Report on new zealand ivory trade april 2014 by Fiona Gordon

A REPORT ON THE NEW ZEALAND TRADE IN IVORY

Imports, Re- Exports and Domestic Trade 1980 - 2012

A Report on the New Zealand Trade in Ivory Imports, Re-Exports and Domestic Trade Presenting New Zealand Government Official Trade Data 1980 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2012.

April 2014 By Fiona Gordon Environmental Policy Analyst and Mediator

Author of Report The Author of this Report, Fiona Gordon, is an Environmental Policy Analyst, Mediator and Facilitator. Fiona has worked for local government both as an employee and as a consultant. She has over 15 years of technical and policy experience in environmental management, including managing regional policy review and development under the Resource Management Act. Fiona is the Director and Principal Consultant of Gordon Consulting TM. Fiona has authored various Hearing Reports and Supplementary Reports, and prepared evidence for the Environment Court for matters under the Resource Management Act. Fiona holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geography, and a Science Certificate with a focus on Environmental Science and Chemistry, both obtained from Massey University Palmerston North. She is an Associate Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute (NZPI) and an Accredited LEADR Mediator1. Fiona has in recent years been significantly concerned by the current African Elephant poaching crisis and illicit trade in ivory, and has taken much time researching these issues. She has been active in her involvement on these issues, engaging as a stakeholder with New Zealand Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) representatives, including providing a formal submission to New Zealand Ministers prior to the Conference of Parties in Bangkok 2013 (CoP16). That submission was specific to relevant CoP16 Agenda Items and included recommendations to the New Zealand Government on those items. She also volunteered to the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT) to coordinate the International March for Elephants 4th October 2013 in Wellington, and actively participated in that event. Wellington was one of the 15 official host cities for the International March for Elephants2. With regard to the content of this Report, Fiona has endeavored to objectively present the Official Government data/records and Official Information on the New Zealand trade in ivory. Fionaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conclusions and recommendations are based on: (a) that objective analysis of the Official data/records and Official Information, and (b) other information (as presented), and (c) the background information (as presented), and (d) current national and international action (as presented), and (e) with specific regard to current national and international support for the New Zealand Government to: i. ban the ivory trade, and ii. destroy Government held stockpiles of ivory.

Cover Design and Images Cover Design: Colman - Exceptional Results, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Cover Images: Copyright ÂŠ 2013 The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, Kenya, Africa. Images: Rangers with confiscated ivory, Kenya. Barsilinga, an orphan due to poaching, found next to his dying mother at 2 weeks old on 28 March 2012, now in the care of the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust in Kenya.

Publication Date: April 2014. Printing and Binding: Colman - Exceptional Results, Palmerston North, New Zealand http://www.colman.net.nz

LEADR is an Australasian, not-for-profit membership organisation that promotes alternative dispute resolution including mediation. LEADR accreditation is accepted as the benchmark for much of the mediation and alternative dispute resolution industry. 2 www.iworry.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE, INFORMATION SOURCES & BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................5

1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Sources and Type of Information ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Background Information .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Africa’s Elephants and the Ivory Trade Ban ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.3.2 CITES approved “one-off sales” ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.3.3 Illegal Ivory Trade & Elephant Poaching ................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3.4 Ivory Demand in China ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.5 CITES - Recognition of Poaching & Illicit Ivory Trade ...................................................................................................... 10 1.3.6 International Community Response .......................................................................................................................................... 11 1.3.7 New Zealand Community Response ........................................................................................................................................... 11 1.3.8 International Response 2012 - 2014 ......................................................................................................................................... 12 1.3.9 International Support for New Zealand to Ban all Ivory Trade and destroy Government Held Stockpile of Confiscated Ivory. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 1.3.9.1 Basis for banning all ivory trade approach. ....................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.9.2 Basis for destroying government held confiscated ivory stockpiles ........................................................................ 18

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................21

Matters of Concern ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendation .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 23

3. FULL SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................25

3.1 Imports of Elephantidae Family specimens ................................................................................................................................ 25 3.2 Re-Exports of Elephantidae Family specimens ......................................................................................................................... 25 3.3 Trade in Loxodonata africana taxon specimens........................................................................................................................ 26 3.4 Seizures & Confiscated Ivory Stockpile.......................................................................................................................................... 27 3.5 Domestic Ivory Trade .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 3.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 3.7 Options ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 33 3.8 Recommendation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.9 Reasons for Recommendation ............................................................................................................................................................ 35

4. ASPECTS OF THE NEW ZEALAND IVORY TRADE..................................................................................37

4.1 CONFISCATED ITEMS, STOCKPILE INVENTORIES & PRIVATE IVORY COLLECTIONS ........................................ 37 4.1.1 International Support for New Zealand to destroy Ivory Stockpile............................................................................ 38 4.1.2 Summary & Conclusions: Confiscated Items, Stockpile Inventories & Private Collections............................... 38 4.2 DOMESTIC TRADE, MONITORING, VERIFICATION & LEGISLATION............................................................................. 40 4.2.1 New Zealand Imports of Elephantidae specimens - since 1989 Trade ban: ........................................................... 41 4.2.2 Re-Exports of Elephantidae items- since the 1989 Trade Ban ...................................................................................... 42 4.2.3 Summary & Conclusions: Domestic Trade, monitoring, verification requirements and legislation............ 43 4.3 DOMESTIC DEMAND - Trademe, Antique Dealers and Auction Houses ...................................................................... 45 4.3.1 Trademe .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 4.3.2 Antique Dealers ................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Auction Houses .................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 4.3.4 Summary & Conclusions: Domestic Demand - Trademe, Auction Houses and Antique Dealers ................... 47 4.3.5 Overall Conclusions on Domestic Trade................................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 MONITORING & ENFORCEMENT OF IMPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS. ............................................................................... 50 4.4.1 Illegal Ivory Trade Convictions, New Zealand ...................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.2 Summary & Conclusions: Illegal Ivory Trade Convictions, New Zealand ................................................................. 51

5. IMPORTS OF ELEPHANTIDAE FAMILY SPECIMENS .............................................................................53

5.1 Summary on Data & Graphs ................................................................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.1 Number, Volume and Type of Item ............................................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.2 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.3 Large Quantities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 58 5.1.4 Source of Imports ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58 5.2 Imports Summary & Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................... 59

6. RE-EXPORTS of Elephantidae Family specimens ................................................................................61

6.1 Summary for Export Graphs and Data ........................................................................................................................................... 64 6.1.1 Number, Volume and Type of Item ............................................................................................................................................. 64 6.1.2 Use ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65 6.1.3 Large Quantities ................................................................................................................................................................................. 66 6.1.4 Destinations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 6.1.5 Source of Re-exports ......................................................................................................................................................................... 67 6.2 Re-export Summary & Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 68

7. IMPORT AND EXPORT OF Loxodonta africana ...................................................................................70

7.1 Loxodonta africana Imports 1980 - 2012 ..................................................................................................................................... 70 7.1.1 Loxodonda africana Imports 2010 – 2012 ............................................................................................................................. 70 7.2 Loxodonta africana Re-exports 1980 - 2012 .............................................................................................................................. 71 7.2.1 Loxodonta africana Re-exports 2010 – 2012 ........................................................................................................................ 71 7.3 Seizures of Loxodonta africana .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 7.3 Summary on Data for Loxodonta africana: .................................................................................................................................. 73 7.3.1 Summary of Imports for Loxodonta africana ....................................................................................................................... 73 7.3.2 Summary of Re-Exports for Loxodonta africana ................................................................................................................. 73 7.3.3 Summary of Seizures for Loxodonta africana....................................................................................................................... 74 7.3.4 Overall Summary & Conclusions on Imports, Re-exports and Seizures for Loxodonta africana ................... 75

8. SEIZURES ............................................................................................................................................77

8.1 Summary of Seizure Data, Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 81

Appendix 1(a): Copy of text of letter addressed to Prime Minister Mr Key, from Dame Daphne Sheldrick, David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, October 4th 2013...................................................................84 Appendix 1(b): Copy of text of letter addressed to Prime Minister Mr Key, from Fiona Gordon, October 4th 2013. ...................................................................................................................................86 Appendix 2: Petition Text ......................................................................................................................89 Appendix 3: Copies of Formal Letters of Support from International Organisations. ............................90 Appendix 4 Department of Conservation Flow Chart for Personal and Household Effects. ................ 100

1. PURPOSE, INFORMATION SOURCES & BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose This Report presents an analysis of the New Zealand Government’s Official Information and data pertaining to import, re-export and seizure records for Elephantidae specimens 1975 through 20123. Also presented in this Report is New Zealand Government Official information, and other readily accessible information, pertaining to the domestic ivory trade within New Zealand. This report serves two distinct purposes, as set out below. 1. This Report provides an analysis of the Official Government data and Official Information on the New Zealand ivory trade with regard to imports and re-exports and the domestic trade. Observations are presented, based on that information, with regard to: a) seizure records and the Government held stockpile of confiscated ivory b) the scale of the ivory trade (imports and re-exports) c) the trends in the ivory trade, the nature of trade (Personal use vs Trade), type of items traded, destination and source d) the domestic ivory trade, including pre-ban or antique verification requirements.

2. This Report provides comments and summaries based on an assessment of Official data and Official information, and other information, presented in this Report, having specific regard to the current national and international calls to: a) ban the ivory trade, including the New Zealand ivory trade, and b) destroy the stockpile of confiscated ivory in ownership of the Crown. As such, this Report functions as a Supporting Document to both: a) the Petition instigated by Ms Virginia Woolf, which calls for a complete ban on the New Zealand trade in ivory, due to be presented formally to Parliament on 16 April 2014, and b) the formal written request, addressed to Prime Minister Rt Hon Mr Key from Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE and on behalf of over 59,000 signatures supporting the iworry.org campaign, delivered to Hon Dr Nick Smith at Parliament Buildings during the International March for Elephants 4th October 2013. Exclusion from scope of Report: Detailed information and a complete analysis of any pro ivory trade approach are not included in this Report. This report does however, (a) present information and provide comment on the legal ivory trade that currently operates in, to and from New Zealand, and (b) provide broad comment on the pro-trade approach as a means to explain the points underpinning approaches seeking to ban all trade in all ivory.

Note: Although the Official data provided from the UNEP-WCMC Global Database was cited as covering the period 1975 – 2012, the dataset included entries/records for the period 1980 through 2012 only. Hence, this Report presents the entries/records for the period 1980 through 2012, inclusive.

1.2 Sources and Type of Information Two sets of Official Information were obtained directly from the Office of the Hon Dr Nick Smith on 7 August 2013 and 6 December 2013. The information obtained via these two Official Information requests included data of all import, re-export and seizure records for Elephantidae Family specimens, including Ivory, from the UNEP-WCMC Global Database, for the period 1980 through to the most recently reported 2012 data. Also included in the Official Information were formal responses to questions pertaining to, but not limited to:  the monitoring, management and enforcement undertaken by New Zealand agencies for the international trade in ivory;  the monitoring, management and enforcement undertaken by New Zealand agencies for the domestic trade in ivory;  verification requirements required for ivory items, as evidence of their legal eligibility for trading purposes, traded internationally or on the domestic market;  details, including the number and storage and location, of any confiscated ivory items and confiscated ivory stockpile in ownership of the Crown;  Convictions for illegal trading in ivory. The Official Information received noted “there may be reporting errors in the database, so all information may not be accurate” and that all Elephant specimens were included in the analysis as separating out ivory would have made response to this request beyond the administrative capacity of the department. The official Information and data (1980 thorough 2012) described above has been used in this report. In addition, a small amount of other information and anecdotal evidence has also been included in this report. Where anecdotal evidence has been used, this is clearly stated. Where information has been used from other sources, including websites, this has also been noted.

1.3 Background Information In January 2013, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the African elephant, Iain Douglas-Hamilton4 stated, “The new wave of killing of elephants in Africa is in many ways far graver than the crisis of the 1970s and 80s. Firstly there are fewer elephants, and secondly the demand for ivory is far higher. Record ivory prices in the Far East are fueling poachers, organized crime, and political instability right across the African elephant range. And the situation shows no sign of calming.”5 This Report presents Official New Zealand data records for the import and re-export of ivory, including ivory seizure data, and information pertaining to the legal domestic trade in ivory in New Zealand. Further, this Report examines the New Zealand trade in ivory within the international context, as described in this background statement.

1.3.1 Africa’s Elephants and the Ivory Trade Ban Africa’s Elephant population dwindled dramatically during the rampant ivory poaching of 1979 to 1989, which reportedly halved the Elephant population from 1.3 million to 600,0006. In response, The Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), to which New Zealand is a party, listed the African Elephant on Appendices 1 in 19897, effectively banning all international trade in Loxodonta africana. The 20 years after the 1989 ivory trade ban were accompanied by the recovery of Elephant populations, particularly in East Africa.8 According to Ian Douglas-Hamilton, “Thanks to the ban and widespread outrage in the media, ivory became unfashionable, and almost all the key populations in the region recovered from the excessive illegal killing of the former epoch. Increasing numbers were seen in aerial counts, and the ratio of carcasses to live elephants diminished. In most protected areas law enforcement was adequate enough to allow elephant populations to grow through the 90s and early 2000s, even in areas where poaching was at a moderate level.”9 In 1997 CITES agreed to “down-list” the African Elephant populations of Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to Appendix Two, which would allow international trade in elephant parts. In 2000, the African Elephant population of South Africa was also “down-listed” to Appendix Two, with South Africa stating a desire to sell its ivory stockpile10.

Iain Douglas-Hamilton “pioneered the first in-depth scientific study of elephant social behavior in Tanzania’s Lake Manyara National Park at age 23. H e received a Ph.D. in zoology from Oxford University for the work. During the 1970s he investigated the status of elephants throughout Africa and was the first to alert the world to the ivory poaching holocaust. For his work on elephants he was awarded one of conservation’s highest awards, the Order of the Golden Ark, in 1988. He founded Save the Elephants in 1993 in order to create an effective and flexible NGO dedicated specifically to elephants.” http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/31/time-running-out-to-save-elephants-from-ivory-trade/ 5 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/31/time-running-out-to-save-elephants-from-ivory-trade/ 6 http://www.bornfree.org.uk/campaigns/elephants/elephants-under-threat/ “Rampant ivory poaching from 1979 to 1989 halved Africa’s elephant population from 1.3 million to 600,000. Today numbers may be as low as 470,000.” 7

STATUS OF ELEPHANT POPULATIONS, LEVELS OF ILLEGAL KILLING AND THE TRADE IN IVORY: A REPORT TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF CITES SC61 Doc. 44.2 (Rev. 1) Annex 1 “All populations of African elephant have been listed on CITES Appendix I since 1989, except for four national populations that were transferred to Appendix II (Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe in 1997, and South Africa in 2000). The African elephant is currently listed as Vulnerable (A2a; Ver 3.1; Blanc, 2008) on the IUCN Red List.” http://www.cites.org/eng/com/sc/61/E61-44-02-A1.pdf (SC 61 2011) 8

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/31/time-running-out-to-save-elephants-from-ivory-trade/ http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/31/time-running-out-to-save-elephants-from-ivory-trade/ 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade 9

1.3.2 CITES approved “one-off sales” Following calls from four African countries11, CITES approved two “one-off” sales of stockpiled ivory. WildAid reports that this stockpiled ivory was “…from natural mortality, culls and seizures.” 12 The first ‘one-off ’ sale occurred in 1999 whereby 49 tonnes13 of ivory from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe was exclusively sold to Japan. The second sale, which included ivory from South Africa, occurred in 2008 whereby a total of 108 tonnes14 of ivory was sold to China and Japan. This ‘one-off ’ sale allowed China to purchase 62 tons of ivory at the CITESapproved sale.” 15 The 2008 ivory sale coincided with the beginning of a nine-year moratorium on further ivory sales by range States whose populations are currently on Appendix II16. Investigative journalist and lawyer Bryan Christy states, “The UN authorised a legal ivory trade stating that ‘sellers would have to use their earnings for conservation and prove their practices would not affect elephant populations.’ The goal was to reduce the price of ivory on the black market, but the Environmental Investigation Agency among other conservation organizations, opposed this legalization, believing that ‘the legal trade would stimulate the demand for ivory, it would drive prices up and it would serve basically as a mechanism to launder illegal ivory.’ And that’s what’s happening now. The price of legal & documented ivory went up from $US 150 per kilogram, to now more than $US 1,500 per kilo.”17

1.3.3 Illegal Ivory Trade & Elephant Poaching TRAFFIC18, a wildlife trade monitoring agency that reports to CITES, reported to CITES 16th Conference of Parties in March 2013 (CoP16) that, “Bias adjusted and smoothed data indicate that illicit trade in ivory has continued to escalate since CITES CoP15 [2009] and is currently at its highest level in the 16-year period of time examined. A pronounced upward trend in illicit trade is particularly evident from 2007 onwards. Illicit ivory trade activity and the weight of ivory behind this trade is now roughly three times greater than it was in 1998. When these findings from ETIS [Elephant Trade Information System] are viewed together with the results of the CITES MIKE [Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants] programme, it can be argued that elephants are facing the most serious conservation crisis since the 1989 trade ban was imposed under the Convention.” 19 Current African Elephant population estimates vary, but are generally reported to be between 470,00020 500,00021. However, Trevor Jones and Katarzyna Nowak, of the Udzungwa Elephant Project, stated in December 2013 “We suspect that half that number is now closer to the truth.”22

Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, South Africa

http://www.awf.org/sites/default/files/media/news/IvoryDemandInChina_04082013_Final%20PRINT%20VERSION.pdf Including reference to: Experts report highest elephant poaching a nd ivory smuggling rates in a decade”, w ww.Traffic.org. 2012 a nd Gabriel, G. G., Hua , N., and Wang, J. “Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets in China.” International Fund for Animal Welfare. 2012 13 14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade

CITES, CoP16 Doc. 53.2.2 (Rev. 1) page 23 http://elephantopia.org/tag/bryan-christy/ 18 http://www.traffic.org/overview/ “Mission Statement TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature.” “TRAFFIC has an enviable reputation as a reliable and impartial organization, a leader in the field of conservation as it relates to wildlife trade. TRAFFIC was established in 1976 and has developed into a global network, research-driven and action-oriented, committed to delivering innovative and practical conservation solutions based on the latest information. TRAFFIC is governed by the TRAFFIC Committee, a steering group composed of members of TRAFFIC's partner organizations, WWF and IUCN. A central aim of TRAFFIC's activities is to contribute to the wildlife trade-related priorities of these partners.” 19 CITES, CoP16 Doc. 53.2.2 (Rev. 1) page 25 20 http://www.bornfree.org.uk/campaigns/elephants/elephants-under-threat/ “Rampant ivory poaching from 1979 to 1989 halved Africa’s elephant population from 1.3 million to 600,000. Today numbers may be as low as 470,000.” 21 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/16/elephant-declines-a-view-from-the-field/ “…the AfESG and IUCN cite a figure of around 500,000 African elephants left in the wild today.” 22 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/16/elephant-declines-a-view-from-the-field/ Trevor Jones and Katarzyna Nowak

Based on the huge volumes of ivory that have been seized by enforcement authorities worldwide, it is estimated that 50,000 elephants were killed for their tusks in 2013 - every 15 minutes an elephant dies in Africa.23 At this rate, it is estimated that the African Elephant may be extinct in the wild by 2025 24. Again, these estimates vary and Trevor Jones and Katarzyna Nowak, state “ Following the IUCN/MIKE predictive method… many formerly great populations could be 100 percent wiped out in the next five years. Among the locations that could so soon be devoid of elephants are: Zakouma, Chad; Yankari, Nigeria; Virunga, DRC; Caprivi, Namibia; Garamba, DRC; Queen Elizabeth, Uganda; and now, Selous-Mikumi, Tanzania.”25 Bryan Christy reported in February 2014 that, “50 years ago in Chad, there were over 50,000 elephants. Today, there are 1500. And Tanzania in the 1970s boasted over 100,000 elephants. Today, there are 13,084. These two nations also pledged to destroy their stockpiles. Tanzania holds the largest stockpile of ivory in the world (worth over US$50 million) – destroying that would send a clear message that the ivory trade is not to be tolerated nor encouraged and that ivory is worth nothing when it’s not on an elephant. Africa knows the importance of their iconic heritage, the elephant, and the toll the ivory trade has on it’s people. But as the President of Tanzania notes, in order for real change to occur, two things must be done by world leaders: 1. He said the efforts of the government on anti-poaching would only be realized if there is a TOTAL BAN ON IVORY TRADE throughout the region and the whole world at large. 2. He also said countries like China, Vietnam, and Thailand should advocate for a ‘NO IVORY BUYING’ CAMPAIGN to boost anti-poaching efforts.”26

1.3.4 Ivory Demand in China China is recognized as the largest market for illicit ivory27, where despite the availability of man-made alternatives28, ivory “symbolizes wealth and status”. 29 The demand in China comes largely from the growing number of Chinese middle class and their increased wealth.30 Legal ivory factories and retailers in China are supposed to have a license, known as a “Certificate of Ivory Products Collection.31 The Chinese carving factories, which were largely shut down after the 1989 ivory trade ban, have been resurrected 32. The State Administration of Forestry and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce created a system in 2004, which requires ivory products legally produced and sold to be accompanied with a Certificate of Ivory Products Collection. Since the introduction of the system in 2004, the government had, by November 2011, approved a total of 172 processing factories and retail outlets. 33 http://elephantopia.org/tag/bryan-christy/ www.iworry.org 25 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/16/elephant-declines-a-view-from-the-field/ Trevor Jones and Katarzyna Nowak 26 http://elephantopia.org/tag/bryan-christy/ 27 “Since 2009, trade routes shifted from West and Central Africa seaports to East Africa, with Tanzania and Kenya as the primary exit points for illicit ivory leaving the continent. Malaysia, Viet Nam and Hong Kong are key transit points en route, with the iv ory mostly destined for China, although Thailand is also a destination. But over the last two years, trade routes used by traffickers appear to be shifting as new countries such as T ogo and Côte d’Ivoire emerge as exit points in Africa, with Indonesia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey and United Arab Emirates as new transit c ountries.” http://www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20131202_elephant-figures.php 23 24

http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1212-kahumbu-op-ed-poaching.html#5UEYmiXmwy1UcHzR.99 Dr Paula Kahumbu http://news.mongabay.com/2012/1212-kahumbu-op-ed-poaching.html#5UEYmiXmwy1UcHzR.99 Dr Paula Kahumbu 30 China’s rapid economic development continues to build a burgeoning middle class that can afford—and is demanding in greater quantities— endangered wildlife products, such as ivory. The current demand for ivory is estimated to claim the lives of as many as 35,000 African elephants annually. http://www.awf.org/news/china’s-ivory-crush-sends-message 29

http://www.awf.org/sites/default/files/media/news/IvoryDemandInChina_04082013_Final%20PRINT%20VERSION.pdf Including reference to : Experts report highest elephant poaching and ivory smuggling rates in a decade”, w ww.Traffic.org. 2012 and Gabriel, G. G., Hua, N., and Wang, J. “Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets in China.” International Fund for Animal Welfare. 2012 32

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text

http://www.awf.org/sites/default/files/media/news/IvoryDemandInChina_04082013_Final%20PRINT%20VERSION.pdf Including reference to : Experts report highest elephant poaching and ivory smuggling rates in a decade”, w ww.Traffic.org. 2012 and Gabriel, G. G., Hua, N., and Wang, J. “Making a Killing: A 2011 Survey of Ivory Markets in China.” International Fund for Animal Welfare. 2012

It is estimated that up to 90% of all ivory on the Chinese market is from illegal sources.34 An investigation by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in 2011 found that almost 60 percent of authorised sellers and carving factories were involved in some form of laundering and that vendors regularly discourage customers from taking products’ identity cards and reuse them with illicit items.35 Bryan Christy brought the plight of the African Elephant and the scale of the illegal trade in ivory, particularly in China, to the attention of the world in his article “Blood Ivory” in National Geographic October 201236. In terms of the scale of the illegal trade and seizures in 2011 Bryan Christy writes, “Using an Interpol rule of thumb that says seized contraband equals 10 percent of actual smuggling, and assuming that each elephant carries 22 pounds of ivory, that weight equates to 31,500 dead elephants. “The point is this,” says Iain Douglas-Hamilton of Save the Elephants, “tens of thousands of elephants were killed last year. And the figures are going up drastically.” 37

