmark 421 Latvia 32

Finland 329 -

12

Respondents were also based in Switzerland (2756), Australia (2480), South Africa (1393), Mexico (1235), New Zealand (947), Argentina (770), Chile (460), India (410), Georgia (364), Norway (360), Colombia (296), Israel (262), Uruguay (204), Venezuela (175), Russian Federation (113), Costa Rica (92), Peru (88), Ukraine (87), Kenya (71), Ecuador (66), Turkey (64), Malaysia (63), China (58), Japan (54), Serbia (54), Singapore (49), Morocco (41), Guatemala (41), Zimbabwe (41), Mauritius (40), Iceland (37), Philippines (33), Sri Lanka (33), Bolivia (30), Algeria (29), Paraguay (28), Dominican Republic (27), Gabon (26), Bosnia & Herzegovina (23), Trinidad and Tobago (22), Jordan (21), Pakistan (21), Egypt (20), Tunisia (20), El Salvador (19), Jamaica (19), Nicaragua (19), South Korea (19) and 98 other countries from outside the EU (584).

3607

2967

1932

1629

1139

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Local

International

National

Regional

European

Number of responses



Figure 3: Answers to question 4, section A "Please state your country of origin" by country, as % of total (n = 89 813)

4.4. Distribution of responses directly attributed to have been influenced by an outreach campaign

The main type of respondents that were recognisably influenced by an outreach campaign was

private individuals (60 176 responses, 96.5%). Distribution by country in this group followed the

same trend as among total respondents.

5 Section B: Information on involvement in ivory trade

Questions in section B were only shown to respondents if they answered “Yes” to the first question

“Are you or your organisation directly or indirectly involved in ivory trade?”, which received a total

of 177 replies.

The main types of organisation represented by respondents for this section were antiques (86,

26.5% of respondents) and auctions (65, 20% of respondents) (Table 4). 28 respondents chose the

category “Other” and specified further details. Among these, 22 of these identified themselves as

art/antique experts, artists or craftsmen (including musical instrument makers, restoration experts,

museum experts, manufacturers of cutlery, jewellers and art historians), two as working for an

environmental, conservation or animal welfare organisations, and two identified themselves as

private individuals (with an interest in animals and social health).

non-EU countries 34%

France 16%

Germany 16%

Italy 8%

Spain 6%

United Kingdom 4%

Belgium 3%

Austria 3%

Netherlands 2%

Portugal 2%

Sweden 1%

Other EU 5%



Table 4: Breakdown of respondents to section B by organisation type based on answers provided to question 6, section A "Which of the following you or your organisation represents" in absolute numbers of respondents Note: respondents could select multiple answers (n = 177).

Organisation type Number of respondents

Antiques 86

Auctions 65

Private individuals 46

Musical instruments 28

Other 28

Carving 23

Membership/ Trade association 16

Export/Import operator 10

Hunting 6

Repair/Restoration 5

Research institute/University13 5

Non-governmental organisation (NGO)14 4

Government agency15 2

As respondents could select multiple organisation types and to facilitate presentation and

interpretation of results, for the purposes of analysis for the open text questions, the organisation

types were grouped into five mutually exclusive broad stakeholder groups representing respondents

with a commercial interest in ivory (Table 5).

Table 5: Description of the groups representing respondents with a commercial interest in ivory used when analysing open text questions for Section B

Group Description

Antiques, auction, repair/restoration and/or carving organisations

Respondents who reported to deal with the sale or auction of ivory and antiques, as well as repair/restoration and carving.

Musical instrument organisations

Respondents who reported to represent a musical instruments organisation (manufacture or retail)

Export/import operator organisations

Respondents who reported to represent an export/import operator

Other organisations with a commercial interest in ivory

Respondents who selected multiple organisation types without specifying further details

All other respondents Respondents who identified themselves as either private individuals, government agency, enforcement authority, research institute/university, IGO and other/not specified (including museums)

86.7% of these respondents identified themselves as from 17 EU MS, with France (86 respondents)

and Germany (16 respondents) being the largest two MS. 23 respondents identified themselves from

non-EU countries16 (Table 6).

13 Respondents also selected Antiques, Musical Instruments, Membership/Trade association, Private Individual or Other or stated that they were involved with organizations directly involved with ivory trade. 14 Respondents also selected Antique and/or Auctions 15 Respondents stated that they were linked to organizations directly involved with ivory trade i.e. museum of fine arts 16 Brazil (7), USA (3), Argentina (3), Australia (2), Andorra (1), India (1), Mexico (1), Switzerland (1), Thailand (1), Zimbabwe (1)



Table 6: Breakdown of respondents to section B by country based on answers provided to question 4, section A "Please state your country of origin", in absolute numbers. (n = 177)

Country Number of

respondents Country


France 86 Sweden 2

non-EU countries 23 Czech Republic 2

Germany 16 Ireland 1

Belgium 9 Finland 1

United Kingdom 9 Slovenia 1

Italy 7 Luxembourg 1

Spain 3 Malta 1

Austria 2 Romania 1

Netherlands 2 - -

5.1 Types of ivory items traded by organisations

A total of 98 respondents provided data and written comments on the types of ivory items they or

their organisation trade. A list of categories of ivory types was provided in the questionnaire:

jewellery, carvings, household goods, personal items, musical instruments, raw ivory (tusks, ivory

pieces), and other ivory items.

5.1.1 Number of items sold/purchased annually

A total of 53 934 ivory items were reported to be sold/purchased in an average year consisting of

other ivory items (23 971, or 44.4%), musical instruments (10 679 or 19.8%) and jewellery (8473, or

15.7%) (Figure 4, Table 8). Examples of each type of ivory item are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: Examples provided of ivory items reportedly sold/ purchased, extracted from answers to question 1, section B of the public consultation “Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your organisation trades” (n = 98)

Type of ivory item Example(s)

Other ivory items Books with decorative ivory; miniature paintings with ivory; board games; weapons.

Musical instruments Musical bows; stringed instruments; pianos with ivory keys.

Jewellery Pearls; amulets; African pendants.

Carvings Egyptian carvings; Okimono (decorative ornament); museum specimens; Netsukes; religious artefacts.

Personal items Walking cane; brushes.

Household Goods Silverware with ivory handles; ivory door handles; teapots; cutlery; furniture with ivory inlay; picture frames.

Raw ivory Ivory tusks.

Virtually all (99.9%) of these items were reportedly sold/purchased by antiques, auction,

repair/restoration and/or carving organisations (32 748 items, 60.7% of total items reported), and

other organisations with a commercial interest in ivory (21 126 items, 39.2% of total items reported).

Antiques, auction, repair/restoration and/or carving organisations were mainly involved in trading

musical instruments (10 109 items), other ivory items (7966 items, see Table 7 for examples) and



jewellery (6872 items), while other organisations with a commercial interest in ivory mainly traded

other ivory items (16 000 items). Notably, antiques, auction, repair/restoration and/or carving

organisations reportedly traded the highest number of raw ivory items, with one respondent

reporting the sale/purchase of 300 raw ivory items to produce coins with ivory inlay in 2014. Those

involved in the musical instrument trade purchased raw ivory to create violin bow tips, and a private

individual reported the average trade of 20 pieces of raw ivory per year.

Figure 4: Number of items sold/purchased annually by type of ivory item, extracted from answers provided to question 1, section B of the public consultation “Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your organisation trades” in absolute number of responses (n = 98).

Table 8: Number of items sold/purchased annually by type of ivory item, extracted from answers provided to question 1, section B of the public consultation “Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your organisation trades” in absolute number of responses (n = 98).

Stakeholder groups Jewellery Carvings Household goods

Personal items

Musical instruments

Raw ivory

Other ivory items

TOTAL


6872 2927 865 3656 10 109 353 7966 32 748


1600 2458 0 500 548 20 16 000 21 126


0 0 0 0 21 10 0 31

All other respondents

1 1 0 1 1 20 5 29


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 8473 5386 865 4157 10 679 403 23 971 53 934

23971

10679

8473

5386

4157

865

403

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Other ivory items

Musical instruments

Jewellery

Carvings

Personal items

Household goods

Raw ivory

Number of items sold/purchased annually



Some additional respondents noted that the number of ivory items sold/purchased annually varied

considerably each year and therefore were unable to provide specific figures. For example, a

respondent from a museum in France stated that miscellaneous ivory items were purchased for its

collection that currently consists of approximately 200 ivory items. Furthermore, one respondent

involved in the musical instrument trade reported that their business traded in low numbers of

antique bows and other instruments, the majority of which contained less than 1 gram of ivory.

Another respondent from an international musical instrument trade association, reported that

annual quantities of ivory items sold/purchased vary considerably, but that they may average a total

of 1500 items for all the association’s members. Other respondents noted that sales of ivory items

have significantly declined over recent years and attributed this to recent legislative changes and

fears of individuals not complying with the law.

5.1.2. Proportion of items made from 100% ivory

28 respondents (23.7%) declared that all their ivory items were made entirely of 100% ivory. Items

included carvings (18 respondents), raw ivory (five), jewellery (four), and other ivory items (three).

Half of all responses to this question (60 or 51%) reported that the items they traded were made of

less than 50% ivory. Among them, 16 respondents (13.6% of total respondents) responded that the

items they traded were made of less than 5% ivory. Responses came from antiques, auctions,

repair/restoration and/or carving organisations, musical instrument organisations and other

organisations with a commercial interest in ivory. One respondent from an auction house noted the

difficulty in assessing this proportion, but explained that from their experience, most items

contained a low proportion of ivory, typically less than 50%. They also noted that Japanese and

Chinese antique items frequently contained a higher percentage of ivory, sometimes up to 100%,

however these were sold less frequently.

5.1.3. Total value of annual trade in ivory items

A total of 78 respondents provided estimates on the total value of annual trade in ivory items for themselves or their organisation, which added up to a total of approximately EUR 4 738 405, ranging from a total of EUR 117 950 for personal items to EUR 1.8 million for ivory carvings (table 7). Note, this is not representative of the total value of the annual trade in the ivory items in the EU; this information depicts the responses provided to this question. Carvings, other ivory items and raw ivory reportedly brought in the most value in annual trade in ivory items (38.9%, 26.4% and 20.6% of total value respectively), particularly for antiques, auctions, repair/restoration and/or carving organisations, other organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and export/import operator organisations (Table 7). The remaining types of ivory items were much lower in value for annual trade, each accounting for less than less than ~EUR 200 000 (~4% of total value).



Table 9: Total estimated value of annual trade (EUR) of ivory items, as extracted from answers to question 1, section B of the public consultation “Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your organisation trades” by type of ivory item and groups representing respondents with a commercial interest in ivory (n = 78). Note, this is not representative of the total value of the annual trade in the ivory items in the EU; the information in this table depicts the responses provided to this question.

Some respondents noted the difficulty in attributing a breakdown of the total annual trade in

specific ivory items such as carvings and jewellery, and consequently provided written comments

and estimates on the value of total annual trade instead. For example, a respondent from an auction

house stated that in 2016 and 2017, the value of all their ivory items sold in the UK and France

totalled EUR 23.4 million, while a representative from an ivory trade association stated that none of

its members achieved an annual turnover of more than EUR 20 000 – EUR 99 000. Other

respondents provided specific values of some of their ivory items sold to give an idea of the range

that their annual trade in ivory items could be. For instance, a respondent involved in musical

instrument trade, specifically antique bows and other instruments, reported that the value of these

items varied from EUR 1000 and EUR 100 000 per item. Other respondents explained that

depending on the items purchased, annual trade could significantly decrease or increase, for

example, one piece of furniture with ivory inlay can cost more than EUR 10 000, while some

Japanese and Chinese antique items can often be extremely rare and historically significant pieces

can be worth EUR 100 000 to EUR 1 million per item.

5.1.4. Type of trade (domestic/EU/international)

A total of 89 respondents provided information on the type of trade they or their organisation are

involved in. The majority reported their ivory trade was mainly domestic (78.6%), while EU and

international trade accounted for significantly less trade (11.7% and 9.7%, respectively, Figure

5Figure ). All respondents indicated a similar trend regarding the type of trade they or their

organisation are involved in but notably, antiques, auctions, repair/restoration and/or carving

organisations accounted for over half (64.3%) of those respondents indicating their trade was

international.

Group/Type of ivory item

Carvings Other ivory items

Raw ivory

Jewellery Household goods

Musical instruments

Personal items

TOTAL


1 668 655 1 056

800 44

2000 132 800 186 380 32 350 9 7800 3 616 785


170 100 151 800 31 800 60 000 0 100 020 20 000 533 720


0 0 500 000

0 0 0 0 500 000

All other respondents

5200 40 000 0 500 0 50 150 45 900


0 0 0 0 0 42 000 0 42 000

TOTAL 1 843 955 1 248

600 973 800 193 300 186 380 174 420 117 950 4 738 405



Figure 5: Number of responses to the type of trade (Domestic/EU/International) involving ivory items, extracted from answers to question 1, section B to the public consultation “Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your organisation trades” in absolute number of responses (n = 89). Note; respondents could select more than one type of trade and more than one type of ivory item.

One respondent reported that in the past, they traded ivory internationally but have ceased such

trade due to the significant administrative burden involved in obtaining the correct Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) documents. Another

respondent explained that recent changes in international legislation, specifically in the USA, meant

that they were now only trading within the EU.

5.2 Annual company income

Of the 177 respondents, 45 (25.4% of total respondents) did not provide an answer to the question and were therefore excluded from the following analysis. Figure 6 shows that 29 (22%) of the remaining 132 responses selected “prefer not to say”, 35 (26.5%) respondents reported an annual income of EUR 20 000 to 99 999, and 19 (14.4%) reported an income of less than EUR 19 999 per annum. 68 (51.5%) respondents indicated their company’s income was either between EUR 100 000 and 499 999, or more than EUR 500 000 per annum (28 respondents, or 21.2% and 40 respondents, or 30.3%, respectively). Those who reported their annual company turnover was more than EUR 500 000 consisted of those who work in auctions and/or antiques organisations.



Figure 6: Answer to question 2, section B of the public consultation “Which of the following categories does your annual company turnover fall into?” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 132)

5.3 Proportion of turnover reliant on ivory trade and whether this amount has increased or

decreased over the last 12 months

A total of 59 respondents provided information as to the amount their or their organisation’s

turnover relies on the trade of ivory. Most respondents, the majority from antiques, auctions,

repair/restoration and/or carving organisations, other organisations with a commercial interest in

ivory and musical instrument organisations, reported less than 10% of their turnover relies on ivory

trade, with 31 (52.5%) of these respondents stating 5% or less. Only four respondents (from two

antiques trade associations, one antiques workshop and one export/import operator organisation)

reported more than 50% of their turnover relies on ivory trade. Other respondents noted that the

proportion was variable and changed on a yearly basis depending on the number of ivory items sold.

For example, one respondent explained that their business involved the restoration of “elephant

ivory coins” and in the event of the sale of one of these coins, it represented a significant share of

their annual turnover.

A total of 57 respondents provided information on whether the amount of their or their

organisation’s turnover that relied on trade in ivory had increased, decreased or remained the same

in the last 12 months, most of these responses were from antiques, auctions, repair/restoration

and/or carving organisations, and other organisations with a commercial interest in ivory. No

respondents reported an increase in turnover, while a few respondents reported that turnover had

remained the same in the last 12 months, while the majority noted a decrease in annual turnover

from the trade of ivory. Several respondents referred to recent legislative changes that had

negatively impacted their organisation’s annual turnover; such as the French Ministerial Decree

published in August 2016 prohibiting the trade in ivory in French territories, and the “near-total ban”

on imports, exports and domestic trade of African Elephant ivory in the USA in 2016. Other

respondents reported that there had been a gradual decline over the last few years, attributing this

to the growing stigma attached to buying ivory due to the ongoing poaching of elephants, and

ongoing fears of potential trade bans in countries that would render these items useless for future

commercial trade.

19

16

28

40

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Less than EUR 19 999

EUR 20 000 to EUR 99 999

EUR 100 000 to EUR 499 999

EUR 500 000 or more

Prefer not to say

Number of responses



5.4 Proportion of ivory items used for commercial purposes that are antique17

A total of 98 respondents provided information to the question, with the majority (75 respondents)

reporting that between 91–100% of their ivory items are antique. Of the other 23 respondents,

some indicated that their trade used post-1947 items and other cultural and historical pieces dating

to the 1980s. Two respondents, one from an ivory trade association and one who dealt with

materials for artistic crafts, reported trading or using raw ivory for repairs/restoration.

5.5 Value assessments of ivory items

Of the 77 respondents who provided information, the majority declared examining the artistic value

of the item as their method of assessing its value. Several of these respondents noted that the

artistic value of the item was not attributed to the ivory component, but the quality of the piece

overall, its beauty, heritage or cultural and historical significance (Table 10). Some respondents

reported seeking expert knowledge, and others reported using the price of the item to assess its

value. Other respondents noted using price per kg, demand for the item, cost of renovation, the

item’s age, craftsmanship, the origin of the item, and the item’s weight. One respondent

commented that the price per kg of raw ivory had decreased since the suspension of pre-Convention

ivory (re-)exports, falling from EUR 300–350 per kg to EUR 100–150 per kg. The respondent also

explained that examining the size of the raw ivory and its quality were also important in assessing

the value of the item.

Table 10: Examples of methods used to assess the value of ivory items, extracted from answers to question 5, section B of the public consultation “How do you assess the value of ivory items which you are using? For example, do you have any indicator prices by product type (e.g. cost per specific type of carving, minimum valuations by weight)?” Methods are listed in order of frequency (n = 77)

Assessment method

Example(s) Frequency

Artistic value Quality of the item; sculpture; size; beauty and attractiveness; originality; heritage; signature of the artist; historical and aesthetic value.

52

Expert knowledge Assessment conducted by senior directors of the business; advice from specialists; employee’s expertise and knowledge.

8

Price of item Sale value at auction; price comparisons. 6

Price per kg EUR 500–600 per kg of raw ivory. 3

Demand for item Demand by collectors; scarcity of item. 2

Cost of renovation Cost of labour for renovation, overheads and profit. 2

Age Age of the item. 1

Craftsmanship Quality of the work by artist. 1

Origin of item Provenance. 1

Weight Weight of the item. 1

17 See footnote 11 above on the definition of “antique”.



5.6. Level of knowledge on regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory

in the EU

Of the 177 respondents who provided information, 42 (23.7%) did not provide an answer, leaving

135 respondents who reported on their (or the organisation they represent) knowledge of the

regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU. Most respondents

(117, or 86.7%) stated that their knowledge was either excellent or general; (55 (40.7%) and 62

(45.9%) of respondents respectively) (Figure 7). A total of 18 respondents (13.3%) responded their

knowledge was limited or they had no knowledge at all of the regulations concerning the trade or

commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU.

Figure 7: Answer to question 6, section B of the public consultation “What level of knowledge would you say you (or the organisation you represent) have of the regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU?” in absolute number of respondents excluding those who did not provide an answer (n = 135).

Respondents from all organisation types showed the same trend in terms of knowledge of the

regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU, with less than 13%

of all organisation types responding that they have either limited or no knowledge of the

regulations. Proportionally, in terms of absolute numbers, antiques, auctions, repair/restoration

and/or carving organisations reported to have the best knowledge of the regulations concerning the

trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU, with more than 88.5% of respondents reporting

to have either excellent or general knowledge. Notably, one respondent from this stakeholder group

reported to have no knowledge of the regulations.

5.7. Source of information used to stay up to date with regulations

A total of 98 respondents provided a response to the question, with the majority reporting to source

information from trade associations and online sources, such as government agency websites,

press, publications and other websites. Professional organisations and CITES authorities/the CITES

website were also consulted for information on current regulations (Table 11). Notably, respondents

from musical instrument trade associations noted they had a sub-committee dedicated to

monitoring and explaining CITES issues that affect musical instruments and their owners, and

another respondent from an auction house noted having a dedicated legal department informing

them of current regulations.

55

62

16

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Excellent knowledge

General knowledge

Limited knowledge

No knowledge

Number of responses



Table 11: Examples of sources of information used to keep up to date with regulations, extracted from answers to question 7, section B of the public consultation “What sources of information (e.g. trade associations, press, websites) do you use to keep up to date on regulations?” Sources of information are listed in order of frequency (n = 98).

Source of information Example(s)

Trade associations CINOA18; CNCPJ19; CEDEA20; BADA21; LAPADA22

Government agencies and websites APHA23; DEFRA24; BfN25; Portuguese Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests; Customs agencies; DIREN26; EC website

Press and publications Internet articles; Antique Trade Gazette; The Art Newspaper

Professional organisations NGOs, including WWF and TRAFFIC

Other websites Not specified

CITES Authorities and website CITES website; CITES Management Authorities

Professional colleagues Experts in the field; Chairs of trade associations

Lawyers Internal legal resources; legal departments.

Meetings CITES meetings; meetings organised by DRIEE27; training courses

5.8. Assessing legality of ivory items

A total of 116 respondents provided a response to this question. Relying on expert knowledge was

the most common method used to ascertain the legality of ivory items. Several respondents from

trade associations, antiques dealers and auction houses claimed to be highly qualified experts with

many decades of experience which they use to ascertain the legality of the ivory item. These experts

examine the age, origin, value and cultural significance of ivory items and if needs be, scientific

testing is used to confirm their decision. Others reported using scientific research to ascertain the

legality, including DNA testing and radio carbon dating (14C) (Table 12). Notably, one respondent

from an ivory trade association stated that scientific testing was only used for determining the

legality of raw ivory, not for pieces of worked ivory as the tests are too expensive and are often

inconclusive or incorrect.

The use of official documentation was also reported as a method of ascertaining the legality of ivory

items. Respondents reported examining EU certificates and CITES documents, as well as requesting

invoices with details of the items’ origin and Customs clearance documents from the sellers. One

respondent, from the musical instrument trade, noted that the ivory used when manufacturing their

instruments was sourced from stock purchased prior to 1974. Other respondents noted they

required statements or declarations of authenticity by third party specialists. Notably, two

respondents, one from a government agency and the other involved in the musical instrument

trade, reported that they do not check the legality of the ivory item themselves.

18

CINOA - The International Federation of Art & Antique Dealer Associations (based in Brussels, Belgium) 19

CNCPJ - Chambre Nationale des Commissaires Priseurs Judiciaires (France) 20

CEDEA - La Confédération Européenne des Experts d'Art (France) 21

BADA - The British Antique Dealers' Association (UK) 22

LAPADA - The Association of Art & Antiques Dealers (UK) 23

APHA – Animal and Plant Health Agency (UK Government) 24

DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (UK Government) 25

BfN - Bundesamt für Naturschutz (Germany) 26

DIREN - Direction Regionale de L'Environnement (France) 27

DRIEE - Direction Régionale et Interdépartementale de l'Environnement et de l'Energie (France)



Table 12: Examples of methods used to ascertain the legality of the ivory items which stakeholders are using, as extracted from answers to question 8, section B of the public consultation “How do you ascertain the legality of the ivory items which you are using?” Methods of assuring legality listed in order of frequency (n = 116).

