erratum 2016 executive summary nz ivory trade report 2014

UPDATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -‐ March 2016 ERRATUM A REPORT ON THE NEW ZEALAND TRADE IN IVORY: Imports, Re-‐Exports and Domestic Trade [Originally Published APRIL 2014]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY as per March 2016 ERRATUM to full Report

African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) populations are facing extinction in the wild within the next 2 to 11 years. The current high rates of poaching and illicit ivory trade places the African Elephant in a far worse situation than that which compelled the Convention of Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to implement an international ivory trade ban in 1989 (by listing the African Elephant on CITES Appendix 1). African Elephant populations rebounded after the trade ban, and the ivory carving factories in China, a major ivory consumer nation, all but closed. CITES allowed two “one-‐off” ivory sales from the ivory stockpiles of several African countries in 1999 (to Japan) and 2008 (to Japan and China).

Since 2007 poaching levels and the illicit ivory trade have increased significantly, to the current unprecedented levels. China’s ivory factories have been resurrected and China, along with Thailand, are acknowledged as being the main destinations for illicit ivory.

Numerous international efforts are underway involving a spectrum of agencies including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), governments, tourism associations, non-‐governmental organisations and members of the British Royal Family, seeking to curb poaching rates, stem the illicit ivory trade, and to curb ivory demand. With the acknowledgement that the illicit ivory trade is now funding organized crime syndicates and various terrorist groups, organisations such as INTERPOL are now involved in these international efforts.

There are current national calls, and significant formal written support from six international agencies, for the New Zealand Government to take part in these international efforts, in particular (a) to curb ivory demand by banning the New Zealand trade in ivory, and (b) follow the lead of other governments which have publically destroyed confiscated ivory stockpiles.

March 2016 Erratum /4

In terms of the New Zealand trade in ivory, this Report finds that New Zealand continues to play a consistent and increasing role as an importer and re-‐exporter of Elephantidae Family specimens, the vast majorityi of which are ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks.

Of note is that the majority of imports and re-‐exports are of Loxodonta africana, particularly significant within the context of the current African Elephant poaching crisis. Also relevant is the recent notable increase in the number of Loxodonta africana specimens imported for Hunting Purposes, from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique.

Re-‐exports of ivory, particularly for Personal use, have increased dramatically since 2009. In 2012, re-‐exports peak for the entire 33 year data period, with 1255 items re-‐exported from New Zealand.

While the number of ivory items imported into New Zealand has decreased dramatically since the ivory trade ban of 1989, there has been a notable increase in the number of items imported expressly for Trade purposes since 2007. During 2010 through 2012, imports for Trade account for 692 items, which is 78% of all items imported since the 1989 trade ban.

In terms of the scale of trade, the United States is recognised as a significant ivory importer, with 23,491 ivory carvings imported during 2009 through 2012. Directly comparable data from the CITES Trade Database, for imports of ivory carvings, places New Zealand well ahead of the United States in terms of the number of ivory imports on a per capita basis over the same period.

The majority of all ivory imported into New Zealand is for Trade purposes, while the majority of ivory re-‐exported is for Personal use. Personal use imports and re-‐exports include large quantity records (50 – 278 items per record), some of which occur over the last three years.

Based on the import and re-‐export records for large quantities for Personal use it is highly likely that significant privately held stockpiles exits in New Zealand. Of note is that CITES has recently instigated requirements for parties to the convention to maintain and report on significant privately held stockpiles where possible.

In terms of the destinations for re-‐exports of ivory, traditional destinations are Australia, United Kingdom and the United States. Recently, China has emerged as a “new” main destination for re-‐exported ivory from New Zealand. Ivory re-‐exported to China has increased dramatically, with 12 re-‐export records for Personal use accounting for 205 items (an average of 17 items per record) in 2012 alone. Demand for ivory in China has grown substantially, supporting an internationally significant ivory market, and is the main destination for illicit ivory. Ivory continues to command high prices on the domestic market in China. There is potential for items re-‐exported explicitly for Personal use from New Zealand, to be sold commercially on the domestic market in China.

The majority of items imported and re-‐exported are of ivory sourced prior to the 1989 ban (ie. pre-‐ban source). Imports and re-‐export records exist for items not noted as pre-‐ban, but instead noted as Wild or Unknown source. Significantly, 1420 Elephantidae Family specimens have been traded internationally, to or from New Zealand, of Wild and Unknown sources during 2007 through 2012. It is not clear how items of Unknown source and not noted as pre-‐ban are eligible for import or re-‐export.

With regard to Wild source items, relevant CITES Export Quota documentation for each year appear to explicitly exclude “raw ivory” and are limited to either “tusks as trophies” or “tusks and other trophies” and are not expressly for ivory carvings or worked ivory. However, none of the aforementioned Wild source imports were noted for the purpose of “Hunting”. It is not clear from the Official Information, CITES Appendix I and II, and CITES Export Quota documents how all of these items, that are not noted as pre-‐ban and are of either Wild or Unknown source, are eligible for import or re-‐export.

New Zealand’s legal domestic trade in ivory is not prohibited and is unregulated, with no requirements for verification of an item’s eligibility for trade at the point of sale. Hence, the current domestic trade mechanisms provide potential for


items imported explicitly for Personal use to be sold on the New Zealand domestic market. Information on the domestic ivory trade indicates that demand for ivory items in New Zealand is currently high and that ivory is commanding high prices, well in excess of estimated values at Auction Houses.