1.3.5 CITES - Recognition of Poaching & Illicit Ivory Trade On 24 May 2012, the CITES Secretary-General gave a testimony at a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States. The topic of the hearing was “Ivory and Insecurity: the global implications of poaching in Africa”. The Secretary-General’s testimony included: “ Illegal trade in wildlife is happening at a scale that poses an immediate risk to both wildlife and to people and their livelihoods. An even greater effort is required, and new approaches need to be taken, if we are to adequately address this risk, including through: employing more formidable and coordinated enforcement responses at Global, regional, sub-regional and national levels; making better use of modern enforcement techniques and technologies; attracting additional financial and human resources at national and international level, and through more effectively suppressing the demand that is driving illegal trade. Strong and clear political messages from the highest possible levels are also required to combat the illegal trade in wildlife.”38 In 2012, INTERPOL and the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice both recognized the increasing involvement of organized crime syndicates in wildlife crime. These are syndicates that carry out detailed planning, have significant financial support, understand and utilize new information technology, and are often well armed. 39 In Bangkok March 2013, Official data was presented to the parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), including New Zealand CITES representatives, at the CoP16. TRAFFIC provided various reports on the illegal killing of elephants (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants: MIKE data) and on the illicit trade in ivory (Elephant Trade Information System: ETIS data). The TRAFFIC reports and those of the CITES Secretariat, included various statements (emphasis added in bold): “Elephant populations do not usually increase at rates much greater than 5 % per annum. The upper ranges of the estimated losses exceed this figure, and it is therefore likely that elephant populations across all four African regions are in net decline.” (TRAFFIC Report CoP16 Doc. 53.1) “The illegal killing of elephants for the illegal international trade in ivory is currently a very serious threat to elephant populations in many range States and may be leading to significant declines in some populations, particularly in Central Africa. Data from the MIKE programme indicate a continuing increase in levels of illegal killing of African elephants since 2006, with 2011 displaying the highest levels since 34

Mary Rice, the Executive Director of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) explains “…EIA investigations in 2010 a nd beyond have demonstrated that up to 90% of the ivory that’s now available on the marketplace i n China is from illegal sources and that’s supported by increasing poaching number figures and also by the number of large s eizures of ivory that are intercepted, a nd most of them are going to China.” http://blog.africageographic.com/africa-geographic-blog/wildlife/wildlife-and-nature/beware-of-the-bureaucratic-failings-of-legalised-trade/ 35 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-china-you-dont-have-to-look-far-to-find-illegal-ivory-9033012.html 36 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text 37 http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/10/ivory/christy-text 38 http://www.cites.org/eng/news/sg/2012/20120525_SG_US-Senate_testimony.php 39 http://www.cites.org/eng/news/sg/2012/20120525_SG_US-Senate_testimony.php

MIKE records began in 2002.” (TRAFFIC Report CoP16 Doc. 53.1) “In addition to the information received through MIKE and ETIS, several significant incidents of elephant poaching and related illegal trade in elephant ivory have come to the attention of the Secretariat in the course of 2012, and the current unprecedented threat that poaching poses to elephant populations, especially in central Africa, has become evident.” (Secretariat Report CoP16 Doc. 53.2.1) “Current levels of illegal killing of African elephants for their ivory may drive certain African elephant populations to extinction. Whilst complete data for elephant populations in Asia are lacking, it appears that they too may be at risk from human-elephant conflicts and habitat degradation.” (Secretariat Report CoP16 Doc. 53.2.1)

1.3.6 International Community Response On the 4th October 2013, over 20,000 people in 42 cities across the globe took part in the iworry.org International March for Elephants40, organized by Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE, Founder and Chair of the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT), Kenya. The first city to march was Wellington, followed by Auckland. Other cities included New York, London, Bangkok, Arusha, and Cape Town. Actress Kristin Davis addressed the crowds in New York joined by award-winning author Bryan Christy, renowned wildlife conservationist Iain Douglas-Hamilton, Dr Paula Kahumbu and model Christie Brinkley. Born Free CEO Will Travers addressed the crowds in Washington DC and American actress Kristin Bauer van Straten addressed those gathered in Los Angeles.41

1.3.7 New Zealand Community Response As an official host city for the International March for Elephants, the Wellington march included the delivery of a formal letter to Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister of Conservation, requesting the New Zealand Government to take numerous actions. This letter was from Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE and directly addressed to Prime Minister Rt Hon Mr Key. In particular Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE requested the Government to (a) ban all ivory trade, and (b) destroy government held stockpiles of ivory. As the Wellington event organiser, and as a volunteer to the DSWT, Ms Fiona Gordon (also the author of this Report) delivered an additional letter to Hon Dr Nick Smith, customising the requests of Dame Daphne Shledrick DBE to the New Zealand context. A copy of both letters, addressed to Prime Minister Mr Key, are included in Appendix 1. Hon Dr Nick Smith promised a formal response to the formal requests made via the International March for Elephants, Wellington, 4th October 2013. To date no such response has been received by Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE or by Ms Fiona Gordon. Ms Virginia Woolf, the organizer of the International March for Elephants in Auckland, instigated a formal petition calling for the New Zealand Government to take specific actions, including the implementation of a complete ban on the New Zealand trade in ivory. That petition has gained over 4,000 signatures and is to be formally delivered to Hon Mr John Banks, Minister of Parliament, at Parliament Buildings on 16 April 2014. A copy of the Petition text is included in Appendix 2.

40 41

http://iworry.org/campaign/ www.iworry.org

1.3.8 International Response 2012 - 2014 Since the International March for Elephants October 2013, a number of international events have highlighted the urgent situation of the African Elephant and related illicit ivory trade. Gabon and the Philippines publically destroyed their Government held stockpiles of ivory in June 2012 and June 2013 respectively. More recently, countries that have publically destroyed government held stockpiles of ivory include, the United States (November 2013), China (January 2014), and France (February 2014). Hong Kong, a significant transit point and destination market for the ivory trade, is planning to burn close to 28 tons of ivory stockpiles this spring and has pledged to routinely destroy stockpiles in the future. 42 The President of Tanzania has also announced that Tanzania will destroy more than 90 tonnes of ivory, and Belgium has recently announced its intention to destroy its ivory stockpile.43 Public destruction of contraband ivory is considered a highly visible way to raise awareness among consumers about the harms of the ivory trade and mobilize public support to shun ivory purchases. 44 It also sends a clear message to criminal networks that the international community will not tolerate ivory trafficking. 45 It is also considered that countries that destroy their national stockpiles send a clear signal to consumers, traffickers, and speculators that ivory has no value and no future.46 The African Elephant Summit47 was held in Gaborone, Botswana from 2-4 December 2013. Delegates from 30 countries and 27 inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations participated in discussions around key urgent measures required to stem the growing illegal ivory trade and its impacts on elephant populations in Africa. A set of 14 urgent measures were adopted by consensus, including48: Urgent Measure 8 -Mobilise financial and technical resources from various national and international sources utilizing those mechanisms that best support the implementation of the African Elephant Action Plan and these agreed urgent measures at national, regional and continental level. Urgent Measure 9 -Design and carry out national studies and public awareness programs, aimed at all sectors, which include information on the ramifications of illegal killing of elephants and the illegal ivory trade on the economy, national security, public safety and the ecosystem services elephants provide. Urgent Measure 10 -Implement efficient measures to register and secure ivory stockpiles, including comprehensive marking and inventory of stored ivory, as agreed under CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP16). Urgent Measure 13 -Strengthen existing or implement new legislation to classify wildlife trafficking involving organized criminal groups as a “serious crime” to effectively unlock international law enforcement cooperation provided under the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, including mutual legal assistance, asset seizure and forfeiture, extradition, and other tools to hold criminals accountable for wildlife crime. [Note: Information on the African Elephant Action Plan can be sourced at : https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/who_we_are/ssc_specialist_groups_and_red_list_authorities_directory /mammals/african_elephant/strategies_plans/aeap/ ]

Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. Environmental Investigation Agency, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 12 March 2014. Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. 45 Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. Environmental Investigation Agency, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 12 March 2014. 46 African Wildlife Foundation, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 7 February 2014. 47 http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/who_we_are/ssc_specialist_groups_and_red_list_authorities_directory/mammals/african_elepha nt/summit/ 48 https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/aes_final_summary_record_1.pdf 43 44

In late January 2014 the United Nations Security Council adopted two resolutions on sanctions targeting armed groups or criminal networks in the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo financed by poaching and exploitation of illicit wildlife and wildlife products. 49 On February 11 2014 the United States released its National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking, a result of President Obama’s Executive Order, detailing guiding principles for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife, 50 including sweeping prohibitions on the international and domestic trade in ivory51 At a national level in the United States, Hawaii and New York are currently in the process of placing bans on the domestic trade in ivory.52 At the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade on February 13 2014, high-level representatives from 42 countries, including the Prince of Wales and Prince Harry, convened and signed a declaration to pledge political commitment and collective efforts to tackle the illegal trade in wildlife. 53 The London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade Declaration includes Action II, which recommends governments that have stockpiles of illegal products to destroy them.54 As the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Chair of the United Nations Development Group, Helen Clark addressed attendees at the London High Level Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade United Kingdom, on the13 February 2014. Helen Clark commented that, “This vile trade is a development, environmental, and security challenge. It is pushing vulnerable and endangered species toward extinction, fuelling corruption and conflict, and putting lives and livelihoods at risk. At UNDP, we are committed to helping to stop this trade, contributing through our global presence and our expertise in governance, the rule of law, poverty eradication, and environmental protection. We see addressing rural poverty and creating opportunities for sustainable livelihoods as a critical element in turning the tide on wildlife poaching and trafficking.”55 Further, she stated that, “Inherent in that is the need to bring communities on board. Community-based natural resource management is effective in reducing illegal wildlife trade. It encourages local support for conservation through income generation, and it helps with the management and monitoring of the whole ecosystem, including wildlife. If local communities are kept out of the equation, they may turn a blind eye to poaching, or, driven by poverty, may be recruited into poaching gangs. But if they get a bigger share of the revenues from tourism and more secure rights to land and natural resources to support their livelihoods, and if measures are put in place to protect their crops, livestock, and lives from the dangers of human-wildlife conflict, then they will be an important part of the solution to the trafficking problem.” 56 In conclusion Helen Clark stated that, “…UNDP sees a strong role for development actors working alongside governments and communities to stop the illegal wildlife trade. We hope that today’s conference will generate

Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. 51 Environmental Investigation Agency, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 12 March 2014. The White House (Feb. 2014), FACT SHEET: National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking & Commercial Ban on Trade in Elephant Ivory, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2014/02/11/fact-sheet-national-strategy- combating-wildlife-trafficking-commercial-b. 50

Hawaii: http://openstates.org/hi/bills/2014%20Regular%20Session/HB2183/documents/HID00108456/ New York: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220193335.htm 53 Humane Society International, letter to Rt. Hon. John Key and Hon. Dr. Nick Smith, dated 25 February 2014. 54

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281289/london-wildlife-conference-declaration-140213.pdf Action II – “Endorse the action of Governments which have destroyed seized wildlife products being traded illegally; and encourage those Governments that have stockpiles of illegal products, particularly of high value items such as rhino horn or elephant ivory, to destroy them and to carry out policy research on measures which will benefit conservation. Independent audits, or other means of ensuring transparent management, should be carried out prior to destruction. 55

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2014/02/13/helen-clark-speech-at-the-london-high-level-conference-on-illegalwildlife-trade/ 56 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2014/02/13/helen-clark-speech-at-the-london-high-level-conference-on-illegalwildlife-trade/

even stronger commitments to that end. At UNDP, we will do whatever we can to contribute, and we recognise that much more can and must be done.” 57 It is generally acknowledged that a package of actions is required in order to effectively reduce Elephant poaching levels and reduce the illicit ivory trade. As can be seen with the approaches of the Clinton Global Initiative58, the United States National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trade, the IUCN African Elephant Summit and the Declaration of the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, which include actions such as demand reduction strategies, increased enforcement capacity, increased anti-poaching efforts, sustainable community based wildlife initiatives, increased penalties and consumer awareness. In addition, the United States, Hawaii and seven African nations have committed to or are working towards ivory trade bans (domestic and/or imports and exports) as part of, or alongside these approaches.

1.3.9 International Support for New Zealand to Ban all Ivory Trade and destroy Government Held Stockpile of Confiscated Ivory. The Tanzanian Association of Tourism Operators (TATO) estimates that of all the illegal ivory seized across the globe over the last decade, one third of it comes from Tanzania's Elephants. 59 The Vice Chairman of TATO, Peter Lindstrom, notes “Since the downgrading of the elephant to Appendix 2 of the CITES Agreement and with limited sales of ivory being permitted poaching throughout Africa and in particular East Africa has become an epidemic of frightening proportions threatening our Tourism Industry and at current rates of killing in our own country we may have 2 -3 years left before our population becomes extinct. The elephant is a keystone species creating suitable habitats for many other animals thereby enhancing biodiversity and the very act of protecting it protects a wide spectrum of wildlife.” 60 Mr Lindstrom notes, “It is our understanding that New Zealand Tourists are visiting China, Thailand and Viet Nam in increasing numbers and a significant number visit Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Africa.”…“Through ignorance these tourists may buy Ivory souvenirs without a thought that however small a purchase might be, such purchases are a factor in the demise of our elephants. Awareness brought about by crushing ivory will send out a strong message to the New Zealand public and to others abroad and individuals will surely think twice before buying any ivory on a visit to for example China.” 61 In addition, Mr Lindstrom states, “On another level we need as much International attention to focus on the plight of our elephants and any gesture however small helps what we hope will be a groundswell that will move others to do the same and more importantly see the TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BAN ON TRADE IN IVORY TO BE REIMPOSED before it is too late.” 62 The following international organisations have provided formal written support for New Zealand to (a) ban the ivory trade and/or (b) publically destroy the Government Held Stockpile of confiscated ivory:       

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF): Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO. Born Free Foundation: Will Travers, Founder and CEO. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA): Mary Rice, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency UK. Humane Society International (HSI): Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. President and CEO, Humane Society International Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Society of the United States. Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO): Vice Chairman, Peter Lindstrom. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS): Cristian Samper, President and CEO. David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust: Dame Daphne Sheldrick, DBE, Founder and Chair.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/presscenter/speeches/2014/02/13/helen-clark-speech-at-the-london-high-level-conference-on-illegalwildlife-trade/ 58 Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action: Partnership to Save Africa’s Elephants. 59 TATO positions on Proposal that New Zealand crush its Ivory stockpile, dated 31 January 2014. 60 TATO positions on Proposal that New Zealand crush its Ivory stockpile, dated 31 January 2014. 61 TATO positions on Proposal that New Zealand crush its Ivory stockpile, dated 31 January 2014. 62 TATO positions on Proposal that New Zealand crush its Ivory stockpile, dated 31 January 2014.

Copies of the formal letters of support from each of the above organisations are included in Appendix 1 and 3. While the wording of the formal written support for banning the ivory trade should be read within the context of each individual letter, the formal support includes, “moratorium in ivory trade altogether”63; “adopt a ban on all ivory trade”64; “ban the ivory trade in New Zealand”, “prohibit ivory trade”65; “total international ban on trade in ivory to be re-imposed”66; “placing an effective moratoria on domestic sales of ivory” and to “stop the killing, stop the trafficking, and stop the demand67”; “a complete ban on commercial international and domestic trade in ivory and call for the closure of parallel commercial legal markets for ivory”68.

1.3.9.1 Basis for banning all ivory trade approach. As an overview of the reasons underpinning the approach to ban all ivory trade, I provide comment on the following: ivory demand and supply; monetary and associated cultural value of ivory; and the laundering of illicit ivory. I also note those African countries seeking ivory trade bans and note the international organisations that have provided formal support for the New Zealand Government to ban the ivory trade. While I make comment here on the pro-trade approach I do so in order to explain the reasons underpinning the approach to ban all ivory trade, as such these comments are not and should not be considered a full critique of the pro-trade approach. The 1989 ivory trade ban was followed by a period of recovery for African Elephant populations. The CITES approved “one-off” sales from ivory stockpiles, which took place in 1999 and 2008, were not followed by a ‘flooding’ of the ivory market leading to a reduction in ivory prices, nor did the “one-off” sales result in a reduction in the demand for ivory. Many of those on the ground claimed that the 1999 ivory sale had changed the perception of ivory, and many poachers and traders believed they were back in business.69 Many consider that allowing China to purchase ivory from the second ivory sale in 2008 renewed a vast market and demand for ivory, “The second sale raised even more concerns, not least because, for the first time, China was being allowed to bid as a legal ivory buyer, alongside Japan. China not only has a potentially gigantic demand for ivory, but is already the home of a flourishing underground market. Conservationists feared that the unleashing of a massive Chinese demand for traditional and popular objects such as trinkets, name seals, expensive carvings and polished ivory tusks would itself give an enormous boost to the illegal trade, which is entirely poaching-based.”70 While it is still hotly debated as to what effect the CITES approved one-off sales did have on the illicit trade and poaching levels, what is agreed (and evidenced in TRAFFIC reports) is that since 2007 Elephant poaching and the illicit ivory trade has dramatically increased, to the current unprecedented levels. Currently, all ivory is commanding high prices. These high prices are due to typical market forces – the demand for ivory is high and the supply of ivory is low. The only ivory legally available for commercial trade is (a) ivory of antique or pre-ban source (which, in very basic terms, are exempt from CITES trade regulations), and (b) “new” ivory from the CITES approved “one-off” sales to Japan and China. In terms of demand, as noted previously, China is currently the largest consumer of ivory, and the main destination for illicit ivory. It is reported that by 2022, China’s middle class should number 630 million, however, by 2022, the upper middle class will become the new mainstream, accounting for 54 percent of all urban households71, this equates to approximately 453 million people. Further, it is reported that the Chinese upper middle-class consumers are more willing than the mass middle-class to pay a premium for quality products, have a high level of trust in well-known brands and can afford to spend more of their income on discretionary products

African Wildlife Foundation. Environmental Investigation Agency. 65 Humane Society International. 66 Tanzania Association of Tourism Operators. 67 Wildlife Conservation Society. 68 David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust. 69 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_trade Ref: "Back in Business", Hastie, Newman, Rice, 2002 an EIA report 70 http://www.saveafricananimals.org/attachments/article/111/china-ivory-timeline.pdf Ref: Feb 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/slaughter-of-the-elephants-1631367.html 71 http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/half-a-billion-chinas-middle-class-consumers/ 64

and services as opposed to basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter72. In addition, while China is ranked as the top consumer of illegal ivory, the United States is considered the second largest market in the world73. In light of this demand from China and the United States, without being callous, if one wishes to consider the total remaining supply of ’new ivory’, they may consider the potential of (a) ivory from government held confiscated ivory stockpiles, and (b) ivory from the natural mortality of the remaining African Elephant population (upper population estimate of 500 000). Assuming that the African Elephant population is in net decline, which is a reasonable assumption on the basis of 2013 TRAFFIC reports for all four Elephant range states, this leaves only government held stockpiles and a maximum of 1 million tusks from the natural mortality of the current African Elephant population The volume of government held ivory stockpiles remains unclear, as evidenced by the recent CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which includes requirements for inventories of government held and significant privately held stockpiles, and annual reporting on those stockpiles starting on 28 February 2014. Regardless, it is reasonable to assume that even the government held stockpiles could not be large enough to supply the current and future demand of even a small percentage of 453 million upper middle class people in China by 2022 alone. In terms of the percentage of the Chinese middle and upper middle class that make ivory purchases, the key findings of a recent survey, which polled a sample group of 600 targeted members of the Chinese middle and upper middle class consumers in nine of China’s largest cities, are sobering.74 According to that survey, “84 percent of Chinese middle and upper-middle class consumers surveyed plan to buy ivory goods in the future.” 75 Directly translating this survey result to the population statistics presented above, this would equate to 380 million Chinese upper-middle class purchasers of ivory by 2022. This is of course assuming that the demand for ivory in China is not significantly reduced. With regard to reducing demand, the same study found that “video and billboard advertisements in China that show how poaching is threatening Africa’s Elephant population largely fail to deter consumers” noting that “more than 50 percent of respondents have seen this type of messaging in videos or billboards.” 76 Another important finding of the report is that “Nearly 60 percent of respondents believe that making ivory “illegal to purchase under any circumstances” or “the strong recommendation of a government leader” would be the most effective way to stop ivory trading.” 77 The survey was also revealing about the appeal of ivory. Around one-half describe an ivory product as a “rarity,” 35 percent call it a “luxury,” and 29 percent think it confers “status.” Fourteen percent associate ivory with “wisdom,” while 87 percent associate purchasing ivory products with a feeling of “prestige.” 78 Taking into account the above information, it therefore makes sense why pre-ban ivory items are now commanding high prices, alongside the high prices commanded by illicit ivory. In addition, the trend of high demand and low supply can only continue as the supply of ivory declines along with Africa’s Elephant populations. Pro-traders and some economists may argue that selling government confiscated ivory stockpiles and/or flooding the market with pre-ban ivory or limiting trade to ivory from natural mortality is a valid future approach. However, if one generally agrees with the details provided above for supply and demand, then one would also agree that (a) the pro-trade approach would do little to quench the existing demand in China alone (ie. not including the demand in United States or Thailand for example), nor quench the demand from the growing Chinese middle class and upper middle class. 72

http://thediplomat.com/2013/05/half-a-billion-chinas-middle-class-consumers/ Paula Kahumbu http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants 74 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ 75 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ 76 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ 77 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ 78 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ 73

Furthermore, the success of a pro-trade approach, whereby demand is catered for (or satisfied) and Elephant poaching and the illicit ivory trade are reduced, must rely heavily on effective monitoring and enforcement of the legal trade in ivory. The two CITES approved “one-off” ivory sales in 1999 and 2008 allowed a total of 157 tonnes of “new” ivory onto the markets of Japan and China. The monitoring and enforcement of the legal trade in this “new” ivory in China has been ineffective, with a study by the International Fund for Animal Welfare finding that an estimated four-fifths of ivory items sold in China are believed to have been made of smuggled tusks. 79 China has had 6 years, since 2008, to effectively monitor and enforce the requirements of the legal trade in ivory. Of note is that in November 2012, WildAid worked with Horizonkey Research Consultancy Group to interview 961 urban residents in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou and their findings included that “Over 45% of interviewees said they could not distinguish legal ivory from ivory obtained illegally.”80 And this difficulty is not restricted to China. Illicit ivory can be carefully disguised to appear as antique or of pre-ban source, making it difficult to discern an item’s eligibility for trade in the United States as well. For example, the owner of an African art shop in Philadelphia, Victor Gordon, was arrested in connection with one of the largest US seizures of illegally imported ivory in July 2011. He pleaded guilty, on 27 September 2012, to smuggling after federal agents seized over a ton of African elephant ivory from his shop and from customers across the country. Victor Gordon purchased ivory from West and Central Africa, where poaching is rampant. After the ivory was worked and stained to appear antique, it was imported openly through John F. Kennedy International Airport.81 The Animal Welfare Institute stated recently, with regard to the United States, that, “it would be simpler to clamp down on the illicit ivory trade if all ivory sales were banned, domestic and abroad. Certainly, given the stakes, consumers should avoid the purchase of any ivory, no matter the age, pedigree, or condition. That fine old carving in a curio shop may well be contributing to the conversion of an entire species into something of an “antique.”82 While the legal trade in “new” ivory has existed since the CITES approved one-off sale to China and Japan in 2008, the African Elephant population has declined significantly due to increased poaching and the illicit ivory trade. In contrast, the African Elephant population experienced a period of recovery after the 1989 ivory trade ban. Put simply, there is not enough ivory to satisfy the current and future high demand. In addition, there are significant difficulties in the effective enforcement and monitoring of the current legal trade in China, as evidenced by the decline of African Elephant populations and large amount of illicit ivory laundered on the legal market. Further, there exists difficulty for consumers to distinguish between legal and illegally sourced ivory, despite certification requirements at point of sale in China. Where there is a legal trade, there is an opportunity to launder illicit ivory83. Again, if one agrees that the current and future demand for ivory is outstripped by any conceivable supply and agrees with the information presented above, a pro-trade approach would continue to (a) provide opportunities for the laundering of illicit ivory within legal markets, and (b) continue to promote the demand and high prices for ivory, and (c) would therefore continue to provide monetary incentives for poachers. Added to this is that consumers are now not only seeking ivory as an art form, but also as an investment, as evidenced in the New Zealand court proceedings for the conviction of Jiezhen Jiang on eight counts of trading in a specimen of an endangered species without permit. It is fair to say that the demand for and the price commanded by pre-ban ivory are high (including in New Zealand), and in some instances consumers are investing in ivory (pre-ban or otherwise) in the knowledge that ivory will soon be in even shorter supply, and anticipate selling the ivory for profit in the future.