Method of assuring legality

Example(s) Frequency

Expert knowledge Professional experience and knowledge; age, origin, cultural significance and value of the item; analysis of the sculpture and style.

102

Scientific testing DNA testing; radio carbon dating (14C); Strontium-90 (90Sr); Thorium analysis (228/232Th).

33

Official documentation

CITES documents; EU certificates. 18

5.9. Proportion of ivory items purchased in the EU that are later re-exported outside the EU

Of the 84 respondents who provided a response to the question, the majority were unable to

provide specific figures, some attributing this to the fact they do not handle post-sale shipping of

ivory items. However, those who were able to provide figures responded that between 0–10% of

ivory items purchased in the EU are later (re-)exported outside the EU. Most of these comments

were from antiques, auctions, repair/restoration and/or carving organisations. Notably, no

respondents reported that all ivory items purchased in the EU are later (re-)exported outside the EU.

Several respondents provided written comments and remarked that their organisation was

international, and they traded/(re-)exported items accordingly. Notably, some respondents drew

attention to the complexities of international legislation and CITES, particularly in acquiring the

correct documents to (re-)export legally, which meant they abstained from such trade.

Some respondents, particularly from antiques dealers and auction houses, noted the ongoing

demand for ivory items in Asia, with one respondent noting that most elephant tusks put up for

auction were purchased by Asian customers. Another respondent estimated that between 1 and 2%

of ivory items purchased in the UK were (re-)exported outside the EU, specifically to Asia. These

figures were based on reviews of various auction websites suggesting that more than 100 000

antique ivory items are sold on an annual basis and that in 2015, 2514 CITES (re-)export documents

were issued for antique ivory items, of which 1200 were destined for mainland China and Hong Kong

SAR. However, on the contrary, another respondent reported they had witnessed a decrease in

Asian customers since the notification28 of the suspension of import of pre-Convention tusks and

carvings to mainland China in 2016.

5.10. Ivory items most commonly sought after in the EU for re-export outside the EU

A total of 43 respondents provided a response to this question, the majority of which were from

antiques, auctions, repair/restoration and/or carving organisations and other organisations with a

commercial interest in ivory. According to these respondents, the main ivory items most commonly

sought after in the EU for (re-)export outside the EU were (in order of frequency):

28

https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2016-034.pdf

https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/notif/E-Notif-2016-034.pdf



Carvings, for example sculptures, statues, Chinese, Japanese and Islamic artwork, Okimonos,

and Netsukes. Respondents emphasised that these items were of significant cultural and

historical value which were sought after by European collectors. Some respondents provided

information on the specific date of the item, such as pre-19th century carvings.

Unworked ivory, for example raw ivory. Continued demand for unworked ivory products in

Asia was cited by some of the respondents, with one noting that in their experience there

are two distinct ivory markets; raw ivory which continues to be sought after by Asian

customers, and worked ivory items purchased by European collectors.

Tusks (raw whole tusks).

Musical instruments, for example guitars and violin bows. Respondents noted the

importance of musicians being able to (re-)export these items due to worldwide tours.

Weapons including folding knives, knife handles, and swords. One respondent explained

that the most recent example they encountered was Sri Lankan collectors and museum

representatives who were buying back swords with ivory inlay which were taken by the

Dutch East India Company29 in the 18th century.

Household items, for example board game tokens, books with ivory inlay, jewellery boxes,

fans, walking stick handles and buttons.

Furniture, for example antique pieces with ivory inlay.

Jewellery

Several respondents noted the difficulty in providing sources of evidence and based their responses

on their personal experience.

6. Section C: Information on the illegal trade of ivory in the EU

Questions in section C & D were shown to all respondents to the public consultation, unlike the

previous section B which was only shown to those who answered “Yes” to “Are you or your

organisation directly or indirectly involved in ivory trade?”.

6.1 Scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade to/from/within

the EU

Most respondents did not respond to this question (61 711, or 68.7% of total respondents did not

provide an answer). Of those who responded, 17 425 or 62% responded “don’t know”. 9757

respondents (34.7% of people who responded to this question or 10.9% of the total number of

people who responded to the consultation) stated that illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is

much/slightly larger in scale than legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU. 602 respondents (2.1%)

suggested illegal trade is about the same as legal trade, while 318 respondents (1.1%) stated that

illegal trade is much/slightly smaller than legal trade (Figure 8).

29

Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC)



Figure 8: Answer to question 1, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU?" in absolute numbers of respondents (n = 89 813).

Responses by organisation followed the same trend, with the majority of those that provided an

answer other than “don’t know” indicating that illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is

much/slightly larger in scale than legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU (Figure 9). On average

73% of respondents who represented an organisation with a commercial interest in ivory (antiques,

auctions, repair/restoration, carving, musical instruments, export/import operators and/or hunting),

90% of NGOs, 83.7% of public bodies (IGO, government agencies, enforcement authorities and/or

research institutes/universities), 83.3% of membership or trade associations, 91.9% of private

individuals and 90.4% of other respondents supported this opinion.

Figure 9: Answer to question 1, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU?" in absolute numbers of respondents and expressed as percentage of organisation excluding those who provided no answer or answered, “don’t know” (n = 10 677). * = less than 100 respondents, ** = less than 50 respondents

*

8972

785

602

149

169

17425

61711

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Illegal trade is much larger in scale than legal trade

Illegal trade is slightly larger in scale than legal trade

About the same

Illegal trade is slighly smaller in scale than legal trade

Illegal trade is much smaller than legal trade

Don't know

No Answer

Number of responses

98

42

77

42

58

48

58

425

40

134

38

230

102

7409

860

6

2

4

1

9

4

3

41

1

10

1

22

8

658

59

8

6

7

10

9

12

10

33

8

16

5

27

9

483

63

2

1

1

2

6

1

8

2

119

15

30

13

18

11

13

5

7

13

3

3

3

6

11

108

20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Antiques

Auctions*

Repair/Restoration

Carving*

Musical Instruments*

Export/Import Operator*

Hunting*

NGO

IGO*

Government agency

Enforcement authority**

Research institute/University

Membership/ Trade…

Private Individuals

Other

Illegal trade is much larger in scale than legal tradeIllegal trade is slightly larger in scale than legal tradeAbout the sameIllegal trade is slighly smaller in scale than legal trade



6.1.1. Supporting evidence

Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding the scale of illegal trade to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade to/from/within the EU. Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign. Many campaigns did not provide responses to this question and called upon relevant authorities within the EU to publish the data on illegal and legal trade to be able to provide an answer based on evidence. Some of the guidance for the campaigns stated that illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much larger in scale than legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU and. One campaign also highlighted a report from NGO, EIA30. Example of repeated comments: “I/we believe that illegal trade is a large proportion of the total trade. It is difficult to answer this

question fully due to the lack of official published data on the illegal sales. These data should be

published by the relevant authorities within the EU.”

Main points of evidence

In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 3374 comments were provided.

A sample of 300 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent those who answered illegal

trade is much/slightly smaller in scale than legal trade in the EU and for those who answered illegal

trade is much/slightly larger in scale than legal trade in the EU. The sample was split equally by the

four stakeholder groups. The comments were analysed in-depth and grouped according to

categories reflecting the range of evidence provided.

As evidence to support the claim that illegal trade is much/slightly larger in scale than legal trade in

the EU, the most frequently raised points are presented below (in order of frequency):

Examples of sources of information where they found evidence were provided. These

included NGO/IGO websites and reports (EIA, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, IFAW31,32,

HSI, Naturschutzbund Deutschland, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Save the

Rainforest, WWF and United Nations of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization33),

online petitions (Avaaz, Rainforest Rescue34), academic journals, Elephant Trade Information

System (ETIS) analyses35, newspaper and magazine articles36,37, TV38, radio, internet, social

media and direct conversations with researchers and Customs officials.

Seeing or being offered illegal ivory items on sale such as tusks, antiques, musical

instruments, jewellery and traditional handicrafts seen on sale in markets, second-hand or

antiques shops, auctions and online. These were stated to be sold without declaration of

30

https://eia-international.org/illegal-trade-seizures-elephant-ivory-europe 31

http://www.ifaw.org/deutschland/aktuelles/neue-studie-enth%C3%BCllt-ausma%C3%9F-von-elfenbein-beschlagnahmungen-ganz-europa; 32

http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/resource-centre/eu-ivory-trade-kills-elephants 33

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001902/190253POR.pdf 34

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1076/tell-the-eu-to-ban-the-ivory-trade-now; 35

For more information on ETIS, see https://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.php 36

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/elfenbeinhandel/; http://www.ecoavant.com/es/notices/2017/09/el-trafico-ilegal-de-marfil-incrementa-en-la-ue-3397.php 37

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/eu-set-to-ban-raw-ivory-exports-from-july-elephants-poaching 38

“Ross Kemp Extreme World” - Mozambique (2016)

https://eia-international.org/illegal-trade-seizures-elephant-ivory-europe

http://www.ifaw.org/deutschland/aktuelles/neue-studie-enth%C3%BCllt-ausma%C3%9F-von-elfenbein-beschlagnahmungen-ganz-europa

http://www.ifaw.org/deutschland/aktuelles/neue-studie-enth%C3%BCllt-ausma%C3%9F-von-elfenbein-beschlagnahmungen-ganz-europa

http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/resource-centre/eu-ivory-trade-kills-elephants

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001902/190253POR.pdf

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/1076/tell-the-eu-to-ban-the-ivory-trade-now

https://www.cites.org/eng/prog/etis/index.php

http://www.spiegel.de/thema/elfenbeinhandel/

http://www.ecoavant.com/es/notices/2017/09/el-trafico-ilegal-de-marfil-incrementa-en-la-ue-3397.php

http://www.ecoavant.com/es/notices/2017/09/el-trafico-ilegal-de-marfil-incrementa-en-la-ue-3397.php

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/eu-set-to-ban-raw-ivory-exports-from-july-elephants-poaching




legality or with falsified documents. One comment also mentioned that ivory is used to

make fake antiques. Some comments referred to seeing these items on sale outside the EU

such as in Asia and Africa. A couple of comments from public bodies, including government

agencies, mentioned having seized ivory items and intercepted illegal exporters. Most of

these comments came from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and public

bodies, including government agencies.

Poaching, declining elephant populations and amount of ivory seen in Africa included

burning of ivory stockpiles, the sale of tourist items in African markets and the provision of

weapons to Africa which are then used for poaching. Most of these comments came from

NGOs/Other organisations.

The current regulations encourage and allow illegal trade to take place as legal trade is

mostly limited or forbidden in most of the EU MS therefore the illegal trade must be larger

and occurs to make profit or sell existing collections of ivory. Some mentioned that the

illegal trade benefits from the cover of any legal trade and it is easier to sell items illegally

than legally.

Illegal trade is based on the demand from, and an increase in imports to Asia, with the EU

acting as a transit hub between Africa and Asia but also the biggest (re-)exporter of ivory

globally.

A few comments also stated that illegal trade is driven by money/profit and finances

terrorism and involves corruption.

Other comments included that EU ivory trade involves hunting trophies only and that it is

difficult to accurately assess the scale of illegal trade as it occurs under the radar.

As evidence to support the claim that illegal trade is much/slightly smaller in scale than legal trade in

the EU, the most frequently raised points are presented below (in order of frequency):

The amount of illegal ivory on sale in the EU is minimal or non-existent. Most comments

came from organisations who have a commercial interest in ivory, and who had not been

offered or sold any items containing modern ivory or items without correct documents.

Respondents stated that most of the ivory in the EU is mainly old/antique and the amount of

legal ivory on sale has declined over the past few years. Comments stated that ivory is not

fashionable or in enough demand by consumers in the EU to make it worthwhile for

European businesses to engage in illegal activities.

Examples of sources of information where they had found evidence were provided. These

included official reports, magazines39, newspapers, TV documentaries, internet articles40,

online petitions and direct communication with professionals and associations. Some

mentioned the background information to the public consultation. Most of these comments

came from private individuals.

The existing regulations are sufficient to control and ensure that only legal trade takes

place in the EU and many organisations comply with these regulations. Comments

mentioned CITES documents, seizure data and EU trade data as evidence to support this

point41.

The EU could be used as a transit hub for illegal items moving from Africa to Asia but within

the EU the illegal trade is non-existent. ETIS analyses35 was cited as evidence to support this

point.

39

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/ivory-trafficking-european-union-china-hong-kong-elephants-poaching/ 40

http://www.dw.com/en/europe-a-silent-hub-of-illegal-wildlife-trade/a-37183459 41

Moreno, A. L., Pinto, M. V., Yun, B. L. (2012). Comercio de marfil. El alto precio de un negocio que amenaza las especies. Unversitat Autonoma de Barcelona. https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/trerecpro/2011/85784/comar.pdf

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/ivory-trafficking-european-union-china-hong-kong-elephants-poaching/

http://www.dw.com/en/europe-a-silent-hub-of-illegal-wildlife-trade/a-37183459

https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/trerecpro/2011/85784/comar.pdf



6.2. Scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking

Most respondents did not respond to this question (62 780, or 69.9% did not provide an answer). Of

those who responded, 18 916 or 70% responded “don’t know”. 3501 respondents (13%) stated that

illegal EU trade in ivory is much/slightly larger in scale than international illegal trade. 1979

respondents (7.3%) suggested illegal EU trade is about the same as international illegal trade, while

2637 respondents (9.8%) stated that illegal EU trade is much/slightly smaller than international

illegal trade (Figure 10).

Figure 10: Answer to question 2, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what is the scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?" in absolute numbers of respondents (n = 89 813)

An equal share of those who represented an organisation with a commercial interest in ivory (antiques, auctions, repair/restoration, carving, musical instruments, export/import operators and/or hunting) responded that illegal EU trade is much/slightly larger than international illegal trade (average 43%) as those who responded that illegal EU trade is much/slightly smaller than international illegal trade (average 42%). The majority of responses from NGOs (47.1%), public bodies (IGO, government agencies, enforcement authorities and/or research institutes/universities) (46.3%), membership or trade associations (43.9%), private individuals (42.7%) and others (46.5%) responded that illegal EU trade is much/slightly larger than international illegal trade (Figure 11)).

2687

814

1979

1615

1022

18916

62780

0 20000 40000 60000 80000

Illegal EU trade is much larger in scale than internationalillegal trade

Illegal EU trade is slightly larger in scale than internationalillegal trade

About the same

Illegal EU trade is slightly smaller in scale thaninternational illegal trade

Illegal EU trade is much smaller than international illegaltrade

Don't know

No Answer

Number of responses



Figure 11: Answer to question 2, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what is the scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?" in absolute numbers of respondents and expressed as percentage of organisation excluding those who provided no answer or answered, “don’t know” (n = 8 117) * = less than 100 respondents, ** = less than 50 respondents

6.2.1 Supporting evidence

Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding the scale of illegal trade to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking. Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and most of the guidance for the campaigns stated illegal trade to/from/within the EU should be considered a significant part of international ivory trafficking and called upon relevant authorities within the EU to publish the data on illegal and legal trade to be able to provide evidence. One campaign highlighted reports from NGOs, EIA30 and IFAW42 and a news article on the CITES website43. Example of repeated comments: “I/we believe that illegal trade from the EU is certainly significant even when considered as a distribution hub for organised gangs working in the range [States]. As such it should be seriously considered as a significant part of the international trade and should not be considered separately.” Main points raised as evidence In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 1838 comments were provided.

A sample of 260 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent those who responded illegal

trade to/from/within the EU is much/slightly larger in scale than international ivory trafficking and

those who responded illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much/slightly smaller in scale

than international ivory trafficking. The sample was split equally by the four stakeholder groups. The

42

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ifaw-pantheon/sites/default/files/legacy/ifaw_ivory_seizures_europe_proof_4.pdf 43

https://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/African_elephant_poaching_down_ivory_seizures_up_and_hit_record_high_24102017

38

17

33

22

30

21

30

150

16

57

20

55

39

2168

293

10

2

6

2

10

1

3

46

3

11

4

26

11

668

71

14

6

12

12

9

10

13

93

6

19

7

59

24

1647

191

11

8

7

5

7

12

7

76

13

19

6

58

21

1346

147

44

27

24

19

15

16

16

51

6

21

7

41

19

811

81

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions*

Repair/Restoration*

Carving*



Hunting*

NGO

IGO**

Government agency



Membership/ Trade Association

Private Individuals

Other

Illegal EU trade is much larger in scale than international illegal trade

Illegal EU trade is slightly larger in scale than international illegal trade

About the same

Illegal EU trade is slightly smaller in scale than international illegal trade

Illegal EU trade is much smaller than international illegal trade

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ifaw-pantheon/sites/default/files/legacy/ifaw_ivory_seizures_europe_proof_4.pdf

https://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/African_elephant_poaching_down_ivory_seizures_up_and_hit_record_high_24102017



comments were analysed in-depth and grouped according to categories reflecting the range of

evidence provided.

As evidence to support the claim that illegal trade to/from/within the EU is much/slightly larger in

scale than international ivory trafficking, the most frequently raised points are presented below, in

order of frequency:

Examples of sources of information where they had found evidence. This was the most

frequent comment across all stakeholder groups. These included NGO reports (e.g. Avaaz,

Greenpeace), personal experience, newspaper and magazine articles39,44, academic journals,

and TV documentaries. Single respondents also referenced information from the EC and

attendance at a “CITES conference”.

They had seen or been offered illegal ivory in the EU, in antiques shops, souvenir shops and

on sale from street vendors. Two respondents from organisations that have a commercial

interest in ivory commented that they have been offered real ivory as components for

musical instruments and another respondent noted that they monitor sales of ivory tusks on

eBay and have seen many that are sold without the proper documentation.

The EU is a major player in global ivory trade. Comments included that the EU is one of the

largest importers and (re-)exporters of ivory in the world, and this is increasing with (re-

)exports from the EU in 2014–2015 totalling more than the combined (re-)exports in the

eight previous years32, although it was not specified if this related to legal or illegal trade.

Some MS also act as transit hubs for the illegal ivory trade.

High disposable income of people living in the EU makes it a likely destination for illegal

ivory. One respondent noted that there are many collectors in the EU who may purchase

antiques and/or ivory items as an investment.

Other comments included that mainland China and the USA are making more efforts to stop

illegal ivory trafficking than the EU and that the number of elephants being killed indicates

that illegal trade remains a problem.

As evidence to support the claim that illegal trade to/from/within the EU is much/slightly smaller in

scale than international ivory trafficking, the most frequently raised points are presented below (in

order of frequency):

Most illegal trade occurs to/within Asia. Respondents commented that 70% of legal ivory

trade occurs in mainland China and that it follows that similar proportions are true for the

illegal trade; there is more ivory in circulation in Asia due to the cultural value of ivory for

medicinal purposes and as a symbol of status; ivory markets in Asia are less regulated than

in the EU. However, two respondents noted that some illegal ivory trade may go via the EU

to Asia. Some respondents identified sources of information including the media, market

surveys and personal experience. Most of these comments came from private individuals

and public bodies, including government agencies.

Examples of sources of information included TV documentaries, NGO reports (EIA45, WWF),

newspaper and magazine articles46,47, and official reports (EC, CITES). Most comments were

provided by NGOs/Other organisations.

44

http://www.dw.com/de/der-elfenbeinhandel-auch-25-jahre-nach-dem-weltweiten-verbot-befeuert-er-die-wilderei/a-

19034936

45 https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-The-Shuidong-Connection-FINAL.pdf

46 http://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/trafic-d-ivoire-la-chine-dans-le-viseur-de-l-ouganda-07-06-2017-

2133522_1927.php

http://www.dw.com/de/der-elfenbeinhandel-auch-25-jahre-nach-dem-weltweiten-verbot-befeuert-er-die-wilderei/a-19034936

http://www.dw.com/de/der-elfenbeinhandel-auch-25-jahre-nach-dem-weltweiten-verbot-befeuert-er-die-wilderei/a-19034936

https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-The-Shuidong-Connection-FINAL.pdf

http://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/trafic-d-ivoire-la-chine-dans-le-viseur-de-l-ouganda-07-06-2017-2133522_1927.php

http://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/trafic-d-ivoire-la-chine-dans-le-viseur-de-l-ouganda-07-06-2017-2133522_1927.php



EU regulations are sufficient to prevent illegal trade. Comments included that the EU

regulations are strict, EU regulations and CITES are well enforced and that some MS have

already taken further actions to address illegal ivory trafficking. Other comments mentioned

that seizures of ivory are infrequent and ETIS analyses35 shows that all EU MS are listed as

“least concern” indicating that the volume of illegal trade is not significant.

Most ivory trade in the EU is legal. Most EU ivory trade is in (legal) antique ivory items

(dated pre-19th century). One respondent commented that ivory traders within the EU

provide proof of legality for all sales of ivory items. Most comments came from

organisations that have a commercial interest in ivory.

Most illegal trade occurs between Africa and other parts of the world. Specific countries

mentioned were Cameroon, Mexico, USA and the Russian Federation. Comments included

that enforcement is weak in source countries, and consumer countries are poorly regulated.

Rising affluence in some consumer countries has increased demand for ivory. Most of these

comments came from private individuals.

Have never seen or experienced illegal ivory items in the EU. Several respondents

commented that they had not encountered any illegal ivory items in their varied

professional experiences. One respondent noted that they only get one or two customers

per year who bring in jewellery items containing ivory and that these are always old or

antique pieces. Most of these comments came from organisations that have a commercial

interest in ivory and public bodies, including government agencies.

6.3. Proportion of ivory illegally trade to/from/within the EU that originates from elephants which

have been illegally killed in the last 10 years


those who responded, 16 500 or 20.6% responded “it is impossible to say/don’t know”. As shown in

Figure 12, most respondents who provided an answer stated that “the majority of ivory traded

illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10

years” (8965 respondents or 34.1%). 712 respondents (0.9%) responded that a “minority or small

proportion of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been

illegally killed in the last 10 years—the rest/most consists of old ivory items” and 80 respondents

(0.1%) stated that “there is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from elephants which have been

illegally killed in the last 10 years”.

47

http://www.eldiario.es/caballodenietzsche/Europa-lavado-marfil-extermina-elefantes_6_590800956.html

http://www.eldiario.es/caballodenietzsche/Europa-lavado-marfil-extermina-elefantes_6_590800956.html



Figure 12: Answer to question 3, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years?" in absolute numbers of respondents (n = 89 813)

Responses from all organisations followed the same trend, with the majority of those that provided an answer indicating “the majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years” (Figure 13). On average 71.9% of organisations with a commercial interest in ivory (antiques, auctions, repair/restoration, carving, musical instruments, export/import operators and/or hunting), 89.3% of NGOs, 87.2% of public bodies (IGO, government agencies, enforcement authorities and/or research institutes/universities), 87.9% of membership or trade associations, 92.6% of private individuals and 91% of other respondents supported this view.