New Zealand authorities have seized a total of 791 items of Elephantidae specimens, which are in the ownership of the Crown. The majority of these items are ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. While the number of seizures each year is decreasing, importantly 16 seizures were made, accounting for 49 items, in the last three years, most of which were noted for Personal use. The majority of recent seizures are for the importation of ivory into New Zealand, indicating a lack of awareness regarding importation requirements.

2013 saw New Zealand’s first conviction for illegally trading in ivory. Importantly, regarding the Defendant, Judge J C Moses concluded, “there was an element where you were looking to gain from those purchases, that you did see them not only as art but also as an investment.”

Matters of Concern

I present 12 specific matters of concern pertaining to the New Zealand Trade in ivory, which I encourage the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to. These matters are detailed in Section 3.6 Conclusions, and are briefly outlined here as follows:

1. New Zealand plays a consistent and increasing role as an ivory importer and re-‐exporter. 2. Import and re-‐export records of large quantities (50 – 278 items) for Personal use. 3. High likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory in New Zealand. 4. Imports and re-‐exports of ivory of Wild and Unknown source (not noted as pre-‐ban). 5. Potential for ivory imported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market. 6. Potential for ivory re-‐exported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market of the destination

country. 7. Increased re-‐exports of personal items to China 2012. 8. New Zealand trade in pre-‐ban ivory is reflective of the international ivory market. 9. Domestic trade mechanisms. 10. Majority of imports and re-‐exports are of Loxodonta africana. 11. Majority of seizures are for imports. 12. Confiscated ivory stockpile: 791 items of confiscated Elephantidae specimens are in the ownership of the

Crown.

Based on the information presented in this Report, it can be said that New Zealand makes a consistent, and increasing contribution to the international trade in ivory, regardless of any element of commerciality. It can also be said that the current “boom” in the domestic demand for ivory, and the domestic ivory trade is reflective of, if not responding to, the international demand and market for ivory in general. I conclude, that the current New Zealand Trade in ivory is not complimentary to the current international efforts seeking to reduce demand for ivory per se -‐ as a means to reduce Elephant poaching and the illicit trade.

In my opinion, with the information currently available, the current situation for the African Elephant is of a different and more troubling order than that which propelled the listing of the African Elephant onto CITES Appendix I and which instigated the ivory trade ban in 1989. As such, it is appropriate to respond to this situation with a more stringent approach.

I present in this Report a range of options open to the New Zealand Government should it choose to address the 12 specific matters of concern identified. My recommendation is set out in full in Section 3.8, a summary of which is provided below.


Recommendation

I respectfully recommend the New Zealand Government implement the following measures, to address the matters of concern identified, as set out below:

1. Publically destroy all Government held confiscated items of ivoryii, and 2. Implement a complete ban for all New Zealand ivory trade, regardless of any element of commerciality,

including imports, re-‐exports and the domestic tradeiii, and 3. Investigate, develop and maintain inventories of significant privately held stockpiles of ivoryiv, and 4. Improve inventory detail of the Government held stockpile of ivory (eg. items destroyed already, current

locations and weights), and 5. Investigate, clarify and report on the circumstances of approval for the import and re-‐export of items of Wild

and Unknown source (not noted as pre-‐ban source), particularly those records which occur during the period 2007 – 2012; and give consideration to the appropriateness of the import of items noted as Wild source from African countries via voluntary Export Quotas, and

6. Investigate, clarify and report on the categorization process of imports and re-‐exports for Personal use, particularly with regard to large quantity records (over 50 items) that have been deemed as Personal use, and

7. Develop and implement an effective public awareness campaign based on the description given in CITES Resolution Conf.10.10, including the revision of and improvements to the Department of Conservation guidance documents on imports and re-‐exports, and to communicate the ban on all trade (imports, re-‐ exports and domestic) in ivory and the reasons for such a ban.

The reasons for each for the seven recommended actions are presented in Section 3.9 of this Report. In brief, these are reasonable and practicable measures that the New Zealand Government can take to address the matters identified in this Report, uphold the intent of the ivory trade ban of 1989, and improve compliance with relevant CITES regulations and resolutions.

In particular, I am of the view that publically destroying the government held stockpile of confiscated ivory and implementing a complete ban on the New Zealand ivory trade are appropriate and effective measures to (a) increase awareness, (b) eschew all ivory, and (c) ensure that New Zealand contributes actively, positively and with leadership, particularly in the Oceania Region, on this important global issue.

Ms Fiona Gordon.

Principal Consultant at Gordon ConsultingTM, NEW ZEALAND [email protected]

i New Zealand trade in ivory -‐ 98% of re-‐export records for Elephantidae Family specimens are ivory (carvings, pieces and tusks). 97% of import records for Elephantidae Family specimens are ivory (carvings, pieces and tusks). ii Acknowledging that it is appropriate that some items may continue to be required for training and educational purposes. iii Acknowledging that imports and re-‐exports for scientific or educational purposes may continue to be deemed appropriate. iv Acknowledging that for the purposes of this Report, 50 was the number of items arbitrarily deemed to constitute a “significant” privately held stockpile or “large quantity” for Personal use imports and re-‐exports. A lesser number may be determined to be more appropriate. March 2016 Erratum /4

erratum 2016 executive summary nz ivory trade report 2014

Documents