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/26/the-ivory-trade-thinking-like-a-businessman-to-stop-the-business/ Ivory Demand In China 4/8/2013. WildAid 81 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2013-winter/elephant-ivory-trade-u-s 82 . https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2013-winter/elephant-ivory-trade-u-s 83 “In the US and while it involves mostly old pre-ban ivory, like the situation in China, the legal trade is being used as a cover for a significant amount of illegal trade.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants 80

It is the high demand for ivory per se that results in it’s high dollar value, and it is it’s high dollar value which drives the poaching and the illicit trade. Therefore, the demand for all ivory needs to be significantly reduced. Of the highest significance and importance are the commitments and statements of African countries. It is their Elephant populations that are facing eminent extinction due to the demand for ivory. In September 2013 the Clinton Global initiative brought together the main conservation groups including the Wildlife Conservation Society, the African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the World Wildlife Fund, as well as a number of African governments84. Seven African nations, namely Botswana, Cote D'Ivoire, Gabon, Kenya, South Sudan, Malawi and Uganda, joined Hillary and Chelsea Clinton in a commitment to end the slaughter of elephants by banning domestic trade in ivory, and stopping the killing of elephants, the trafficking of ivory, and the demand for ivory. 85 Of note is that ahead of CITES CoP16 in 2013, Tanzania had submitted a proposal to down-list the status of the country's elephants and to allow a one-time sale of more than 100 tons of ivory to China and Japan. 86 However, at the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade in February 2014, President Jakaya Kikwete, Government of Tanzania, gave a speech where he appealed to the international community to impose a total ban on trade of ivory and rhino horns to protect the wildlife from extinction87. The government's decision to withdraw the proposal comes in the midst of the Elephant poaching crisis which stems from a growing demand for ivory primarily in Asia. 88 In terms of current international support for New Zealand to ban the trade in ivory, the following organisations have provided formal written support (see Appendix 1 and 3): The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT), African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Humane Society International (HIS), Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) have provided formal written support for New Zealand to ban the trade in ivory, as a means to reduce demand in ivory.

1.3.9.2 Basis for destroying government held confiscated ivory stockpiles Broadly speaking, the public destruction of government held confiscated ivory stockpiles serves a number of purposes, including (a) to raise awareness among consumers about the harms of the ivory trade, on Elephants and people, (b) to mobilize public support to shun ivory purchases, thereby reducing ivory demand, (c) to send a clear message nationally and internationally that a nation will not tolerate ivory trafficking, (d) demonstrate that there is no value in confiscated ivory now or in the future. In addition the public destruction of government held confiscated ivory stockpiles is a useful precursor to any legislation changes that may seek to increase restrictions on the legal ivory trade or to completely ban all ivory trade. The following are excerpts from the formal letters and statements of support received to date, for the New Zealand Government to destroy its confiscated ivory stockpile: Tanzania Association of Tourism Operators, 2014 - Peter Lindstrom, Vice Chairman.



The Tanzanian Association of Tourism Operators estimates that of all the illegal ivory seized across the globe over the last decade, one third of it comes from Tanzania's Elephants.



Awareness brought about by crushing ivory will send out a strong message to the New Zealand public and to others abroad and individuals will surely think twice before buying any ivory on a visit to for example China.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/26/hillary-chelsea-clinton-african-elephants-ivory-poaching http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants 86 http://www.awf.org/news/tanzanias-elephants-receive-reprieve-ivory-trade-proposal-withdrawn 87 http://allafrica.com/stories/201402270049.html 88 http://www.awf.org/news/tanzanias-elephants-receive-reprieve-ivory-trade-proposal-withdrawn 85

African Wildlife Foundation, 2014 - Dr. Patrick Bergin, CEO. 

Countries that destroy their national stockpiles send a clear signal to consumers, traffickers, and speculators that ivory has no value and no future. Given the recent actions taken by China, the world’s largest ivory market; the United States, the second largest ivory market in the world; France, the first European country; and Kenya, an important elephant range state (among many others) to destroy all or part of their stockpiles, we are hopeful that an international consensus is emerging that ivory is not, and should never be, a commodity like any other commodity to be traded and speculated on. It is our hope that the momentum to destroy ivory stockpiles will gain speed at the upcoming wildlife trafficking summit in London.

Environmental Investigation Agency, 2014 - Mary Rice, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency UK 

This letter conveys our strong support for the commendable efforts of advocates such as Ms. Fiona Gordon and her group to press for New Zealand’s strengthened participation in the global campaign to save elephants, particularly for New Zealand to adopt a ban on all ivory trade and to dispose of government-held ivory stockpiles from seizures, which by definition are illegal, and other sources.



Countries around the world are taking action to support a ban on trade in ivory by permanently disposing of their ivory stockpiles. For example, in November 2013 the United States crushed more than 6 tonnes of seized ivory in order “to send a clear message that the United States will not tolerate ivory trafficking and the toll it is taking on elephant populations.” This initiative was further strengthened when on February 11, 2014 President Obama announced sweeping prohibitions on the international and domestic trade in ivory. On February 13, representatives from 41 countries, including China and Japan, and the European Union adopted the London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade, which committed to support a ban on international commercial trade in ivory until poaching is no longer a threat to elephants in the wild. The Declaration also supports destruction of stockpiles of confiscated ivory and other wildlife contraband.

Humane Society International, 2104 - Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. President and CEO, Humane Society International Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Society of the United States



There are various actions a concerned national government can adopt to demonstrate support for stopping wildlife trafficking, such as public destruction of confiscated ivory stockpiles. The United States and China, the two largest markets for ivory, have each destroyed six tons of seized ivory during the last six months. Soon after, France followed suit. Hong Kong, a significant transit point and destination market for the ivory trade, is planning to burn close to 28 tons of ivory stockpiles this spring and has pledged to routinely destroy stockpiles in the future. Public destruction of contraband ivory is a highly visible way to raise awareness among consumers about the harms of the ivory trade and mobilize public support to shun ivory purchases. It also sends a clear message to criminal networks that the international community will not tolerate ivory trafficking. The London Declaration recommends governments that have stockpiles of illegal products to destroy them.



New Zealand’s close proximity to numerous biodiversity hotspots and hubs of illegal wildlife trade in the Asia-Pacific region make it an important ally in the global effort to combat wildlife trafficking and the illegal ivory trade. New Zealand has an opportunity to assert a regional and global leadership role to save elephants by becoming the first country in the Oceania region to destroy contraband ivory and prohibit ivory trade.

Wildlife Conservation Society, 2014 - Cristian Samper, President and CEO. 

Public events of ivory destruction are a clear step toward creating worldwide awareness of the ravages of the illegal trade.



With these efforts in mind, WCS urges the New Zealand Government to institute a moratorium on the legal ivory trade in New Zealand until Elephants are no longer threatened by poaching and join other countries that have destroyed stockpiles of confiscated ivory.

Born Free Foundation, 2014 - Will Travers, Founder and CEO. 

Destruction sends a clear message to the global community that illegal ivory trade is completely unacceptable. It also puts the ivory forever beyond the reach of criminals and ensures it will never be made available for any potential future legal trade. In the run up to the High Level Summit on illegal wildlife trade, taking place in London on the 13th of February 2014, Born Free hopes that New Zealand will join the ever lengthening list of governments showing their support and commitment to this vital message by announcing its intention to destroy its own ivory stockpile.

David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, 4th October, 2013 - Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE, Founder and Chair. 



In particular, we would urge you [Mr Key] to: 1) Publicly announce support for a complete ban on commercial international and domestic trade in ivory and call for the closure of parallel commercial legal markets for ivory. 2) Support demand-reduction efforts by directing the destruction of ivory confiscated in New Zealand (except that which is required for training and educational purposes). 3) Actively lead and participate in the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade scheduled to take place in February 2014 and to encourage world governments at the Conference to support a complete ban on commercial trade in ivory and adopt effective measures to combat wildlife crime. 4) Ensure investment of resources to effectively combat wildlife crime in New Zealand and abroad, including providing sustained funding for any relevant National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), such as the New Zealand Wildlife Enforcement Group. 5) Convene a task force which includes membership of relevant agencies from the New Zealand government as well as key non-governmental bodies and other stakeholders to (prepare an effective strategy to combat wildlife crime). To identify more specific operational support New Zealand can provide to address site and regional specific wildlife crime situations, leaving a legacy beyond the 2014 London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. 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 majority89 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 89

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).

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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

New Zealand plays a consistent and increasing role as an ivory importer and re-exporter. Import and re-export records of large quantities (50 – 278 items) for Personal use. High likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory in New Zealand. Imports and re-exports of ivory of Wild and Unknown source (not noted as pre-ban). Potential for ivory imported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market. Potential for ivory re-exported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market of the destination country. Increased re-exports of personal items to China 2012. New Zealand trade in pre-ban ivory is reflective of the international ivory market. Domestic trade mechanisms. Majority of imports and re-exports are of Loxodonta africana. Majority of seizures are for imports. 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 ivory90, 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 trade 91, and 3) Investigate, develop and maintain inventories of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory92, 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, reexports and domestic) in ivory and the reasons for such a ban.

Acknowledging that it is appropriate that some items may continue to be required for training and educational purposes. Acknowledging that imports and re-exports for scientific or educational purposes may continue to be deemed appropriate. 92 Acknowledging that for the purposes of this Report, 50 was the number of items arbitrarily deemed to constitute a “significant” privately held s tockpile or “large quantity” for Personal use i mports and re-exports. A lesser number may be determined to be more appropriate. 91

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

3. FULL SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 Imports of Elephantidae Family specimens Note: Trends for Imports in this Summary are based on the assumption that it is appropriate, for statistical purposes, to exclude the data from 1980 through 1987, due to the significant spike in the data at 1986, which unduly skews the trendline downwards. Other import observations are based on the full data set 1980 through 2012.

A total of 509 import records exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 9094 items, the majority (97%) of which are ivory: (89%, 8118 items) of which are ‘carvings’ or ‘ivory carvings’93 and a smaller amount are’ ivory pieces’ (8%, 693 items) and ‘tusks’ (2%, 197 items). For the period 1987 through 2012, there is an increasing trend for the number of import records per year (15% increase), the number of imported items per year (22% increase) and the average number of items per import record per year (24% increase). For the period 2010 through 2012, there is some fluctuation in the number of items imported each year and the average number of items per import record, however, there remains an overall increasing trend for imports, for the period 1987 though 2012. In summary, the import data shows that:  New Zealand plays an increasing role as an importer of ivory, based on the number of import records each year and number of items imported each year, for the period 1987 through 2012,  The majority of import records since the 1989 ban are for Personal use, accounting for 3038 items.  Personal use imports for large quantities (50 - 261 items) occur, including during the most recent data period 2010 – 2012.  There is a high likelihood that privately held stockpiles of ivory, in excess of 50 items, exist in New Zealand.  The number of import records for Trade has decreased noticeably since the 1989 ban, with a total of 1227 trade items imported since the ban. However, the number of items imported for Trade has increased notably since 2007.  Imports for Hunting purposes have increased since 2009.  During the more recent period 2007 through 2012, a total of 199 ivory items have been imported for Personal or Trade use from Wild sources, and 789 ivory items imported from Unknown sources. These items are not noted as pre-ban.  The majority of the imported items noted as Unknown or Wild (and not pre-ban) during the more recent period 2007 through 2012, were exported from the United Kingdom, South Africa and United States.

3.2 Re-Exports of Elephantidae Family specimens A total of 453 Export Records exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 5523 items. The majority (98%) of which are ivory: (67%) of all items re-exported are carvings and ivory carvings, and a further 31% are ivory pieces. For the period 1980 through 2012, there is an increasing trend in the number of re-export records per year (60% increase), the number of re-exported items per year (46% increase) and the average number of items per reexport record per year (16% increase). There has been a dramatic increase in the number of items re-exported during 2010 through 2012. A total of 2198 items were re-exported over this three year period representing 40% of all the items re-exported during the entire 33 year period (1980 through 2012). 93

Official data for imports and re-exports of Elephantidae Family specimens included records for “carvings” a nd “ivory carvings”, therefore these terms have also been used in this Report.

Of particular note is that the number of re-export records and the number of re-exported items peaked at 2012, with 1255 items re-exported across 70 re-export records. Importantly, 69 of these records were for Personal use (with an average of 18 items per re-export record). In summary, the re-export data shows that:  New Zealand plays an increasing role as a re-exporter of ivory, based on the number of re-export records each year and number of items re-exported each year, for the period 1980 through 2012.  Peaks or surges in re-export data occur at 1991; 1998 – 2006, and 2007 – 2012, broadly coinciding with the 1989 trade ban, and CITES approved “one-off” ivory sales in 1999 and 2008.  The majority of re-export records before and after the 1989 ban are for Personal use, however, there is an notable increase in the number of re-export records and number of re-exported items each year for Personal use occurring from 2007/2008 onwards.  Re-exports of ivory from New Zealand over the entire 33 year data period peak in 2012, with 1255 items across 70 re-export records for that year alone.  Re-exports to China have increased significantly, with 12 re-export records in 2012, accounting for 205 items (an average of 17 items per record).  Personal use re-export records for large quantities (50 items to 278) occur. 6 of these large quantity Personal use re-export records occur during the most recent data period 2010 through 2012 presenting an average of 138 items/record.  The main destinations for re-exports include Australia, United Kingdom, United States and more recently China.  There is a high likelihood that privately held stockpiles of ivory, in excess of 50 items, exist in New Zealand.  The proportion of re-export records for Trade has decreased since the ban (from 23% - 9% of all reexport records).  During the more recent period 2007 through 2011, a total of 431 items have been re-exported for Personal use from Wild or Unknown sources, and not noted as pre-ban. 1 item was re-exported for Trade from Wild sources, and not noted as pre-ban.  The dominant destinations for re-exported items noted as Unknown or Wild (and not pre-ban) during the more recent period 2007 through 2011 include Australia, United Kingdom, and the United States.

3.3 Trade in Loxodonata africana taxon specimens In terms of the New Zealand trade in Loxodonta africana, including ivory, the data shows that:  A total of 296 Re-export Records for Loxodonta africana exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 3197 items. That is to say that 65% of all re-export records for Elephantidae Family specimens are for Loxodonta africana, accounting for 58% of all items re-exported.  Since 1980 the majority of the international trade in Elephantidae Family specimens to and from New Zealand is of Loxodonta africana.  Overall, Loxodonta africana items are mostly imported to New Zealand for Trade purposes and mostly reexported for Personal use.  There has been a notable increase in the number of items imported for Hunting Purposes. These are from Wild sources from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique.  The majority of all items seized since records began in 1989 are of Loxodonta africana. For the more recent 2010 through 2012 period, data shows that:  There has been a dramatic increase in the number of Loxodonta africana items re-exported during this 3 year period, accounting for 50% of all of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported in the 23 year period since the 1989 ban.  28% of all of the Loxodonta africana items imported in the 23 year period since the ban occur during this period.  Main destinations, for re-exports based on number of items, include China.

  

A significant 2644 items of Loxodonta africana have crossed New Zealand boarders via import and reexport records. A significant 40 items of Loxodonta africana were seized during this 3 year period. The majority of these seizures were for re-exports, and all were destined for the United States. Imports seized were from Zambia, Japan, Australia, United States and France.

3.4 Seizures & Confiscated Ivory Stockpile The number of seized specimens of Elephantidae Family for the period 1989 through 2012 totals 791. The majority (94%) of these items are ivory - carvings and ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. Based on the seizure data and assuming a weight of 5kg per tusk (80 tusks), 0.3kg per carving (564 carvings), and 5kg per tooth (13 teeth), these seized items alone could weigh more than 650Kg. This weight does not include the 98 seized ivory pieces, which could vary considerably in weight depending on size94. The seizure data shows a decreasing trend for the number of seizure records and the number of items seized per year. The data also shows a decline in the average number of items per seizure. Importantly, the majority (181) of seizure records are for the import of Elephantidae specimens into New Zealand, and the minority (12 seizure records) are for re-exports from New Zealand. During 2010 through 2012, a notable 16 seizures were made, accounting for 49 items. The majority (14 records, accounting for 45 items) of these seizures were noted as for Personal use. A small number (2 records, accounting for 2 items) were noted as for Trade purposes. A full analysis for the exporting countries was not undertaken, however, exporting countries include: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, China, Thailand, Japan, Zambia, and France. There has been one conviction for illegal trading in ivory in New Zealand, as detailed in Section 4.4 of this Report. On 12 July 2013 Judge J C Moses convicted Jiezhen Jiang on eight counts of trading in a specimen of an endangered species without permit, and imposed penalties of $12,000 and Court Costs of $132.89. Two points from this conviction are of particular importance: 

In assessing the seriousness of offending, Judge J C Moses considered that (a) the Defendant either knew or suspected some of the items to be ivory, and (b) the Defendant was using a website to attempt to sell at least one of the items, and (c) the purpose of the Trade In Endangered Species Act, in which the definition of “trade” clearly makes anyone who deals with the products, whether by exporting, importing or re-exporting, is in fact trading, whether there is a commercial connotation or not. Judge J C Moses also considered that “it is for a serious issue that the legislation was passed.”



Judge J C Moses concluded, regarding the Defendant, “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.”

Without further information regarding the frequency and type of monitoring, investigation and enforcement efforts of New Zealand and international authorities, that led to these seizures (such as boarder and import and export monitoring), further interpretation of any illegal ivory trade across New Zealand borders is not possible in this Report. It is not possible to determine from the Official Information received to date, as to whether the import seizures are the result of traveler purchases overseas, household moves or personal effects, or intentional illegal importation. Further information and analysis is required to draw conclusions on these matters.

Note: Elephant tusks weigh between 23 – 45 Kg, molar teeth weigh around 5 kg each, carving weight can vary considerably.

However, what is clear from the official seizure data is that the majority of the seizures during 2010 through 2012, were noted as for Personal use. The number of items seized for each of these seizure records is small (1 – 8 items). This suggests that there is a demand for ivory in New Zealand for Personal use, and highlights a need for increased awareness of the regulations pertaining to the ivory trade, particularly for people arriving in New Zealand from countries including United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, China, Thailand, Japan, Zambia, and France. Of note is that there has been one conviction for illegal trade in ivory in New Zealand July 2013. However, there were 16 seizures, totaling 49 items, for 2010 through 2012.

3.5 Domestic Ivory Trade 1227 Elephantidae specimens have been imported into New Zealand for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. A further 3113 Elephantidae specimens have been imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. 98% of these items are ivory - carvings, ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. Taking into account the ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory trade; the lack of verification requirements; that the domestic ivory trade goes unmonitored, and the amount of ivory imported for Personal use, there is significant potential for the 3113 items of ivory that have entered New Zealand under CITES regulations expressly for Personal use, to be sold for commercial purposes on the domestic market. In addition, 4511 items have been re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. Of note is the high number (1254 items) of items re-exported for Personal use in 2012 alone. A lesser number of 510 items have been re-exported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. While Australia continues to be the main destination for reexports of ivory from New Zealand, in 2012 China emerged as the second main destination, now sitting equal with the United Kingdom. The data indicates an increase in the amount of ivory being re-exported from New Zealand, reaching the highest point on record in 2012 (1255 items). This Report includes evidence of a continued, high (and possibly increasing) demand, for ivory items on the domestic market at Auction Houses, and evidence of ivory commanding prices in excess of estimates. Combined with the re-export data, it appears that the domestic ivory trade in New Zealand is reflective of, and responding to, the increased international demand for ivory and the international ivory market. In addition, the notable increase in imports for Trade since 2007 indicates an increased demand for ivory within the New Zealand domestic market. Of note is the presence of a variety of ivory items for sale, for example on Trademe and at Auction Houses, the majority of which include no statements of provenance, verification of source, or relevant import documentation, to indicate that these items are legally eligible for domestic trade.

3.6 Conclusions Recalling that the purposes of this report are to: a) provide an analysis of the Official Government data and Official information on the New Zealand ivory trade with regard to imports and re-exports and the domestic trade, and b) provide comments and summaries based on an assessment of Official data and Official information, and other information, having specific regard to the current national and international calls to: i. ban the ivory trade in New Zealand, and ii. destroy the stockpile of confiscated ivory in ownership of the Crown.

I identify 12 matters of concern regarding the New Zealand trade in ivory, presented below: 1) New Zealand plays a consistent and increasing role as an ivory importer and re-exporter. In particular, re-exports for Personal use have increased dramatically over the most recent 2010 through 2012 period, peaking at 2012 with 1254 items re-exported for Personal use. In addition, the number of items imported for the purpose of Trade has increased notably since 2007. The New Zealand trade, for imports and re-exports, in ivory is not complimentary to current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. 2) Import and re-export records of large quantities (50 – 278 items) for Personal use. There are numerous large quantity individual import records for Personal use (50 – 261 items), and reexport records for Personal use (50 - 278 items). A substantial number of large quantity import and reexport records occur during the most recent data period 2010 through 2012. In particular, the 6 large quantity Personal use re-exports for 2010 – 2012 present an average of 138 items per record. The current way in which Personal use is determined for imports and re-exports, particularly what may constitute an appropriate amount of items for Personal use, is questionable with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory. 3) High likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory in New Zealand. The large quantity import and re-export records for Personal use (ranging from 50 - 278 items), some of which occur over the more recent period, indicates a high likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within New Zealand. CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 urges parties to “maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory, and inform the Secretariat of the level of this stock each year before 28 February, indicating: the number of pieces and their weight per type of ivory (raw or worked); for relevant pieces, and if marked, their markings in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution; the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year;” To my knowledge, no inventories of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory are held by the New Zealand Government. New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10. which urges parties to compile inventories and report, where possible, on significant privately held stockpiles of ivory, is questionable. 4) Imports and re-exports of ivory of Wild and Unknown Source (not noted as pre-ban). Since the 1989 trade ban numerous items have been imported and re-exported from Wild or Unknown sources (and not noted as pre-ban). A substantial 988 items of Wild or Unknown source were imported and 432 items re-exported during the period 2007 through 2012, for Personal use or Trade purposes. It is not clear how items of Unknown source and not noted as pre-ban are eligible for import or re-export. The items of Wild source imported during the period 2007 through 2012 were from the United Kingdom, South Africa, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Australia and Botswana. 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 these imports were noted for the purpose of “Hunting”.

Therefore, 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. The import and re-export of ivory items noted as Wild or Unknown source and for Personal use or Trade purposes (and not of pre-ban source) requires investigation and clarification with regard to relevant CITES Export Quotas and relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. The import of items noted as Wild source from African countries via voluntary Export Quotas requires consideration, as these voluntary Export Quotas do not imply endorsement by the Secretariat with regard to any decision on whether the exports are “not detrimental to the survival of the species”.

5) Potential for ivory imported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market. Taking into consideration that the domestic ivory trade in New Zealand is not prohibited, is not regulated and is not monitored, the considerable number of ivory items that have been imported for Personal use could enter the domestic market. My understanding is that, items imported expressly for Personal use (ie. personal effects or household effects and “primarily not for commercial purposes”) are not eligible for trade domestically, as this would be in contravention of the intent of relevant CITES regulations. This is of particular significance given the import of 988 items of Wild or Unknown source for Personal use during 2007 - 2012 (see matter 4). The appropriateness of the current ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory market, and no requirement for verification of an items legal eligibility for commercial trade, is questionable with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory for Personal use.

6) Potential for ivory re-exported for Personal use to be sold on the domestic market of the destination country. My understanding is that, items re-exported for Personal use (ie. personal effects or household effects or “primarily not for commercial purposes”) are not eligible for trade domestically in the country of destination, as this would be in contravention of the intent of relevant CITES regulations. Depending on the legislation in the destination country, and effective monitoring and enforcement thereof, there is potential for ivory items re-exported for “primarily not commercial purposes” from New Zealand to be sold on the domestic market of destination. The robustness of the domestic market controls in current destination countries (such as Australia, China, United Kingdom and United States) requires investigation in order to determine the appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal Use from New Zealand, in terms of compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use. This is of particular significance given the re-export of 432 items of Wild or Unknown source for Personal use during 2007 - 2012 (see matter 4).