8965

460

252

80

16500

63556

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

The majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EUcomes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last

ten years

A minority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last ten

years – the rest is old ivory items

A small proportion of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the

last ten years – most of it consists of old ivory items

There is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from elephantswhich have been illegally killed in the last 10 years

It is impossible to say/don’t know

No Answer

Number of responses



Figure 13: Answer to question 3, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, what proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years?" in absolute numbers of respondents and expressed as percentage of organisation excluding those who provided no answer or answered “it is impossible to say/don’t know” (n = 9757) * = less than 100 respondents, ** = less than 50 respondents

6.3.1. Supporting evidence

Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding the proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years. Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and most of the guidance for the campaigns stated that the majority of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years and called upon relevant authorities within the EU to publish the data on illegal and legal trade to be able to provide evidence. One campaign mentioned that without testing every item traded it is possible to launder recently poached ivory as pre-Convention. Example of repeated comments: “The volume of a growing illegal market and the fact that elephants are continued to be poached at an even growing rate, shows the link between illegal market of ivory and illegal killing of elephants. The legal trade has failed to contain the growth of illicit businesses. On the contrary, offers opportunities for criminals and keep up the demand.” Main points of evidence In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 2285 comments were provided.

A sample of 260 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent those who responded, “the

majority of ivory trade illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been

illegally killed in the last 10 years” and those who provided another answer. The sample was split

82

33

76

39

59

47

57

416

42

135

36

246

94

7459

836

10

9

7

4

6

7

4

31

5

9

2

18

5

361

41

16

7

10

6

7

2

7

15

5

5

3

9

3

190

27

15

8

5

8

5

4

5

4

2

5

45

15

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Antiques

Auctions*

Repair/Restoration*

Carving*



Hunting*

NGO

IGO*

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other

The majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killedin the last ten years

A minority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last ten years – the rest is old ivory items

A small proportion of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last ten years – most of it consists of old ivory items

There is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years



equally across the four stakeholder groups. Comments were analysed in-depth and grouped

according to categories reflecting the range of evidence provided.

The analysis of comments provided in support of the belief that “the majority of illegally traded

ivory in the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the past 10 years” revealed

that the evidence mentioned was (in order of frequency):

Most comments referenced sources of information that had informed their opinion on this

issue. This was the most frequently cited evidence for all stakeholder groups. The sources

listed included official reports (including Customs surveys and CITES reports), newspaper and

magazine articles37,47,48, TV programmes and documentaries49, academic journals articles50

and communication with professionals. The most commonly cited source of information was

NGO reports (e.g. IFAW, WWF, Greenpeace and EIA). One respondent cited work by Wasser

et al. but did not provide any further citation information.

Declining elephant populations and high rates of poaching were quoted as evidence that

most of the illegal trade in ivory is from elephants killed in the past 10 years. These

comments mainly came from private individuals, public bodies, including government

agencies and NGOs/other organisations.

The volume of ivory traded within the EU (as perceived, or inferred, from available

information on trade and seizures) is larger than could be obtained from legal sources. This

was more frequently mentioned by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and

NGOs/Other organisations.

Legally sourced ivory e.g. old ivory items and hunting trophies can be sold or sourced

legally, therefore illegal trade must be from elephants killed in the last 10 years, and current

EU regulations make it difficult to trade ivory legally in the EU. Some respondents stated that

all trade in ivory is illegal and/or that killing elephants is illegal.

Personal experience, for example, finding and seeing new ivory for sale, independent

research into online trade, and from anecdotes from friends or their own experiences

working in Africa. Most of these comments came from NGOs/Other organisations.

Poor controls, for example the regulation of permits (which some respondents felt could be

easily falsified), and difficulties in enforcing the regulations, for example, distinguishing

between old and new ivory, meant that it is likely that most of the ivory traded illegally in

the EU is from elephants killed in the past 10 years. Such comments were found across all

stakeholder categories except NGOs/Other organisations.

The analysis of comments provided in support of the view that “a minority/a small proportion of

ivory traded illegally” or “there is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from elephants which have

been illegally killed in the last 10 years”, identified the following main points of evidence (in order of

frequency):

All, or most of the ivory traded in the EU is legal, for example, respondents reported this

based on experience of seeing objects for sale in showrooms and antiques auctions that are

dated pre-1975, and only dealing in ivory objects which are “old”. Most of these comments

were from respondents from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

48

http://www.zeit.de/2017/15/elfenbein-handel-china-verbot-schutz-elefanten-wilderei; http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/elfenbein-handel-tonnenschweres-geschaeft/19355162.html 49

Netflix (2016) The Ivory Game 50

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/recently-killed-elephants-are-fueling-ivory-trade

http://www.zeit.de/2017/15/elfenbein-handel-china-verbot-schutz-elefanten-wilderei

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/elfenbein-handel-tonnenschweres-geschaeft/19355162.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/recently-killed-elephants-are-fueling-ivory-trade



Examples of sources of information included the internet, reports, newspaper and magazine

articles, television programmes and conversations with professionals. Most sources were

provided by NGOs/other organisations.

Another point raised, mainly by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory, was that

the market for ivory in Europe is small, particularly when compared with Asia. Respondents

stated that it is no longer fashionable or socially acceptable to own ivory items, the only

demand is for antiques and that there are very few ivory specialists in Europe.

There are few seizures within the EU and the current regulations are effective in

controlling the auction and antique business.

Finally, a few respondents from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory

commented that the market price of legal ivory in the EU is cheaper than illegal ivory,

citing that raw ivory tusks inherited are regularly auctioned for a low price and legal ivory is

sold in France for EUR 500 per kilogramme whereas in Africa it is sold for EUR 2000 per

kilogramme.

6.4. Main ivory items involved in illegal trade in ivory in/from the EU, and relevant supporting

evidence

Outreach campaigns

It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign. One campaign

stated raw ivory items and worked ivory for (re-)export from the EU were the items of main concern.

Another mentioned that the most traded items were statues, personal effects, cultural items whilst

jewellery, furniture, tusks and musical instruments make up a smaller proportion of the market.

Another referenced a report by EIA which provides a list of illegal ivory items seized by EU MS30.

Main ivory items mentioned

A total of 3454 comments were provided. A random sample of 300 comments was analysed, split equally between four stakeholder groups. The comments were analysed and grouped according to categories reflecting the items stated. The main ivory items involved in illegal trade in/from the EU that respondents were aware of are presented below, in order of frequency:

Carvings, for example artwork, sculptures, ornaments, statues, religious or decorative items and souvenirs. This was the most frequently mentioned item for all stakeholder groups. Organisations with a commercial interest in ivory specified items of Asian origin, particularly Chinese/Chinoiseries. They also often specified the size of the items to be small and that the items that were recently carved could be clearly distinguished from antique pieces.

Jewellery

Tusks, referring to raw whole tusks specifically.

Household items, for example trinkets, jewellery boxes, chess sets, billiard balls, pen-holders, walking cane handles, ash trays, smoking pipes, cutlery, buttons and stamps. These items were more frequently mentioned by public bodies, including government agencies, NGOs/other organisations and private individuals than organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Musical instruments, particularly piano keys. These were more likely to be mentioned by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and private individuals than other stakeholder groups.



Unworked ivory, for example, raw ivory, unprocessed ivory and ivory parts which had not been specified as a tusk. NGOs/other organisations mentioned these ivory items more frequently than other stakeholder groups.

Furniture, for example, furnishings, lamps, furniture with ivory inlay/surface. Organisations with a commercial interest in ivory specified the items of furniture to be antiques, whilst NGOs/other organisations mentioned furniture which had been manufactured recently. Private individuals mentioned furniture more frequently than other stakeholder groups.

Medicines, for example, traditional Chinese medicine, medicines for increasing sexual performance such as aphrodisiacs. Some comments suggested that these medicines did not produce real effects or were “fake”.

Weapons, for example, blades or handles for knives and trimmings for weapons

Hunting trophies Sources of evidence provided included conversations or data from enforcement agencies and CITES authorities (e.g. EU-TWIX51), the media (internet, TV, newspapers) and NGO reports. One comment referred to investigations conducted by WildAid Hong Kong.

6.5. Extent of illegal trade in ivory within the domestic EU market, on import, (re-)export or in

transit through the EU.


those who responded, 16 567 or 64.7% responded “don’t know”. 1486 respondents (5.8%)

responded that illegal trade in ivory is more widespread in imports to the EU, 1356 respondents

(5.3%) responded that illegal trade in ivory is more widespread in transit through EU airports or

ports from one non-EU country to another one, 592 respondents (2.3%) responded that illegal trade

in ivory is more widespread in (re-)exports from the EU and 442 respondents (0.5%) responded that

illegal trade in ivory is more widespread within the domestic EU market. The most frequent answer

was “all the above” (5156 respondents or 20.1%, Figure 14).

Figure 14: Answer to question 5, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, is the illegal trade in ivory more widespread within the domestic EU market, in imports to the EU, in (re-)exports from the EU, in transit through the EU or all of the above?" in absolute numbers of respondents (n = 89 813)

51

Database containing centralised data on seizures and offences reported by all 28 EU MS https://www.eu-twix.org/

5157

1486

1356

592

442

16567

64213

0 20000 40000 60000 80000

All the above

In imports TO the EU (international trade involvingthe EU)

In transit through EU airports or ports from one3rd country to another one

In re-exports FROM the EU (international tradeinvolving the EU)

Within the domestic EU market

Don't know

No Answer

Number of responses

https://www.eu-twix.org/



Responses by organisations followed the same trend, with the majority of those that provided an answer indicating illegal trade in ivory is more widespread within the domestic EU market, in imports, (re-)exports and transit through the EU (“all of the above”, Figure 15). Respondents from antiques, auctions, repair/restoration, carving, export/import operator organisations were more likely to say illegal trade in ivory is more widespread in transit through the EU. Musical instrument organisations, NGOs, IGOs, government agencies, enforcement authorities, research institute/universities and membership and trade associations were more likely than to say illegal trade in ivory is more widespread in imports to the EU.

Figure 15: Answers to question 5, section C of the public consultation "In your experience, is the illegal trade in ivory more widespread within the domestic EU market, in imports to the EU, in (re-)exports from the EU, in transit through the EU or all of the above?" in absolute numbers of respondents and expressed as percentage by organisation excluding those who provided no answer or answered “don’t know” (n = 9033) * = less than 100 respondents, ** = less than 50 respondents

6.6. Links between illegal trade in the EU and illegal international ivory trade

Outreach campaigns

It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and guidance from

the campaigns suggested the main links between illegal trade in the EU and illegal international ivory

trade are the use of the EU as a transit hub and that legal trade in ivory provides an opportunity for

illegal activities to take place, such as laundering illegal ivory as legal, legislative loopholes, driving

demand and continued poaching to meet that demand. They also called upon relevant authorities

within the EU to publish the data on illegal and legal trade to be able to provide evidence. One

campaign mentioned a report by EIA30.

Example of repeated comments:

“The EU acts as a transit point for ivory from Africa to Asia, legal trade masking and encouraging

illegal international ivory trading”

7

3

4

4

7

4

10

35

2

12

3

10

7

347

31

21

12

20

9

20

10

13

94

11

36

12

53

27

1187

132

4

2

1

2

4

3

2

27

2

5

24

5

490

59

26

16

21

13

11

14

9

73

6

26

4

51

20

1082

136

52

31

52

33

38

36

38

234

29

73

27

122

63

4320

491

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions*

Repair/Restoration*

Carving*



Hunting*

NGO

IGO*

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other


In imports TO the EU (international trade involving the EU)

In re-exports FROM the EU (international trade involving the EU)

In transit through EU airports or ports from one 3rd country to another one

All the above



Main links mentioned

In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, total of 2583 responses were provided. A

random sample of 300 comments was analysed, split equally across the four stakeholder groups.

Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the main links and

evidence provided. These are detailed below, in order of frequency:

Legal trade in ivory (within the EU or internationally) can be used as a cover for parallel

illegal markets or to launder illegal ivory items by using techniques to make newly poached

ivory look old or antique, the use of falsified documents. Some respondents also mentioned

that legal ivory items can be sold into the illegal international trade and the same people are

involved in both legal and illegal markets. One respondent provided evidence from a Spanish

online news article47 to support their opinion. Some referenced that this link is recognised by

the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in their Resolution on Closure of

Domestic Markets for Elephant Ivory52 and by the CITES Resolution on Trade in Elephant

Specimens53. A few respondents provided evidence from research reports that illegal and

legal items are sold in the same outlets54 and mentioned that illegal items are imported and

then (re-)exported as legal items. These comments were most frequently mentioned by

NGOs/Other organisations and private individuals.

Issues with enforcement of ivory trade regulations in the EU. For example, that the legal

trade in the EU is not strictly controlled or monitored55 due to a lack of resources and

training for enforcement and complicated regulations making it difficult to distinguish legal

from illegal ivory and allowing the opportunity for the use of falsified documents. There is a

lack of collaboration across MS and ivory trade is not a priority issue for enforcement

agencies in the EU. Most of these respondents added a total ban would make enforcement

easier and reduce these potential “loopholes” for illegal trade. These comments were mainly

made by public bodies, including government agencies.

The legal trade in the EU contributes to driving demand for legal and illegal ivory items

globally. Comments mentioned that allowing legal trade reinforces social acceptability and

desirability for ivory items and legal items are (re-)exported from the EU to Asian markets

where demand is high56. A couple of respondents stated that the EU is the largest (re-

)exporter or source of legal ivory items globally for raw and worked ivory57. These comments

were most frequently mentioned by NGOs/Other organisations and private individuals.

Money made and greed of those involved, including poachers, traffickers, sellers and

buyers. Some respondents mentioned illegal trade is more profitable than legal trade and

others mentioned that those in poverty see poaching elephants as a way of providing

income.

The role of the EU in transportation or transit/(re-)export of ivory items from Africa to Asia

as it is easier to smuggle along existing routes. A couple of respondents specifically

mentioned the involvement of ports and shipping as a means of transporting illegal ivory. A

52

https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/007 53

https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-10-10-R17.pdf 54

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wil_15010601a.pdf; http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Making%20a%20Killing.pdf; http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/eu-ivory-kills-elephants_0.pdf; http://www.savetheelephants.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_Decline-in-legal-Ivory-trade-China.pdf 55

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-37427419/fearnley-whittingstall-on-ivory-trade-ban; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-ivory-christies/auctioneer-christies-fined-for-putting-undocumented-ivory-on-sale-idUSKCN0YF29 56

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/Ivory%20report_Nov%202014.pdf 57

https://www.prowildlife.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EU_IvoryTradeBrief.pdf

https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/007

https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/document/E-Res-10-10-R17.pdf

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wil_15010601a.pdf

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/Making%20a%20Killing.pdf

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/eu-ivory-kills-elephants_0.pdf

http://www.ifaw.org/sites/default/files/eu-ivory-kills-elephants_0.pdf

http://www.savetheelephants.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_Decline-in-legal-Ivory-trade-China.pdf

http://www.savetheelephants.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017_Decline-in-legal-Ivory-trade-China.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-37427419/fearnley-whittingstall-on-ivory-trade-ban

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-ivory-christies/auctioneer-christies-fined-for-putting-undocumented-ivory-on-sale-idUSKCN0YF29

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-ivory-christies/auctioneer-christies-fined-for-putting-undocumented-ivory-on-sale-idUSKCN0YF29

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/Ivory%20report_Nov%202014.pdf

https://www.prowildlife.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EU_IvoryTradeBrief.pdf



few respondents cited seizures information from a report by EIA30 and ETIS analyses35 as

evidence for this point.

The threat of elephants being poached to produce ivory items, legal or illegal, was

mentioned by several respondents.

The illegal trade involves international organised crime networks that are also involved in

other illegal trade (e.g. narcotics and weapons) and involves bribery and corruption of

officials. Most of these comments were made by NGOs/Other organisations.

Other sources of information provided included news and online articles, reports45,58,59,

personal experience and TV documentaries.

Other comments mentioned by one or two respondents included that derivatives

(traditional Chinese medicine) are transported from the EU to Asia, that there is limited

manufacture and demand of ivory items in the EU, buyers and sellers of ivory items are

often unaware whether the ivory is legal or illegal and ivory is sold online without any

traceability or proof of legality.

Approximately 10% of comments stated that there are no links between the legal trade in ivory in

the EU and the illegal international trade and that customers and traders in legal and illegal trade are

not the same people. Most of these comments came from organisations who have a commercial

interest in ivory and referenced the legal trade of antique (pre-1947) ivory specifically where the

main attraction of the items is the craftsmanship and heritage, not the ivory material itself.

6.7. Significant problems in relation to illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU, and relevant

supporting evidence.

Outreach campaigns

It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and most of the guidance for the campaigns stated that the main problems in relation to the illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU were that the legal trade stimulates demand for ivory and serves as a cover for illegal trade or is used to launder recently poached items. The lack of efficient enforcement (particularly for the antiques trade) was mentioned. One campaign focused on the lack of regulations for internet trade. One campaign highlighted a report from EIA30 and another cited an investigation by the Wildlife Justice Commission exposing illegal ivory trade on Facebook in Vietnam. Example of repeated comments: “I am seriously concerned that the EU legal ivory trade stimulates demand for ivory and serves as a

cover for an illegal trade that is fuelling the current slaughter of elephants. I call on you to

immediately close down the legal trade both within the EU's borders and beyond.”

"There is no obligation [for internet trade] on the seller to prove the ivory item is legal; to inform the

buyer of the existing law; the website owner is not obligated to comply with the law, nor to develop

policies for governing the ivory trade. The Internet offers worldwide reach, anonymity and low costs.

The items are labelled as ‘personal effects’ and shipped via mail to destination."

58

http://e360.yale.edu/features/counterpoint_the_case_against_a_legal_ivory_trade_it_will_lead_to_more_killing_of_elephants 59

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/e50900_416fd8e2f74443afbf223dc1a6d3f2ea.pdf?index=true

http://e360.yale.edu/features/counterpoint_the_case_against_a_legal_ivory_trade_it_will_lead_to_more_killing_of_elephants

http://e360.yale.edu/features/counterpoint_the_case_against_a_legal_ivory_trade_it_will_lead_to_more_killing_of_elephants

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/e50900_416fd8e2f74443afbf223dc1a6d3f2ea.pdf?index=true



Main points provided as evidence

In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 7740 responses were provided. A

random sample of 300 comments was analysed, split equally across the four stakeholder groups.

Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the most

important problems considered and evidence provided. These are detailed below, in order of

frequency:

The threat of elephants being poached in the wild60, suffering and the risk of the species

becoming extinct. Respondents mentioned that between 20 000 and 30 000 elephants were

poached a year.

Weaknesses in enforcing existing regulations. Problems mentioned included the difficulty in

identifying legal or old ivory from illegal or newly poached ivory, the lack of monitoring and

checks on trade, the lack of engagement, resources and knowledge among enforcement

officials, and that penalties were not severe enough. Some respondents also made comment

on the regulations themselves such as the regulations are not strong enough, are too

complex, contain grey areas, are not consistent across the EU MS and people are not aware

of them. All these factors were thought to allow loopholes for illegal trade to continue with

low risk of punishment. Some organisations with a commercial interest in ivory commented

that stricter regulations in other countries has not stopped poaching but negatively

impacted on legal traders and caused a serious loss of income. Most of these comments

came from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Legal trade of ivory is creating a demand for ivory items (especially for antiques, art and

musical instruments from the EU to Asia), driven by human greed to own items considered

luxury or desirable, which in turn increases the profits made from sales. Comments

mentioned that there is a need to change society's attitudes and raise awareness that

owning ivory items has impacts on living elephants. One respondent also mentioned the

culture of trophy hunting as a problem.

Legal trade of ivory in the EU acts as cover, allows laundering and encourages demand for

illegal trade31,42,30,57,61. Most of these comments came from private individuals.

Crime and corruption62. Money from ivory trade was stated to fund criminal networks

involved in other crimes (terrorism, arms, drugs, human trafficking). Violence against

enforcement officials and those working to protect elephants and bribery of governments

and enforcement officials to allow trade to continue were mentioned.

Other problems included the use of ivory powder for medicinal purposes; difficulties

museums face acquiring ivory items for collections; the ability for restorers to use ivory or

substitutes to repair antiques; private ownership of ivory items; the lack of concern from EU

politicians and the role of the media; poverty of poachers; the EU involvement in any illegal

trade of ivory. A few respondents also mentioned the lack of information available to

quantify illegal trade.

A couple of respondents from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory stated that

there is no problem in relation to the illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU.

60

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-elephant-poaching-africa-falls-ivory.html 61

http://www.trafficj.org/publication/16_A_Rapid_Survey_of_UK_Ivory_Markets.pdf; https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140829-elephants-trophy-hunting-poaching-ivory-ban-cities/; 62

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tracking-ivory/article.html; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2015/aug/30/case-proven-ivory-trafficking-funds-terrorism

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-elephant-poaching-africa-falls-ivory.html

http://www.trafficj.org/publication/16_A_Rapid_Survey_of_UK_Ivory_Markets.pdf

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140829-elephants-trophy-hunting-poaching-ivory-ban-cities/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/tracking-ivory/article.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2015/aug/30/case-proven-ivory-trafficking-funds-terrorism

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2015/aug/30/case-proven-ivory-trafficking-funds-terrorism



7 Section D: EU Priorities in relation to ivory trade

Questions in section C & D were shown to all respondents to the public consultation, unlike the

previous section B which was only shown to those who answered “Yes” to “Are you or your

organisation directly or indirectly involved in ivory trade?”.

7.1. Potential EU priorities in tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU

92% (82 652) of respondents stated that “banning all ivory trade to, from and within the EU”

should be the main priority action for the EU and EU MS. 22.9% (20 555) of respondents responded

that banning raw ivory trade to, from and within the EU should be the main priority action and

12.8% (11 504) of respondents stated this should be pursued together with other priority actions.

11.9% (10 705) of respondents stated that banning trade in ivory within the EU with well-justified

exemptions should be the main priority action and 10.6% (9478) of respondents stated this should

be pursued together with other priority actions. 11.8% (10 615) of respondents stated that banning

(re-)export of ivory from the EU, with well-justified exemptions, should be the main priority action

and 10.9% (9799) stated this should be pursued together with other priority actions. 18.2% (16 390)

of respondents stated that better enforcement of the existing EU regulations and guidelines for the

trade in ivory should be pursued together with other priority actions. 67.7% (60 791) of

respondents stated that educating and raising awareness on the existing EU regulations and

guidelines among ivory traders/Customers to promote legal trade should not be a priority (Figure

16).


outreach campaigns stated that banning all ivory trade, to from and within the EU should be the

main priority action.

Figure 16: Answer to question 1, section D of the public consultation “Which of the following do you think should be priorities for the EU and EU Member States in relation to tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU?” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer or answered “don’t know” sorted by “This should be the main priority action”, respondents could select more than one priority (n = 89 813)

82652

20555

10705

10615

9452

7178

2971

11504

9478

9799

16390

9756

711

2023

7764

7161

4818

60791

383

707

1520

1531

1680

703

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

Banning all ivory trade to, from, and within the EU

Banning raw ivory trade to, from and within the EU

Banning trade in ivory within the EU, with well-justifiedexemptions

Banning (re-)export of ivory from the EU, with well-justified exemptions

Better enforcement of the existing EU regulations andguidelines for the trade in ivory

Educating and raising awareness on the existing EUregulations and guidelines among ivory…

This should be the main Priority Action

This should be pursued together with other priority actions

This should not be a priority

Don’t know



3479 respondents did not provide any answer to this question (3096 or 3.4% provided no answer

and 383 or 0.4% answered “don’t know” to at least one option). 0.8% (680) of respondents stated

that tackling illegal ivory trade in the EU should not be priority for the EU.