7) Increased re-exports of Personal use items to China 2012. There is a notable increase in re-exports to China in 2012, with 12 Personal use records totaling 205 items (presenting an average at 17 items per record). It is widely acknowledged that (a) China is the largest ivory consumer in the world, (b) that China is the main destination for illegal ivory from Africa, and (c) that the monitoring and enforcement of regulations, to separate the legal from illegal trade in China, have not been effective. Further, it is widely acknowledged that ivory in China is commanding very high prices, and that the demand for ivory in China underpins the unprecedented levels of Elephant poaching. Hence, while an average of 17 items per re-export record for Personal use to China in 2012 may not seem particularly high, it is important to note the current increase of re-exports from New Zealand to China in context.

The appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal use to China is questionable with regard to the robustness of the domestic market controls in China, and with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade, for Personal use. Re-export of items to China is not complimentary to international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade.

8) New Zealand trade in pre-ban ivory is reflective of the international ivory market. The peaks or surges in re-export data which coincide broadly with the 1989 trade ban, CITES approved “one-off” ivory sales in 1999 and 2008, suggests that trends in re-exports of ivory from New Zealand are reflective of (or respond to) international trade events and agreements. Since the 1989 trade ban the number of items re-exported for trade has decreased, however, there has recently been a dramatic increase in the number of items re-exported for Personal use. More recently imports for Trade purposes have also increased. Data indicates that the trade in pre-ban ivory from New Zealand is growing, at the same time as ivory prices are reportedly increasing internationally. New Zealand appears to be growing as a supplier of ivory, albeit for pre-ban ivory and for Personal use. CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns, including: supply and demand reduction; drawing attention to existing or new regulations concerning the sale and purchase of ivory; providing information on elephant conservation challenges, including the impact of illegal killing and illegal trade on elephant populations; and, particularly in retail outlets, informing tourists and other non- nationals that the export of ivory requires a permit and that the import of ivory into their state of residence may require a permit and might not be permitted;” The increased international trade to and from New Zealand, and the domestic ivory market, reflects the international market and demand for ivory. The increased trade in ivory is not complimentary to the international efforts to curb demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. Given the levels and trends of the New Zealand trade in ivory, New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to engage in public awareness campaigns, is questionable.

9) Domestic trade mechanisms. The New Zealand domestic trade in ivory is “not prohibited” and there are no verification requirements at the point of sale for ivory items, regarding legal eligibility for commercial sale – such as verification that the item is of pre-ban source, or antique status or has been imported expressly for trade purposes. These ‘loopholes’ could enable commercial trade of ivory items imported for not ‘primarily commercial purposes’ (or any illicit ivory for that matter) on the domestic market. New Zealand, as a party to CITES, is urged under CITES Resolution Conf 10.10. to “regulate the domestic trade in raw and worked ivory; register or license all importers, exporters, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers dealing in raw or worked ivory; c) introduce recording and inspection procedures to enable the Management Authority and other appropriate government agencies to monitor the movement of ivory within the State, particularly by means of: i) compulsory trade controls over raw ivory; and ii) comprehensive and demonstrably effective stock inventory, reporting, and enforcement systems for worked ivory;” The appropriateness of the current ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory market, and lack of verification requirements for an items legal eligibility for commercial trade, is questionable with regard to the intent of CITES regulations pertaining to the trade in ivory, and with regard to compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. which urges parties to regulate trade.

10) Majority of imports and re-exports are of Loxodonta africana. The majority of items imported, re-exported and seized are of Loxodonta africana. This is particularly important within the context of the current African Elephant poaching crisis and illicit trade in African Elephant ivory, as detailed in the Background Information Section 1.3 of this Report. New Zealand’s increased international trade in ivory, including Loxodonta africana ivory, reflects the international market and demand for ivory. The appropriateness of this increased trade is therefore questionable with regard to the international efforts to curb demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade.

11) Majority of seizures are for imports. New Zealand seizure data indicates that the majority of seizures are for the importation of ivory. The 2013 conviction for illegal trade in ivory in New Zealand included an element of monetary gain and investment. The nature and type of offending that has resulted in the seizure of 791 Elephantidae Family specimens by New Zealand Authorities is not clear. This information would be beneficial to develop strategies to increase awareness aimed at reducing illegal re-exports, and in particular at reducing illegal imports. CITES Conf. Resolution 10.10 urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns, including: supply and demand reduction; drawing attention to existing or new regulations concerning the sale and purchase of ivory; providing information on elephant conservation challenges, including the impact of illegal killing and illegal trade on elephant populations; and, particularly in retail outlets, informing tourists and other non- nationals that the export of ivory requires a permit and that the import of ivory into their state of residence may require a permit and might not be permitted;” Given the number of import seizures and the recent conviction for illegal ivory trading in New Zealand, the lack of public awareness campaigns in New Zealand is questionable, particularly with regard to New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10 which urges parties to engage in public awareness campaigns.

12) Confiscated ivory stockpile: 791 items of confiscated Elephantidae Family specimens in the ownership of the Crown. Seizure data and Official information confirms that 791 items of Elephantidae Family specimens have been seized and are in the ownership of the Crown. 742 of these specimens are ivory carvings, ivory pieces or tusks. The Government has not confirmed which and how many items have been destroyed already, the location of any items that have not been destroyed, or items currently loaned by the Crown to museums and/or training facilities. CITES Resolution Conf. 1010 urges parties to “maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory, and inform the Secretariat of the level of this stock each year before 28 February, indicating: the number of pieces and their weight per type of ivory (raw or worked); for relevant pieces, and if marked, their markings in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution; the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year; “ The adequacy of the current Government held stockpile inventory records is questionable, with regard to compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory”.

In addition to the Declaration of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade Action II, which is in support of governments destroying their government held stockpiles of ivory, national and international support for the New Zealand Government to destroy its confiscated ivory stockpile has been obtained. The inaction of the New Zealand Government to date in response to these calls is of concern and may be regarded as questionable, particularly with regard to the current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory and the participation of numerous governments in the international “ivory crush” movement. Taking into consideration the international context, as detailed in the Background Section of this Report, and the information presented in this Report pertaining to the New Zealand trade in ivory, I conclude that the New Zealand Government should give full consideration to each of the matters of concern identified in this Report. I further encourage the New Zealand Government to make decisions regarding each of those matters. I identify options open to the New Zealand Government and make my recommendation below.

3.7 Options Should the New Zealand Government determine to acknowledge and address each of the matters identified in this Report, numerous options are open to the consideration of the New Zealand Government. These options include, but are not limited to, the following:              

Adopt staus quo Implement a complete ban for all ivory trade, regardless of any element of commerciality, in New Zealand and including imports, re-exports and the domestic trade Implement a ban on all ivory re-exports, regardless of any element of commerciality Implement a ban on all ivory imports, regardless of any element of commerciality Evaluate and clarify the current process for categorising imports and re-exports for personal use, particularly with regard to the number of items allowable for Personal use Amend the process for categorizing imports and re-exports for Personal use such that the number of ivory items imported and re-exported for Personal use are severely limited Investigate and monitor the use of items imported and re-exported for Personal use, to ensure items are not sold on the domestic market Investigate and clarify circumstances of approval for the import and re-export of Wild and Unknown source items, particularly for the period 2010 – 2012 Improve inventory detail of the Government held stockpile of ivory (eg. Items destroyed already, current locations and weights) and report to CITES as per CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 Publically destroy all Government held confiscated items of ivory, to raise awareness nationally and internationally, and to actively assist the current international efforts to reduce demand in all ivory Investigate, develop and maintain inventories of privately held stockpiles of ivory, as per CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 Evaluate the content and availability (including positioning at airport terminals) of Department of Conservation documents regarding permitting requirements for imports and re-exports of ivory Instigate domestic ivory trade verification requirements at the point of sale, to demonstrate an items legal eligibility for commercial trade (such verification may include: pre-ban source verification, antique status verification, import certificates showing purpose of import is for Trade). Develop and implement an effective public awareness campaign, based on the description given in CITES Resolution Conf.10.10 and informed by an investigation of New Zealand ivory consumers and traders, and to either (a) communicate the requirements for trade such as verification requirements, non commercial trade of items imported or re-exported for personal use, limits around Personal use, and/or (b) communicate aspects of an ivory trade ban if implemented.

3.8 Recommendation The New Zealand Government may choose to adopt measures, or a mix of measures, which can broadly be grouped as follows: (a) adopt status quo, (b) implement more stringent regulations and monitoring of the trade in ivory, or (c) ban aspects of the trade in ivory or (d) completely ban all trade in ivory. In my opinion, and 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 Appendix I CITES and instigated the ivory trade ban in 1989. As such, it is appropriate to respond to this situation with a more stringent approach.

RECALLING that New Zealand is a party to the Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and RECOGNIZING the current African Elephant poaching crisis and unprecedented levels of illicit trade in ivory and impacts thereof, and including impacts on people, communities and wildlife, and ACKNOWLEDGING that the illicit trade in ivory is a development, environmental and security challenge, and ACKNOWLEDGING the import, re-export and seizure data and other information pertaining to the New Zealand trade in ivory presented in this Report, and RECOGNIZING the 12 specific matters of concern pertaining to the New Zealand trade in ivory identified in this Report, and RECOGNIZING the current international and domestic demand for ivory as described in this Report, and ACKNOWLEDGING the Declaration of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, in particular Action II, and ACKNOWLEDGING CITES Resolution Conf. 1010, and ACKNOWLEDGING the international and national calls for action via the International March for Elephants 4th October 2013, and RECALLING that Dr Nick Smith promised a formal response to the International March for Elephants 4th October 2013, and ACKNOWLEDGING the formal support for the New Zealand Government to (a) destroy it’s Government held confiscated ivory Stockpile, and/ or (b) ban the ivory trade, received and included in Appendix 1 and 3 of this Report from: Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO African Wildlife Foundation (AWF); Will Travers, Founder and CEO Born Free Foundation95; Mary Rice, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency UK Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA); Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. President and CEO, Humane Society International Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Society of the United States Humane Society International (HIS); Vice Chairman, Peter Lindstrom Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO); Cristian Samper, President and CEO Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and ACKNOWLEDGING the national call via the 2014 Petition of Ms Virginia Woolf to ban all ivory trade in New Zealand,

Noting that the formal statement of support received (See Appendix 3) from Born Free Foundation does not specifically mention a ban on the ivory trade.

I respectfully make the following recommendations to the New Zealand Government: 1) Publically destroy all Government held confiscated items of ivory 96, 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 trade97, and 3) Investigate, develop and maintain inventories of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory98, 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 through 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.

3.9 Reasons for Recommendation Recommendation 1 – As an appropriate, effective means to directly address matters (8), (10), (11) and (12), which includes addressing (a) the Declaration of the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade Action II, (b) compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 pertaining to public awareness campaigns, and (c) related international and national support and concerns on this matter. Overall, Recommendation 1 would effectively and positively contribute to current international efforts to reduce all trade in ivory and make it clear that the nation will not tolerate illegal trade in ivory. This is particularly significant given that the majority of ivory items seized by New Zealand authorities are of Loxodonta africana. Recommendation 2 – As an appropriate and effective means to directly address all matters (1) through (12), which includes addressing (a) the continued and increased trend in the New Zealand trade in ivory (for domestic trade, imports and re-exports), (b) the “loopholes” within the current domestic trade, (c) compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. pertaining to the regulation of domestic trade, and (d) provides a “no excuse environment” for ivory trade offenses. Overall, Recommendation 2 would effectively and positively contribute to current international efforts to reduce all trade in ivory. This is particularly significant given that the majority of ivory items traded to and from New Zealand are of Loxodonta africana. Recommendation 3 and 4 – As an appropriate and effective means to directly address matters (3) and (12), regarding compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 pertaining to the maintenance and reporting of government held and significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. 96

Acknowledging that it is appropriate that some items may continue to be required for training and educational purposes. Acknowledging that imports and re-exports for scientific or educational purposes may continue to be deemed appropriate. 98 Acknowledging that for the purposes of this Report ,50 was the number of items arbitrarily deemed to constitue a “significant” privately held stockpile or “large quantity” for Personal use i mports and re-exports. A lesser number may be determined to be more appropriate. 97

Recommendation 5 – As an appropriate and effective means to directly address matters (4) and (5), regarding compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory not of pre-ban source, and voluntary Export Quotas. Recommendation 6 – As an appropriate and effective means to directly address matters (2), (6), and (7), regarding compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for the categorization of imports and re-exports of ivory items as Personal use, as set out in CITES Article VII, paragraph 3 and CITES Conf. 5.10 (Rev CoP 15) - such that items are for “purely private use” and are “personal or household effects”, or which meet the intentional broad interpretation of not for “primarily commercial purposes”. As an appropriate and effective means to indirectly address matters (5), and (9), which include (a) the “loopholes” within the current domestic trade, and (b) compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. pertaining to the regulation of domestic trade. Recommendation 7 – As an appropriate and effective means to directly address matters (8), (10) and (11) regarding compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 pertaining to public awareness campaigns, and to indirectly address matters (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10). Overall, Recommendation 7 would effectively and positively contribute to current international efforts to reduce all trade in ivory and make it clear that the nation will not tolerate illegal trade in ivory.

4. ASPECTS OF THE NEW ZEALAND IVORY TRADE Sources of information for this Section of the Report include:  Official Information from the Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith, 2013  Auction Houses in New Zealand  Manukau District Court Proceedings  Information readily available on the internet  Anecdotal evidence (specifically cited)

4.1 CONFISCATED ITEMS, STOCKPILE INVENTORIES & PRIVATE IVORY COLLECTIONS Official information states that ivory specimens are destroyed or kept by the Department of Conservation in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch for educational and training purposes, or loaned to museums around New Zealand. Ownership of confiscated items rests with the Crown. Comment: The official seizure data indicates a total of 791 Elephantidae specimens99 have been confiscated by New Zealand Authorities since 1989, when official seizure records began. These confiscated items are in the ownership of the Crown. 742 of these specimens are ivory carvings, ivory pieces or tusks. The remainder of the Elephantidae Family specimens are derivatives, teeth, leather or other specimens. It is not stipulated in the Official Government Information how many, or which, of the confiscated Elephantidae specimens have been destroyed or are currently kept for educational and training purposes or are currently loaned to museums around New Zealand. As per Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Resolution Conf 10.10100, as of 2014 New Zealand, as a party to CITES with a legal domestic trade in ivory, is urged to maintain an inventory of governmentheld stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory, and to inform the CITES Secretariat of the level of this stock each year before 28 February indicating (amongst other factors) the number of pieces and their weight per type of ivory. Parties to CITES with a domestic ivory trade are also urged to inform the CITES Secretariat the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year. Of note is the requirement under CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 for parties to, where possible, maintain an inventory of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. Official import data (see part 5 of this Report) includes 16 large quantity records (over 50 items) for Personal use. All 16 records for Personal use occur since the 1989 ban, accounting for 1195 items (excluding sets). 3 of these records occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for 192 items (no sets noted). Official re-export data (see part 6 of this report) includes 18 large quantity records (over 50 items) for Personal use. 8 of the large quantity re-export records occur 2010 through 2012, and account for 1002 items. Hence, there is evidence of potentially significant privately held stockpiles of ivory in New Zealand. In terms of the international management of confiscated ivory stockpiles, more recently countries have destroyed these stockpiles in an effort to generate awareness of the current Elephant poaching crisis, to demonstrate no tolerance for the illicit trade, and to generally renounce the use of ivory. 99

Not including sets. CITES Resolution Conf 10.10 (emphasis added in bold):

100

“URGES those Parties in whose jurisdiction there is an ivory carving industry, a legal domestic trade in ivory, an unregulated market for or illegal trade in ivory, or where ivory stockpiles exist, and Parties that may be designated as ivory importing countries, to ensure that they have put in place comprehensive internal legislative, regulatory, enforcement and other measures to: e) maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory, and inform the Secretariat of the level of this stock each year before 28 February, indicating: the number of pieces and their weight per type of ivory (raw or worked); for relevant pieces, and if marked, their markings in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution; the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year;…”

Since 2012, when Gabon101 burnt it’s confiscated ivory stockpile in response to a spike in Elephant poaching, a number of countries including the Philippines, the United States, China and France have followed suit, publically destroying government held confiscated ivory stockpiles. In addition, Hong Kong has committed to destroying 33 tonnes of its confiscated ivory stockpile in the next two years. In February 2014 ivory items surrendered by the public to the International Federation of Animal Welfare (IFAW) were destroyed in London. These ivory destruction events are intended to engender awareness of the illegal ivory trade, the decimation of elephant populations in Africa, and to show support for the international cooperation necessary to effectively tackle the illegal ivory trade. In addition, destroying the government held stockpiles removes these items from potentially ever re-entering the market, and reduces any financial and/or security burden associated with maintaining such stockpiles. The Declaration resulting from the London Conference on Wildlife Trafficking102, held in London 12 – 13 February 2014, includes a specific action to encourage those Governments that have stockpiles of illegal products to destroy them. Declaration of London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, Action A II: “Endorse the action of Governments which have destroyed seized wildlife products being traded illegally; and encourage those Governments that have stockpiles of illegal products, particularly of high value items such as rhino horn or elephant ivory, to destroy them and to carry out policy research on measures which will benefit conservation. Independent audits, or other means of ensuring transparent management, should be carried out prior to destruction. “

4.1.1 International Support for New Zealand to destroy Ivory Stockpile The international agencies which have provided formal written support of the national call for the New Zealand Government to destroy it’s Government held confiscated ivory stockpile are:       

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF): Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO. Born Free Foundation: Will Travers, Founder and CEO. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA): Mary Rice, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency UK. Humane Society International (HIS): Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. President and CEO, Humane Society International Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Society of the United States. Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO): Vice Chairman, Peter Lindstrom. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS): Cristian Samper, President and CEO. David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust (DSWT): Dame Daphne Sheldrick, DBE, Founder and Chair.

The letters of support from each organization are included in Appendix 1 and 3 of this Report.

4.1.2 Summary & Conclusions: Confiscated Items, Stockpile Inventories & Private Collections The matter of how many and which of the 791 Elephantidae specimens confiscated by New Zealand Authorities remain in a government-held stockpile, which items may already have been destroyed, and the location of any items loaned, requires clarification. Pending such clarification, official data shows that there are 742103 confiscated ivory items (ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks alone) held by the New Zealand Government, which are potentially available for an ivory crush event in New Zealand. Records made available at this point in time do not provide the weight of each item confiscated, however, these items represent approximately half a tonne of confiscated ivory (estimated minimum).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/06/120627-gabon-ivory-elephants-poaching-africa-animals-science/ Summary of Declaration of London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/declaration-londonconference-on-the-illegal-wildlife-trade 103 Excluding items such as leather products and teeth, etc. 101 102

CITES resolution Conf 10.10 urges parties to clarify the stockpile, in terms of an inventory and any significant changes to that inventory. Such clarification would also be necessary to enable the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to the benefits or otherwise of a New Zealand ivory crush event. The Declaration of the London Conference on the Illicit Wildlife Trade endorses the actions of governments which have destroyed their stockpiles of illegal wildlife products, and encourages all Governments to destroy their illegal wildlife stockpiles. In addition, 7 international agencies have provided formal letters of support for the New Zealand Government to destroy it’s confiscated ivory stockpile. As a party to CITES, as a Commonwealth nation, as a current importer and re-exporter of ivory products, and as a country with a confiscated stockpile of 791 Elephantidae specimens, New Zealand should given full consideration to the numerous benefits of a public event to destroy it’s stockpile. In terms of privately held stockpiles of ivory, import and re-export records for Personal use indicate a high likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory (over 50 items) within New Zealand’s territory. This matter requires further investigation such that the New Zealand Government, as a party to CITES, may determine adequate measures for compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. pertaining to the maintenance of an inventory of privately held stockpiles.

4.2 DOMESTIC TRADE, MONITORING, VERIFICATION & LEGISLATION Official information states that buying and selling ivory in New Zealand is not prohibited. Domestic Trade is governed by a number of consumer laws including the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act. It also states that ivory verification differs between countries and that in New Zealand, the Waikato Radiocarbon Research laboratory at the University of Waikato can provide radiocarbon assays to determine the age of some ivory specimens, when deemed necessary. Comment: Based on the Official information provided, New Zealand’s domestic trade in ivory is not prohibited, not regulated and not monitored. It is my understanding that any Elephantidae specimen imported into New Zealand (or re-exported from New Zealand) allowed under CITES permitting regime for Personal use purposes are not to be traded commercially. The following is an excerpt from Conf. 5.10 (Rev COP 15) (emphasis added in bold): “General principles 1. Trade in Appendix-I species must be subject to particularly strict regulation and authorized only in exceptional circumstances. 2. An activity can generally be described as ‘commercial’ if its purpose is to obtain economic benefit (whether in cash or otherwise), and is directed toward resale, exchange, provision of a service or any other form of economic use or benefit. 3. The term ‘commercial purposes’ should be defined by the country of import as broadly as possible so that any transaction which is not wholly ‘non-commercial’ will be regarded as ‘commercial’. In transposing this principle to the term ‘primarily commercial purposes’, it is agreed that all uses whose non-commercial aspects do not clearly predominate shall be considered to be primarily commercial in nature, with the result that the import of specimens of Appendix-I species should not be permitted. The burden of proof for showing that the intended use of specimens of Appendix-I species is clearly non-commercial shall rest with the person or entity seeking to import such specimens. “

“Purely private use: Article VII, paragraph 3, of the Convention contains special rules for specimens "that are personal or household effects". The exception mentioned does not apply when specimens of Appendix-I species are acquired by the new owner outside of his or her country of usual residence and are imported into that country. It can, however, be deduced from this provision that specimens imported for purely private use should not be considered to be for primarily commercial purposes. “

CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 urges parties to “regulate the domestic trade in raw and worked ivory; register or license all importers, exporters, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers dealing in raw or worked ivory; c) introduce recording and inspection procedures to enable the Management Authority and other appropriate government agencies to monitor the movement of ivory within the State, particularly by means of: i) compulsory trade controls over raw ivory; and ii) comprehensive and demonstrably effective stock inventory, reporting, and enforcement systems for worked ivory;” The Official Information does not note any verification requirements for ivory items at the point of sale on the domestic market (for example, verification of pre 1989 ban source, or statements of provenance, or import records for Trade purposes). It is unclear from the Official Information received as to under what circumstances an ivory item may be analyzed for verification of age, or source. Official information states that assays are

undertaken ‘when deemed necessary’, which suggests that assays are only undertaken when Authorities have determined an item requires further investigation or when an item has been confiscated. The following provides information on New Zealand imports and re-exports of ivory and how these relate to the domestic ivory trade.

4.2.1 New Zealand Imports of Elephantidae specimens - since 1989 Trade ban: 3113 items have been imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. Sources are noted as follows: 1475 pre-ban, 1370 items Wild, 127 items Unknown, and 64 items blank. 1227 items imported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. Sources are noted as follows: 374 items pre-ban, 114 items Wild, 739 items Unknown. Over the more recent period 2007 – 2012, 699 items have been imported for Personal use. Sources are noted as follows: 445 pre-ban, 199 Wild and 55 unknown. The majority of these items are carvings, ivory carvings and tusks. 1050 items have been imported for Trade over the same period. Sources are noted as follows: 316 pre-ban and 734 unknown. The majority of these items are carvings and ivory carvings. In total, 1749 ivory items (mainly carvings, ivory carvings and tusks) have been imported specifically for Personal use or Trade purposes into New Zealand legally over the period 2007 – 2012. Of note is that a total of 199 items are of Wild source and a further 789 items are of Unknown source. It may be that the way in which the import records have been noted in the database in terms of source has changed over time, however, it is certain from the Official Information that a substantial number (988) of items have been imported over the 2007 – 2012 period alone which have not been noted as pre-ban. The items of Wild source imported during this period were from the United Kingdom, South Africa, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Australia and Botswana. 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 these imports were noted for the purpose of “Hunting”. Therefore, 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. Also, of note is that 16 large quantity import records (over 50 items) for Personal use occur since the 1989 ban, accounting for 1195 items (excluding sets). 3 of these records occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for 192 items (no sets noted), which equates to an average of 64 items per personal use import record. Single import records for Personal use where items total more than 50 brings into question how Personal use is determined and requires clarification with regard to the intent of relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance given that there is no requirement at the point of sale for ivory items on the domestic market to provide documented evidence of age, source or records detailing the purpose of import. It is useful to put the scale of New Zealand imports of ivory into perspective, in terms of other countries active in the legal ivory trade. The United States is reportedly the second largest market for ivory104 in the world. “According to figures recently sourced from government agencies by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), more than 7,500 ivory carvings and 1,746 elephant trophies (with two tusks apiece) were legally imported into the U.S. between 2009 and 2012. Thousands more ivory pieces, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of loose tusks were legally imported during the same period. IFAW found that ivory valued at more than $1 million was available for sale via online auctions in a single month in 2013.” 105

104

“Although China is ranked as the top c onsumer of illegal ivory, the US is considered the s econd largest market in the world.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/africa-wild/2013/oct/02/us-illegal-ivory-trade-elephants 105 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/elephant-slaughter-ivory-trade-us

The New Zealand import data and United States import data for ivory carvings and carvings are compared for the period 2009 through 2012 in Table 1 below (source data CITES on-line Trade Database). Table 1: Legal Ivory Carving Imports United States and New Zealand 2009 – 2012. From CITES Trade Database 2009 - 2012

New Zealand United States

CITES Trade Database: Number of Imported Ivory Carvings for Personal or Commercial use106 1,191 23,491

107

2012 Population of Country

Number of ivory carvings imported per million people

4.433 million 313.9 million

269 74

The import data in Table 1 indicates that, on a per capita basis, New Zealand is a significant importer of ivory carvings, exceeding the per capita import of ivory carvings to the United States, for the period 2009 through 2012.

4.2.2 Re-Exports of Elephantidae items- since the 1989 Trade Ban 4511 items have been re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. Sources are noted as follows: 3054 items pre-ban (including those noted as both Wild & pre-ban), 1381 items Wild, 27 items Unknown, and 48 items blank. 510 items have been re-exported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. Sources are noted as follows: 344 items pre-ban, 162 items Wild, 1 item Unknown and 3 blank. Destinations for re-exported items are predominately Australia, United Kingdom and United States, Canada and more recently in 2012, China. Over the more recent period 2007 through 2012, 2829 items have been re-exported for Personal use. Sources are noted as follows: 2398 pre- ban (including those noted as both wild and pre-ban), 418 Wild and 13 unknown. 314 items re-exported for trade use over the same period, 314 pre-ban and 1 Wild. The majority of items are ivory carvings, carvings and ivory pieces. In total, 3144 ivory items (mainly carvings, ivory carvings and ivory pieces) have been re-exported from New Zealand over the period 2007 – 2012. Of note is that a total of 419 items are of Wild source and a further 13 are of unknown source. The re-export of Elephantidae items, including ivory, whether for Personal use or Trade purposes that are of Wild or Unknown source requires clarification with regard to relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. Of particular note is that the number of items re-exported for Personal use peaked for the entire 32 year data period in 2012, with a total of 1254 items re-exported for that year alone (across 69 records). This equates to an average of 18 items per record for 2012, all of which are for Personal use. In terms of large quantity re-export records (over 50 items), the majority of these records (86%) are for Personal use and account for 80% of all items re-exported via large quantity records. These 18 large quantity re-export records (ranging from 50 – 278 items) for Personal use, present an average of 104 items per record, and a median of 69.

106

CITES Trade Database search - Gross Import Trade Results: Personal and Trade; carvings, ivory carvings for Elephantidae, Elephas maximus and Loxodonta africana; 2009 – 2012. 107 Source: Via Google Search: Sources include: World Bank

Also of note is that 6 of these large quantity re-export records for Personal use occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for 826 items, presenting an average of 138 items per record. Destinations include United Kingdom, Canada, Greece and Australia. No large quantity re-export records for Trade occur during 2010 through 2012. 43% of the items re-exported via large quantity records have occurred during 2010 through 2012. Single re-export records for Personal use where items total more than 50 brings into question how Personal use is determined and requires clarification with regard to the intent of relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance where there may be inadequate monitoring and enforcement of ivory trade regulations in the country of destination. A Department of Conservation flow chart for assessing “Household or Personal Effects” for imports and reexports, is included in Appendix 4. The Flow Chart includes a decision box at tier three requiring the determination of whether the item (a) is on the person, in baggage or part of a household move, and (b) was legally acquired, and (c) is for non-commercial purposes. This flow chart does not provide, although it may well be provided in other procedural documents, information as to how these decisions (a) through (c) are to be made, nor does it provide any indication of a maximum number of items that may be considered appropriate for “household or personal effects”.

4.2.3 Summary & Conclusions: Domestic Trade, monitoring, verification requirements and legislation Based on the official information provided, any person selling ivory domestically in New Zealand is not required to provide any verification that the item is eligible for legal trade (ie. verification of pre-ban source, an antique or has been imported for primarily commercial purposes). Items imported for Personal use, have been allowed into New Zealand on the basis that their importation was not ‘primarily for commercial purposes’. It is therefore a reasonable expectation that these items should not be traded on the New Zealand domestic market. However, with an unregulated and unmonitored domestic ivory market in New Zealand, it is not possible to determine if these items have been traded domestically. It is useful to consider this situation within the context of the reported increased demand for ivory on the domestic market. Should these items be traded domestically, I understand that this would be in contravention of the intent of relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. 3113 items have been imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. While a small proportion of these items (699 items) were imported during the period 2007 through 2013, without verification requirements at the point of sale, these 3113 items potentially could be traded for commercial purposes on the New Zealand domestic market. Of note is that 16 large quantity (over 50 items) import records for Personal use occur since the 1989 ban, accounting for 1195 items (excluding sets). 3 of these records occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for 192 items (no sets noted). With an average of 64 items per large quantity Personal use record for 2010 through 2012 alone, this raises the question of how “Personal use” is determined for imports, particularly for larger quantities of ivory items. 4511 items have been re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. A large proportion of these items (2829 items) were re-exported during the period 2007 through 2012. Of note is the peak in the re-export data in 2012, with a total of 1254 items re-exported for Personal use that year alone - this equates to an average of 18 items per record for 2012. Depending on the legislation of the domestic market, and enforcement thereof, in the destination country, there is potential for these 4511 items to be traded for commercial purposes despite having been re-exported not ‘primarily for commercial purposes’. Of note, in this regard, is the increase in the number of items re-exported to China in the most recent three year period, where it is well-established that there is a high demand for ivory and difficulties exist with enforcement of domestic market regulations.

Also of particular note are the 18 large quantity re-export records (over 50 items) for Personal use, 8 of which occur 2010 through 2012, and account for 1002 items. 43% of all items re-exported via large quantity records have occurred during 2010 through 2012. The 18 large quantity Personal Use re-export records range from 50 – 278 items with an average number of items per record of 104, and a median of 69. With an average of 104 items per Personal use large quantity import records for 2010 through 2012 alone, this brings into question how Personal use is determined and requires clarification with regard to the intent of relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance where there may be inadequate monitoring and enforcement of ivory trade regulations in the country of destination. The Official database for New Zealand imports and re-exports includes information on the source of each record/item. While numerous items are recorded as pre-ban source “O”, for the most recent 6 year data period 2007 through 2012 a total of 1420 items have been traded internationally of Wild and Unknown sources, via New Zealand import and re-export records, as follows:  988 items have been imported into New Zealand from sources noted as either “W” Wild or “U” Unknown, and  432 items have been re-exported from New Zealand from sources noted as either “W” Wild or “U” Unknown It may be that this is the result of a variation in the way in which source data is being recorded over time or across the country. The import of some of the Wild source items from some African countries may be able to be explained via Export Quotas however, these items were not noted for the purpose of “Hunting” either. The official information and data provided, at this point in time, does not make it clear how these 1420 items of Unknown or Wild source may be internationally traded, regardless of any element of commerciality, under current CITES regulations. The import and re-export of Elephantidae items, including ivory, whether for Personal use or Trade, that is of Wild or Unknown source requires investigation and clarification with regard to CITES Export Quotas and relevant CITES regulations for trade in ivory.

4.3 DOMESTIC DEMAND - Trademe, Antique Dealers and Auction Houses A complete survey of Trademe, Antique Dealers and Auction Houses in New Zealand has not been undertaken. However, the following observations are based on information readily available from relevant websites. Anecdotal evidence has also been included, where noted.

4.3.1 Trademe Several searches on the Trademe website during January and February 2014 revealed approximately 20 - 30 ivory items listed for sale each time. Items ranged from necklaces, earrings and bracelets, to carvings, and ivory inlay furniture. There appears to be no verification of pre-ban authenticity or relevant import records required by Trademe, or provided by sellers. Often items are described as “old” or “antique”. Of note are items listed as “antique” and where it appears that identical items are also for sale, from the same seller.

4.3.2 Antique Dealers Anecdotal evidence108 indicates that ivory carvings and other Elephantidae specimens (including Elephant feet) are available for purchase via market stalls in Auckland, and that there may be significant collections of ivory in private homes for viewing and potential trading, in Auckland. Anecdotal evidence109 also indicates that prices for ivory items at Antique dealers are currently very high, with carved items reportedly fetching upwards of NZD$30,000 on the domestic market.

4.3.3 Auction Houses Webbs110 Auction House states on it’s website (emphasis added): “Antiques and Decorative Arts over 2012 have produced excellent results with auction totals reaching a five year high and the department turnover up 35% year-on-year against 2011”…”Collectors have shifted their focus towards decorator items such as lighting, taxidermy, cabinet of curiosity material and the rare and unusual, all of which have been attracting strong prices. The market for antique Chinese furniture, textiles, jade, porcelain and ivory also continues to boom with competition driving prices well in excess of estimates.” The February 2014 Auction Catalogues for Webbs include the following items (and estimated values):  Rare Nineteenth Century Indian Ivory Figural Chess Set ($18,000 - $20,000) Letter of provenance provided, Circa 1870  Two x Early Victorian ivory carved crucifix ( $250 - $350 and $150 - $250)  An old carved ivory rose bud brooch ($50 - $65)  A Victorian ivory locket and chain ($160 - $200) A search conducted in February 2014 for all ivory items on the Webbs site revealed over 200 items, showing dates of listing/auction from 2008 through 2014, and which include uncarved ivory tusks, carved ivory tusks, carved ivory vases, ivory netsuke, figurines, carvings and crucifixes. Estimated values range from $30 - $20,000. Of note is that statements of provenance, or other forms of verification of legal eligibility for sale, were not included in the descriptions on the website for the majority of the over 200 items. As an indication of the range of ivory items available, a selection of the ivory items on the Webbs site, along with their description and estimated price (where provided) are listed below. [Note: Images for each item were unable to be included in this Report due to copyright issues, however, the footnotes include relevant website references.] 108

Details of anecdotal evidence may be provided confidentially. Details of anecdotal evidence may be provided confidentially. 110 http://www.webbs.co.nz/department/antiques-decorative-arts 109

Examples of Ivory Items on Webb’s Auction House Website111            

A Remarkable Pair of Indian Ivory Elephants.  Intricately carved and both have ornate covers and a mahout with a Howdah and two dignatories inside. Originally presented to a diplomat in the 1930's. H.200mm.112 2009: $3000 - $5000. An Ivory Netsuke. Mid-19th Century. Unsigned. A very good model of a crouching shishi guarding his ball. The ink hairwork well rendered and the curls strongly carved. A good example of this popular subject. Old English Collection. H.33mm.113 2009: $1,200 - $2,000. A Chinese Ivory Carving of a Benign Smiling Hotei Figure in seated position with bead necklace. Wooden stand.114 A Fine and Rare Set of Twelve 19th Century Japanese Carved Ivory Mythical Masks 115$15, 000 - $20,000 A Large African Elephant Ivory Tusk from the Belgium Congo C.1930. All over carved with fourteen panels of ancestral figures, animals and symbols. L. from base to tip. 1120mm. Weight approximately 7.8kg.116 2009: $1,000 - $2,000. An African Ivory Carved Tusk on Stand the small tusk carved with eight ascending elephants, each carved in the round, the leader facing the open jaws of a crocodile. Collected in the 1950's. L.500mm. 117 2008: $400 - $600. A Chinese Carved Ivory Small Tusk Section Vase with relief dragon flying amongst the clouds over a key and wave border.118 A Pair of Chinese Ivory Carved Seated Emperor and Empress 119 both carved in the round, he seated on a dragon decorated throne, she on a phoenix bird decorated throne, each supported on conforming pierced wood stands. H.145mm. inc. stand. 2008 $300 - $400. A long Chinese necklace of ivory and bone beads. Mostly floral carved bone with plain ivory beads of graduated size.120 2013 $50 - $100. A Well Carved Chinese Elephant Ivory121 of sage figure with staff and double gourd on wooden stand.  H220. 2010 $300 - $600. Ivory Elephant Carving A Chinese Ivory Carved God Figure122  of Shou Lao, small fault. On stand with case. 2013 $400 - $600.

By way of further example, Cordy’s Auction House Catalogue123 for March 2010 included the following items, descriptions and estimated values:      

111

An ivory elephant tusk carved with animals, elephants, tigers, antelopes etc. Length 620, weight approx 1.2 kilos. $800. An ivory netsuke, two turtles on lily pad. Length 42. $80. An ivory netsuke two figures. Height 40, signed $120. A Japanese ivory netsuke of a standing gent supporting a large mallet to his right shoulder. $110 A Japanese carved ivory netsuke of a gent seated to the back of a large bird. A pair of large African bull elephant tusks of plain curved form mounted on shaped wooden base, weighing 24 lbs (10.89 kilograms) and 25lbs (11.35 kilograms), complete with certificate of ownership from Northern Rhodesia 4 Sep. 1969, Cites certificate and other paper work certifying pre-convention ownership.

http://www.webbs.co.nz/department/antiques-decorative-arts http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/64481 113 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/64521 114 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/221362 115 http://www.webbs.co.nz/auction-item/lot-256-detail-a-fine-and-rare-set-twelve-19th-century-japanese-carved-ivory-mythical-m 116 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/64508 117 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/14435 118 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/221366 119 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/14436 120 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/236008 121 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/103674 122 http://www.webbs.co.nz/node/207902 123 http://www.cordys.co.nz/html/catalog/65.pdf 112

4.3.4 Summary & Conclusions: Domestic Demand - Trademe, Auction Houses and Antique Dealers Evidence from Auction House on-line catalogues and websites and the presence of ivory items for sale on Trademe indicate that there is an ongoing, high, and possibly increasing, demand for ivory items on the New Zealand domestic market. Taking into account the estimated values provided in the catalogues (noting that the price realized for each item is not provided) and acknowledging the recent comment from Webb’s Auction House regarding 2012 sales, that “The market for antique Chinese furniture, textiles, jade, porcelain and ivory also continues to boom with competition driving prices well in excess of estimates.” 124 indications are that, ivory sold domestically is commanding very high prices. Markets fluctuate according to supply and demand. It is fair to say that, in the case of antiques, prices fluctuate depending on popularity of particular pieces, rarity value and investment potential. Acknowledging the current Elephant poaching crisis and the resulting rapid decline of Elephant populations, and estimated extinction of the Elephant in the wild within 11 years, by 2025125 the rarity value and investment value of all ivory is increasing. It can be deduced that the reported increased popularity in ivory items on the domestic market in New Zealand, and the resulting prices which are reportedly exceeding estimates, is reflective of markets for ivory internationally126, as consumers seek to invest in items that are both increasing in monetary value and increasing in rarity value. Put simply, there is significant potential that ivory collectors, traders and consumers in New Zealand are banking on the extinction of the African Elephant. Evidence indicates that the majority of ivory items for sale on the domestic market lack any verification of preban authenticity, statements of provenance, or relevant import records, as a means of illustrating the items legal eligibility to be traded.

124

http://www.webbs.co.nz/department/antiques-decorative-arts www.iworry.org 126 “Edward Grace, deputy assistant director for law enforcement at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, calls the U.S. "a large consumer of ivory." Although 125

recent ivory seizures in Asia dwarf those made in the U.S., he says, "you can go into New York City, you can go into Washington D.C., you can go into San Francisco, and there's ivory for sale. "The price of [raw, uncarved] ivory ten years ago was less than $1,000 a pound," but it now sells for "almost $1,500 a pound," says Grace, which indicates steady or increasing demand. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/elephant-slaughter-ivory-tradeus

4.3.5 Overall Conclusions on Domestic Trade 1227 Elephantidae specimen items have been imported into New Zealand for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. A further 3113 items have been imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. 4511 items have been re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. Of note is the high number (1254 items) of items re-exported for Personal use in 2012 alone. A lesser number of 510 items have been re-exported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. While Australia continues to be the main destination for re-exports of ivory from New Zealand, in 2012 China emerged as the second main destination, now sitting equal with the United Kingdom. The data indicates an increase in the amount of ivory being re-exported from New Zealand, reaching the highest point on record in 2012. There is evidence of a high demand for ivory items on the domestic market at Auction Houses, and of ivory commanding prices in excess of estimates. Combined with the re-export data, it appears that the domestic ivory trade in New Zealand is reflective of, and responding to, the increased international demand for ivory. Of particular note is the presence of a variety of ivory items for sale, for example on Trademe and at Auction Houses, the majority of which include no statements of provenance, verification of source, or relevant import documentation, to indicate that these items are eligible for domestic trade. Large quantity (over 50 items) import records and re-export records for Personal use indicate a high likelihood of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within New Zealand. These large quantity records also suggest that significant numbers of ivory items can, and are, being categorised as Personal use. Given (a) the lack of verification requirements on the domestic markets, both in New Zealand and some destination countries, and (b) the current high demand for and dollar value of ivory, there is substantial potential for items imported and exported explicitly for not “primarily commercial purposes” to traded for commercial purposes on domestic markets. Therefore, there is substantial potential for the 3113 items of ivory that have entered New Zealand under the CITES regulations explicitly for Personal use, to be traded for commercial purposes on the domestic market. In conclusion, these findings regarding the domestic ivory trade highlight a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) Whether the New Zealand trade in ivory, for imports, re-exports, and the domestic trade is complimentary or otherwise to current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. b) The levels and trends of the New Zealand trade in ivory, and New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to engage in public awareness campaigns. c) The appropriateness of the current ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory market, and lack of verification requirements for an items legal eligibility for commercial trade, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations pertaining to the trade in ivory, and with regard to compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. which urges parties to regulate trade. d) New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10. which urges parties to compile inventories and report, where possible, on significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. e) The current way in which Personal use is determined for imports and re-exports, particularly what may constitute an appropriate amount of items for Personal use, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory.

The robustness of the domestic market controls in current destination countries (such as Australia, China, United Kingdom and United States) and the appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal Use from New Zealand, in terms of compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use.

g) Whether a public awareness campaign, informed by an investigation of New Zealand ivory consumers and traders, could be tailored towards compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns, including: supply and demand reduction; drawing attention to existing or new regulations concerning the sale and purchase of ivory; providing information on elephant conservation challenges, including the impact of illegal killing and illegal trade on elephant populations; and, particularly in retail outlets, informing tourists and other non- nationals that the export of ivory requires a permit and that the import of ivory into their state of residence may require a permit and might not be permitted;”.

4.4 MONITORING & ENFORCEMENT OF IMPORTS AND RE-EXPORTS. Official Information states that all import, re-export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the Convention, including ivory, has to be authorized thorough a licensing system. Official information states that the Ministry of Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service are involved in monitoring and enforcement via their officers at air and sea ports and the international mail centre. Enforcement is also undertaken by the Wildlife Enforcement Group, a partnership of the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Primary Industries and the New Zealand Customs Service which aims to stop the illegal trade in wildlife, including the import, export, and related domestic activity.

4.4.1 Illegal Ivory Trade Convictions, New Zealand The Official database for New Zealand imports and re-exports includes 193 seizure records accounting for 791 seized items for the period 1989 through 2012. 16 seizures were made during the most recent three year period, 2010 through 2012, accounting for 49 items. The majority of these seizures were noted as Personal effects, and a small number were noted for Trade purposes. The majority of seizures were for imports. The exporting and importing countries noted for the seizures include: New Zealand, United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, China, Thailand, Japan, Zambia, and France. Comment: There has been one conviction for illegal trading in ivory in New Zealand. On 12 July 2013 Judge J C Moses convicted Jiezhen Jiang on eight counts of trading in a specimen of an endangered species without permit, and imposed penalties of $12,000 and Court Costs of $132.89. The Court Proceedings include a number of important points127: 1. The summary of facts sets out that the defendant had become interested in purchasing ivory as an investment two or three years ago. 2. The Defendants son had set up an eBay.co.uk account to enable the Defendant to purchase items. 3. Customs Officers intercepted two items at the International Mail Centre. 4. A further 6 items of African Elephant ivory were located at the Defendants home as the result of a search warrant. 5. The Defendant suspected that some of the items purchased were not “ox bone”, and indicated that one of the items looked quite like ivory. 6. In response to the question of whether the Defendant was buying the items as art or as an investment, the Defendant answered “Actually to be honest both. I feel that this kind of item is beautiful and in future it won’t be there anymore”. 7. The Defendant also acknowledged, with regard to the items sold as “ox bone”, “So I was trying my luck, hopefully that it’s ivory.” 8. One of the items was purchased by the Defendant for NZ$105, and subsequently advertised on a Chinese website for approximately $2300. 9. Judge J C Moses concluded, regarding the Defendant, “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.” 10. In assessing the seriousness of offending, Judge J C Moses considered that (a) the Defendant either knew or suspected some of the items to be ivory, and (b) the Defendant was using a website to attempt to sell at least one of the items, and (c) the purpose of the Trade In Endangered Species Act, in which the definition of “trade” clearly makes anyone who deals with the products, whether by exporting, importing or re-exporting, is in fact trading, whether there is a commercial connotation of not. Judge J C Moses also considered that “it is for a serious issue that the legislation was passed.”

127

Source: Department of Conservation vs Jiezhen Jiang, 10 July 2013, Manukau District Court. CRI-2012-092-014549.

11. Judge J C Moses took into consideration submissions, including a Report from TRAFFIC, which highlights that since 2005 there has been a steady escalation in the illegal killing of elephants reaching to the highest level in more than a decade in 2011. Judge J C Moses noted that the Report goes on to say that China is one of the countries heavily implicated as being a destination in the illicit trade of ivory but also highlights the fact that China is strictly dealing with ivory trade offences. Also noted by Judge J C Moses is the effect of elephant poaching on tourism and “other consequences of other criminality…” 12. Judge J C Moses determined that the offending is “moderately serious” with an “element of commerciality”. 13. Regarding whether convictions would be out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending, Judge J C Moses determined that none of the consequences, either individually or cumulatively, were such that they would be out of all proportion to the gravity of offending. 14. A starting point for the penalties was given at $2500 in respect of each of the charges, reduced by 20% for previous good record and personal circumstances, and reduced a further 25% for the guilty plea – reducing the total penalties to a total of $12,000. 15. Judge J C Moses noted that “…if I were of the view, which I am not in your case, that there was a greater degree of commerciality involved then the starting point and end point would have been substantially different to that which has been imposed today.”