*Other priorities specified

1.2% (1059) respondents selected “other” priorities for the EU in relation to tackling the illegal trade

of ivory within/to/from the EU and provided additional comments to specify. A sample of 100

comments was analysed from those provided and the main points are presented below (in order of

frequency):

Banning all ivory trade in the EU or internationally with no exceptions. These

comments mainly came from private individuals, public bodies, including government

agencies, NGOs/other organisations.

Focus on preventing and monitoring poaching in elephant range States. Half of these

comments were from private individuals or organisations with a commercial interest in

ivory.

Ban all ivory trade in the EU with exemptions for the movement of musical

instruments, antiques (and restoration of antiques), works of art and museum items

internationally containing a small amount of ivory without the need for CITES permits.

One comment mentioned that for antiques, as it is difficult to prove import into the EU

occurred pre-1947, certificates from experts should be accepted. These comments were

mainly from organisations who may deal with ivory.

Educating people in the EU, Africa and Asia on the issue of modern day poaching and to

respect nature.

Increasing the resources for enforcement and the penalties for illegal trading.

Closing regulatory gaps including MS to issue national documents to reduce

opportunities for fraudulent use of international documents; a European seal to certify

legal items; use of whistleblowing techniques or anonymous reporting63; or the right to

sue as defenders of the public64. An article on regulations against illegal trade in wild

fauna and flora by the Regulatory Institute was highlighted65. Most of these comments

came from NGOs/Other organisations.

Banning imports of ivory into the EU (but allowing use of existing stocks within the EU).

Other comments included allowing a grace period of one to two years for people to

declare ownership of ivory items in the EU prior to implementing a ban in all trade,

confiscating illegal items on the EU market, developing synthetic substitutes for ivory,

only allowing the use of ivory from naturally deceased elephants; legalise sustainable

trade; focusing on preventing trade from Africa to Asia.

Most of the responses by all organisation types followed the same trend, with most respondents

within each organisation type selecting banning all ivory trade to, from and within the EU as “this

should be the main priority”.

63

http://www.howtoregulate.org/whistleblowers-protection-incentives/#more-234; http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_end/con_end_rew/con_end_rew.html 64

See Australia’s 487 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 65

http://www.howtoregulate.org/illegal-wildlife-trade/#more-273

http://www.howtoregulate.org/whistleblowers-protection-incentives/#more-234

http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_end/con_end_rew/con_end_rew.html

http://www.howtoregulate.org/illegal-wildlife-trade/#more-273



7.2. Opinion on the following statement: “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal

problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on

ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in

other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and

destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.”

As shown in Figure 17, most respondents who provided an answer to this question strongly disagree

with the statement “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the

global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority

should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa

and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory

trafficking.” (70 015, 80.3%). 2531 (2.9%) of respondents slightly disagreed, 3.2% (2779) neither

agreed or disagreed, 4411 (5.1%) slightly agreed and 7415 (8.3%) strongly agreed. 2662 (3.0%) of

total respondents did not provide an answer to this question.

It should be noted than many responses were in line with the guidance from outreach campaigns

and all outreach campaign guidance stated strongly disagree.

Figure 17: Answer to question 2, section D of the public consultation "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 87 151)

On average 60.6% (873) of respondents who represented an organisation with a commercial interest

in ivory (antiques, auctions, repair/restoration, carving, musical instruments, export/import

operators and/or hunting) strongly/slightly agreed with the statement. The majority of responses

from NGOs (54.7%, 603), public bodies (IGO, government agencies, enforcement authorities and/or

research institutes/universities) (51.3%, 837), private individuals (85%, 69 316) and other

organisations (62.4%, 2209) strongly/slightly disagreed with the statement (Figure 18). An equal

number of respondents who represented a membership or trade association strongly/slightly agreed

(46.4%, 134) and strongly/slightly disagreed (45%, 130).

7415

4411

2779

2531

70015

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Strongly agree

Slightly agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree




Figure 18: Answer to question 2, section D of the public consultation "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.” in absolute numbers of respondents and expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer (n = 87 151) * = less than 100 respondents


Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding their agreement with the statement “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.” A total of 4107 comments were provided. A random sample of 200 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent for those who answered strongly/slightly agree and for those who answered strongly/slightly disagree. This sample was split equally across the four stakeholder groups (excluding those who gave no answer or “Neither agree or disagree”). Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the range of evidence raised. The analysis of comments provided by respondents who disagreed (“strongly disagree/slightly

disagree”) with the statement “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem

compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade,

the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in

particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets

for illegal ivory trafficking”, identified the following points of evidence (in order of frequency):

The EU remains a significant destination and transit hub for illegal ivory and evidence

provided included that between 2011 and 2014 EU MS seized 4500 ivory items and an

additional 780 kg as reported by weight; since 2014 an increasing number of ivory items

have been seized during (re-)export from the EU; and up to 30% of illegal global ivory trade

transits through the EU. There was support for a total ban on trade in all ivory products

within/to/from the EU to close transit routes for illegal ivory. This comment was most

frequently mentioned by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

175

94

102

70

88

60

67

251

30

87

30

160

100

6166

719

55

34

38

19

31

25

15

165

12

78

11

110

34

3706

379

20

11

13

9

16

6

11

84

8

25

4

68

25 2381

231

10

4

10

5

11

7

3

65

3

13

2

65

21

2260

161

73

46

89

43

86

39

46

538

47

172

32

503

109

67056

2048

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments

Export/Import Operator

Hunting

NGO

IGO

Government agency

Enforcement authority*



Private Individuals

Other

Strongly agree Slightly agree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly disagree Strongly disagree



Action is needed at an international level and should be led by the EU. Respondents

commented that the EU should set an example through its domestic policies and through

supporting actions to combat ivory trafficking at both an international and regional level, for

example, by supporting an international ban on all trade in ivory and demand reduction

activities.

Some respondents provided specific sources of information. These sources included

information from CITES, EU-TWIX51, and ETIS analyses35, documentaries, newspapers,

magazines, the internet, and NGO reports66. One respondent provided the link to the

German Ivory Association website67. Most sources of information came from NGOs/Other

organisations.

Other comments included disagreement with the labelling of the illegal trade in ivory in the

EU as marginal, comments on the ethics of killing elephants, and a comment that the EU

should not interfere in other countries’ domestic policies.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who agreed (“strongly agree/slightly agree”)

with the statement “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the

global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority

should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa

and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory

trafficking”, identified the following points of evidence (in order of frequency):

The EU priority should be to support the protection of elephants in range States, with

elephant populations declining and current rates of poaching mentioned as evidence.

Specific actions mentioned included the physical protection of elephants, preventing

deforestation and habitat destruction, educational campaigns (to help local people value

elephants as living animals) and providing alternative incomes to poaching. This was the

most frequent response amongst organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

There is a larger market for illegal ivory in Asia than in the EU, commenting, for example,

that the Chinese market accounts for 80% of illegal ivory trade, most raw ivory is “worked”

in Asia and that Asian markets are poorly regulated. Some commented that the EU places a

cultural value on genuine antiques (including ivory) but has no tradition/cultural value of

modern ivory unlike in Japan and mainland China. Most of these comments were provided

by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and public bodies, including government

agencies.

Many respondents provided specific sources of information as evidence. These included

official reports (e.g. from UK Border Force), a CITES press release68, the media, television

programmes, NGO reports and petitions. Private individuals provided most sources of

information.

Several respondents, predominantly from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory,

commented that current regulations on ivory trade in the EU are adequate to prevent

illegal trade in the EU. They noted that demand for ivory within the EU is for genuine antique

and decorative ivory (which is already regulated) and most illegal ivory in the EU is in transit

to non-EU countries (citing UK Border Force data as evidence). One cutler commented that

the amount of ivory used per year is small (100 kg/year) and that this is declared and taxed

in accordance with the regulations, and one respondent noted that a total ban on ivory

66

http://www.ifaw.org/france/ressources/rapport-ivoire-déléphant-lot-du-jour-adjugé-vendu 67

https://deutscher-elfenbein-verband.de/informationen/ 68

https://cites.org/fra/news/pr/African_elephant_poaching_down_ivory_seizures_up_and_hit_record_high_24102017

http://www.ifaw.org/france/ressources/rapport-ivoire-d%C3%A9l%C3%A9phant-lot-du-jour-adjug%C3%A9-vendu

https://deutscher-elfenbein-verband.de/informationen/

https://cites.org/fra/news/pr/African_elephant_poaching_down_ivory_seizures_up_and_hit_record_high_24102017



trade would negatively affect traditional crafts and industries (such as ivory sculptors,

antiques dealers and restorers).

Other comments included disagreement that the issue of illegal ivory trade within the EU

should be considered marginal, that the priority should be to promote a sustainable legal

trade and that there is no problem with illegal ivory in the EU.

Whilst not directly providing evidence in support of agreement with the statement, the most

frequently mentioned point was that actions to address global ivory trafficking need to be taken in

all regions. Respondents commented that action is needed within the EU (for example through a

total ban on ivory trade, stronger enforcement or stricter penalties) and in other regions or at an

international level, for example, the EU should support a global total ban on ivory and exert political

pressure on other countries to instate this. Most of these comments were made by private

individuals.

7.3 Opinion on the following statement: “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that

the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in

elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware

of these rules and that they are better enforced.”

As shown in Figure 1Figure9, most respondents who provided an answer to this question strongly

disagree with the statement “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU

domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory.

Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and

that they are better enforced.” (74 021, 85.3%). 3552 (4.1%) of respondents slightly disagreed, 3161

(3.6%) neither agreed or disagreed, 2554 (2.9%) slightly agreed and 3503 (4.0%) strongly agree. 3022

(3.4%) of total respondents did not provide an answer to this question.

It should be noted that many responses were in line with outreach campaign guidance and all

outreach campaign guidance stated strongly disagree.

Figure 19: Answer to question 3, section D of the public consultation “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced.” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 86 791)

3503

2554

3161

3552

74021

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Strongly agree

Slightly agree


Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree

Number of responses



Most respondents from all organisation types strongly/slightly disagreed with this statement except

for antiques (50.9%, 169 respondents) and auctions (54.7%, 104 respondents) who strongly/slightly

agreed (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Answer to question 3, section D of the public consultation "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced.” in absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer (n = 86 791), * = less than 100 respondents

7.3.1 Supporting evidence Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding their agreement with the statement “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced.” A total of 2914 comments were provided. A random sample of 180 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent those who answered strongly/slightly agree and for those who answered strongly/slightly disagree. This sample was split equally across the four stakeholder groups (excluding those who gave no answer or answered, “Neither agree or disagree”). Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the range of evidence raised. The analysis of comments provided by respondents who disagreed (“strongly disagree/slightly

disagree”) with the statement “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU


Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and

that they are better enforced”, identified the following points of evidence (in order of frequency):

Supporting a total ban on trade in ivory. Comments included that a total ban is the only way

to protect elephants and that all ivory items should be reported and catalogued. Most of

120

68

53

39

53

34

34

122

19

38

16

75

58

2863

353

49

36

33

18

26

21

19

96

6

58

11

70

36

2064

256

26

13

28

14

28

11

8

90

11

33

7

72

33

2693

293

22

9

20

11

18

15

10

105

10

41

5

100

25

3071

284

115

64

117

63

105

58

65

675

56

202

42

585

143

70591

2312

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other




these comments came from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory and from

private individuals.

Illegal ivory trade continues to be an issue within the EU with respondents noting that

increases in the amount of ivory seized indicate that the quantity of illegal ivory traded

to/through the EU remains high and/or is on the increase, and a lot of illegal ivory in the EU

is destined for (re-)export to mainland China. These comments were most frequently

mentioned by NGOs/Other organisations. Some respondents commented the current

regulations allow the potential for fraud, for example, due to difficulties distinguishing illegal

and legal ivory, lack of control for online trade, the unwillingness of some ivory owners to

comply, and private individuals trading in illegal ivory unknowingly. One respondent stated

that the UK is the largest (re-)exporter of elephant ivory and that much of this is

“unknowingly illegal”.

Continued declines in elephant populations, taken alongside the volume of illegal ivory

traded to/from/within the EU suggest that EU regulations are not sufficient.

Increasing awareness of ivory regulations will not stop illegal ivory trafficking because

most people in the EU are not involved or interested in illegal ivory trade or those that are

involved, are already aware of the regulations and will continue to do so regardless of the

regulations.

A few respondents provided sources of information as evidence. These sources were the

ETIS analyses35, magazine articles, academic journals, and the internet. Two links were

provided to reports by the NGO, IFAW32,42.

Other comments included that changing the regulations in the EU would benefit and

influence other countries in their domestic ivory policies, that enforcement activities require

additional funding and that the current regulations and applications for permits are

complex.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who agreed (“strongly agree/slightly agree”)

with the statement “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic

elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than

changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are

better enforced”, identified the following points of evidence (in order of frequency):

People, including officials, were largely ignorant of the regulations surrounding ivory trade

therefore the priority should be making people fully aware of the regulations. It was stated

that this would help prevent people from inadvertently engaging in illegal activity when

selling heirlooms and inherited ivory items and help to avoid stigmatisation of the legal trade

and traders being labelled “elephant killers”, “criminals” and “dirty”. A few respondents

thought it was important to educate people on the historical and cultural uses of ivory (both

within the EU and abroad), providing evidence that ivory has been used since the

Palaeolithic era and that ivory-working is a heritage craft. In contradiction, one respondent

felt that awareness-raising activities should stigmatise the owning of ivory.

Despite general agreement with the statement, the second most frequent comment was

that additional restrictions are needed within the EU, for example, for raw ivory and the

sale of antiques/artworks. One respondent recommended that an exemption be applied to

musical instruments containing a small amount of ivory for international movement. Public

bodies, including government agencies, most frequently mentioned these comments.

The regulations need better enforcement for example, stricter penalties for online sales of

illegal ivory and for individuals caught engaging in illegal wildlife trafficking generally. Most

of these comments came from NGOs/Other organisations.



There is virtually no illegal trade within the EU, and that current restrictions and

enforcement are adequate to prevent the EU from contributing to illegal ivory trafficking.

Comments noted that the current regulations enable trade in old ivory items to be

separated from trade in recently poached ivory items and there is no evidence that legal

trade of antiques within the EU masks illicit trade in ivory. Most of the illegal trade in ivory

from recently killed elephants is for Asian markets. Most of these comments came from

organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

A few respondents provided sources of information as evidence. These sources included the

internet, newspapers and magazines, anecdotal evidence (from people working in Africa)

and from NGOs.

Other comments included that there are problems with the current CITES regulations for

antique ivory items, opposition to a total ban on the sale of antique ivory, that the EU should

address the underlying causes of illegal trafficking (for example, poverty in Africa) and

ethical statements opposing the killing of elephants. One respondent noted that the

introduction of the French Ministerial Decree in 2016 prohibiting the trade in ivory has

placed additional burdens on ivory traders. Most of these comments came from


A few respondents, despite expressing agreement with the statement, provided comments

that appeared to contradict their answer. These comments were that enforcing regulations

would not stop illegal trade or rates of poaching, that the EU rules are not strict enough (as

shown by (re-)exports of illegal ivory from the EU to Asia) and that there is sufficient

awareness of the regulations surrounding ivory trade.

7.4. Opinion on the following statement: “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure

that the EU domestic elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in

elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address

the problem.”

As shown in in Figure 21, most respondents who provided an answer to this question strongly agree

with the statement “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic

elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further

restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” (69 816,

80.4%). 2735 (3.1%) of respondents slightly agreed, 1906 (2.2%) neither agreed or disagreed, 432

(0.5%) slightly disagreed and 11 968 (13.8%) strongly disagreed. 2956 (3.3%) of total respondents did

not provide an answer to this question.

It should be noted that many responses were in line with outreach campaign guidance and all

outreach campaign guidance stated strongly agree.



Figure 21: Answer to question 4, section D of the public consultation “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 86 857)

Most respondents from all organisation types strongly/slightly agreed with this statement except for

auctions of which 44.9% (84 respondents) strongly/slightly agreed and 42.2% (79 respondents)

slightly disagreed (Figure 22).

Figure 22: Answer to question 4, section D of the public consultation "How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” in absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer (n = 86 791) * = less than 100 respondents


Respondents were asked to provide any relevant evidence to support their answer given above regarding their agreement with the statement “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory markets do not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” A total of 1943 comments were provided. A random sample of 165 comments was analysed, taking a share to represent those who answered “strongly/slightly agree” and those who answered “strongly/slightly disagree”. This sample was split across the four stakeholder groups

69816

2735

1906

432

11968

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Strongly agree

Slightly agree


Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree

Number of responses

159

76

154

90

151

99

99

806

74

259

59

659

206

65882

2584

19

8

19

6

18

7

9

85

6

45

5

75

22 2277

281

30

24

22

11

19

10

11

68

6

26

4

54

25

1566

204

23

18

11

4

10

5

3

16

9

11

7 341

31

99

61

43

35

32

17

20

108

13

36

10

110

33

11293

390

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO*

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other




(excluding those who gave no answer or answered, “neither agree or disagree”). Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the range of evidence provided. The analysis of comments provided by respondents who agreed (“strongly agree/slightly agree”)

with the statement “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic

elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further

restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem”, identified

the following points of evidence (in order of frequency):

The EU should adopt a total ban on trade in ivory for example, this action is necessary to

prevent extinction of elephant populations, that actions taken elsewhere (mainland China,

Hong Kong SAR and Africa) would be undermined if the EU maintains its legal market for

ivory and that the EU is obliged to adopt a ban under the London Declaration on Illegal

Wildlife Trade.69 One respondent stated that 65% of EU citizens support a total ban on ivory

trade and that less than 10% are interested in buying ivory31. Several respondents

commented that it is difficult to distinguish between illegal and legal ivory and that a total

ban would make enforcement of any regulations easier. One of these respondents provided

personal experience of the situation in Germany and the Netherlands where enforcement of

the existing regulations is weak, and infringements are rarely prosecuted.

Further restrictions, other than a total ban, should be put in place within the EU to address

the problem. These included restricting ivory sales to only antique items with proof of legal

origin, reducing demand in EU and Asia and combatting corruption and bribery (within

enforcement). Respondents commented that these actions were necessary to stigmatise

illegal ivory and put pressure on those acting illegally. Most of these comments were from


The volume of illegal trade within the EU and the number of elephants poached each year

are evidence that EU regulations are not currently sufficient. For example, respondents

commented that illegal ivory, continues to be traded through the EU for (re-)export to Asia,

based on news and online coverage. Other comments included that 30 000 elephants are

killed each year, the EU legal market encourages poaching, and that elephant populations

have continued to decline despite the existing regulations. One respondent referenced the

2016 African Elephant Status Report70 and one cited estimates of elephant populations by

the Sub-Saharan African Anti-Poaching Group. Most of these comments were from public

bodies, including government agencies.

A few respondents provided sources of information. These included the news, magazines,

ETIS analyses35, personal experience (working in a CITES department), anecdotal evidence

(from people working in conservation and Customs) and reports by NGOs including Two

Million Tusks59.

Other comments, mainly from private individuals, included statements opposing the killing

of elephants and the use of ivory.

There were a few instances where, despite agreeing with the statement, comments

indicated that no further restrictions were required. For example, respondents commented

that more information is needed or that (re-)export of illegal ivory from the EU to Asia is

only a marginal problem. One respondent commented that the additional background

information to the public consultation proved that existing regulations are adequate. These

69

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281289/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf 70

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_A.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281289/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281289/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP-060_A.pdf



statements were mostly made by NGOs/Other organisations and organisations with a

commercial interest in ivory.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who disagreed (“strongly disagree/slightly

disagree”) with the statement “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU


Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem”,

raised the following points (in order of frequency):

The legal ivory market in the EU does not contribute to illegal international trade in ivory

(which mainly takes place between Asia and Africa). Respondents commented that the EU

legal ivory trade is not a factor driving the decline of elephant populations, the European

consumer market for ivory is marginal and dominated by trade in antiques dating pre-1947,

and current regulations ensure that there are adequate checks and administration in place

to check for legality. Several respondents also commented that increasing restrictions on

trade in ivory would place a greater burden on ivory traders and enforcement agencies.

These comments were mostly from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Regulations are an ineffective action to address the problem of illegal trade in ivory and

suggested alternative actions were required to tackle the problem. For example,

respondents commented that current ivory regulations do not prevent illegal trade, reduce

the demand, or prevent poaching. Suggested actions included increasing audits of legal

ivory, education and awareness raising campaigns and supporting actions in range States to

protect elephants or provide alternative incomes to poaching.

Further restrictions are not sufficient, all ivory trade should be restricted in the EU. This

was most frequently mentioned amongst private individuals. Comments stated that a total

ban is the only way to protect elephants, would signal the EU position, and would be easier

to implement than imposing stricter regulations.

Other comments included opposition to a total ban on ivory trade and a comment regarding

the need to ensure that all CITES authorities operate correctly.

There were a few comments where, despite disagreeing with the statement, respondents

suggested that regulations were not sufficient. These comments included that more

stringent regulations will reduce illegal activity within the EU and abroad, and that further

restrictions should be considered for ivory and all CITES Appendix I species.

*7.5. Opinions, suggestions and supporting evidence on further limitations to intra-EU trade in

elephant ivory

Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and guidance from the campaigns stated that the EU should ban all ivory trade. Examples of repeated comments: “Yes. The EU should ban all ivory trade.” “It is my opinion that the EU completely limit the intra-EU trade in ivory. If exemptions are to be made, then they should be very restricted and regulated with sufficient resources and funding to ensure EU-wide compliance.”



Other responses In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 10 062 responses were provided.

A random sample of 300 comments was analysed, split equally across the four stakeholder groups.

Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the range of

opinions and recommendations given.

270 respondents (90% of comments analysed) supported further restrictions on intra-EU trade in

elephant ivory. Most stakeholder groups supported further restrictions ranging from 100% of private

individuals to 68% of organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Comments providing suggestions or relevant evidence about what restrictions to further limit intra-

EU trade should consist of were analysed and grouped according to categories to reflect the range of

suggestions provided. These are detailed below, in order of frequency:

A total ban on all trade in ivory within the EU. Most of these respondents stated that a total

ban on ivory is necessary to prevent poaching of elephants and further declines of elephant

populations. Other comments included that there is no justification for maintaining a legal

market in ivory when there are viable substitutes available (for example, synthetics are

available for use as piano and organ keys), that there is little demand for ivory within the EU,

a legal market makes enforcement of the regulations difficult due to difficulties

distinguishing between new and old ivory and the legal market provides an opportunity for

illegal ivory to be laundered.