4.4.2 Summary & Conclusions: Illegal Ivory Trade Convictions, New Zealand Importantly, the case of Department of Conservation vs Jiezhen Jiang 10th July 2013, Manukau District Court further illustrates that New Zealand citizens may be investing in ivory on the basis that, and in the knowledge that, Elephants are headed for extinction, and therefore also investing with the expectation that ivory items will become more valuable in the short to mid term. The case also highlights the use of international internet sites as an avenue to trade illegally in ivory, including ebay.co.uk and an unnamed Chinese website. Of note is that China is recognized as having a market heavily implicated in illicit ivory trading, and that China has emerged as the second main destination for ivory items reexported from New Zealand in 2012. Judge J C Moses makes it clear that the TIES Act was passed for a serious issue, and makes it clear that the penalties would have been substantially greater had there been a higher degree of commerciality involved in the offending. Also important is that Judge J C Moses acknowledges that the definition of “trade” under the TIES Act is broad encompassing imports, exports and re-exports regardless of an element of commerciality or not. Taking into account the 193 seizure records, 16 of which occur over the most recent three year data period 2010 through 2012, it is of note that there has been only one conviction under the TIES Act in New Zealand for trading in a specimen of an endangered species without permit. The circumstances relating to each seizure record is not included in the Official Information or data received, therefore detail regarding the nature and type of offending that has resulted in the seizure of these items cannot be determined in this report. However, what is clear from the official data is that the majority of seizures are for imports. During the more recent period 2010 though 2012 the import seizures are noted as Personal use and that the number of items seized for each of these records is small (2 - 8 items per seizure record). It is not possible, from information received to date, to determine if the items were of illegally sourced ivory, or were of pre-ban or antique ivory but without necessary permits. Seized import items (49 items) over the more recent period 2010 through 2012 were from China, India, Thailand, Australia, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, Japan and France. The seized reexport items (26) over the same period were destined for United States. It is relevant that at the International March for Elephants 4th October 2013, in Wellington, Dr Nick Smith, the Minister of Conservation, acknowledged that "…there are so many New Zealanders who are conservation minded,

who actually do love the wildlife, but who, when overseas, see a lovely little ornament or tourism souvenir to bring home that's made out of ivory and buy it innocently not realising that they are part of the problem that's contributing to the demise of the elephant." In addition, Dr Smith noted that "...the reason the elephants are shot and destroyed is because in developed countries like our own there is a market for the ivory and the best hope for the elephant is that we snuff out the trade that makes it economic for those to do it." 128 An analysis of the nature and type of offending that has resulted in the seizure of Elephantidae specimens by New Zealand Authorities would be valuable, as a means to develop strategies aimed at reducing illegal re-exports, and in particular at reduce illegal imports. In conclusion, these findings regarding the 2013 conviction for illegal trading in ivory and the seizures of Elephantidae specimens made by New Zealand authorities, highlight a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) Whether enforcement of the TIES Act and CITES with regard to ivory trading, could be made more effective through the development of a “no excuses” environment – whereby the general public, ivory consumers, collectors and traders in New Zealand, and international travelers, are made aware of matters including, but not limited to:  the high levels of Elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade, and the consequences for Elephant populations;  how the illicit ivory trade is funding terrorism;  the legislation (TIES Act and CITES);  the requirements for legal trade in ivory (domestic trade, imports and re-exports, use of internet sites for trade);  how items imported or re-exported for Personal use are not to be sold on the domestic market  what constitutes illegal trade in ivory; and  the legal consequences of trading illegally in ivory (potential conviction and penalties). b) Whether a public awareness campaign (such as described in (a) above) could be tailored towards compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns, including: supply and demand reduction; drawing attention to existing or new regulations concerning the sale and purchase of ivory; providing information on elephant conservation challenges, including the impact of illegal killing and illegal trade on elephant populations; and, particularly in retail outlets, informing tourists and other non- nationals that the export of ivory requires a permit and that the import of ivory into their state of residence may require a permit and might not be permitted;”.

128

Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIg215GmiF4 and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/element-magazine/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503340&objectid=11178970

5. IMPORTS OF ELEPHANTIDAE FAMILY SPECIMENS Source of Information: Official New Zealand Database records. The Official Information data for Import Records was graphed to illustrate any trends over time. Note: Import data presented here excludes seizure records. Items imported are categorised in the Official Data files under the following: Carvings; ivory carvings; ivory pieces; leather products; horn; feet; piano keys; specimens (bone, ear, skin piece); teeth; trophies; tusks; and unspecified. Figure 1: Number of Import Records 1980 – 2012 (Elephantidae) IMPORTS: Number of Import Records - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 35 30 number of Import Records

20 15

Linear (number of Import Records)

10 5 0

R² = 0.4566

Figure 2: Number of Items imported 1980 – 2012 Elephantidae) IMPORTS: Number of Imported Items - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 4000 3500

Number of Items

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

Linear (Number of Items) R² = 0.0018

500 0

Comment on Graphs: Figure 1 shows an increasing trend (45% increase) in the number of import records for Elephantidae specimens from the period 1980 through 2012. Figure 2 shows a declining trend (0.18% decrease) in the number of items imported from the period 1980 through 2012. However, a spike in the data at 1986 (with a total of 3723 items imported) skews this trend line downwards. Re-graphing the imported items data to include only 1987 through 2012 was undertaken to

determine a more representative trend (Figure 4). In order to be consistent, the data for imports records was also re-graphed to include only 1987 through 2012 (Figure 3). Figure 3: Number of Import Records 1987 – 2912 Elephantidae IMPORTS: Number of Import Records - Elephantidae. 1987 - 2012 35 30

number of Import Records

25 20 15

Linear (number of Import Records)

10 5 0 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

R² = 0.1525

Figure 4: Number of Items Imported 1987 – 2012 Elephantidae IMPORTS: Number of Imported Items - Elephantidae. 1987 - 2012 1200 Number of Items

1000 800

Linear (Number of Items)

600 400

R² = 0.2236

200 0 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Comment on Graphs: Having eliminated the spike in 1986 by graphing on the period 1987 through 2012, Figure 3 shows an increasing trend (15% increase) in the number of import records per year for Elephantidae specimens. Figure 4 also shows an increasing trend (22% increase) in the number of items imported of Elephantidae specimens per year for the same period 1987 through 2012.

Figure 5: Average Number of Items per Import Record 1980 – 2012 IMPORTS: Number of Items/Import Record - Elephantidae. 1980 2012 350

Avg items/recor d

300 250

Linear (Avg items/recor d)

200 150 100

R² = 0.0218

50 0

Figure 6: Average Number of Items Per Import Record 1987 – 2012 IMPORTS: Average Number of Items/Import Record - Elephantidae. 1987 - 2012 35 30

Avg items/recor d

Linear (Avg items/recor d)

15 10

R² = 0.2374 5 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Comment on Graphs: Figure 5 shows a slightly declining trend 2% decrease) in the number of items per import record for the period 1980 through 2012. Again, re-graphing the data to include only 1987 through 2012 was undertaken to determine a more representative trend (Figure 6). Figure 6 shows an increasing trend (24% increase) in the number of items per import permit for the period 1987 through 2012.

Data Observations129:  A total of 509 Import Records exist, with a cumulative total of 9094 items.  Of the 509 import records, 360 records (71% of records) (8118 items) are for ivory carvings or carvings and 77 records (15% of records) (197 items) are for tusks. 40 records (8%) (693 items) are for ivory pieces. A further 32 records (6%) are for leather products (1 record), horn (1 record), feet (2 records), piano keys (1 record), specimens (bone, ear, skin piece x 5 records), trophies (11 records), teeth (9 records), unspecified (2 records).  Of the total 9091 items imported, 71% (8118 items) are carvings and ivory carvings.  Of the 509 import records, 346 records (68%) are for Personal use, and 77 records (15%) for Trade purposes. 49 records (10%) are noted as blank in terms of purpose, 22 records (4%) are for Hunting purposes. Remaining records are for Educational purposes and Q (circus and travelling exhibitions) and N (reintroduction or introduction into the wild).  Import Records for Personal use account for 3113 items, 34% of all items imported.  95% of all import records for Personal use occur after the ban, accounting for 3038 items.  Import Records for Trade purposes account for 5346 items, 59% of all items imported.  51% of all import records for Trade use occur after the ban, accounting for 1227 items  78% of the import records that have occurred since the ban are for Personal use, accounting for 67% of all items imported since the ban.  9% of the import records that have occurred since the ban are for Trade purposes, accounting for 2% of all items imported since the ban.  The majority of import records since ban are for Personal use (accounting for 3038 items) and the minority have occurred for Trade (accounting for 1227 items).  For the period 2010 - 2012: 34 import records for Personal use, accounting for 344 items. This accounts for 10% of the Personal use imports since the ban and 11% of all items imported for Personal use since the ban. Therefore, 11% of the items imported for Personal use during the 23 year period since the ban occur 2010 through 2012.  2010 - 2012: 9 import records for Trade, accounting for 692 items. This accounts for 12% of the import records for Trade since the ban and 78% of all items imported since the ban.  Therefore, 78% of the items imported for Trade purposes over the 23 year period since the ban occur 2010 - 2012. 85% of the items imported for Trade purposes over the 23 year period since the ban, occur 2008 – 2012.  24 of the 509 (5%) import records are for a large number of items (50 – 2000 items). 16 are for “Personal Use”, 8 are for “Trade” purposes. The vast majority of these records are for the import of ivory carvings, carvings.  All 16 records for Personal occur since the 1989 ban, accounting for 1195 items (excluding sets). 3 of these records occur 2010 – 2012, accounting for 192 items (no sets noted).  8 large quantity records are for “Trade” purposes, 5 of which occur after the ban accounting for 1122 items excluding sets). 3 of these records occur 2010 – 2012, accounting for 932 items (excluding sets).  While the majority of import records and the majority of items imported since the ban are for Personal use, there appears to be a significant increase in the number items imported for Trade 2010 through 2012.  Of the total 22 import records for “Hunting” purposes. 9 of these 22 records (41%) occur during 2012.  Of the 509 import records, 360 records (71% of records) (8118 items) are for ivory carvings or carvings and 77 records (15% of records) (197 items) are for tusks. 40 records (8%) (693 items) are for ivory pieces. A further 32 records (6%) are for leather products (1 record), horn (1 record), feet (2 records), piano keys (1 record), specimens (bone, ear, skin piece x 5 records), trophies (11 records), teeth (9 records), unspecified (2 records).  Of the total 9091 items imported, 71% (8118 items) are carvings and ivory carvings.

129

Note: Where the number of items is recorded as “sets” i n the Official Information data, for the purposes of this report these entries have been noted as only one item.

     

Source of Imported Personal use items: Of the 3113 items imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban, 1475 items are noted as pre-ban, 1370 items are noted as Wild, 127 items are noted as Unknown, and 64 items are noted as blank. Source of Imported Trade items: Of the 1227 items imported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban, 374 items are noted as pre-ban, 114 items are noted as Wild, 739 items are noted as Unknown. Over the more recent period 2007 – 2012, 699 items have been imported for Personal use, 445 pre ban, 199 Wild and 55 unknown source. The majority of these items are carvings, ivory carvings and tusks. 1050 items have been imported for Trade over the same period, 316 pre-ban and 734 unknown source. The majority of these items are carvings and ivory carvings. During 2007 – 2012, the exporting countries of items of Unknown source include: United Kingdom (734 items), South Africa (52 items), United States and Hong Kong. During 2007 – 2012, the exporting countries of items of Wild source include: United Kingdom (89 items), South Africa (26 items), United States (8 items), Zambia (4 items), Zimbabwe (3 items), Australia (3 items).

5.1 Summary on Data & Graphs 5.1.1 Number, Volume and Type of Item A total of 509 import records exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 9094 items, the majority (89%, 8118 items) of which are carvings or ivory carvings and a smaller amount are ivory pieces (8%, 693 items) and tusks (2%, 197 items). The number of import records per year, the number of imported items per year and the average number of items per import per year, show decreasing trends for the period 1980 – 2012, however, these trends can be attributed to a spike in the import data at 1986. An increasing trend for the number of import records per year (15% increase), the number of imported items per year (22% increase) and the average number of items per import record per year (24% increase) is shown for the shorter period of 1987 – 2012. There is some fluctuation in the number of items imported each year and the average number of items per import record occurring 2010 through 2012, however, there remains an overall increasing trend for the period 1987 though 2012.

5.1.2 Use Of the 509 import records, over half 346 records (68%) are for Personal use and 15% (77 records ) are for Trade purposes. In terms of the total number of items imported, over half (59%) are for Trade purposes, accounting for 5346 items. The majority of import records since the ban are for Personal use, accounting for 3038 items. The minority are for Trade, accounting for 1227 items. Over three quarters (77%, 4119 items) of all the items imported for Trade purposes were imported in the nine year period before the 1989 ban130, accounting for 45% of all imported items. 15%, (1227 items) of all items imported for Trade purposes were imported in the 23 year period since the ban, however, 692 (78%) of these items were imported 2010 – 2012 alone.

130

Pre-ban Trade imports 1981 – 1989 (incl).

Therefore, while the number of items imported for trade purposes has decreased dramatically since the 1989 ban, the vast majority (85%) of the items imported for Trade purposes since the 1989 ban occur over the latest five year period, from 2008 through 2012. There is a notable increase in the number of items imported for trade purposes since 2007. A small percentage of the imports records for Personal since the ban occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for only 344 items. Similarly, a small percentage of the import records for Trade since the ban occur 2010 through 2012, however, these account for 78% of all items imported for trade since the ban. Further, 85% of the items imported for Trade purposes over the 23 year period since the ban, occur 2008 – 2012. Therefore, it can be said that the number of items imported for Trade purposes has increased dramatically since 2008. Of note is that the majority of the items for Trade purposes have been imported via 5 records for large quantities. A small number (22) of import records are for Hunting purposes, however, more than half (55%) of these occur since the 1989 ban and specifically during the period from 2010 – 2012, 9 records for 2012 alone. There is a significant increase in the number of import records for Hunting purposes between 2010 and 2012.

5.1.3 Large Quantities A small percentage (5%, 24 records) of all import records are for large quantities of items (Personal 50 – 261 items; Trade 50 – 2000 items). Just under three quarters (16 records) of these are for Personal use, and just over a quarter (8) are for Trade purposes. All of the import records for larger quantities for Personal use occur since the 1989 ban, and three of these records occur 2010 – 2012 accounting for 192 items. These three records noted 52 items, 52 items, and 88 items during 2010. Of the 8 large quantity records are for “Trade” purposes, 5 occur after the ban three of which occur 2010 – 2012, accounting for 932 items (excluding sets). These three records note 732 items, 148 items, and 52 items.

5.1.4 Source of Imports Of the 3113 items imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban, 1475 items are noted as pre-ban, 1370 items are noted as Wild, 127 items are noted as Unknown, and 64 items are noted as blank. Of the 1227 items imported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban, 374 items are noted as pre-ban, 114 items are noted as Wild, 739 items are noted as Unknown. Over the more recent period 2007 – 2012, 699 items have been imported for Personal use, 445 pre-ban, 199 Wild and 55 unknown source. The majority of these items are carvings, ivory carvings and tusks. 1050 items have been imported for Trade over the same period, 316 pre-ban and 734 unknown source. The majority of these items are carvings and ivory carvings. Therefore, over the more recent period 2007 – 2012, 199 ivory items for Personal or Trade use have been imported form Wild sources, and 789 ivory items imported from Unknown source. During the same period, the exporting countries for the Unknown source items include: United Kingdom (734 items), South Africa (52 items), United States (1 item) and Hong Kong (1 item). Exporting countries for the items of Wild source include: United Kingdom (89 items), South Africa (26 items), United States (8 items), Zambia (4 items), Zimbabwe (3 items), Australia (3 items).

5.2 Imports Summary & Conclusions Note: Trends presented in this Import Summary are based on the assumption that it is appropriate, for statistical purposes, to exclude the data from 1980 through 1987, due to the significant spike in the data at 1986, which unduly skews the trendline downwards.

A total of 509 import records exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 9094 items, the majority (89%, 8118 items) of which are carvings or ivory carvings and a smaller amount are ivory pieces (8%, 693 items) and tusks (2%, 197 items). For the period 1987 through 2012, there is an increasing trend for the number of import records per year (15% increase), the number of imported items per year (22% increase) and the average number of items per import record per year (24% increase). For the period 2010 through 2012, there is some fluctuation in the number of items imported each year and the average number of items per import record, however, there remains an overall increasing trend for imports, for the period 1987 though 2012. In summary, the import data shows that:  New Zealand plays an increasing role as an importer of ivory, based on the number of import records each year and number of items imported each year, for the period 1987 through 2012,  The majority of import records since the 1989 ban are for Personal use, accounting for 3038 items.  Personal use imports for large quantities (over 50 items) occur, including during the most recent data period 2010 – 2012.  There is a high likelihood that privately held stockpiles of ivory, in excess of 50 items, exist in New Zealand.  The number of import records for Trade has decreased noticeably since the 1989 ban, with a total of 1227 trade items imported since the ban. However, the number of items imported for Trade has increased noticeably, since 2007.  Imports for Hunting purposes have increased significantly since 2009.  During the more recent period 2007 through 2012, a total of 199 ivory items have been imported for Personal or Trade use from Wild sources, and 789 ivory items imported from Unknown sources.

The items of Wild source imported during 2007 through 2012 were from the United Kingdom, South Africa, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Australia and Botswana. 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 these imports were noted for the purpose of “Hunting”. It also appears that some Loxodonta africana populations on CITES Appendices II may have erroneously been noted in Official records as Appendices 1 species. 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. Importantly, as stated on the CITES Export Quota documentation (emphasis added in bold) “The publication of quotas on the CITES website does not imply endorsement by the Secretariat. Voluntary export quotas are established by the Parties and the Secretariat has no indication as to whether these quotas are based on the determinations that Parties are required to make in accordance with Article IV, paragraph 2 (a) of the Convention, namely that exports should not be detrimental to the survival of the species. Where voluntary quotas concern Appendix-I species, the Secretariat reminds Parties of the provisions of Article III of the Convention.”

In conclusion, the findings on the import of Elephantidae specimens, the majority of which are ivory, highlight a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) Whether the New Zealand trade (regardless of any element of commerciality) in imports of ivory, including of Loxodonta africana ivory, is complimentary or otherwise to current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. b) The current way in which Personal use is determined for imports, particularly what may constitute an appropriate amount of items for Personal use, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is particularly important given that three Personal use records of 52 items, 52 items, and 88 items occurred during 2010. c) New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10. which urges parties to compile inventories and report, where possible, on significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. d) The appropriateness of (a) the import of ivory items noted as Wild or Unknown source and for Personal use or Trade purposes (and not of pre-ban source) with regard to compliance with CITES regulations for trade in ivory, and (b) the appropriateness of the import of items noted as Wild source from African countries, given that voluntary Export Quotas do not imply endorsement by the CITES Secretariat with regard to any decision on whether the exports are “not detrimental to the survival of the species”. This is of particular importance given a total of 988 items of Wild or Unknown source (and not pre-ban source) were imported to New Zealand during 2007 through 2012 for Personal use or Trade purposes. e) The appropriateness of the current ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory market, and no requirement for verification of an items legal eligibility for commercial trade, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory for Personal use. f)

6. RE-EXPORTS of Elephantidae Family specimens Source of Information: Official New Zealand Database records. The Official Information data for Re- Export Records was graphed to illustrate any trends over time. Items reexported are categorised in the Official Data files under the following: Carvings; ivory carvings; derivatives; ivory pieces; specimens; teeth; trophies; and tusks. Figure 7: Number of NZ Re-Export Records 1980 – 2012 Elephantidae RE-EXPORTS: Number of Records - Elephatidae. 1980 - 2012 80 70 60

Number of Records

50 40

30 Linear (Number of Records)

20 10 0

R² = 0.5958

-10

Figure 8: Number of Items Re-Exported from NZ 1980 – 2012 Elephantidae RE-EXPORTS: Number of Items - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 1400 1200 1000

Number of Items

800 600 400

Linear (Number of Items)

200 R² = 0.4634 0 -200

Figure 9: Average number of items per NZ Re-Export Record 1980 – 2012 Elephantidae RE-EXPORTS: Average Number of Items per Record - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 Average Number of Items per ReExport Record

40 35 30 25

Linear (Average Number of Items per ReExport Record)

20 15 10 5

R² = 0.1618

Comment on Graphs: Figure 7 and Figure 8 each show increasing trends in the number of re-export records (56% increase) and number of re-exported items (46% increase) for Elephantidae specimens for the period 1980 through 2012. A dramatic increase in both the number of re-export records and number of items can be seen for 2012 data in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 shows an increasing trend in the average number of items per re-export record (16% increase) for Elephantidae specimens for the period 1980 through 2012. There appears to be three ‘surges’ or ‘peaks’ in the data that broadly coincide across all three graphs (the number of export records, number of items re-exported, and average number of items per re-export record) for the periods 1991; 1998 – 2006, and 2007 – 2012, as shown in the Table 2 below. Table 2: Apparent Surges or Peaks in Re-Export Data Figure

First Peak/Surge

Fig 7: Re-Export Records / year Fig 8: Number of Items ReExported/year Fig 9: Average number of items / Re-Export record

Second Peak/Surge

1991 - 1994

1998 - 2006

Third CURRENT Peak/Surge 2008 - 2012

1991

1998 - 2006

2007 - 2012

1987, 1991

1998 - 2005

2007 - 2012

Data Observations131:     

131

A total of 453 re-export Records exist, with a cumulative total of 5523 items. Of the 453 re-export records, 296 (65%) are for carvings, ivory carvings, 119 (26%) are for ivory pieces, 24 (5%) are for tusks, and the remaining 2% of records are for trophies, derivatives, specimens and teeth. 67% of all items re-exported are carvings and ivory carvings and a further 31% are ivory pieces. 375 of the re-export records (84%) are for “Personal” use, accounting for 4655 items. 43 of the re-export records (9%) are for “Trade” purposes, accounting for 522 items. The remaining 7% of the re-export records are for Educational purposes, Hunting purposes (2 records), Q (Circus and travelling exhibitions), L (law enforcement/judicial/forensic), and S (Scientific). 26 records for re-export occur during the 10 year period before the ban (1980 – 1989), of which 77% are for Personal use (144 items), 23% are for trade (12 items).

Note: Where the number of items is recorded as “sets” i n the Official Information data, for the purposes of this report 1 set has been noted as only 1 item.

     

      

         

392 records for re-export occur during the 23 year period since the ban, of which 91% are for Personal use (4511 items), and 9% for Trade (510 items). The majority of re-export records and items before and after the ban are for Personal use. Before the 1989 ban there is an average of 3 re-export records per year. Since the 1989 ban this average has increased to 17 records per year. Before the 1989 ban an average of 16 items were re-exported each year. Since the 1989 ban this average has increased to 218 items re-exported each year. The majority (91%) of the re-export records since the ban are for Personal use, accounting for 4511 items (of a total 5021 items). Items re-exported for Personal use peaked for the entire period at 2012 with a total of 1254 items for that year (69 records). This equates to an average of 18 items per record for 2012, all of which are for Personal use. Previous peaks for the number of items/record for Personal use occur at 1985, 1987, 1991, 2007 (with items/record at 38, 36, 24, 28 respectively). The proportion of re-export records for Trade has decreased since the ban (from 23% - 9% of all re-export records), conversely, the proportion of re-export records for Personal use have increased since the ban (from 77% - 91%). 21 of the 453 records are for the re-export of large quantities (50 – 300 items). 18 (86%) of these larger quantity records are for “Personal” Use, 5% (1 record) for Trade and 10% (2 records) for Q (circus or travelling exhibition). The large quantity re-export records for Personal use account for 1877 items, 80% of the total number of items re-exported via large quantity records. Large quantity re-export records for Personal Use range from 50 – 278 items per record. 8 (38%) of the large quantity re-export records occur 2010 through 2012, and account for 1002 items, or 43% of all items re-exported via large quantity records for the full 32 year period. No large quantity reexport records for Trade occur between 2010 – 2012. 6 large quantity re-export records for Personal use occur 2010 – 2012, accounting for 826 items, an average of 138 items/record. Destinations include United Kingdom, Canada, Greece, and Australia. Therefore, the majority (86%) of the large quantity re-export records are for Personal use and account for 80% of all items re-exported via large quantity records. 43% of the items re-exported via large quantity records have occurred during 2010 – 2012. The 18 Large quantity Personal use re-export records range from 50 – 278 items with an average number of items per record of 104, and a median of 69. 2010 – 2012: 133 re-export records accounting for 2198 items occur over most recent three year period. This accounts for 31% of all re-export records since the ban and 41% of all items re-exported since the ban. Therefore, over a third (41%) of all items re-exported during the 23 year period since the ban occur in most recent three year data period. Of the total 5523 items re-exported for the entire period 1980 through 2012, 40% (2198 items) of these items were re-exported in the most recent three year period 2010 - 2012. Destinations for period 1980 – 2012: Of the 453 re-export records, 147 records (32%) are to Australia, 105 (23%) are to the United Kingdom, and 61 (13%) are to United States. 4% of the re-export records are to China. 2010 – 2012 destinations: Of the 133 re-export records, 51 (38%) are to Australia, 34(26%) are to the United Kingdom, 14 (11%) to China and 11 (8%) are to United States,. 2012 destinations: Of the 70 re-export records, 37 (53%) are to Australia, 12 (17%) are to the United Kingdom, 12 (17%) to China, and 5 (7%) are to United States,. Of the 17 re-export records to China 16 (219 items) are for Loxodonta africana, and one record (3 items) is for Elephas maximus. Australia: 25% of the total 147 re-export records to Australia, occurred in 2012. China: 70% of the total 17 re-export records to China occurred in 2012. Based on re-export records, over the entire 32 year period, Australia dominates as the destination (32% of records), followed by the United Kingdom (23%) and then the United States (13%), and a minor 4% were for China. For the period 2010 – 2012, Australia still dominates as the main destination (38%), followed by the United Kingdom (26%) and then China (11%). In 2012, Australia increases its domination as a destination (53%) and China and United Kingdom come in at 17% and a minor 7% go to US.