The EU should adopt a stricter ban on intra-EU ivory trade with some exemptions. Most of

these comments from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory. Many respondents

commented on the need to ensure that clear and concise regulations are put in place

regarding authentication to prove an item is eligible for exemption. These exemptions

included, in order of frequency:

o Antique items; Some comments specified that only antiques with less than 200 g of

ivory in weight or less than 5% of the item by volume should be exempt (in line with

US regulations). While dates varied, most suggested 1900 as the appropriate

boundary, reflecting the British Antique Dealers Association (BADA) and the UK’s Her

Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HRMC) definitions of antiques. One respondent

commented that any items exempted as antiques should not have been repaired or

re-worked using ivory since 1900 and one stated that trade should be restricted in

all items of post-1947 worked ivory.

o Museum artefacts; either acquired, displayed or exchanged between registered

museums internationally, including the sale from private individuals to museums.

One respondent stated that the age of the item should be verified by a radiocarbon

test and an independent panel of experts consisting of representatives of notable

institutions.

o Musical instruments; Instruments containing only a small percentage of ivory by

volume (between 5% to 20%) or by weight (between 200 g to 300 g).

o Items for scientific and/or medical purposes;

o Other possible exemptions mentioned by one or two respondents included pre-

1900 portrait miniatures (painted on thin slivers of ivory), furniture dated pre-1900

containing a small proportion of ivory (e.g. less than 200 g by weight) or ivory in-lay,

items acquired legally and items for restoration.

Further restrictions should be applied to intra-EU trade in raw ivory to prevent the (re-)

export of these items to Asia but noted that the EC Guidance Document on EU regime



governing intra-EU trade and (re-)export of ivory (2017/C 154/06)71 published in 2017

addresses this. Most of these comments came from organisations that may deal in ivory.

Although, one respondent commented that, a strictly controlled market for raw ivory should

be maintained for the sole purpose of the restoration of works of art.

Other comments included suggestions for a ban on the use of intra-EU ivory for decorative

purposes, increasing the taxes for sale of ivory items, and increases in the penalties for those

caught trading ivory illegally. One respondent commented that all ivory items should be

catalogued and tracked to prevent illegal ivory from entering the legal trade. Another stated

that a ban could be imposed as an emergency measure but that over the longer term,

education and demand reduction activities were likely to be more effective.

27 respondents (9%), predominantly from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory,

opposed further restrictions on intra-EU trade and stated that the current certification system is

sufficient to prevent fraud. Some respondents added comments that additional restrictions such as a

register of traders and certification of antique items will increase the administrative burden on

traders and will violate the confidentiality and competition laws (by publicly disclosing details of

customers). They also expressed concerns about the lack of standardisation in the use of indelible

marks used to identify items and the potential for this to create a parallel “black market” for non-

registered items.

7.6. Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of trade

within the EU

As shown in Figure 23, the majority of respondents who provided an answer to this question

responded that all ivory items should be restricted for trade within the EU (74 871, 83.4%).

Following this, antique (pre-1947) worked items were the most frequently selected item for

exemption from further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU (9.1%, 8131

respondents) and then pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) worked ivory items (4.1%,

3665 respondents). 5105 (5.7%) of total respondents did not provide a response to this question.

71





Figure 23: Answer to question 6, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813)

Most respondents from all organisation types responded that all ivory items should be restricted for trade within the EU. Except for antiques and auctions organisations where the most frequently selected item for exemption from further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU were antique (pre-1947) worked ivory items (26.1% or 214 respondents for antiques organisations, 22% or 120 respondents for auctions) and repair/restoration, carving and musical instruments organisations where an equal number responded that antique (pre-1947) worked ivory items should be exempt and that all ivory items should be restricted (22% or 115 respondents for repair/restoration, 20% or 73 respondents for carving and 21% or 106 respondents for musical instruments (Figure 24).

74871

8131

3665

2259

1759

1458

1068

889

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

None of the above – all ivory items should be restricted

Antique (pre-1947) worked ivory items

Pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) workedivory items

Musical instruments

Other items

Items containing a small amount of ivory but not madecompletely of ivory (e.g. furniture with ivory inlay)

Small worked ivory items (e.g. weighing less than 200grams)

Raw ivory items

Number of responses



Figure 24:: Answer to question 6, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813), * = less than 100 respondents

*7.6.1. Other items specified


outreach campaigns suggested, if any items should be exempt, that antique items containing a very

small proportion and quantity of ivory should be exempt, e.g. furniture with ivory in-lay or musical

instruments.

Respondents could select “Other items” and provide a text comment to specify what items. A total of 685 comments were provided. A random sample of 100 comments was analysed, split equally by the four stakeholder groups. The main ivory items that respondents specified to be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU are presented below, in order of frequency:

Musical instruments. Most comments specified instruments with only a small amount or percentage of ivory or with ivory in-lay. Instruments of historic value or antiques (pre-1900) were also mentioned. One comment stated musical instruments made “before 1975 that contain less than 20% ivory weighing less than 300 g” acknowledging this would allow most trade in musical instruments to continue as the principal purpose of instruments is for musical performance rather than trade. Other comments suggested instruments with less than 5% ivory and under 200 g or piano keys, violin bows, and bagpipe valves. It was mentioned that ivory should not be used for repairs. Most of these comments came from private individuals.

108

63

115

73

106

77

80

724

66

256

55

612

179

71052

2616

214

120

116

68

103

47

51

259

28

88

19

244

103

6822

662

129

95

81

55

65

33

34

126

21

50

14

117

55

3001

340

133

90

75

50

90

28

31

104

15

39

12

80

51 1719

231

21

19

21

17

21

13

16

74

7

24

8

35

19

1513

148

118

81

56

45

55

26

23

74

14

30

10

48

44 1063

159

72

56

44

37

37

23

20

55

15

25

10

36

34

781 127

24

21

26

20

17

15

19

53

13

19

11

27

20

695

111

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other



Pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) worked ivory items

Musical instruments

Other items

Items containing a small amount of ivory but not made completely of ivory (e.g. furniture with ivory inlay)

Small worked ivory items (e.g. weighing less than 200 grams)

Raw ivory items



Furniture containing a small proportion or quantity of ivory (specified by some as less than 5%) or ivory in-lay. Antique furniture (dated as pre-1947) was often mentioned. Most of these comments came from private individuals.

Antiques that only contain a small amount of ivory. Some comments specified this as less than 200 g of ivory in weight and/or 5% of the item by volume (in line with US regulations). Respondents dated these items as pre-1900 to pre-1950. One comment stated that 1900 would provide a straightforward and practical boundary definition of antique, reflecting the BADA and the UK’s HMRC definitions of antiques. Most of these comments came from NGOs/Other organisations.

Museum artefacts, either acquired, displayed, or exchanged between museums internationally. Some comments mentioned this should include private individuals selling to museums. Other comments specified only recognised museums (e.g. International Council of Museums listed) or museums that have been in existence for at least 10 years prior to an application to prevent establishing a museum with the purpose of laundering ivory. These comments were mainly provided by public bodies, including government agencies, and NGOs/Other organisations.

Items for medical, scientific or educational research purposes.

Works of art, such as heritage works of art, native artwork or art of historic or cultural value. Portrait miniatures (painted on thin slivers of ivory) were mentioned specifically. One comment stated restrictions could be based on total mass of ivory (under 200 g), percentage content by mass, or by the value added to the price of raw ivory.

Knives and cutlery were mentioned by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

A few comments, mainly from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory, mentioned raw ivory or tusks.

Other items mentioned by one or two respondents included jewellery, trinkets, weapons, ivory for traditional Chinese medicine, seized ivory, ivory in stockpiles, hunting trophies, other types of ivory (e.g. mammoth or extinct Pleistocene animals), and ivory from elephants that died from natural causes.

Most respondents stated that any exempt items should only be allowed with proof of legal origin. One comment stated the exemption should be based on the age of the ivory (as defined by an expert), not the quantity or weight. One organisation that has a commercial interest in ivory commented that obtaining CITES permits for auctions was lengthy and complicated; the expertise of experts and auctioneers should be relied on. Other comments suggested either all ivory items should be exempt from further regulations or all ivory items should be subject to restrictions.



7.7. Opinion on whether it would be reasonable and proportionate for the EU to take steps to

tighten the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU72 and the potential impact of such

measures

Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and guidance from most campaigns stated that the EU should ban all trade in ivory. One campaign suggested historical pieces and museum artefacts could be registered on a central database with “carefully documented provenance”. Other responses In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 10 949 responses were provided.


249 respondents (83% of comments analysed) supported taking steps to tighten the regulations on

the control of ivory trade within the EU. Most stakeholder groups supported this, ranging from 95%

of public bodies, including government agencies, to 60% of organisations with a commercial interest

in ivory. Most comments stated that tightening regulations on the control of ivory trade within the

EU would be reasonable and proportionate because the positive environmental impacts of

protecting elephants would outweigh any negative financial or logistical impacts. A few respondents

noted that ivory traders may need to diversify their trading activities and phase out their

dependence on ivory trading to minimise any negative economic impacts to their businesses but

estimated that this would only affect a small number of businesses.

Comments and evidence given to support this opinion were analysed and put into categories to

reflect the range of information provided. In order of frequency, these were:

A total ban on all ivory trade within the EU would be reasonable and proportionate because

it would have a positive impact on elephant populations, it would make enforcement of the

regulations easier and would have a minimal impact on EU consumers and/or traders as the

size of the ivory market within the EU is small. Most of these comments came from

stakeholder groups except organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Several respondents commented specifically on requesting all ivory traders to be included

on a public register. Comments stated that this regulation would add transparency to ivory

trade, make ivory traders more accountable by requiring proof of age/origin and would

reduce opportunities for illegal ivory to be sold. A few comments suggested that ivory

traders should be required to apply for and pay for registration. One respondent from an

organisation that has a commercial interest in ivory stated that they have maintained a

register of ivory items since 1997.

Several respondents commented specifically on the certification of antiques stating this

would prevent modern ivory from being sold fraudulently as “antique” and increase

transparency in the legal ivory trade. A few respondents commented that certification could

have a positive financial impact for ivory traders as it could add value to items authenticated

as genuine and allow businesses to offer certification services. Other related comments

72 For example, by requesting that all ivory traders to be included on public registers or that intra-EU trade in antique items be subject to

the issuing of certificates or declarations.



mentioned that all ivory items should be stamped, that traders should pay for certification,

and that approved experts should be able to certify ivory items as genuine.

Several respondents supported tightening restrictions on the control of ivory trade within

the EU but noted that exemptions would be necessary. Despite free movement within the

EU, a couple of respondents noted that musicians and orchestras could be

disproportionately burdened if checks and documentation were required at Customs and

border crossings, unless musical instruments that contain ivory were exempt. Other

exemptions suggested included antiques (dated pre-1947), furniture, works of art and other

items containing a small proportion of ivory. One respondent commented that solid 100%

ivory carvings should be subject to certification to ensure they pre-date 1947 confirmed by a

third-party verification process.

36 respondents (12%), predominantly from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory,

opposed taking steps to tighten the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU. Comments

stated that this would be particularly unreasonable and disproportionate in the case of antiques and

works of art containing ivory. Several comments opposed certification of antiques and requesting

that all ivory traders are included on public registers on the basis that this would increase

administrative and financial burdens, especially considering that the volume of illegal ivory traded in

the EU is minimal. One respondent commented that tightening restrictions on antiques would not

have any positive environmental impacts because there is no evidence that trade in antiques is

linked with modern day poaching of elephants. A few respondents noted that increasing training for

enforcement personnel and stricter penalties for illegal trade would be more effective in combatting

illegal ivory trafficking than tightening restrictions.

7.8. Further limitations to elephant ivory trade to and from within the EU

Outreach campaigns It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and guidance from campaigns stated that the EU should ban all trade in ivory. Other responses In addition to those comments influenced by a campaign, a total of 11 204 responses were provided.


252 respondents (84% of comments analysed) suggested that the EU should further limit elephant

ivory trade to and from the EU. The majority of all stakeholder groups supported this, ranging from

92% of private individuals to 68% of organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Comments and evidence given to support this opinion were analysed and put into categories to

reflect the range of restrictions and relevant evidence provided. In order of frequency, these were:

Support for a total ban on all ivory trade to and from the EU because it would have a

positive impact on elephant populations, it would make enforcement of the regulations

easier, and could make owning ivory items socially unacceptable. A few respondents

commented that any legal trade creates opportunities for laundering of illegal ivory. This

was the most frequent comment across all stakeholder categories.

All trade in raw ivory and post-1947 items to and from the EU should be banned.

Respondents commented that raw and post-1947 ivory items were most likely to be linked

to recent poaching and that banning such items to and from the EU would prevent elephant

populations declining further. One respondent commented that the EU should ensure that



MS enforce the EC Guidance Document on EU regime governing intra-EU trade and (re-

)export of ivory (2017/C 154/06)71 on the (re-)export of raw ivory. However, another

respondent commented that pre-Convention raw ivory with CITES certificates should be

allowed to be (re-)exported from the EU. Most of these comments came from organisations

with a commercial interest in ivory.

Sanctions and penalties for illegal trade in ivory should be stricter or increased.

The EU should further limit elephant ivory trade to the EU through increased controls on

imports. Comments stated that import restrictions were the most effective way to prevent

trade in raw ivory.

Trade in elephant ivory to and from the EU should be subject to quotas and/or an

authorisation process where the EU approves transactions in advance. Comments stated

that quotas must be set at levels that allow sustainable use of ivory and should be

determined by experts, source countries or the EU.

Other comments made by individual respondents included that taxes should be applied to

trade in ivory, that sales of confiscated ivory items could be allowed in exceptional cases,

that trade should only be allowed in ivory from elephants that have died from natural causes

and that online trade should be subject to increased regulation.

38 respondents (13% of comments analysed) opposed further limits on elephant ivory trade to and

from the EU. Most of these respondents were from organisations with a commercial interest in

ivory. Several respondents commented that the existing regulations are sufficient to prevent illegal

trade and that trade union organisations already operate at national levels to ensure ivory traders

are complying with the existing regulations. Most of these respondents suggested that no further

restrictions were required for antiques (pre-1947 or pre-Convention) so long as these were

authenticated as genuine and, where necessary, were accompanied by a CITES certificate. A few

comments stated that antique items should be freely traded as this type of ivory trade does not

affect living elephants. One respondent suggested that only antiques dated pre-1900 containing a

small proportion of ivory (i.e. less than 20% by volume or 200 g by weight) and ivory items traded

between museums should be exempt. This respondent commented that these exemptions would be

sufficient to also cover most musical instruments containing ivory.

7.9. Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of the (re-

)export of worked ivory from the EU


responded that all ivory items should be restricted for (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to

countries outside the EU (75 787, 84.4%). Following this, antique (pre-1947) worked items were the

most frequently selected item for exemption from further regulations or guidelines regarding (re-)

export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside the EU (7.8%, 6992 respondents) and then

pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) items (3.3%, 2966 respondents). 5423 (6.0%) of total

respondents did not provide a response to this question.



Figure 25: Answer to question 9, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813)

The majority of respondents from all organisation types responded that all ivory items should be restricted for (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside the EU, except for antiques and auction organisations where the most frequently selected item for exemption from further regulations or guidelines regarding (re-)export of worked ivory items from the EU to countries outside the EU was antiques (pre-1947) worked ivory items (26.9% or 203 respondents for antiques, 23.4% or 116 respondents for auctions) (Figure 26).

75787

6992

2966

1757

1466

1012

659

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000


Antique (pre-1947) worked items

Pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) items

Musical instruments

Other items


Small ivory items (e.g. weighing less than 200 grams)

Number of responses



Figure 26 Answer to question 9, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813). * = less than 100 respondents.

7.9.1 Other items specified




instruments.

Respondents could select “Other items” and provide a text comment to specify what items. A total of 552 comments were provided. A random sample of 80 comments was analysed split equally by the four stakeholder groups. The main ivory items that respondents mentioned should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU are presented below, in order of frequency:

Musical instruments. Most respondents mentioned instruments with only a small amount or percentage of ivory or with ivory in-lay. Antique (dated as pre-1947 or pre-1960) instruments were commonly mentioned. One comment provided a reference to advice clarifying the regulations for musical instruments that contain a small amount of ivory in the USA published by The Recording Academy73. Most of these comments came from private individuals and NGOs/Other organisations.

73

https://www.grammy.com/advocacy/learn/musical-instruments-containing-ivory

112

67

125

77

111

81

82

736

72

261

59

645

185

71905

2646

203

116

104

64

95

44

46

219

20

83

18

203

95

5845

579

124

83

70

49

58

31

31

92

16

43

13

89

52

2421

277

124

87

66

47

85

28

28

85

10

34

10

63

44

1326

173

18

12

20

11

14

10

9

67

4

21

5

26

16

1256

125

101

73

43

37

41

22

19

59

10

21

9

37

33

740

93

72

57

37

32

37

20

19

38

7

16

8

30

25

462

79

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other




Musical instruments

Other items


https://www.grammy.com/advocacy/learn/musical-instruments-containing-ivory



Furniture containing a very small proportion and quantity of ivory or with ivory in-lay. Many of these comments mentioned antique furniture. Most of these comments came from private individuals.

Antiques (dated as pre-1947 or pre-1900) containing a small proportion and quantity of ivory (i.e. less than 200 g and amounting to less than 20% of the overall item). It was mentioned that new ivory should not have been used for repairs. Most of these comments came from NGOs/Other organisations.

Museum artefacts should be allowed for exchanges between museums or for transfer to public collections. One comment stated that these museums should fully comply with the definition of a museum used by the International Council of Museums, and there should be a requirement to have been established for at least 10 years prior to attempting to procure ivory items. Such comments were provided by all stakeholder groups, excluding organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Pre-existing items already within the EU, with proof of legal origin. One comment suggested allowing a period for these items to be certified.

Knives and cutlery were mentioned by organisations with a commercial interest in ivory.

Other items mentioned by two or three respondents included other types of ivory (for example narwhal, mammoth and other extinct Pleistocene animals), works of art, raw ivory, unspecified items containing a small proportion of ivory, tusks dated pre-1990, and ivory from elephants that died from natural causes. One comment from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory mentioned that ivory should only be used for restoring antiques.

Most respondents stated that any exempt items should only be allowed with proof of legal origin (that the item is pre-1900 or has cultural value) provided by the trader. Other comments specified either all ivory items should be exempt from further regulations or all ivory items should be subject to restrictions.

7.10 Possible exemptions with regards to any further regulations or guidelines in terms of the

import of worked ivory into the EU


responded that all ivory items should be restricted for import of ivory to the EU from countries

outside the EU (76 068, 84.7%). Following this, antique (pre-1947) worked items were the most

frequently selected item for exemption from further regulations or guidelines regarding import of

ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU (7.4%, 6637 respondents) and then pre-Convention

(acquired between 1947-1990) items (3.0%, 2738 respondents). 5520 (6.1%) of total respondents did

not provide a response to this question.



Figure 27: Answer to question 10, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813)

Most respondents representing NGOs (58.6%), IGOs (48.3%), government agencies (54.2%),

enforcement agencies (46.2%), research institutes/universities (60.2%), membership and trade

associations (41.2%), private individuals (86.3%) and other (67.7%) organisations responded that all

ivory items should be restricted for import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU.

Respondents representing antiques, repair/restoration, musical instruments and export/import

operators responded most frequently that small ivory items (e.g. weighing less than 200 g) should be

exempt from further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory items to the EU from

countries outside the EU (47.4%, 45.1%, 38.2% and 36.1% respectively). Respondents representing

auctions, carving and hunting organisations responded most frequently that hunting trophies should

be exempt (57.3%, 47.5% and 40.4% respectively) (Figure 28)

76068

6637

2738

1600

1366

926

567

353

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000




Musical instruments

Other items



Hunting trophies




Figure 28: Answer to question 10, section D of the public consultation “In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU?” In absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer, respondents could select multiple items (n = 89 813) * = less than 100 respondents

7.10.1 Other items specified It should be noted that many responses were in line with an outreach campaign and guidance from



instruments.

Respondents could select “Other items” and provide a text comment to specify what items. A total of 470 comments were provided. A random sample of 70 comments was analysed, split equally by the four stakeholder groups. The main ivory items that respondents mentioned should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU are presented below, in order of frequency:

Musical instruments. Most respondents mentioned instruments containing a small amount or proportion of ivory e.g. violin bows, acoustic guitars. Some mentioned antique (dated as pre-1947) instruments. One comment specified musical instruments made “before 1975 that contain less than 20% ivory weighing less than 300 g” should be exempt as this would allow most trade in musical instruments to continue as the principal purpose of instruments is for musical performance rather than trade. Most of these comments came from NGOs/other organisations and private individuals.

114

65

133

81

115

83

85

753

72

259

60

655

190

72135

2671

195

117

100

63

90

45

45

196

20

77

18

184

90

5549

556

116

79

66

43

54

30

28

84

14

41

12

76

47

2249

248

121

89

63

47

74

25

28

69

10

31

10

59

45 1199

159

14

19

15

8

10

10

11

67

6

21

5

28

17

1176 109

107

79

44

38

41

21

22

51

11

21

9

35

33 647

96

70

54

36

30

32

18

18

34

7

16

8

30

23

387

65

28

28

17

19

13

11

21

31

9

12

8

21

16

249

43

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AntiquesAuctions

Repair/RestorationCarving

Musical InstrumentsExport/Import Operator

HuntingNGOIGO

Government agencyEnforcement authority*

Research institute/UniversityMembership/ Trade Association

Private IndividualsOther




Musical instruments

Other items (please specify below)



Hunting trophies



Furniture containing a very small amount or proportion of ivory or with ivory in-lay. Antique items (dated as pre-1947) was often mentioned. Most of these comments came from private individuals.

Antiques containing only small amounts of ivory (200 g and/or amounting to 5%–20% of the overall item, in line with US regulations). Respondents dated these items as pre-1900 or pre-1947. One comment stated that 1900 would provide a straightforward definition of antique and reflects the BADA and the UK HMRC definitions of antiques. Some respondents mentioned that the item should not have been reworked or repaired with new ivory. Most of these comments came from NGOs/other organisations.

Museum artefacts, either acquired, displayed, or exchanged between museums internationally. Some comments mentioned this should include private individuals selling to museums. One comment specified this trade should be restricted to recognised museums (e.g. International Council of Museums listed), and that museums must have been in existence for at least 10 years prior to an application to purchase ivory, in order to prevent establishing a museum with the purpose of laundering ivory.

A few comments, mainly from organisations who may deal with ivory, mentioned items made from ivory from existing stockpiles or elephants that have died of natural causes.

A few organisations with a commercial interest in ivory also mentioned knives and cutlery.

Other items mentioned by a few respondents included hunting trophies dated pre-1947, works of art (pre-1947) to return to their country of origin, objects for scientific research, and ivory tusks (dated as pre-1990). One comment mentioned imports from Japan to the EU should be restricted.

Many respondents stated that any exempt items should only be allowed with proof of legal origin

(that the item is pre-1990 or has cultural value as provided by the seller). Expert opinion should be

used for dating ivory. One comment stated that the exemption should be based on the age of ivory,

not the weight.

Other comments expressed the view that either all ivory items should be exempt from further regulations or all ivory items should be subject to restrictions.

7.11 Possible impact of further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU

trade on organisations

As shown in Figure 29, the majority of respondents who provided an answer to this question stated

that possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of

ivory would have a substantial positive impact on them or their organisation (66 003, 73.5%).

Overall, 2122 (2.4%) respondents stated it would have a substantial/moderate negative impact,

5680 (6.3%) respondents stated it would have no impact, 66 976 (74.6%) respondents stated it

would have a substantial/moderate positive impact and 9497 (10.6%) respondents stated they did

not know/not applicable. 5538 (6.2%) of all total respondents did not provide an answer to this

question.


and all outreach campaign guidance stated substantial positive impact.



Figure 295: Answer to question 11, section D of the public consultation “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation?” In absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 84 275).

The majority of respondents from all organisation types responded that possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory would have a substantial/moderate positive impact on them or their organisation except for antiques and auctions organisations of which the majority, 51.2% (132) and 54.3% (89) respectively, responded that possible further EU regulations would have a substantial/moderate negative impact on them (Figure 30).

1790

332

5680

973

66003

9497

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Substantial negative impact

Moderate negative impact

No impact

Moderate positive impact

Substantial positive impact

Don't know/not applicable

Number of responses



Figure 30: Answer to question 11, section D of the public consultation “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation?” In absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage excluding those who provided no answer and answered, “don’t know/not applicable” (n = 84 275) * = less than 100 respondents.

7.11.1 Additional comments provided

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments to support their

response regarding the impacts possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export

and/or intra-EU trade of ivory would have on them or their organisation. A total of 2134 comments

were provided. A random sample of 120 comments was analysed, taking 80 comments for those

who answered “substantial/moderate positive impact” and 40 comments for those who answered

“substantial/moderate negative impact”. This sample was split equally across the four stakeholder

groups (excluding those who gave no answer or answered, “No impact” or “Don’t know/not

applicable”). Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the

range of comments provided.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who stated there would be a positive impact

(“substantial/moderate positive impact”) in response to the question “What impact (e.g. financial,

logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export

and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation?” identified the following positive

impacts (in order of frequency):

Positive impacts on the environment For example, this included preventing poaching of elephants, ensuring that elephant

populations can recover and the future survival of species, protecting and improving the

welfare of elephants and safeguarding biodiversity and improving the planet.

Positive impacts on humans and society For example, this included protecting elephants and the planet for the enjoyment of future

generations, reducing guilt about the poaching of elephants, generating public awareness

for elephants and wider conservation, and improving the reputation of humans through

living more sustainably with nature.

Positive impacts on organisations

100

60

46

37

41

18

22

61

8

23

11

36

37

1488

117

32

29

21

10

20

8

8

19

1

12

12

6

207 37

49

21

53

18

45

36

22

224

22

62

10

220

59

4713

518

10

4

11

2

4

5

4

39

2

10

2

32

6

826

85

67

50

80

52

70

38

46

477

41

153

36

407

122

63484

1767

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO*

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other

Substantial negative impact Moderate negative impact No impact

Moderate positive impact Substantial positive impact



- NGOs/Other organisations stated that a total ban on all ivory trade in the EU would support their organisations objectives and allow them to focus on other issues.

- Organisations with a commercial interest in ivory stated that further regulations or guidelines would help to improve the reputation of legal ivory traders and lead to the creation of new artistic materials.

- Other impacts mentioned included reducing the risk of danger to those working in the ivory trade (e.g. researchers, rangers etc.) and increasing tourism within elephant range States.

Positive impacts on government and enforcement agencies For example, this included simplifying regulations, reducing demand for ivory, ivory

trafficking and opportunities for corruption which would all make it easier for enforcement

to control trade. Other positive impacts mentioned included building trust for the

government system, increasing pride to be an EU citizen, and allowing for funding to be re-

allocated to other issues e.g. improving local economies in Africa.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who stated there would be a negative impact

(“substantial/moderate negative impact”) in response to the question “What impact (e.g. financial,

logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export

and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation?” identified the following negative

impacts (in order of frequency):

Negative impacts to organisations with a commercial interest in ivory For example, this included creating a negative perception and stigmatism towards legal ivory trade (such as antiques), financial losses from not being able to sell or purchase ivory items and a loss of livelihoods and expertise for craftsman. Other negative impacts included a risk of antique ivory items being destroyed by Customs, additional administrative and/or logistical costs of complying with additional regulations such as providing proof of legality (e.g. through carbon date testing) and difficulties in understanding the regulations.

Negative impacts to society For example, a loss of cultural heritage and potential destruction of European art history,

which was particularly significant for museum collections.

Other negative impacts For example, increased illegal trade as more items would be available to circulate within the illegal market; encouraging poaching.

Despite answering that further EU regulations or guidelines would have a negative impact, many

additional comments provided seemed to be concerned with positive impacts on elephants, such as

reducing poaching, improved welfare for elephants and ensuring survival of the species. These

comments were mostly from private individuals and NGOs/Other organisations.

7.12 Possible impact of further EU restrictions on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory

items on elephant poaching and international illegal ivory trade.


responded that possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU

trade of ivory would have a substantial positive impact on elephant poaching and international

illegal trade of ivory (72 188, 80.4%). Overall, 4643 (5.2%) respondents stated that it would have a

substantial/moderate negative impact, 1005 (1.1%) respondents stated that it would have no

impact, 74 877 (83.4%) respondents stated that it would have a substantial/moderate positive



impact and 4179 (4.7%) respondents stated that they did not know/not applicable. 5109 (5.7%) of all

total respondents did not provide a response to this question.


and all outreach campaign guidance stated substantial positive impact.

Figure 31: Answer to question 12, section D of the public consultation “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU restrictions on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory?” In absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer (n = 84 704)

The majority of respondents from all organisation types responded that possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory would have a substantial/moderate positive impact on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory ranging from 54.0% of antiques organisations to 93.7% of private individuals (Figure 32).

3654

989

1005

2689

72188

4179

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000



No impact




Number of responses



Figure 32: Answer to question 12, section D of the public consultation “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU restrictions on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory?” In absolute numbers of respondents expressed as a percentage by organisation type excluding those who provided no answer and answered “don’t know/not applicable” (n = 84 704) * = less than 100 respondents

7.12.1 Additional comments provided

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any additional comments to support their

response regarding the impacts possible further EU restrictions would have on elephant poaching

and international illegal trade of ivory. A total of 2961 comments were provided. A random sample

of 180 comments was analysed, taking 100 comments for those who answered

“substantial/moderate positive impact” and 80 comments for those who answered

“substantial/moderate negative impact”. This sample was split equally across the four stakeholder

groups (excluding those who gave no answer or answered, “no impact” or “don’t know/not

applicable”). Comments were analysed in depth and grouped according to categories to reflect the

range of comments provided.

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who stated there would be a positive impact

(“substantial/ positive impact”) in response to the question “What impact would possible further EU

restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please provide any

additional comments” identified the following points (in order of frequency):

Positive impacts on levels of poaching For example, this included reducing poaching, protecting elephants and allowing the

recovery of elephant populations. Other positive impacts from reduced poaching included

increased safety for individuals protecting wildlife (e.g. rangers) and a benefit to the

communities and economies of elephant range States.

Positive impacts on the level of international illegal trade of ivory For example, this included reducing the amount of international illegal ivory trade,

disrupting existing trade routes and reducing the global demand for ivory. A reduction in

demand would also lead to a reduction in the economic value of ivory which in turn would

reduce potential profits and attractiveness of ivory trading to organised criminal groups.

58

34

36

23

24

18

22

113

13

38

14

77

41 3191

262

17

13

13

7

12

5

8

29

2

9

28

8

814

104

41

22

28

12

24

11

11

35

3

12

2

21

16 804

91

28

17

21

12

23

10

11

75

4

35

5

78

21

2292

207

108

66

111

68

100

68

63

666

59

215

47

571

176

68832

2272

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Antiques

Auctions

Repair/Restoration

Carving

Musical Instruments


Hunting

NGO

IGO*

Government agency




Private Individuals

Other

Substantial negative impact Moderate negative impact No impact

Moderate positive impact Substantial positive impact



Positive impacts on international legislation Further EU restrictions would set an example for other countries to follow and create

political pressure.

Other positive impacts These included making it easier for enforcement to control legal trade and increased public

awareness of the issue.

Other comments mentioned that alongside further EU restrictions, global action was needed within elephant range States and key consumer locations (e.g. within Asia).

The analysis of comments provided by respondents who stated there would be a negative impact

(“substantial/moderate negative impact”) in response to the question “What impact would possible

further EU restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please

provide any additional comments” identified the following points (in order of frequency):

Despite answering that possible further EU restrictions would have a negative impact, the majority of comments clarified that the “negative impact” referred to a reduction on poaching and illegal trade which would in turn lead to a positive impact overall and on elephant populations.

Negative impact on the levels of international illegal trade of ivory This included that restrictions could result in increasing the black market and illegal trade and that poachers and illegal traders will use other routes to continue trading. One respondent commented that better enforcement will be necessary to prevent this. Several comments stated that more illegal trade takes place outside the EU, particularly destined for Asia or the USA therefore actions should be focused on the root causes in larger consumer markets and African range States rather than legal antiques trade in the EU. One respondent referenced the importance of community engagement to do this74.

Negative impacts on the levels of elephant poaching This included an increase in elephant poaching. One comment stated that banning (re-) exports of pre-Convention ivory would reduce available supplies of existing ivory, therefore poaching would increase to meet the existing global demand. One respondent also mentioned that those who rely on poaching for their livelihoods will need alternative sources of income.

Other negative impacts - For example, banning hunting trophies would undermine local conservation efforts

within range States, poaching could be displaced to other species to meet demand for ivory (e.g. hippo) and significant effort will be required to adjust to new regulations.

- For organisations that have a commercial interest in ivory, these included causing difficulties for the sale of legal antiques such as additional financial and logistical costs (e.g. for dating ivory items) to comply with new regulations and discouraging customers from purchasing.

74

http://pubs.iied.org/X00174/?a=R+Cooney

http://pubs.iied.org/X00174/?a=R+Cooney



8 Section E: Other Information

8.1. Studies (published or ongoing) relating to EU ivory trade

References were provided by 3077 respondents in answer to question 8.1 (“Please provide details of

any studies (published or ongoing) you are aware of relating to ivory trade relevant in the EU”).

These consisted of journal articles, reports, newspaper and magazine articles, websites, books, TV

documentaries and films. Table 13 provides a list of references published or ongoing in the last five

years (except for newspaper and magazine articles which are provided for the last year).

Table 13 References (published or ongoing in the last five years) provided by respondents relating to ivory trade relevant in the EU in alphabetical order.

Journal articles

Allgood, B., Ratchford, M., & LaFontaine, P. (2013). U.S. IVORY TRADE: Can a crackdown on trafficking save

the last titan? Animal Law 20(1): 27.

Bennett, E.L. (2015). Legal ivory trade in a corrupt world and its impact on African elephant populations.

Conservation Biology 29(1): 54-60.

Brennan, A. & Kalsi, J. (2015). Elephant poaching & ivory trafficking problems in Sub-Saharan Africa: An

application of O'Haras principles of political economy. Ecological Economics 120: 312-337.

Cerling, T., et al. (2016). Radiocarbon dating of seized ivory confirms rapid decline in African elephant

populations and provides insight into illegal trade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(47):

13330-13335.

Chase, M. J., et al. (2016). Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants.

PeerJ 4(8) (http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/)

Chu, Y., et al. (2015). A Sustainable Substitute for Ivory: the Jarina Seed from the Amazon. Scientific Reports

5(1).

Collins, A., Cox, C. and Pamment, N. (2017). Culture, Conservation and Crime: Regulating Ivory Markets for

Antiques and Crafts. Ecological Economics 135: 186-194.

Coutu, A., et al. (2016). Mapping the Elephants of the 19th Century East African Ivory Trade with a Multi-

Isotope Approach. PLoS ONE 11(10).

Dublin, H. T. (2017). African Elephant Specialist Group report. Pachyderm 58

Goldenberg, S. & Wittemyer, G. (2017). Orphaned female elephant social bonds reflect lack of access to

mature adults. Scientific Reports 7(1).

Guldemond, R., Purdon, A. & van Aarde, R. (2017). A systematic review of elephant impact across Africa. PLOS

ONE 12(6)

Harvey, R., Alden, C., & Wu, Y. (2017). Speculating a Fire Sale: Options for Chinese Authorities in

Implementing a Domestic Ivory Trade Ban, Ecological Economics, 141: 22-31.

Hsiang, S. & Sekar, N. (2016). Does Legalization Reduce Black Market Activity? Evidence from a Global Ivory

Experiment and Elephant Poaching Data. NBER Working Paper No. 22314.

Kideghesho, J. R. (2016). The Elephant poaching crisis in Tanzania: a need to reverse the trend and the way

forward. Tropical Conservation Science 9(1): 369-388.

Lee, E., et al. (2013). The identification of elephant ivory evidences of illegal trade with mitochondrial

cytochrome b gene and hypervariable D-loop region. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 20(3): 174-178.

http://www.greatelephantcensus.com/



Lusseau, D. & Lee, P. (2016). Can We Sustainably Harvest Ivory? Current Biology 26(21): 2951-2956.

Maxwell, S., et al. (2016). Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536 (7615): 143-145.

Morell, V. (2016). Recently killed elephants are fuelling the ivory trade. Science

Naidoo, R., et al. (2016). Estimating economic losses to tourism in Africa from the illegal killing of

elephants. Nature Communications 7: 13379.

Poulsen, J., et al. (2017). Poaching empties critical Central African wilderness of forest elephants. Current

Biology 27(4):134-135.

Poulsen, J., et al (2017). The ecological consequences of forest elephant declines for Afrotropical

forests. Conservation Biology.

Raubenheimer, E. & Miniggio, H. (2016). Ivory Harvesting Pressure on the Genome of the African Elephant: A

Phenotypic Shift to Tusklessness. Head and Neck Pathology 10(3): 332-335.

Robson, A., et al. (2017). Savanna elephant numbers are only a quarter of their expected values. PLoS ONE

12(4)

Underwood, F.M., Burn, R. W., & Milliken, T. (2013). Dissecting the Illegal Ivory Trade: An Analysis of Ivory

Seizures Data. PLoS ONE 8(10)

Van Nguyen, N. & Willemsen, M. (2015). Assessment of the Availability of Ivory in the Vietnamese Market.

TRAFFIC Bulletin 27(2): 59-65

Wasser, S., et al. (2015). Genetic assignment of large seizures of elephant ivory reveals Africa's major

poaching hotspots. Science 349(6243): 84-87.

Wittemyer, G., Daballen, D., & Douglas-Hamilton, I. (2011). Poaching policy: rising ivory prices threaten

elephants. Nature 476(7360): 282-283.

Wittemyer, G., et al. 2014). Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences 111(36): 13117-13121.

Yu, Y., et al. (2017). Significant and timely ivory trade restrictions in both China and the United States are

critical to save elephants. Conservation Letters 10: 596–601.

Zhang, L. (2015). China must act decisively to eradicate the ivory trade: the continued existence of large

stockpiles of legal raw ivory in the country is hampering China's promises to save the elephant. Nature

527(7577): 135.

Other reports

Ares, E. & Pratt, A. (2017). Trade in Ivory: UK and International Policy and Regulation. Briefing Paper No.

7875. House of Commons Library, London, UK

Cox, C. (2017). The Elephant in the Sale Room. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (2017). Banning UK sales of ivory. Department for

Environment Food & Rural Affairs, UK

Deutscher Bundestag (2016). Illegalen Elfenbeinhandel stoppen – Afrikanische Elefanten schützen.

Drucksache 18/10494

Mundy, V. (2014). The Re-export of pre-Convention/antique ivory from the European Union. Report prepared

for the European Commission.

Pratt A, & Sutherland N. (2016). The UK Ivory Trade. Debate Pack No. CDP-0234. House of Commons Library,

London, UK



Sollund, R. & Maher, J. (2015). The illegal wildlife trade. A Case Study report on the Illegal Wildlife Trade in the

United Kingdom, Norway, Colombia and Brazil. A study compiled as part of the EFFACE project. University of

Oslo and University of South Wales.

Newspaper & magazine articles (published in the last year)

Anon. (2017). Illegaler Handel mit Elfenbein erreicht Rekordwert. Zeit Online (Germany).

http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2017-10/cites-elfenbein-handel-afrika-zunahme-jagd-elefanten 24

October

Bale, R. (2017). World’s Biggest Ivory Market Shutting Down—What It Means. National Geographic

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/wildlife-watch-china-elephant-ivory-trafficking-ban/ 31

March

Dehmer, D. (2017). Tonnenschweres Geschäft. Der Tagesspiegel (Germany).

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/elfenbein-handel-tonnenschweres-geschaeft/19355162.html 2

February

Farand, C. (2017). Ivory stained with tea to make it look older and bypass the law sold in UK, WWF says. The

Independent (UK). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ivory-tea-stained-1947-law-uk-

parliament-debate-a7564171.html 7 February

Garric, A. (2017). L’éléphant d’Afrique en danger de mort. Le Monde (France).

http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2017/08/23/l-elephant-d-afrique-en-danger-de-

mort_5175486_1652692.html 23 August

Habekuß, F. (2017). Elfenbein: Gemetzel als Business. Zeit Online (Germany).

http://www.zeit.de/2017/15/elfenbein-handel-china-verbot-schutz-elefanten-wilderei 6 April

Hepworth, R. & Jones, M. (2017). What has the EU got to do with elephant protection? New Europe (UK).

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/eu-got-elephant-protection 6 November

Larsson, N. (2017). China's ivory ban sparks dramatic drop in prices across Asia. The Guardian (UK).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/02/chinas-ivory-ban-sparks-dramatic-drop-in-prices-

across-asia 2 June

Lee, G. (2017). Is the UK lagging behind on stopping the ivory trade? Channel 4 News (UK).

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-the-uk-lagging-behind-on-stopping-the-ivory-trade

6 Oct

Lusa (2017). Caça ao marfim mata 80% dos elefantes de uma reserva no Gabão. Diário de Notícias (Portugal).

https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/caca-ao-marfim-mata-80-dos-elefantes-de-uma-reserva-no-gabao-

5680165.html 20 February

Nelson, A. (2017). EU set to ban raw ivory exports from July. The Guardian (UK).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/22/eu-set-to-ban-raw-ivory-exports-from-july-

elephants-poaching 22 February

Palacios, C. J. (2017). El marfil de sangre aniquila a los últimos elefantes. 20 Minutos (Spain).

https://blogs.20minutos.es/cronicaverde/2017/07/07/el-marfil-de-sangre-aniquila-a-los-ultimos-elefantes/ 7

July

Tremblay, S. (2017). Leading elephant conservationist shot dead in Tanzania. The Guardian (UK).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/17/leading-elephant-conservationist-ivory-shot-

dead-in-tanzania 17 August

Valdehíta, C. (2017). Cazadores furtivos matan a Satao II, el elefante emblemático de Kenia. El Mundo (Spain).

http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2017/03/07/58be8230e5fdea0d4b8b45b6.html 3 July

http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2017-10/cites-elfenbein-handel-afrika-zunahme-jagd-elefanten

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/wildlife-watch-china-elephant-ivory-trafficking-ban/

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/weltspiegel/elfenbein-handel-tonnenschweres-geschaeft/19355162.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ivory-tea-stained-1947-law-uk-parliament-debate-a7564171.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ivory-tea-stained-1947-law-uk-parliament-debate-a7564171.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2017/08/23/l-elephant-d-afrique-en-danger-de-mort_5175486_1652692.html

http://www.lemonde.fr/biodiversite/article/2017/08/23/l-elephant-d-afrique-en-danger-de-mort_5175486_1652692.html

http://www.zeit.de/2017/15/elfenbein-handel-china-verbot-schutz-elefanten-wilderei

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/eu-got-elephant-protection/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/02/chinas-ivory-ban-sparks-dramatic-drop-in-prices-across-asia

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/02/chinas-ivory-ban-sparks-dramatic-drop-in-prices-across-asia

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-is-the-uk-lagging-behind-on-stopping-the-ivory-trade

https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/caca-ao-marfim-mata-80-dos-elefantes-de-uma-reserva-no-gabao-5680165.html

https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/caca-ao-marfim-mata-80-dos-elefantes-de-uma-reserva-no-gabao-5680165.html



https://blogs.20minutos.es/cronicaverde/2017/07/07/el-marfil-de-sangre-aniquila-a-los-ultimos-elefantes/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/17/leading-elephant-conservationist-ivory-shot-dead-in-tanzania

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/17/leading-elephant-conservationist-ivory-shot-dead-in-tanzania

http://www.elmundo.es/ciencia/2017/03/07/58be8230e5fdea0d4b8b45b6.html



Xinqi, S. (2017). Ivory buyers will ‘wipe out elephants in 10 years’ says wildlife expert, pointing blame at

Chinese traders. South China Morning Post (China). http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-

environment/article/2097336/wildlife-crime-expert-appeals-hong-kong-government 7 June

Non-governmental organisations reports/websites

Ceballos, E. (2013) Internet trade of elephant ivory in Africa and Asia. Campaigns Against the Cruelty to

Animals and the Animal Conservation and Welfare Foundation.

Couto, M. (2014). Abordagem estratégica para o combate ao tráfico ilegal de fauna e caça furtiva de

elefantes e rinocerontes. WWF Moçambique.

Edwards, G. & Lo, C. (2015). The Hard Truth. How Hong Kong’s Ivory Trade is Fuelling Africa’s Elephant

Poaching Crisis. WWF-Hong Kong

Environmental Investigation Agency (2017). A briefing on large-scale ivory seizures and convictions. UK

Environmental Investigation Agency (2017). Briefing document on CITES National Ivory Action Plans (NIAPs)

Environmental Investigation Agency (2017). Illegal trade seizures: Elephant ivory in Europe. Mapping the

crimes. https://eia-international.org/illegal-trade-seizures-elephant-ivory-europe

Environmental Investigation Agency (2017). THE SHUIDONG CONNECTION: Exposing the global hub of the

illegal ivory trade

EU Ivory Trade: The Need for Stricter Measures. Paper submitted to the European Commission (2017).

Collaboration between 30 NGOs including Born Free Foundation, David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation,

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Eurogroup for Animals, Humane Society International (HSI) Europe,

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Pro Wildlife, Robin Des Bois and World Conservation Society

IFAW (2013). Bidding against survival: The Elephant Poaching Crisis and the Role of Auctions

IFAW (2017). EU Ivory Trade Kills Elephants. Briefing Paper

IFAW (2017). Ivory Seizures in Europe 2006 – 2015

Interpol and IFAW (2013). Project Web: An Investigation into the Ivory Trade over the Internet within the

European Union

iworry (2014). Dead or Alive: Valuing an elephant. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, UK

Kramer, R., et al. (2017). The US elephant ivory market: A new baseline. TRAFFIC, Washington, DC, USA

Lau, W., et al. (2016). A rapid survey of UK ivory markets. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK

Martin, E & Vigne, L. (2017). Decline in the Legal Ivory Trade in China in Anticipation of a Ban. Save The

Elephants, Nairobi, Kenya

Nkoke, S.C. et al. (2017). Ivory Markets in Central Africa – Market Surveys in Cameroon, Central African

Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Gabon: 2007, 2009, 2014/2015. TRAFFIC, Yaoundé,

Cameroon and Cambridge, UK.