Table 3: Source of Re-exports 1980 - 2012: SOURCE Number of Re-export Records % of Reexport records Period occurring

     

O pre-ban 255

W wild 148

U Unknown 9

Blank 3

56%

33%

1990-2012

1993-2011

2000-2010

1999-2010

1980-2000

All re-exports for 2012 are of pre-ban source. 56% of all re-export records are of pre-ban source, and a further 33% are noted as Wild source. 8% of the records are noted as blank, none occurring since 2000. 2% of records are noted as Unknown source, and occur as recently as 2010. Of the 4511 items re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban, 3054 items are noted as preban (including those noted as both Wild & pre-ban), 1381 items are noted as Wild, 27 items are noted as Unknown, and 48 items are noted as blank. Of the 510 items re-exported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban, 344 items are noted as pre-ban, 162 items are noted as Wild, 1 item are noted as Unknown and 3 are noted as blank. Over the more recent period 2007 – 2012, 2829 items have been re-exported for personal use. 2398 preban (including those noted as both wild and pre-ban), 418 Wild and 13 unknown sources. 315 items reexported for trade use over the same period, 314 pre-ban and 1 Wild. The majority of the items of Wild or Unknown source re-exported over the 2007 - 2012 period are ivory carvings, carvings and ivory pieces.

6.1 Summary for Export Graphs and Data 6.1.1 Number, Volume and Type of Item A total of 453 re-export Records exist, with a cumulative total of 5523 items. 98% of all items re-exported are carvings, ivory carvings and ivory pieces. Re-export data shows increasing trends in the number of re-export records and number of re-export items for Elephantidae specimens from the period 1980 through 2012. Figure 9 shows an increasing trend in the average number of items per re-export record for Elephantidae specimens for the period 1980 through 2012. The average number of re-export records per year have more than quadrupled since the ban, from an average of 3 records per year to 17 records per year. The average number of items re-exported each year since the ban has increased dramatically, from an average of 16 items/year to an average of 218 items/ year. The majority (91%) of the items re-exported since the ban are for Personal use and account for 4511 items. Of note is the dramatic increase in both the number of re-export records and the number of re-export items for 2012, with 1255 items re-exported across 70 re-export records. 69 of these records accounted for a total of 1254 items all of which are for Personal use. This equates to an average of 18 items per re-export record for Personal Use for 2012. The proportion of re-export records for Trade has decreased since the ban (from 23% - 9% of all export records). Conversely, the proportion of re-export records for Personal use has increased since the ban (from 77% - 91%).

There appears to be three ‘surges’ or ‘peaks’ in the re-export data that broadly coincide across all three re-export graphs (the number of export records, number of items exported, and average number of items per export record), occurring at the following periods: 1991; 1998 – 2006, and 2007 – 2012. The first of these peaks appears to coincide with the implementation of the trade ban of 1989; the second peak coincides with the CITES approved “one-off” sale 1999 (approved in 1998); and the third and current surge coincides with the CITES approved “oneoff” ivory sale of 2008. Data indicates that re-exports from New Zealand are currently experiencing a peak. However, these apparent peaks and surges would need further analysis to identify if they are statistically significant.

6.1.2 Use The majority (84%) of re-export records (375 records) are for Personal Use, accounting for 4655 items. A small percentage (9%) of the re-export records (43 records) are for Trade, accounting for 522 items. While the vast majority of records and items re-exported before and after the ban are for Personal use, there is an dramatic increase in the number of re-export records and number of re-exported items each year for Personal use occurring from 2007/2008 onwards and peaking at 2012 (See Figures 10 and 11). In contrast, the number of records and number of items re-exported for Trade has decreased dramatically since 2008, as shown in Figures 10 through 12 below. Figure 10: Re-Export Records for Personal Use 1980 - 2012: RE-EXPORTS: Number of Records Personal Use - Elephantidae 1980 2012 80 Number of records

60 40 20 0

Linear (Number of records)

-20

R² = 0.5202

Figure 11: Re-Export Items for Personal Use 1980 - 2012: RE-EXPORTS: Number of Items Personal - Elephantidae 1980 - 2012 1400 1200 1000

Number of Items

800 600 400 200 0

Linear (Number of Items) R² = 0.3807

-200

Figure 12: Re-Export Records for Trade 1980 - 2012: RE-EXPORTS: Number of Records Trade - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 Number of Records

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Linear (Number of Records) R² = 0.1737

Figure 13: Re-Export Items for Trade 1980 - 2012: RE-EXPORTS: Number of Items Trade - Elephantidae. 1980 - 2012 350 300 250 200

Number of Items

150 100 50 0

-50

Linear (Number of Items) R² = 0.0727

6.1.3 Large Quantities 21 of the 453 re-export records are for quantities of items over 50 (50 – 300 items). The majority (86%) of these large quantity records are for Personal use, and account for 80% of all items imported via large quantity records. A minority (5%, 1 record) of the large quantity records are for Trade. The 18 large quantity re-export records for Personal use account for 1877 items, and range from 50 – 278 items per record. The average number of items per record across the 18 large quantity records for Personal use is 104 items, with a median of 69. Over a third (38%) of the large quantity records occur during 2010 through 2012, accounting for 1002 items. 6 large quantity records for Personal use occur 2010 through 2012, accounting for 826 items, an average of 138 items/record. A large proportion (43%) of all items re-exported via large quantity records for the full period (1980 through 2012) occur during the most recent three year period, 2010 through 2012. (Note: No large quantity re-export records for Trade occur 2010 through 2012.)

6.1.4 Destinations Based on re-export records, over the entire 32 year period, Australia dominates as the destination (32% of records), followed by the United Kingdom (23%) and then the United States (13%), and a minor 4% went to China. For the period 2010 through 2012, Australia still dominates as the main destination (38% of records), followed by the United Kingdom (26%) and then China (11%).

Of note is that in 2012, Australia increases its domination as a re-export destination (53% of records), China increases as a destination (17%), the United Kingdom decreases as a destination (17%), and a further 7% are reexported to US. Export records, and the number of items exported, to China have increased significantly in 2012. Of the total 17 re-export records to China for the full period (1980 through 2012), 12 of these records occur in 2012, accounting for 205 items.

6.1.5 Source of Re-exports 4511 items have been re-exported for Personal use since the 1989 trade ban. The majority (3054 items) of these items are noted as pre-ban source (including those noted as both Wild and pre-ban). However, 1381 items are noted as Wild, 27 items are noted as Unknown, and 48 items are noted as blank. 510 items have been re-exported for Trade since the 1989 trade ban. The majority (344 items) of these items are noted as pre-ban source. However, 162 items are noted as Wild, 1 item is noted as Unknown, and 3 are noted as blank. Therefore, since the Trade ban, a total of 1465 items have been re-exported for Personal use where the source is Wild, Unknown or Blank. A further 166 items have been re-exported for Trade where the source is Wild, Unknown or Blank. Over the more recent period 2007 through 2012, 2829 items have been re-exported for Personal use. The majority (2398 items) are noted as pre- ban (including those noted as both wild and pre-ban), however 418 Wild and 13 unknown sources. 315 items were re-exported for trade over the same period, 314 pre-ban and 1 Wild. The majority of the re-exported items of Wild or Unknown source are ivory carvings, carvings and ivory pieces. It should be noted that all re-export records for 2012 are noted as pre-ban source. For the more recent period 2007 -2011, the destinations for the 419 Wild source items include Australia (dominant destination), United Kingdom, Canada, United States, France, Russia, New Caledonia, Russia, and Germany. Over the same period, destinations for the 13 Unknown source items include United Kingdom (dominant), United States (dominant), and Australia.

6.2 Re-export Summary & Conclusions A total of 453 re-export Records exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 5523 items. The majority (67%) of all items re-exported are carvings and ivory carvings, and a further 31% are ivory pieces. For the period 1980 through 2012, there is an increasing trend in the number of re-export records per year (60% increase), the number of re-exported items per year (46% increase) and the average number of items per reexport record per year (16% increase). There has been a dramatic increase in the number of items re-exported during 2010 through 2012. A total of 2198 items were re-exported over this three year period representing 40% of all the items re-exported during the entire 33 year period (1980 through 2012). Of particular note is that the number of re-export records and the number of re-exported items peaked at 2012, with 1255 items re-exported across 70 re-export records. Importantly, 69 of these records were for Personal use (with an average of 18 items per re-export record). In summary, the re-export data shows that:  New Zealand plays an increasing role as an re-exporter of ivory, based on the number of re-export records each year and number of items re-exported each year, for the period 1980 through 2012.  Peaks or surges in re-export data occur at 1991; 1998 – 2006, and 2007 – 2012, broadly coinciding with the 1989 trade ban, CITES approved “one-off” ivory sales in 1999 and 2008.  The majority of re-export records before and after the 1989 ban are for Personal use, however, there is an dramatic increase in the number of re-export records and number of re-exported items each year for Personal use occurring from 2007/2008 onwards.  Re-exports of ivory from New Zealand peak over the entire 33 year data period at 2012, with 1255 items across 70 re-export records for that year alone.  Re-exports to China have increased dramatically, with 12 re-export records in 2012, accounting for 205 items (an average of 17 items per record).  Personal use re-export records for large quantities (over 50 items) occur. 6 of these large quantity Personal use re-export records occur during the most recent data period 2010 through 2012 presenting an average of 138 items/record.  There is a high likelihood that privately held stockpiles of ivory, in excess of 50 items, exist in New Zealand.  The proportion of re-export records for Trade has decreased since the ban (from 23% - 9% of all reexport records).  The main destinations include Australia, United Kingdom, United States and more recently China.  During the more recent period 2007 through 2011, a total of 431 items have been re-exported for Personal use from Wild or Unknown sources (and not pre-ban) and noted as CITES Appendices 1 species. 1 item was re-exported for Trade from Wild sources and noted as CITES Appendices 1 species.  The dominant destinations for re-exported items noted as Unknown or Wild (and not pre-ban) during the more recent period 2007 through 2011 are Australia, United Kingdom, and the United States. These findings highlight that New Zealand continues to play a consistent and increasing role as an ivory reexporter. In particular, re-exports for Personal use have increased dramatically over the most recent 2010 through 2012 period, peaking at 2012. In conclusion, the findings on the re-export data for Elephantidae specimens, the majority of which are ivory, highlight a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) Whether the New Zealand trade in re-exports of ivory (regardless of any element of commerciality), including of Loxodonta africana ivory, is complimentary or otherwise to current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade.

b) The current way in which Personal use is determined for re-exports, particularly what may constitute an appropriate amount of items for Personal use, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance given that a substantial number of Personal use re-export records for large quantities (over 50 items) occur during the most recent data period 2010 through 2012, presenting an average of 138 items per record. c) New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10. which urges parties to compile inventories and report, where possible, on significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. d) The robustness of the domestic market controls in current destination countries (such as Australia, China, United Kingdom and United States) in order to determine the appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal Use from New Zealand, in terms of compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use. This is of particular significance given the re-export of 432 items of Wild or Unknown source for Personal use during 2007 through 2012. e) The appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal use to China with regard to (i) the current increase of re-exports to China within the context of the high prices commanded by ivory in China, the current elephant poaching crisis in Africa and associated illicit ivory trade in China, and (ii) the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use, and (iii) how this trade may or may not be complimentary to international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade.

Implementing measures to comply with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns”, and informed by an investigation of New Zealand ivory consumers and traders, in response to (i) indications that re-exports of ivory from New Zealand reflect (or respond to) international trade events and agreements, and (ii) indications that New Zealand is growing as a supplier of ivory, albeit for Personal use.

g) The appropriateness of the re-export of ivory items noted as Wild or Unknown source, noted as Appendices 1 species, and for Personal use or Trade purposes (and not of pre-ban source) with regard to compliance with CITES regulations for trade in ivory.

7. IMPORT AND EXPORT OF Loxodonta africana Table 4 presents information as provided in the summaries of the Official Information received 7 August 2013, derived from the Global Trade Database Records 1975 through 2011 (note: prior to inclusion of 2012 data): Table 4: Imports and Re-export Records, Origin and Destination – 1975 - 2011. Species

Import Records

Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus)

122

Most common Countries of Origin United Kingdom* United States* Australia* Canada* ‘undetermined’

Re-Export Records

Most common Destination Countries

Total Records

108

Australia United Kingdom United States ‘unspecified’ Japan Germany

230

260

Australia United kingdom United States Canada ‘unspecified’

899

Australia United kingdom United States

150

*re-exports from various Asian countries

African Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

639

South Africa United Kingdom* Australia* Germany* *re-exports from various African countries

Undetermined (Elephantidae spp.)

Australia UK Singapore ‘undetermined’ Most of these records are reexports from various Asian countries

Total Records All

852

427

Comment: Based on the summaries of data for 1975 – 2011, as provided in the Official Information received on 7 August 2013, the largest number of both import and re-export records are for specimens of the African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) at 899 records.

7.1 Loxodonta africana Imports 1980 - 2012 Note: The Official Information data for Imports, Exports and Seizures of Elephantidae Family specimens specifies records as either Elephas maximus or Loxodonta africana, and the more general Elephantidae spp where the particular species of Elephant has not been determined. This section of the Report relates only on those items specifically recorded as Loxodonta africana in the Official Information data.

The Official Information data for the 32 year period 1980 through 2012, shows that 79% (403) of all import records are for Loxodonta africana (that is 403 of the total 509 records) are for Loxodonta africana. The import records for Loxodonta africana account for 93% (8469 items) of all items imported. A total of 3922 items of Loxodonta africana have been imported since the 1989 ban (1990 – 2012). Before the 1989 ban, on average 455 items per year were imported to New Zealand. Since the ban this average has decreased to 171 items per year.

7.1.1 Loxodonda africana Imports 2010 – 2012 Over the three year period 2010 through 2012 there are 42 records of import for Loxodonta africana, accounting for 1101 items. This equates to an average of 367 items of Loxodonta africana imported each year for that three year period. 28% of the Loxodonta africana items imported in the 23 year period since the 1989 ban occur during the three year period 2010 through 2012.

73% (811) of the items imported were for Trade purposes, across 6 import records. 90% of the Loxodonta africana items imported for Trade 2010 through 2012 are of Unknown source, the remaining 10% are noted as pre-ban. 25% (272 items) of the items imported were for Personal use, across 24 records. 19% of items imported for Personal use 2010 – 2012 are of Unknown source, a further 59% are noted as Wild and 22% are noted as pre-ban. 22 items were imported for Hunting purposes, from Wild sources from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique. These items include tusks, trophies, feet, teeth, and skin pieces including ears. 5 large quantity (50 – 732 items) import records exist 2010 – 2012, accounting for 976 items. 2 records were for Trade purposes accounting for 784 items. 3 records were for Personal use accounting for 192 items, equating to an average of 64 items per record for personal use (with a median value of 52 items). The main exporting countries (based on number of items) are United Kingdom, South Africa, Botswana, Australia, Zimbabwe. As shown in Table 5 below, 71% of all imported specimens are of Unknown source, all of which were imported from United Kingdom and South Africa. 16% of all imported items were noted as Wild source. 13 % of all imports were noted as pre-ban source. Table 5: 2010 – 2012 Imports to New Zealand of Loxodonta africana by export country and source. Export Country United Kingdom South Africa* Botswana* Australia Zimbabwe* Other % of total

Number of Records 10 4 11 6 4 7

Number of Items 968 68 20 15 13 17

Source O: Preban 96 11 0 14 9 8 13

Source W: Wild 140

Source U: Unknown 732

5 20 1 4 8 16

52 0 0 0 0 71

* Loxodonta Africana populations listed under CITES Appendix II are Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe.

7.2 Loxodonta africana Re-exports 1980 - 2012 The Official Information data for the 32 year period 1980 through 2012, shows that 65% (296) of all re-export records are for Loxodonta africana (that is 296 of the total 453 records), accounting for 3197 items (58% of all items re-exported). A total of 3073 items of Loxodonta africana have been re-exported since the 1989 ban (1990 through 2012). Before the 1989 ban, on average 12 items per year were re-exported from New Zealand. Since the ban this average has increased to 134 items per year.

7.2.1 Loxodonta africana Re-exports 2010 – 2012 Over the three year period 2010 through 2012 there are 101 records of re-export for Loxodonta africana, accounting for 1543 items. This equates to an average of 514 items of Loxodonta africana imported each year for that three year period. 50% of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported in the 23 year period since the 1989 ban occur during the three year period 2010 through 2012.

87% (1339 items) of the items re-exported were for Personal use, across 93 records. 12% of the items (187 items) were re-exported for Q132 purpose. Less than 1% (1) of the items re-exported were for Trade purposes. 6 large quantity (50 – 171 items) re-export records exist 2010 – 2012, accounting for 572 items in total. 4 of these large quantity re-export records were for Personal use accounting for 396 items, equating to an average of 95 items per record for Personal use (with a median value of 88 items). 2 further large quantity re-export records were for Q133, accounting for 176 items. The main destination countries (based on number of items) are Australia, United Kingdom, and China. 81% of all re-exported specimens are of pre-ban source and 19% are noted as Wild source, as shown in Table 6 below. Table 6: 2010 – 2012 Re-Exports from New Zealand of Loxodonta africana by destination country and source. Destination Country Australia United Kingdom China Italy Greece United States Canada France Other % of total items

Number of Records 38 22 13 2 1 6 4 4 11

Number of Items 369 280 206 176 171 87 72 34 148

Source O: Preban 140 272 206 176 171 63 71 2 142 81%

Source W: Wild 228 8 0 0 0 24 1 32 6 19%

Source U: Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

7.3 Seizures of Loxodonta africana Of the total 791 items seized, 564 are of Loxodonta africana. That is to say that 71% of all seizures across the period 1989 through 2012 are of Loxodonta africana. 49 seizures were made in 2010 through 2012, the majority (82%) of which were of Loxodonta africana. 14 of these items were being imported to New Zealand from Zambia (9), Japan (2), Australia, United States, and France and included bones, carvings, ivory pieces and teeth. 26 of these items were being re-exported from New Zealand to the United States and included ivory carvings and ivory pieces.

132 133

Circus or traveling exhibition Circus or traveling exhibition

7.3 Summary on Data for Loxodonta africana: 7.3.1 Summary of Imports for Loxodonta africana A total of 403 Import Records for Loxodonta africana exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 8469 items. That is to say that 79% of all import records are for Loxodonta africana, accounting for 93% of all items reexported. The average number of Loxodonta africana items imported per year has decreased substantially from 455 items per year for the period before the 1989 ban, to an average of 171 items per year since the 1989 ban. 28% of all of the Loxodonta africana items imported in the 23 year period since the ban occur during the most recent three year period 2010 – 2012. Specifically for the period 2010 through 2012, the import data for Loxodonta africana shows that:  Loxodonta africana items make up 83% of all imported Elephantidae Family specimens (ie. 1101 items/total imports 1324)  A total of 1101 items of Loxodonta africana were imported to New Zealand and average of 367 items/year.  The majority (73%) of those items were imported for Trade, of which the majority (90%) are from Unknown source.  A substantial 25% of those items were imported for Personal use, of which 19% are from Unknown source and 59% were from Wild source.  The majority (71%, 784) of all imported items are of Unknown source, and imported from the United Kingdom and South Africa.  The large quantity import records (3) for Personal use, present an average of 64 items per record (with a median value of 52 items).  The main exporting countries (based on number of items) are United Kingdom, South Africa, Botswana, Australia, and Zimbabwe.  There is a notable increase in the number of items (22) imported for Hunting purposes, which were imported from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique.

7.3.2 Summary of Re-Exports for Loxodonta africana A total of 296 Re-export Records for Loxodonta africana exist for the period 1980 through 2012, totaling 3197 items. That is to say that 65% of all re-export records are for Loxodonta africana, accounting for 58% of all items re-exported. The average number of Loxodonta africana items re-exported per year has increased substantially from 12 items per year for the period before the 1989 ban, to an average of 134 items per year since the 1989 ban. A substantial 50% of all of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported in the 23 year period since the ban occur during the most recent three year period 2010 – 2012. Specifically for the period 2010 through 2012, the re-export data for Loxodonta africana shows that:  Loxodonta africana items make up 70% of all re-exported Elephantidae Family specimens.  A total of 1543 items of Loxodonta africana were re-exported from New Zealand, an average of 415 items/year.  The majority (87%) of those items were re-exported for Personal use.  The majority (81%) of those re-exported items are of pre-ban source.  A smaller, but substantial amount of those re-exported items (19%) are of Wild source.  No re-export items were of Unknown source.  The large quantity (4) re-export records for Personal use, present an average of 95 items per record (with a median value of 88 items).

 

The main destination countries for re-exports (based on number of items) are Australia, United Kingdom, and China. There is a dramatic increase in the number of items (206) re-exported to China, all of which are noted as pre- ban and for Personal use.

7.3.3 Summary of Seizures for Loxodonta africana Of the total 791 items seized, 564 are of Loxodonta africana. That is to say that 71% of all seizures during the period 1989 through 2012 are of Loxodonta africana. Specifically for the period 2010 through 2012, the re-export data for Loxodonta africana shows that:  The majority of seizure records are for Loxodonta africana.  65% of seized items were for re-exports, and all of these were destined for the United States.  35% of seized items were for imports, and were from Zambia, Japan, Australia, United States and France.  A total of 40 Loxodonta africana items were seized - ivory carvings, carvings, ivory pieces, bones and teeth.

7.3.4 Overall Summary & Conclusions on Imports, Re-exports and Seizures for Loxodonta africana In terms of the New Zealand trade in Loxodonta africana, including ivory, the Official data shows that:  Since 1980 the majority of the international trade in Elephantidae Family specimens to and from New Zealand is of Loxodonta africana.  Overall, Loxodonta africana items are mostly imported to New Zealand for Trade purposes and mostly reexported for Personal use. For the more recent 2010 through 2012 period, data shows:  There has been a dramatic increase in the number of Loxodonta africana items re-exported during this period, accounting for 50% of all of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported in the 23 year period since the 1989 ban.  Main destination countries for re-exports, based on number of items, include China.  28% of all of the Loxodonta africana items imported in the 23 year period since the trade ban occur during the most recent three year period 2010 through 2012.  A significant 2644 items of Loxodonta africana have crossed New Zealand boarders via import and reexport records.  There has been a notable increase since 2009 in the number of items imported for Hunting Purposes. These are from Wild sources from Botswana, Namibia and Mozambique.  The majority of all items seized since 1989, when seizure records began, are of Loxodonta africana.  A significant 40 items of Loxodonta africana were seized during this period.  The majority of seizures were for re-exports, and all were destined for the United States. Imports seized were from Zambia, Japan, Australia, United States and France.

These findings are particularly important within the context of the current African Elephant poaching crisis and illicit trade in African Elephant ivory, as detailed in the Background Information Section 1.3 of this Report. In conclusion, the findings on the import, re-export and seizure data for Loxodonta africana, the majority of which are for ivory, highlights a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) How the increased international trade in Loxodonta africana ivory reflects the international market and demand for ivory, and the appropriateness of this increased trade with regard to the international efforts to curb demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. This is particularly important given that 50% of all of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported from New Zealand in the 23 year period since the 1989 ban occur during the three year period 2010 through 2012. b) Whether the New Zealand trade in re-exports and imports in Loxodonta africana ivory (regardless of any element of commerciality), is complimentary or otherwise to current international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. c) The current way in which Personal use is determined for imports and re-exports, particularly what may constitute an appropriate amount of items for Personal use, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance given (a) the 4 large quantity re-export records for Personal use, presenting an average of 95 items per record, and (b) the 3 large quantity import records for Personal use, presenting an average of 64 items per record, during 2010 through 2012. d) New Zealand’s compliance with CITES Resolution Conf 10.10. which urges parties to compile inventories and report, where possible, on significant privately held stockpiles of ivory. e) The robustness of the domestic market controls in current destination countries (such as Australia, China, and the United Kingdom) in order to determine the appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal Use from New Zealand, in terms of compliance with the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use.