Two Million Tusks (2017). Ivory: The Grey Areas. UK

Xu, Y. et al. (2016). An Act to Save African Elephants: A Ban on Commercial Ivory Trade in China, A Feasibility

Study Briefing. WWF and TRAFFIC, Beijing, China.

Zhao, Y., et al. (2017). REVISITING CHINA’S IVORY MARKETS IN 2017. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2097336/wildlife-crime-expert-appeals-hong-kong-government

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2097336/wildlife-crime-expert-appeals-hong-kong-government

https://eia-international.org/illegal-trade-seizures-elephant-ivory-europe



Other sources (e.g. websites, books, TV documentaries and films)

Anthony, L., Feldman, T. and Spence, G. (2017) The Elephant Whisperer. Henry Holt and Company (BYR), New

York.

BBC (2016) Saving Africa’s Elephants: Hugh and the Ivory War (TV documentary)

bloodyivory.com (2017) (http://bloodyivory.org)

Kolbert, E. (2014). The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Moreau, A. & Wenger M. (2016). L’Ivoire de Boko Haram. La Libre.Be, Belgium

http://dossiers.lalibre.be/livoiredebokoharam/index.php

Netflix (2016). The Ivory Game. https://www.netflix.com/title/80117533 (Film)

YouTube (2013). Last Days of Ivory Lastdaysofivory.com (https://youtu.be/5gQujyNDp98) (Film)

http://bloodyivory.org/

http://dossiers.lalibre.be/livoiredebokoharam/index.php

https://www.netflix.com/title/80117533

http://lastdaysofivory.com/

https://youtu.be/5gQujyNDp98



8.2 Final comments

In total, 11 121 comments were provided. A random sample of 300 comments was analysed split

equally across the stakeholder groups. Comments were analysed and grouped to reflect the range of

comments provided. In order of frequency, these were:

Concerns about declining elephant populations, poaching of elephants, opposition to any

use of ivory, and support for conserving biodiversity. Many comments noted that elephants

are a keystone species that play an important ecological function and that it is vital that they

be protected. This was the most frequent comment across all stakeholder groups.

Support for a total ban on all ivory trade. These comments included that there is no reason

to maintain a legal market for a non-essential item, a legal market is open to criminal

exploitation and it would send a clear message about the EU’s commitment to end illegal

ivory trafficking. One respondent commented that a total ban is a necessary short-term

emergency measure but suggested that sustainable legal trade may be possible in the

future. Most of these comments came from NGOs/Other organisations.

Actions required inside the EU. Several comments stated that the EU had a responsibility to

act immediately and to set an example for the rest of the world. These actions included

tightening restrictions, increasing the monitoring of the ivory trade and raising awareness.

Other actions to combat poaching and illegal ivory trafficking that the EU should focus on.

Actions included supporting range States to protect elephants and their habitat and working

with other countries (particularly mainland China) to reduce global demand for ivory.

Specific suggestions were to lease land in range States to create larger protected areas for

elephants, funding anti-poaching patrols, restricting trophy hunting, and marking elephants’

tusks to aid identification of newly poached ivory entering the market.

Several respondents from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory commented that

there is no evidence linking trade in antiques containing ivory with modern day poaching

and urged the EU to maintain the existing regulations regarding antiques (pre-1947). A

couple of comments suggested musical instruments containing ivory made pre-1990 should

also be exempt for similar reasons and to allow travel for performance and re-sale.

Other comments from organisations with a commercial interest in ivory were made

regarding the impact of further restrictions on their organisations. These included that

restrictions would threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people globally, could result in

the loss of traditional skills and expertise, and wrongly sends the message that antiques

traders are contributing to poaching. Several respondents urged the EU to consider the

cultural importance and historical contribution to art of ivory. Another respondent

commented that if a total ban on trade in ivory were implemented without compensation,

this might impact on private property rights (including those entrenched under the Protocol

One, Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights)75.

Enforcement needs to be improved through stricter penalties, better monitoring of imports,

immediate prison sentences, and improved knowledge of the supply chain. One respondent

suggested that a specialized taskforce be used to detect and prosecute those involved in

illegal ivory trade and one commented that a total reform of CITES regulations is required.

Trade (and restoration of ivory items) in ivory should be allowed using existing stocks of

ivory such as from elephants that have died naturally, stockpiles (rather than burning them),

seized ivory items, and tusks that have been removed for safety reasons. One respondent

noted that sales of minimal amounts of raw ivory (20g) should be allowed for restoration

75

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf



purposes. These comments were predominantly from organisations with a commercial

interest in ivory and public bodies, including government agencies.

Substitutes for ivory exist, such as bone, polymers, vegetable ivory made from palm trees

(currently used in Ecuador and Panama) and bio-chemical engineering.

Finally, several respondents provided feedback on the questionnaire design or thanked the

Commission for consulting on this issue.



Annex I: Tables and Figures

Table 14: Comments to all open questions from all respondents, once responses influenced by a campaign were segregated, and sample of comments analysed

Section – Question Total no. of comments

after campaign responses segregated

No. of comments

sampled

B - All questions 177 177

C1. Scale of illegal trade compared to legal trade 3374 300

C2. Scale of illegal trade compared to international 1838 260

C3. Proportion from elephants poached today 2285 260

C4. Main items involved in illegal trade 3454 300

C6. Links between legal and illegal 2583 300

C7. Most important problems 7740 300

D1. Other priorities for the EU 1059 100

D2. Support actions in range States 4107 200

D3. Make people aware of rules 2914 180

D4. Further restrictions on trade 1943 165

D5. Limit intra-EU trade 10 062 300

D6. Other exemptions 685 100

D7. Tighten regulations in EU 10 949 300

D8. Limit trade to and from EU 11 204 300

D9. Other exemptions (re-)export 552 80

D10. Other exemptions import 470 70

D11. Impact on your organisation 2134 120

D12. Impact on poaching and international trade 2961 180

TOTAL 38 276 3992



Table 15: Comments given in response to question 1, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU? Please provide any evidence to support your opinion" by stakeholder group, excluding responses influenced by campaigns (n = 3374)

What is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU?

Comments from

organisations with a

commercial interest in ivory

Comments from

NGO/Other Organisation

s

Comments from

private individual

s

Comments from public

bodies, including

government agencies

Total number of comments


69 184 1782 78 2113

Illegal trade is slightly larger in scale

5 15 127 7 154

About the same 7 10 91 6 114

Illegal trade is slightly smaller in scale than legal trade

- 6 26 - 32

Illegal trade is much smaller

32 10 32 2 76

Don't know 47 70 639 24 780

Total 161 300 2796 117 3374

Table 16: Samples of comments taken in response to question 1, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU? Please provide any evidence to support your opinion" by answer and stakeholder group (n = 406)

What is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU?

Comments from


commercial interest in

ivory

Comments from


Comments from

Private Individuals


bodies, including

government agencies


Illegal trade is much/slightly larger in scale than legal trade

75 75 75 75 300

Illegal trade is much/slightly smaller in scale than legal trade

32 16 56 2 106

Total 107 91 131 77 406



Table 17:: Sampled comments to question 1, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU? Please provide evidence to support your opinion" “Much/slightly larger” by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 297)

Evidence to support why the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much/slightly larger than the legal trade to/from within the EU

Comments from



ivory

Comments from

NGO/Other organisations

Comments from Private

Individual

Comments from public bodies, inc.

government agencies


Sources of information 26 31 37 33 127

Seen or offered illegal ivory

19 8 7 15 49

Poaching, declining elephant populations and illegal activities in Africa

10 17 14 7 48

Current regulations limiting legal trade encourage illegal trade

6 4 2 5 17

EU acts as a transit hub between Africa and Asia

3 1 1 3 8

Driven by money - 3 3 2 8

Other 1 2 - 1 4

No evidence provided 8 9 14 12 43

Total 72 75 75 75 297

Table 18: Sampled comments to question 1, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU? Please provide evidence to support your opinion" “Much/slightly smaller” by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 106)

Evidence to support why the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much/slightly smaller than the legal trade to/from within the EU

Comments from



ivory

Comments from


Comments from

Private Individual

Comments from public bodies,

including government

agencies


The amount of illegal ivory on sale in the EU was minimal or non-existent

26 2 10 1 39


Existing regulations were sufficient to control and ensure only legal trade takes place

1 5 3 - 9

EU could be used as a transit hub

3 3 2 - 8

No evidence provided 2 2 14 - 18

Total 33 16 56 2 107



Table 19: Comments given in response to question 2, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?" by stakeholder group, excluding responses influenced by campaigns (n = 1838)

What is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?

Comments from



Comments from

NGO/Other Organisation

s

Comments from

private individual

s


bodies, including

government agencies



12 38 305 16 371

Illegal EU trade is slightly larger in scale

6 8 102 5 121

About the same 7 31 234 8 280


6 34 247 14 301

Illegal EU trade is much smaller

37 23 181 29 270

Don't know 29 41 407 18 495

Total 97 175 1476 90 1838

Table 20: Samples of comments taken in response to question 2, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?” by answer and stakeholder group (n = 254)

What is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?

Comments from



ivory

Comments from


Comments from

Private Individuals


including government agencies


Illegal EU trade is much/slightly larger in scale than international illegal trade

18 20 20 20 78

Illegal EU trade is much/slightly smaller in scale than international illegal trade

43 45 45 43 176

Total 61 65 65 63 254



Table 21: Sampled comments to question 2, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?” “Much/slightly larger” by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 78)

Evidence to support why the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much/slightly larger than the international illegal trade

Comments from



ivory

Comments from


Comments from Private

Individual

Comments from public bodies, inc.

government agencies



Seen or offered illegal ivory in the EU

4 1 3 1 9

The scale of the illegal ivory trade in EU is significant

1 1 2 2 6

High disposable income in the EU makes it a likely destination for illegal ivory

1 1 1 1 4

Other 1 - 1 2 4

No evidence provided - 4 1 6 11

Total 20 18 20 20 78



Table 22: Sampled comments to question 2, section C "In your experience, what is the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU compared to international ivory trafficking?" “Much/slightly smaller” by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 176)

Evidence to support why the scale of the illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU is much/slightly smaller than the international illegal trade

Comments from



ivory

Comments from


Comments from

Private Individual


including government agencies


Most illegal trade occurs to/within Asia

17 14 22 19 72

Sources of information

4 15 8 8 35

Current EU regulations are sufficient to prevent illegal trade

2 5 5 7 19

Any ivory trade in the EU is legal

10 2 2 - 14

Most illegal trade occurs between Africa and the rest of the world (excl. the EU and Asia)

2 2 6 3 13

Not seen or experienced any illegal ivory items in the EU

4 - 1 4 9

No evidence 4 8 2 3 17

Total 43 46 46 44 179



Table 23: Comments given in response to question 3, section C “In your experience, what proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 2285).

Answer to closed question

Organisations with a


NGO/ Other organisations

Private Individuals

Public bodies, inc. government

agencies

Total

The majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years

46 146 1305 61 1558

A minority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years – the rest is old ivory items

6 6 67 1 80

A small proportion of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years – most of it consists of old ivory items

11 9 33 2 55

There is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from Elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years

11 2 5 1 19


29 45 396 19 489

Total 105 215 1878 87 2285



Table 24: Sample analysed in response to question 3, section C “In your experience, what proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” By answer and by stakeholder group (n = 260)

Answer to closed question Organisations with a


ivory


Private Individuals


agencies

Total

The majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years

40 58 60 61 219

A minority/A small proportion/ of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years/There is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from Elephants which have been illegally killed in the last 10 years

25 7 5 4 41

Total 65 65 65 65 260

Table 25: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 4, section C “In your experience, what are the main ivory items involved in illegal trade in ivory in/from the EU that you are aware of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any relevant answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 3516).

Stakeholder group No. of comments No. of comments sampled

Organisations with a commercial interest in ivory 174 75

NGO/ Other organisations 311 75

Private Individuals 2 884 75

Public bodies, including government agencies 147 75

Total 3516 300



Table 26: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 6, section C “In your experience, what are the links, if any, between the legal ivory trade in the EU and illegal international ivory trade? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.”, excluding respondents that did not provide an answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 2725)

Table 27: Main links mentioned in response to question 6, section C “In your experience, what are the links, if any, between the legal ivory trade in the EU and illegal international ivory trade? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” by stakeholder group (n = 300)

Main links mentioned

between the legal

ivory trade in the EU

and illegal

international ivory

trade

No. of

comments from

organisations

with a

commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comments

from NGOs/

Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

No. of total

comments

Legal trade used as

cover or to launder

ivory items into the

illegal trade

8 20 23 12 63

Legal trade in the EU

is not strictly

controlled or

monitored

4 9 5 15 32

The legal trade in the

EU contributes to

increasing demand for

ivory items globally

5 10 12 4 31

Profit and greed links

legal and illegal trade 2 9 5 9 25

The role of the EU in

transportation or

transit/(re-)export of

ivory items from

Africa to Asia

2 6 5 7 20

Stated there are links

between legal and

illegal trade, but no

evidence provided

2 5 7 6 20




Private Individuals 2143 75


Total 2583 300



The risk of elephants

being poached to

produce ivory items

3 4 5 6 19

Involvement of

criminal networks and

corruption of officials

1 7 1 3 13

Source of information 1 6 3 3 13

Other 7 1 1 2 13

Not applicable 18 11 17 12 58

There are no links

between the legal and

illegal trade

28 2 1 - 31

Total 75 75 75 75 300

Table 28: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 7, section C “What do you consider the most important problems, if any, in relation to the illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.”, excluding respondents that did not provide an answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 7740)






Total 7740 300



Table 29: Most important problems stated in response to question 7, section C “What do you consider the most important problems, if any, in relation to the illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.”, by stakeholder group (n = 300)

Most important problems in relation to the illegal trade in ivory in or from the EU




Private Individuals


agencies

Total

Threat of elephants being poached in the wild

23 40 36 40 139

Weaknesses in enforcing existing regulations

24 12 8 8 52

Demand for ivory items

7 9 13 10 37

Legal trade acts as cover for illegal trade

1 3 18 9 31

Crime and corruption

6 5 3 7 21

Other 7 5 7 5 24

N/A 7 6 1 3 7

No problem 2 - - - 2

Total 75 75 75 75 300

Table 30: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 1, section D “Which of the following do you think should be priorities for the EU and EU Member States in relation to tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU?” “Other (please specify) excluding respondents that did not provide a relevant answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 593)






Total 593 100



Table31: Other priorities listed in response to question 1, section D “Which of the following do you think should be priorities for the EU and EU Member States in relation to tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU?” “Other (please specify) by stakeholder group (n = 100)

Other priorities listed for the EU in relation to tackling the illegal trade of ivory within/to/from the EU

No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of comments

from public bodies, inc.

government agencies

No. of total comments

Banning all ivory trade

3 12 12 12 39

Focus on preventing poaching

5 2 4 1 12

Banning trade with exemptions

8 1 9

Education 3 2 1 2 8

Increase resources for enforcement and penalties

1 1 1 2 5

Closing regulatory gaps

1 2 - - 3

Banning imports into the EU

1 1 - - 2

Other 3 2 1 3 9

N/A 3 3 6 5 17

Total 25 25 25 26 101

Table 32: Comments given in response to question 2, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking. Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 4107).




ivory NGO/ Other

organisations Private

Individuals Public bodies, inc.

government agencies Total

Strongly agree 73 72 587 32 764

Slightly agree 16 44 518 18 596

Neither agree nor disagree 13 27 380 26 446

Slightly disagree 8 29 428 19 484

Strongly disagree 31 119 1601 66 1817

Total 141 291 3514 161 4107



Table 33: Sample analysed for question 2, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking. Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” by answer and stakeholder group, (n = 200).


No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comment from


No. of comments

from Private Individuals

No. of comments from public bodies, inc.

government agencies


Strongly/slightly agree

25 25 25 25 100

Strongly/slightly disagree

25 25 25 25 100

Table 34: Sampled comments for those answering, “Strongly/Slightly agree” to question 2, section D, “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking” Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion”. by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 100).

Evidence stated for agreeing with statement

No. of comments from



No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments


No. of comments


government agencies

No. of total

comments

Action needed both in the EU and internationally

4 9 12 11 36

Protect elephants in range States

9 7 5 6 27

Larger market for illegal ivory trade in Asia

7 4 3 7 21


2 2 6 3 13

Current EU regulations are adequate to prevent illegal ivory trade in the EU

6 1 - - 7

Other 3 1 3 7

Total 28 26 27 30 111



Table 35: Sampled comments for those answering, “Strongly/Slightly disagree” to question 2, section D, “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking.” Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion” by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 100).

Table 36: Comments given in response to question 3, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced.” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 2914).





Private Individuals

Public bodies, inc.

government agencies

Total

Strongly Agree 24 19 111 7 161

Slightly Agree 20 19 176 11 226

Neither agree or disagree

9 16 253 14 292

Slightly disagree

11 18 319 21 369

Strongly disagree

27 136 1639 64 1866

Total 91 208 2498 117 2914

Evidence stated for disagreeing with statement




No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies

No. of total

comments

EU is a significant destination and transit hub for illegal ivory

14 10 12 9 45

Action needed at an international level should be led by the EU

6 11 11 12 40

Sources of Information

1 4 - 2 7

Other 4 1 2 2 9

Total 25 26 25 25 101



Table 37: Sample analysed in response to question 3, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced”, by answer and by stakeholder category (n = 178).


No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comment from


No. of comments



government agencies



20 20 20 18 78


25 25 25 25 100

Table 38: Sampled comments for those answering, ‘Strongly/Slightly agree’ to question 3, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced”, by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 78).





No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


People are ignorant of current regulations

4 2 5 4 15

Additional restrictions needed in the EU

3 3 1 4 11

Better enforcement needed

1 4 3 2 10

No illegal trade in the EU

4 1 - 2 7


1 1 1 2 5

Other 6 1 3 10

Comment provided no evidence

1 6 7 2 16

Comment disagreed with statement

- 2 - 2 4

Total 20 20 20 18 78



Table 39: Sampled comments for those answering, ‘Strongly/Slightly disagree’ to question 3, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced”, by most frequently raised points and stakeholder groups (n = 100).

Table 40: Comments given in response to question 4, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 1943).





Private Individuals

Public bodies, inc.

government agencies

Total

Strongly Agree 33 113 1154 56 1356

Slightly Agree 4 15 152 4 175

Neither agree or disagree

8 13 94 6 121

Slightly disagree

5 4 35 2 46

Strongly disagree

30 12 197 6 245

Total 80 157 1632 74 1943





No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


There should be a total ban on all ivory trade

10 3 14 6 33

Illegal trade continues within the EU despite current regulations

4 11 3 8 26

Elephant populations are declining

1 2 3 - 6

Increasing awareness will not stop illegal trade

2 - 2 1 5

Source of information

1 1 - 2 4

Other 5 4 2 4 15

Comments provided no supporting evidence

3 5 2 4 14

Total 26 26 26 25 103



Table 41 Sample analysed in response to question 4, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.”, by answer and by stakeholder category (n = 164).


No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comment from


No. of comments



government agencies



25 25 25 25 100


20 16 20 8 64

Table 42: Sampled comments for those answering, ‘Strongly/slightly agree’ to question 4, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem.” Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.”, by most frequently mentioned comments and stakeholder groups (n = 100).





No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


The EU should adopt a total ban

7 10 11 9 37

Further restrictions should be put in place (other than a total ban)

8 2 3 4 17

Illegal trade continues within the EU and poaching continues

1 5 3 8 17


1 3 2 2 8

Oppose killing of elephants and use of ivory in general

4 - 3 1 7

Contradictory: Current regulations are sufficient

1 2 - - 3

Comments provided no evidence

3 3 3 1 10

Total 25 25 25 25 100



Table 43: Sampled comments for those answering, ‘Strongly/Slightly disagree’ to question 4, section D “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in place at the EU level to address the problem”, Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” by most frequently mentioned comments and stakeholder groups (n = 64).

Table 44: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 5, section D “In your opinion, should the EU further limit intra-EU trade in elephant ivory? If so, what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion ‘(n = 10 062)






Total 10062 300





No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


The EU legal ivory market does not contribute to illegal trade

14 3 1 4 22

Regulations are ineffective, other actions should be taken

3 3 4 1 11

A total ban on ivory is needed

5 9 1 15

Other 2 - 3 1 6

Contradictory: current regulations are not sufficient

- 1 2 1 4

Comments providing no supporting evidence

1 4 1 - 6

Total 20 16 20 8 64



Table 45: Sampled comments in response to question 5, section D “In your opinion, should the EU further limit intra-EU trade in elephant ivory? If so, what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” by answer and stakeholder groups (n = 300).

Should the EU further limit intra-EU trade in elephant ivory?




No. of comments from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



public bodies, inc.

government agencies


Yes 51 73 75 71 270

No 21 2 - 4 27

Don’t know 3 - - - 3

Total 75 75 75 75 300

Table 46: Restrictions suggested in response to question 5, section D “In your opinion, should the EU further limit intra-EU trade in elephant ivory? If so, what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.” by most frequently mentioned comments and stakeholder groups (n = 225).

Suggestions for further restrictions on intra-EU trade in elephant ivory




No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


A total ban on all trade in ivory within the EU

31 44 57 50 182

A stricter ban with exemptions for antiques, museum artefacts, musical instruments and other items

8 5 4 4 21

Further restrictions on raw ivory to prevent (re-)export to Asia

4 1 1 1 7

Other 2 3 3 7 15

Total 45 53 65 62 225



Table 47: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 6, section D “In your view, which of the following trade items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU?” “Other items” excluding respondents that did not provide an answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 685)






Total 685 100

Table 48: Main items mentioned in response to question 6, section D “In your view, which of the following trade items should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding trade within the EU?” “Other items” by stakeholder group (n = 100)

Main items

mentioned to

be exempt from

further

restrictions

within the EU

No. of

comments from

organisations

with a

commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comments

from NGOs/

Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

No. of total

comments

Musical

instruments 5 7 11 4 27

Furniture 3 5 9 1 18

Antiques 3 7 4 3 17

Museum

artefacts 1 5 2 5 13

Items for

medical, science

or educational

purposes

1 3 1 2 7

Works of art 2 2 - 1 5

Knives and

cutlery 4 - - - 4

Raw tusks 3 1 - - 4

Other items 4 2 3 4 13

All items should

be prohibited - 2 4 3 9

All items should

be exempt 1 2 1 1 5

Total 27 36 35 24 122



Table 49: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 7, section D “In your opinion, would it be reasonable and proportionate for the EU to take steps to tighten the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU, for example by requesting that all ivory traders are included on public registers or that intra-EU trade in antique items be subject to the issuing of certificates or declarations? What would be the impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) of such measures? Please provide reasons and any relevant evidence on impacts you may have to support your opinion” by stakeholder group (n = 10 949)






Total 10 949 300

Table 50: Sampled comments in response to 7, section D “In your opinion, would it be reasonable and proportionate for the EU to take steps to tighten the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU, for example by requesting that all ivory traders are included on public registers or that intra-EU trade in antique items be subject to the issuing of certificates or declarations? What would be the impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) of such measures? Please provide reasons and any relevant evidence on impacts you may have to support your opinion” by stakeholder group and answer (n = 300)

Would it be reasonable and proportionate to tighten regulations on the control of ivory trade within the EU?




No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of comments


government agencies


Yes, tightening restrictions is reasonable (no additional evidence provided)

27 38 19 43 127

Yes, there should be a total ban on all ivory trade in the EU

6 22 37 22 87

Yes, public registration of ivory traders is reasonable

5 2 6 4 17

Yes, certification of antiques is reasonable

4 1 5 6 16

Yes, tighter regulations with exemptions would be reasonable

5 2 4 2 13

No 27 4 2 3 36

Not Applicable 3 7 4 1 15

Total 77 76 77 81 311



Table 51: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 8, section D “In your opinion, should the EU further limit elephant ivory trade TO and FROM the EU? If yes, what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion” by stakeholder group (n = 11 204)






Total 11 204 300

Table 52: Sampled comments in response to 8, section D “In your opinion, should the EU further limit elephant ivory trade TO and FROM the EU? If yes, what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion” by stakeholder group and answer (n = 300)

Should the EU further limit elephant ivory trade TO and FROM the EU?




No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of comments


government agencies


Yes (no additional evidence provided)

18 30 22 27 97

Yes, all ivory trade to and from the EU should be prohibited

19 30 43 33 125

Yes, trade in raw ivory and post-1947 ivory should be restricted

12 2 2 2 18

Yes, sanctions for illegal trade in ivory should be stricter

1 2 1 1 5

Yes, imports of ivory to the EU should be restricted

1 1 1 1 4

Yes, trade in ivory to and from the EU should be subject to quotas or prior- authorisation by the EU

1 1 - 2 4

Yes, other restrictions to ivory trade to and from the EU

3 4 2 3 12

No (no additional evidence provided)

13 2 - - 15

No, there should be no further restrictions to trade in antiques

10 5 4 4 23

Not Applicable 3 2 2 3 10

Total 81 79 77 76 313



Table 53: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 9, section D “In your view, which of the following trade items, if any, should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside of the EU?” “Other items”, excluding respondents that did not provide an answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 552)

Table 54: Main items mentioned in response to question 9, section D “In your view, which of the following trade items, if any, should be exempt from any further regulations or guidelines regarding the (re-)export of worked ivory from the EU to countries outside of the EU?” “Other items” by stakeholder group (n = 76)

Main items mentioned

to be exempt from

further restrictions

regarding (re-)export

from the EU

No. of

comments from

organisations

with a

commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comments

from NGOs/

Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

No. of total

comments

Musical instruments 3 8 7 5 23

Furniture 2 4 8 4 18

Antiques - 6 3 - 9

Museum artefacts - 2 2 3 7

Pre-existing items within

the EU 3 2 1 1 7

Knives and cutlery 4 - - - 4

Other items 3 5 3 4 15

All ivory items should be

prohibited 2 - 3 1 6

All ivory items should be

exempt 1 1 1 2 5

Total 18 28 28 20 94


Organisations with a commercial interest in

ivory 26 20




Total 552 76



Table 55: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 10, section D “In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU?” “Other items” excluding respondents that did not provide an answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 470)

Table 56: Main items mentioned in response to question 10, section D In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from further regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the EU?” “Other items” by stakeholder group (n = 70)

Main items mentioned

to be exempt from

further restrictions

regarding import to the

EU

No. of

comments from

organisations

with a

commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comments from

NGOs/ Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

No. of

total

commen

ts

Musical instruments 3 10 13 1 27

Furniture 3 4 12 - 19

Antiques 1 7 1 - 9

Museum artefacts - 4 2 3 9

Ivory from existing

stockpiles/ elephants

that have died of

natural causes

3 1 - 1 5

Knives/cutlery 3 - - - 3

Other items 3 1 - 4 8

All ivory items should

be prohibited - 2 1 2 5

All ivory items should

be exempt - 2 1 - 3

Total 16 31 30 11 88






Total 470 70



Table 57: Comments given in response to question 11, section D “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation? Please provide any additional comments” By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 2134).





Private Individuals

Public bodies, inc.

government agencies

Total

A moderate negative impact

21 4 52 5 82

A substantial negative impact

52 9 76 5 142

No impact 12 34 303 13 362


4 14 79 8 105

A substantial positive impact

14 74 944 33 1065

Don’t know/not applicable

14 17 333 14 378

Total 117 152 1787 78 2134

Table 58: Sample analysed in response to question 11, section D “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation? Please provide any additional comments”, by answer and by stakeholder category (n = 120).

Answer to closed

question

No. of comments

from

organisations with

a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comment

from NGO/

Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

Total

number of

comments

Substantial/moderate

positive impact 20 20 20 20 80


negative impact 10 10 10 10 40

Total 30 30 30 30 120



Table 59: Sampled comments for those answering, “Substantial positive impact/moderate positive impact” to question 11, section D “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation? Please provide any additional comments”, by most frequently mentioned positive impacts and stakeholder groups (n = 80).

Table 60: Sampled comments for those answering, “Substantial negative impact/moderate negative impact” to question 11, section D “What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations or guidelines on import, (re-)export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your organisation? Please provide any additional comments”, by most frequently mentioned negative impacts and stakeholder groups (n = 40).

Additional comments relating to positive impacts of possible further EU regulations or guidelines on ivory on organisations

No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments


No. of comments


government agencies


Impacts on the environment

5 15 15 10 45

Impacts on humans and society

2 3 9 6 20

Impacts on organisations 3 6 - 4 13

Impacts on government & enforcement agencies

- 3 2 3 8

N/A 9 2 1 1 13

Total 19 29 27 24 99

Additional comments relating to negative impacts of possible further EU regulations or guidelines on ivory on organisations

No. of comments

from organisations

with a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



government agencies


Impacts on organisations

9 2 5 1 17

Impacts on humans and society

5 2 2 4 13

Other impacts 1 2 - 1 4

N/A 1 5 5 4 15

Total 16 11 12 10 49



Table 61: Comments given in response to question 12, section D “What impact would possible further EU restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please provide any additional comments”. By stakeholder group, excluding respondents that did not provide any answer or were influenced by a campaign (n = 2961).


Organisations that have a commercial

interest in ivory


Private Individuals

Public bodies, inc.

government agencies

Total

A moderate negative impact

7 12 141 6 166

A substantial negative impact

16 24 383 13 436

No impact 23 11 78 2 114


17 15 306 26 364

A substantial positive impact

25 96 1427 46 1594

Don’t know/not applicable

16 20 239 12 287

Total 104 178 2574 105 2961

Table 62 Sample analysed in response to question 12, section D “What impact would possible further EU restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please provide any additional comments”, by answer and by stakeholder category (n = 180).

Answer to closed

question

No. of comments

from

organisations that

have a

commercial

interest in ivory

No. of

comment

from NGO/

Other

organisations

No. of

comments

from

Private

Individuals

No. of

comments

from public

bodies, inc.

government

agencies

Total

number of

comments


positive impact 25 25 25 25 100


negative impact 20 20 20 20 80

Total 45 45 45 45 180



Table 63: Sampled comments for those answering, “Substantial positive impact/moderate positive impact” to question 12, section D “What impact would possible further EU restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please provide any additional comments”, by most frequently mentioned positive impacts and stakeholder groups (n = 100).

Table 64: Sampled comments for those answering, “Substantial negative impact/moderate negative impact” to question 11, section D ““What impact would possible further EU restrictions have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory? Please provide any additional comments”, by most frequently mentioned negative impacts and stakeholder groups (n = 80).

Additional comments relating to positive impacts of possible further EU restrictions on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory

No. of comments

from organisations

that have a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



public bodies, inc.

government agencies

No. of total

comments

Impacts on levels of poaching

11 12 12 7 42

Impacts on levels of international illegal trade of ivory

1 7 7 8 23

Impacts on international legislation

1 4 7 1 13

Global action needed 3 2 - 5 10

Other impacts - 2 - 2 4

N/A comments 9 5 5 6 25

Total 25 32 31 29 117

Additional comments relating to negative impacts of possible further EU restrictions on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory

No. of comments

from organisations

that have a commercial

interest in ivory

No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments



public bodies, inc. government

agencies

No. of total

comments

Reducing poaching/illegal trade will have a positive impact overall

5 10 11 11 37

Impacts on levels of international illegal trade of ivory

5 5 2 3 15

Impacts on levels of poaching

2 1 2 1 6

Other impacts 3 2 - - 5

N/A 3 3 6 4 16

Total 20 19 21 19 79



Table 65: Comments given, and sample analysed in response to question 2, section E “Are there any final comments relevant to this subject that you would like to convey?” by stakeholder group (n = 11 121)




Private Individuals 10 110 75


Total 11 121 300

Table 66: Sampled comments in response to question 2, section E “Are there any final comments relevant to this subject that you would like to convey?” by main comments and stakeholder group (n = 300)

Main categories of final comments provided




No. of comments

from NGO/ Other

organisations

No. of comments

from Private

Individuals

No. of comments


government agencies


Concerns regarding the need to protect elephants and/or biodiversity

19 27 33 36 115

Support for a total ban on trade in all ivory

11 27 23 23 84

Actions required in the EU to prevent illegal trade in ivory

11 12 8 13 44

Actions required outside of the EU to tackle poaching and illegal ivory trafficking

8 6 7 2 23

Antiques and musical instruments should be exempt from further restrictions

15 1 - - 16

Impacts on antique traders and musicians

10 - - - 10

Enforcement must be improved

1 - 3 3 7

Trade using existing stocks of ivory should be allowed

3 - 1 3 7

Ivory substitutes exist 3 - 3 1 7

Feedback 2 6 1 4 13

Not applicable 2 2 3 2 9

Total 86 81 83 86 336



Table 67: Answers to question 1, section D of the public consultation “Which of the following do you think should be priorities for the EU and EU Member States in relation to tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU?” in absolute numbers of respondents excluding those who provided no answer or answered, “don’t know” by organisation type, respondents could select more than one priority (n = 89 813)

An

tiq

ues

Au

ctio

ns

Re

pai

r/ R

esto

rati

on

Car

vin

g

Mu

sica

l In

stru

me

nts

Exp

ort

/ Im

po

rt

Op

era

tor

Hu

nti

ng

NG

O

IGO

Go

vern

men

t ag

en

cy

Enfo

rce

me

nt

auth

ori

ty*

Re

sear

ch in

stit

ute

/ U

niv

ersi

ty

Mem

be

rsh

ip/

Trad

e

Ass

oci

atio

n

Pri

vate

Ind

ivid

ual

s

Oth

er

Better enforcement of the existing EU regulations and guidelines for the trade in ivory

This should be the main priority action 123 63 82 55 76 50 64 362 42 127 34 217 98 7932 870

This should be pursued together with other priority actions 93 61 76 34 66 51 44 366 30 124 22 309 92 14782 966

This should not be a priority 30 19 14 13 15 6 5 51 4 16 4 53 12 4514 185

Educating and raising awareness on the existing EU regulations and guidelines among ivory traders/customers to promote legal trade




Banning all ivory trade to, from, and within the EU




Banning raw ivory trade to, from and within the EU




Banning trade in ivory within the EU, with well-justified exemptions




Banning (re-)export of ivory from the EU, with well-justified exemptions






Annex II – Questionnaire

SURVEY BY THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR

ENVIRONMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON

IVORY TRADE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU)

Introduction

The purpose of this survey is to gather information and views on ivory trade in the EU. This

consultation will inform decisions on the possible adoption of additional EU measures regarding

ivory trade. The Directorate General for Environment of the European Commission invites written

contributions to the questions below.

In recent years, elephant poaching has reached very high levels. Along with increased poaching, the

illegal ivory trade has escalated, driven by the continued demand for ivory in Asian markets.

At the international level, ivory trade for commercial purposes is banned, with very limited

exemptions, notably for old ivory items acquired before elephants became protected under the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1975. At the EU level, rules on

ivory trade are stricter than CITES standards. Ivory trade for commercial purposes in, from and into

the EU is only authorized for old ivory items, and under narrowly defined conditions.

As part of the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking published in February 2016, the European

Commission, in cooperation with the competent CITES Management Authorities of the EU Member

States, adopted a guidance document in May 2017, recommending that EU Member States suspend

the (re)export of raw ivory items from 1st July 2017 and ensure a strict interpretation of the

provisions in EU law authorising intra-EU trade in ivory and the (re)export of worked ivory.

Based on the information currently available, there is little evidence that the EU represents a market

for illegal ivory of elephants poached in the recent years.

The main part of ivory traded legally or illegally in or from the EU seems to consist of old ivory items,

which date back from before elephants became protected under CITES. Most instances where illegal

ivory from recently-poached elephants has been seized in the EU relate to items in transit from

Africa to Asia, which were not destined to the EU market.

The possibility that the re-export of ivory from the EU could fuel the demand for illegal ivory in Asia,

combined with an increase in the detected cases of illegal ivory trade in the EU, highlight however

the need to collect further information on the EU ivory trade. The European Parliament, some EU

Member States, third countries and civil society organisations have called for the adoption of further

measures at the EU level to regulate more strictly, or ban altogether, ivory trade in and from the EU.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0087&from=EN




Before responding to this survey, DG Environment strongly recommends that you read the following

background information.

AGREEMENT ON PERSONAL DATA

1. Please indicate your preference for the publication of your response on the Commission's

website.

My contribution can be published, with my personal information or name of my

organisation included.

My contribution can be published anonymously, without my name or that of

organisation included.

2. May the Commission contact you, in case further details on the submitted information in this

questionnaire are required?

Yes

No

SECTION A - INFORMATION ABOUT THE RESPONDENT

1. Are you replying as

an individual

an organisation

2. Please state your name

100 character(s) maximum (100 characters left)

3. Please add your email address

4. Please indicate your country of origin

5. Please state the name of your organisation

100 character(s) maximum (100 characters left)

6. Please select which of the following you or your organisation represents, if any, from the list

below. (Select all that apply)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/background-ivory-trade-in-EU_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/background-ivory-trade-in-EU_en.pdf



Antiques

Auctions

Repair/restoration

Carving

Musical instruments (manufacture or retail)

Hunting

Export/import operator

Non-governmental organisation

Inter-governmental organisation

Government agency

Enforcement authority


Membership or trade association

Private individual

Other (please specify)

If you selected "Other", please specify here:

7. Your organisation’s geographical area(s) of activities: (Select all that apply)

Local

Regional

National

European

International

Not applicable

8. Is your organisation included in the Transparency Register?

If your organisation is not registered, we invite you to register here, although it is not compulsory to

be registered to reply to this consultation. Why transparency register?

Yes

No

Not applicable

SECTION B - INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN IVORY TRADE

Are you or your organisation directly or indirectly involved in ivory trade?

If this is not the case or you do not wish to provide this information and select no you will be

directed straight to section C.

Yes

No

https://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/ri/registering.do?locale=en

http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/staticPage/displayStaticPage.do?locale=en&reference=WHY_TRANSPARENCY_REGISTER



1. Please provide specific information in the table below on the types of ivory items that your

organisation trades:

No. of items

sold/purchased

annually

(estimate*)

Proportion of items

that are made from

100%

ivory (estimate)

Total value of

annual trade in

ivory items

(estimate**)

Type of trade

(Domestic/EU/International)

Jewellery

Carvings

Household goods

Personal items

Musical instruments

Raw ivory (tusks,

ivory pieces)

Other

* If you cannot provide specific figures, please indicate which is the main product type you/your organisation deals with.

** Please provide your estimate in EUR.

Please provide any additional comments below:

2. Which of the following categories does your annual company turnover fall into?

Less than EUR 19 999

EUR 20 000 to EUR 99 999

EUR 100 000 to EUR 499 999

EUR 500 000 or more

Prefer not to say

3. What proportion or amount of your or your organisation’s turnover relies on the trade of ivory

today? Has this amount increased, decreased or stayed the same in the last 12 months?

4. What proportion of the ivory items you use for commercial purposes are antique? 'Antique’

refers to ivory which was significantly altered (‘worked’) from its natural state for jewellery,

adornment, art, utility or musical instruments before 3rd March 1947, and which has not been further

crafted since.



5. How do you assess the value of ivory items which you are using? For example, do you have

any indicator prices by product type (e.g. cost per specific type of carving, minimum valuations

by weight)?

6. What level of knowledge would you say you (or the organisation you represent) have the

regulations concerning the trade or commercial use of elephant ivory in the EU?

Excellent knowledge

General knowledge

Limited knowledge

No knowledge

7. What sources of information (e.g. trade associations, press, websites) do you use to keep up to

date on regulations?

8. How do you ascertain the legality of the ivory items which you are using? (For example, DNA

testing, expert knowledge, experience.)

9. From the information at your disposal, what proportion of the ivory items purchased in the EU

is later re-exported outside the EU? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to

support your opinion.

10. From the information at your disposal, what are the main ivory items which are the most

commonly sought after in the EU for re-export outside the EU? Please provide any relevant

evidence you may have to support your opinion.



SECTION C - INFORMATION ON THE ILLEGAL TRADE OF IVORY IN THE EU

The next set of questions is about the illegal trade of ivory in the EU.

1. In your experience, what is the scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU, compared

to legal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU?


Illegal trade is slightly larger in scale

About the same

Illegal trade is slightly smaller in scale than legal trade

Illegal trade is much smaller

Don't know

Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your opinion.

2. In your experience, what is the scale of illegal trade in ivory to/from/within the EU, compared

to international ivory trafficking?


Illegal EU trade is slightly larger in scale

About the same


Illegal EU trade is much smaller

Don't know


3. In your experience, what proportion of ivory illegally traded to/from/within the EU comes

from elephants which have been illegally killed in the last ten years?

The majority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which

have been illegally killed in the last ten years

A minority of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants which have

been illegally killed in the last ten years – the rest is old ivory items

A small proportion of ivory traded illegally to/from/within the EU comes from elephants

which have been illegally killed in the last ten years – most of it consists of old ivory items

There is no illegal trade to/from/within the EU from elephants which have been illegally

killed in the last 10 years





4. In your experience, what are the main ivory items involved in illegal trade in ivory in/from the

EU that you are aware of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support

your opinion.

5. In your experience, is the illegal trade in ivory more widespread:


In imports TO the EU (international trade involving the EU)

In re-exports FROM the EU (international trade involving the EU)

In transit through EU airports or ports from one third country to another one All the above

Don't know

6. In your experience, what are the links, if any, between the legal ivory trade in the EU and

illegal international ivory trade? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to


7. What do you consider the most important problems, if any, in relation to the illegal trade in

ivory in or from the EU? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to support your

opinion.



SECTION D - EU PRIORITIES IN RELATION TO IVORY TRADE

We would now like to ask for your opinion and views on the EU priorities in relation to ivory trade.

1. Which of the following do you think should be the priorities for the EU and EU Member States

in relation to tackling the illegal trade in ivory within/to/from the EU?

Please tick the appropriate boxes.

This should be

the main

Priority Action

This should be

pursued together with

other priority actions

This should

not be a

priority

Don’t

know

Better enforcement of the existing EU

regulations and guidelines for the trade in ivory

Educating and raising awareness on the existing

EU regulations and guidelines among ivory

traders/customers to promote legal trade

Banning all ivory trade to, from, and within the

EU

Banning raw ivory trade to, from and within the

EU

Banning trade in ivory within the EU, with well-

justified exemptions

Banning (re-)export of ivory from the EU, with

well-justified exemptions

If none of the above:

Other

Tackling illegal ivory trade in the EU should not be a priority for the EU

If you selected "Other", please specify here:

2. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

"Illegal trade in ivory in the EU represents a marginal problem compared to the global ivory trafficking

problem. Rather than changing the EU rules on ivory trade, the EU priority should be to provide support for

actions against ivory trafficking in other regions (in particular, Africa and Asia), which are more important as

countries of origin and destination markets for illegal ivory trafficking."

Strongly agree

Slightly agree


Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree





"The current EU regulations are sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not

contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Rather than changing the rules, the priority should be

that people are fully aware of these rules and that they are better enforced".

Strongly agree

Slightly agree


Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree



"The current EU regulations are not sufficient to ensure that the EU domestic elephant ivory market does not

contribute to illegal international trade in elephant ivory. Further restrictions on ivory trade should be put in

place at the EU level to address the problem".

Strongly agree

Slightly agree


Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree


5. In your opinion, should the EU further limit intra-EU trade in elephant ivory? If so, what

should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to




6. In your view, which of the following ivory items should be exempt from any further regulations

or guidelines regarding trade within the EU? (Select all that apply)


Musical instruments

Small worked ivory items (e.g. weighing less than 200 grams)

Items containing a small amount of ivory but not made completely of ivory (e.g. furniture

with ivory inlay)

Pre-Convention (acquired between 1947-1990) worked ivory items

Raw ivory items



If you selected "Other items", please specify here:

7. In your opinion, would it be reasonable and proportionate for the EU to take steps to tighten

the regulations on control of ivory trade within the EU, for example by requesting that all ivory

traders are included on public registers or that intra-EU trade in antique items be subject to the

issuing of certificates or declarations? What would be the impact (e.g. financial, logistical,

environmental) of such measures? Please provide reasons and any relevant evidence on

impacts you may have to support your opinion.

8. In your opinion, should the EU further limit elephant ivory trade TO and FROM the EU? If yes,

what should such restrictions consist of? Please provide any relevant evidence you may have to


9. In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from any further

regulations or guidelines regarding the re-export of worked ivory from the EU to countries

outside the EU? (Select all that apply)


Musical instruments



with ivory inlay)







10. In your view, which of the following, if any, ivory items should be exempt from further

regulations or guidelines regarding the import of ivory to the EU from countries outside the

EU? (Select all that apply)


Musical instruments



with ivory inlay)

Hunting trophies





11. What impact (e.g. financial, logistical, environmental) would possible further EU regulations

or guidelines on import, re-export and/or intra-EU trade of ivory have on you or your

organisation?



No impact





12. What impact would possible further EU restrictions on import, re-export and/or intra-EU

trade of ivory have on elephant poaching and international illegal trade of ivory?



No impact







SECTION E - OTHER INFORMATION

1. Please provide details of any studies (published or ongoing) you are aware of relating to ivory

trade relevant to the EU.

Please feel free to upload a concise document such as a position paper.

Please note that the uploaded document will be published alongside your response to the

questionnaire which is the essential input to this open public consultation. The document is an

optional complement and serves as additional background to better understand your position.

2. Are there any final comments relevant to this subject that you would like to convey?