The appropriateness of allowing the import and re-export of Loxodonta africana ivory items noted as Wild or Unknown source (and not of pre-ban source) with regard to compliance with CITES regulations for trade in ivory. This is of particular importance given during 2007 – 2012 (a) 90% of the Loxodonta africana items imported for Trade are from Unknown source, 19% of the Loxodonta africana items imported for Personal use are from Unknown source, and 59% of Loxodonta africana items imported for Personal use are from Wild source, and (b) 19% of the Loxodonta africana items re-exported are of Wild source.

g) The appropriateness of the current ‘not prohibited’ status of the domestic ivory market, and no requirement for verification of an items legal eligibility for commercial trade, with regard to the intent of CITES regulations for trade in ivory for Personal use. h) The appropriateness of allowing re-exports for Personal use to China with regard to (a) the current increase of re-exports to China within the context of the high prices commanded by ivory in China, the current elephant poaching crisis in Africa and associated illicit ivory trade in China, and (b) the intent of CITES regulations for ivory trade for Personal use, and (c) how this trade may or may not be complimentary to international efforts to reduce demand for all ivory – as a means to reduce poaching and the illicit trade. i)

Implementing measures to comply with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns”, and informed by an investigation into New Zealand ivory consumers and traders, in response to (a) indications that re-exports of ivory from New Zealand reflect (or respond to) international trade events and agreements, (b) indications that New Zealand is growing as a supplier of and destination for Loxodonta africana ivory, regardless of any element of commerciality, and (c) the majority of seizures are for Loxodonta africana items and a significant 40 items of Loxodonta africana were seized during 2010 through 2012.

8. SEIZURES Source of Information: Official New Zealand Database records. The Official Information data for Seizure Records was graphed to illustrate any trends over time. Items seized are categorised in the Official Data files under the following: Carvings; ivory carvings; derivatives; ivory pieces; specimens (bone); teeth; and tusks.

Figure 14 10a: New Zealand Seizure Records: Number of Items Seized Elephantidae – 1989 - 2012 SEIZURES: Total items per year - Elephantidae. 1989 - 2012 140 total/year

120 100 80 60

Linear (total/year )

R² = 0.2339

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Figure 15 10b: New Zealand Seizure Records: Number of Items Seized & Cumulative Total Items Elephantidae – 1989 – 2012 SEIZURES: Total items per year & Cumulative Total Items Elephantidae. 1989 - 2012 900 800

total/year

700 600

Cumulative Total Items

500 400

Linear (total/year)

300 200 100 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Comment: Figure 14 shows a decreasing trend in the number of seized Elephantidae specimens for the period 1989 through 2012. Figure 15 shows that a notable decline in the trend for cumulative total number of items seized begins at around 2005. A total of 791 items of Elephantidae specimens have been seized.

Figure 16: New Zealand Seizure Records: Seizure Records Elephantidae – 1989 - 2012 SEIZURES: Number of Records - Elephantidae. 1989 - 2012 25

20 Number of Records

10 Linear (Number of Records)

R² = 0.0148 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Comment: Figure 15 shows a decreasing trend for seizure records per year for the period 1989 through 2012.

Figure 16: New Zealand Seizure Records: Average Number of Items Per Seizure Record Elephantidae – 1989 2012 SEIZURES: Elephantidae: Avg number items/record. 1989 - 2012 10 9 Avg number items/reco rd

7 6

Linear (Avg number items/reco rd)

5 4 3

R² = 0.4785

2 1

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Comment: Figure 16 shows a decreasing trend for the average number of items per seizure record per year for the period 1989 through 2012.

Figure 17: New Zealand Seizure Records: Number of Seizure Records and Number of Seized Items by Type – Elephantidae. 1989 - 2012 600

500

400

300

Records Items

200

100

0 carvings ivory carvings

ivory pieces

tusks

derivatives

teeth

specimen (bone)

[Note: “Ivory Carvings” and “Carvings” have been combined under the title “Ivory Carvings” for the purposes of this graph].

Comment: Figure 17 shows that for the period 1989 through 2012 ivory carvings account for the vast majority of seized items, followed by ivory pieces and tusks. Data Observations:    

The number of Seizure Records totals 193 for the entire data period, 1989 through 2012. 94% of items seized are ivory: carvings, ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. The total number of seized Elephantidae specimens totals 791. The majority (94%) of seizure records are for the import of Elephantidae specimens into New Zealand.

RE-EXPORT SEIZURES:  12 of the 193 seizure records are for re-exports and occur between 1989 and 2010, accounting for 86 items. The destinations for these items are recorded as the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom.  3 re-export seizure records occur in 2009 (a total of 3 items), destination noted as Australia. Items are carvings, ivory pieces and derivatives. All items are Elephantidae species.  4 re-export seizure records occur in 2010 (a total of 26 items), destination noted as United States. Items are carvings and ivory pieces. All records are for Loxodonta africana.  No seizure records for re-exports exist for 2011 and 2012. IMPORT SEIZURES:  181 of the 193 seizure records are for imports and occur between 1989 and 2012.  564 of the seized items (71%) are carvings and ivory carvings, 98 items (12%) are ivory pieces and 80 (10%) are tusks. A further 28 (4%) items are derivatives, 13 items are teeth and 8 items are pieces of bone.  12 import seizure records exist for the most recent three year period 2010 through 2012, and exporting countries include China, India, Thailand, Australia, United Kingdom, US, Zambia, Japan and France. Items seized include carvings, ivory pieces, derivatives, tusks, teeth and bone. The majority of records are for Loxodonta africana, and some are for Elephas maximus and others are for Elephantidae species.  16 seizure records for imports to New Zealand from China, covering the period 1992 through 2010, for items including carvings, ivory pieces, tusks and derivatives.

2010 – 2012 SEIZURE TRENDS:  The average number of seizures per year is 8 for the period 1989 through 2012, the average is 5 seizures per year for the period 2010 through 2012.  The average number of items seized per year is 33 items for the period 1989 through 2012, the average is 16 items seized per year for the period 2010 through 2012.  The average number of items seized per record is 4 for the period 1989 through 2012, this average is 2 items per record for the period 2010 through 2012.  A total of 16 seizure records exist for the period 2010 through 2012, totaling 49 items. 14 of these records were noted as Personal use and 2 were noted for Trade purposes. Items include Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus and Elephantidae species.

8.1 Summary of Seizure Data, Discussion and Conclusions The number of seized specimens of Elephantidae Family specimens for the period 1989 through 2012 totals 791. The majority of these items are carvings and ivory carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. Based on the seizure data and assuming a minimum weight of 5kg per tusk (80 tusks), 0.3kg per carving (564 carvings), and 5kg per tooth (13 teeth), these seized items alone could weigh more than 650Kg. This weight does not include the 98 seized ivory pieces, which could vary considerably in weight depending on size134. For the most recent three year period, 2010 through 2012, a notable 16 seizures were made, accounting for 49 items. The majority (14 records, accounting for 45 items) of these seizures were noted as Personal effects, a small number (2 records, total of 2 items) were noted for Trade purposes. A full analysis for the exporting countries was not undertaken, however, exporting countries include: United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, China, Thailand, Japan, Zambia, and France. There has been one conviction for illegal trading in ivory in New Zealand, as detailed in Section 4.4 of this Report. On 12 July 2013 Judge J C Moses convicted Jiezhen Jiang on eight counts of trading in a specimen of an endangered species without permit, and imposed penalties of $12,000 and Court Costs of $132.89. Two points from this conviction are of particular importance: 

In assessing the seriousness of offending, Judge J C Moses considered that (a) the Defendant either knew or suspected some of the items to be ivory, and (b) the Defendant was using a website to attempt to sell at least one of the items, and (c) the purpose of the Trade In Endangered Species Act, in which the definition of “trade” clearly makes anyone who deals with the products, whether by exporting, importing or re-exporting, is in fact trading, whether there is a commercial connotation of not. Judge J C Moses also considered that “it is for a serious issue that the legislation was passed.”



Judge J C Moses concluded, regarding the Defendant, “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.”

Without further information regarding the frequency and type of the monitoring, investigation and enforcement efforts of New Zealand and international authorities that led to these seizures (such as boarder and import and export monitoring, etc) further interpretation of the illegal ivory trade across New Zealand borders is not possible in this Report. With regard to public awareness, information from the Department of Conservation readily available on the Internet regarding requirements for the import and re-export of ivory to and from New Zealand includes the following135:  

“Does your luggage break Wildlife Laws? If in doubt, check it”.136 Note: this document does not include mention of or graphics pertaining to Elephant ivory items. CITES SPECIES.137 Note: This document includes information on pre convention status, household moves, hunting trophies, ivory, Personal items, souvenirs, and a link to permit information. It often recommends “to contact DOC CITES officer” to find out particular requirements.

134 135

Note: Elephant tusks weigh between 23 – 45 Kg, molar teeth weigh around 5 kg each, carving weight can vary considerably. The cited references are not representative of all the information readily available, other information is also available via MPI Biosecurity website and New Zealand Customs website. 136 http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/international/cites/does-your-luggage-break-wildlife-laws-brochure.pdf 137 http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/role/international/endangered-species/cites-species/

Of particular note is the following statement on the CITES SPECIES 138 page: “Why isn’t there any information at the airports and on aircraft about CITES? A series of factsheets and brochures are available at all international airport terminals in New Zealand and at many travel agents. DOC is bound by the rules and regulations of the Airport Authorities and must abide by these in regards to where this information is displayed, which sometimes is not in the best position for the departing traveller. We have approached a number airlines in the past asking if CITES information can be available for passengers on the flight, but all have declined this offer.” The adequacy of having the information “not in the best position possible for the departing traveller” is clearly a matter of concern. While no comment is made on the website regarding whether information is in the best position for the incoming traveller, given the higher number of seizures made for the importation of ivory into New Zealand, the availability and placement of information is a matter worthy of investigation. For the full period 1989 through 2012, the seizure data shows a decreasing trend for the number of seizure records and the number of items seized per year. The data also shows a decline in the average number of items per seizure. Importantly, the majority (181) of seizure records are for imports of Elephantidae specimens into New Zealand, and the minority (12 seizure records) are for re-exports from New Zealand. It is not possible to determine from the official information received to date, as to whether the import seizures are the result of traveler purchases overseas, household moves or personal effects, or intentional illegal importation. Further information and analysis is required to draw conclusions on these matters. However, what is clear from the official seizure data is that the majority of the seizures in the most recent three year period 2010 through 2012, were noted as Personal use. In addition, the number of items seized for each seizure record over this period is small (1 – 8 items). This suggests that there is a demand for ivory in New Zealand for personal use, and highlights that there may be a need for increased awareness of the regulations pertaining to the ivory trade, particularly for people arriving in New Zealand from countries including United States, United Kingdom, Australia, India, China, Thailand, Japan, Zambia, and France. These findings highlight a need to develop strategies aimed at a reduction in illegal trade, and in particular at reducing illegal imports. An analysis of the nature and type of offending that has resulted in the seizure of 791 Elephantidae species specimens by New Zealand Authorities would be required to enable the development of an effective strategy. Of note, in this regard, is that the Court records for the 2013 conviction show that that the Defendant (a) either knew or suspected some of the items to be ivory, (b) was using a website to attempt to sell at least one of the items, and (c) saw these items “not only as art but also as an investment.” In terms of a Government held stockpile of ivory, Official data shows that 791 confiscated Elephantidae specimens are in the ownership of the Crown. 94% of these items are ivory - carvings, ivory pieces and tusks. In order to determine the exact amount that is available for a public ivory destruction event, the Government would need to confirm which and how many items have been destroyed already, and the location of all items that have not been destroyed. Items currently loaned by the Crown to museums and/or training facilities would need to be accounted for such that these items may also be considered for potential to include in any public ivory destruction event.

138

http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/role/international/endangered-species/cites-species/

In conclusion, the findings on the seizure data for Elephantidae Family specimens, the majority of which are ivory, highlight a need for the New Zealand Government to give full consideration to: a) Implementing measures to comply with CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 which urges parties to “engage in public awareness campaigns”, particularly given (a) there were 16 seizures of Elephantidae specimens, accounting for 49 items during 2010 through 2012, and (b) the majority of seizures are for imports, and (c) the 2013 conviction for illegal ivory trading in New Zealand. b) Measures for compliance with CITES Resolution Conf. 1010 urges parties to “maintain an inventory of government-held stockpiles of ivory and, where possible, of significant privately held stockpiles of ivory within their territory, and inform the Secretariat of the level of this stock each year before 28 February, indicating: the number of pieces and their weight per type of ivory (raw or worked); for relevant pieces, and if marked, their markings in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution; the source of the ivory; and the reasons for any significant changes in the stockpile compared to the preceding year; “ c) The Declaration of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade Action II, which is in support of governments destroying government held stockpiles of ivory, and the national and international support for the New Zealand Government to destroy its confiscated ivory stockpile.

Appendix 1(a): Copy of text of letter addressed to Prime Minister Mr Key, from Dame Daphne Sheldrick, David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, October 4th 2013.

Today the world calls for change Dear Mr Key,

Friday 4th October 2013

I am writing to express my serious personal concerns, along with those of thousands of others around the world, to the continuing ivory poaching crisis. This illegal trade is claiming the lives of over 36,000 elephants annually and today on World Animal Day, we would like to call on the New Zealand Government to take immediate steps to combat poaching and the illegal ivory trade. As founder of The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, my team and I have been working for the past 35 years at field-level, patrolling and protecting Tsavo National Park through our numerous programmes, namely our Orphans’ Project and Anti-Poaching Initiatives. Through these programmes we see first-hand the effects of such atrocities. Having rescued over 160 orphaned infant elephants, the majority of whom are the victims of the illegal ivory trade, we aim to rehabilitate all rescued orphans back into the wild after 8-10 years. This year alone Kenya has seen over 190 elephants killed for their ivory and this is only set to rise. Today, on Friday 4th October, citizens from 15 cities worldwide are marching for the protection of elephants. Organised through our iworry campaign which, with over 59,000 signatories, has gained substantial worldwide support in calling for a complete ban on the trade in ivory; the global march will be the single largest demonstration for the protection of the species ever. An elephant is being killed every 15 minutes for its ivory at this current rate, there is a very real possibility that wild elephants will disappear by 2025. The Capital of New Zealand, Wellington, is hosting one of the 15 marches with an estimated 160 citizens uniting to ask what steps the New Zealand Government is taking to combat this illicit trade and save elephants from extinction. We would encourage New Zealand to take a leadership role during this current crisis by: generating increased political will to combat the illegal ivory trade through New Zealand Embassies, High Commissions and any UN Permanent Missions, by proactively supporting a complete ban on commercial trade in products derived from elephants and by establishing rewards and incentives around the recovery of elephant populations. Recent responses by world leaders have demonstrated that the international community is increasingly recognising the threat posed by the illegal ivory trade and wildlife crime in general. US President, Barack Obama’s Executive Order providing $10 million to African countries to combat wildlife trafficking is a welcome move, as is Hillary Clinton’s announcement to invest USD$80 million into anti-poaching efforts through the Clinton Global Initiative. Further, the USA will also be destroying 6 tonnes of illegal seized ivory on Tuesday 8th October, in an effort to tackle the illegal ivory trade whilst clearly stating there is no place for ivory in the USA. We are encouraged to see such initiatives, but still we desperately need immediate action if our children and grandchildren are to see elephants in our lifetime. This magnificent species is being killed at an unprecedented rate with poachers using more sophisticated weaponry than ever before. With growing evidence to suggest that ivory is being used to fund terrorist organisations and thus destabilising political security, it is evident this trade affects all Nations. Ivory poaching and trafficking requires urgent international cooperation from Governments worldwide to stop demand, stop trafficking and stop the killing. This can only be achieved through a number of key changes: 1. 2.

Laws and penalties associated with wildlife crime must be strengthened and implemented. Investment from both national and international Governments to ensure sufficient funds and resources are available to effectively combat wildlife crime. Investment into ‘boots on the ground’ and technical assistance and equipment is critical.

3. 4. 5. 6.

A permanent global ban on all commercial trade in ivory, including the closing down of legal markets too. Diplomatic pressure in elephant range and ivory consuming countries is required to strengthen the criminal justice response and demand-reduction efforts to combat wildlife crime. More effectively investigating and prosecuting wildlife crimes leading to an increased and accelerated response to wildlife crime that is commensurate with the criminality associated with serious organized crime. Targeted demand reduction initiatives are essential. These should include campaigns in ivory consuming countries and elephant range states to raise awareness about the cost, both human and wildlife, of the ivory trade and the value of live elephants in the wild economy. Ecology and society at large.

In particular, we would urge you to: 1. Publicly announce support for a complete ban on commercial international and domestic trade in ivory and call for the closure of parallel commercial legal markets for ivory. 2. Support demand-reduction efforts by directing the destruction of ivory confiscated in New Zealand (except that which is required for training and educational purposes). 3. Actively lead and participate in the London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade scheduled to take place in February 2014 and to encourage world governments at the Conference to support a complete ban on commercial trade in ivory and adopt effective measures to combat wildlife crime. 4. Ensure investment of resources to effectively combat wildlife crime in New Zealand and abroad, including providing sustained funding for any relevant National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), such as the New Zealand Wildlife Enforcement Group. 5. Convene a task force which includes membership of relevant agencies from the New Zealand government as well as key non-governmental bodies and other stakeholders to (prepare an effective strategy to combat wildlife crime). To identify more specific operational support New Zealand can provide to address site and regional specific wildlife crime situations, leaving a legacy beyond the 2014 London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade. Today thousands around the world are joining hands as a global entity for the protection of elephants and we would ask you to please do the same. International cooperation from World Leaders is fundamental to the survival of this iconic species. Yours sincerely,

Dame Daphne Sheldrick DBE Founder and Chair of The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust

Appendix 1(b): Copy of text of letter addressed to Prime Minister Mr Key, from Fiona Gordon, October 4th 2013. Dr Mr Key INTERNATIONAL MARCH FOR ELEPHANTS 4 OCTOBER 2013 – WELLINGTON th

Today, on Friday 4 October, citizens from 15 cities across the globe are officially hosting the International March for Elephants. Another 27 cities across the globe are holding supporting marches. Wellington is an official host city and Auckland is hosting a supporting march. All are calling on their Governments with the same message:  Ban ALL trade in ivory  Governments must work together to combat the illegal ivory trade. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust iworry campaign has garnered substantial international support with over 59,000 signatories. The National Geographic has reported that the International March for Elephants will be the single largest demonstration for the protection of another species in the history of humankind.139 Statistics touted by the campaign are that “one elephant is killed every 15 minutes for its ivory, at this rate none will roam in the wild by 2025.” These statistics are not exaggerated or simply scaremongering tactics, they are backed up by official international data. Official data was presented to the parties of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), including New Zealand CITES representatives, at the Conference of Parties in Bangkok March 2013 (CoP16). TRAFFIC, the main scientific agency reporting to CITES, provided various reports on the illegal killing of elephants (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants: MIKE data) and on the illicit trade in ivory (Elephant Trade Information System: ETIS data). The TRAFFIC reports and those of the CITES Secretariat, included various statements (emphasis added in bold): “Elephant populations do not usually increase at rates much greater than 5 % per annum. The upper ranges of the estimated losses exceed this figure, and it is therefore likely that elephant populations across all four African regions are in net decline.” (TRAFFIC Report CoP16 Doc. 53.1) “The illegal killing of elephants for the illegal international trade in ivory is currently a very serious threat to elephant populations in many range States and may be leading to significant declines in some populations, particularly in Central Africa. Data from the MIKE programme indicate a continuing increase in levels of illegal killing of African elephants since 2006, with 2011 displaying the highest levels since MIKE records began in 2002.” (TRAFFIC Report CoP16 Doc. 53.1) “In addition to the information received through MIKE and ETIS, several significant incidents of elephant poaching and related illegal trade in elephant ivory have come to the attention of the Secretariat in the course of 2012, and the current unprecedented threat that poaching poses to elephant populations, especially in central Africa, has become evident.” (Secretariat Report CoP16 Doc. 53.2.1) “Current levels of illegal killing of African elephants for their ivory may drive certain African elephant populations to extinction. Whilst complete data for elephant populations in Asia are lacking, it appears that they too may be at risk from human-elephant conflicts and habitat degradation.” (Secretariat Report CoP16 Doc. 53.2.1) On 24 May 2012, the CITES Secretary-General gave a testimony at a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States. The topic of the hearing was “Ivory and Insecurity: the global implications of poaching in Africa”. The Secretary-General’s testimony included: “ Illegal trade in wildlife is happening at a scale that poses an immediate risk to both wildlife and to people and their livelihoods. An even greater effort is required, and new approaches need to be taken, if we are to adequately address this risk, including through: employing more formidable and coordinated enforcement responses at Global, regional, sub-regional and national levels; making better use of modern enforcement techniques and technologies; attracting additional financial and human resources at national and international level, and through more effectively suppressing the demand that is driving illegal trade. Strong and clear political messages

139

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/26/marching-to-save-the-elephant-on-october-4/

from the highest possible levels are also required to combat the illegal trade in wildlife.”

140

INTERPOL and the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice have both recognized the increasing involvement of organized crime syndicates in wildlife crime. These are syndicates that carry out detailed planning, have significant financial support, understand and utilize new information technology, and are often well armed. 141 Al-Shabaab militants have claimed responsibility for the recent tragic events at the Westgate Mall, Nairobi. International media has reported that that 40% of Al-Shabaab funding comes from poaching elephants and illegal ivory. 142 New Zealand has an internal legal ivory trade. This trade goes unmonitored. Illegal ivory reaches New Zealand shores, with the most recent prosecution of an Auckland man for ivory smuggling resulting in a $12,000 fine. Illegal ivory smuggling is a 143 lucrative business with raw ivory sells for NZ$23,000 for two average 10lb tusks in China. Official data on the New Zealand ivory trade shows an increasing trend in both imports and re-exports. The contribution of New Zealand to any international issue can be viewed as insignificant. In the case of the elephant, any and all trade in ivory is significant and contributes to their demise. Dame Daphne Sheldrick’s letter to the New Zealand Government calls for action. I endeavour here to identify how some of these actions may be more specifically applied to the New Zealand context: INTERNATIONAL LEVEL – recommended New Zealand approaches via CITES (and INTERPOL and other relevant agencies and agreements where applicable): a) Seek a complete ban on the trade of all ivory and trade in elephant specimens. b) Seek, and support any party proposing, the cessation of any trade (including any future “one-off” sales) in ivory, and support proposals to move elephant populations from CITES Appendices II to Appendices I. c) Seek the cessation of the development of the CITES Decision Making Mechanism for Trade in Ivory. d) Seek and support the destruction of all Government held ivory stockpiles. e) Seek and support improved monitoring, compliance and enforcement, in particular seek and support improvements to the practicability and enforceability of specific measures (eg. Permits, monitoring requirements, reporting, etc). f) Seek and support market reduction approaches across operations to reduce illegal ivory trade. g) Seek and support the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC) to implement interventions to cause market disruption to the illegal trade in ivory. h) Seek and support the implementation of programmes to increase consumer awareness of issues regarding elephant conservation and of the illegal ivory trade, and of potential consequences to perpetrators. i) Support any CITES parties efforts/proposals where these are likely to decrease poaching, aid in capacity building regarding enforcement and monitoring, or aid in the conservation of elephants. j) Encourage CITES to urgently implement penalties/consequences as per the relevant CITES clauses pertaining to noncompliance. For example where parties are not providing data or meeting other reporting requirements. k) Provide expertise and training to other states/countries in combating wildlife crime (eg. INTERPOL) l) Provide financial support, expertise and on the ground support for conservation, anti-poaching programmes, education programmes, mobile veterinary services, enforcement and monitoring, criminal investigations, and data analysis. NATIONAL LEVEL – recommended New Zealand approaches: a) Ban all trade in ivory, including the currently legal trade of pre-ban (1989) ivory. b) Publically destroy the New Zealand held confiscated ivory stockpile. c) Apply a market reduction approach to illegal ivory across relevant operations, including the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Wildlife Enforcement Group. d) Instigate harsher sentencing, reflecting the nature and severity of illegal ivory trafficking and the potential monetary gains associated with this crime. e) Investigate and gather information on the internal ivory trade and illegal ivory trade to aid in monitoring and enforcement. f) Increase border control for ivory interception. For example review and increase the number of shipments and posted items inspected, include the training of sniffer dogs for ivory, increase surveillance at all ports (including mail centres). 140

http://www.cites.org/eng/news/sg/2012/20120525_SG_US-Senate_testimony.php http://www.cites.org/eng/news/sg/2012/20120525_SG_US-Senate_testimony.php 142 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/philip-mansbridge/al-shabaab-kenya_b_3981936.html 143 Official Data from the Office of Hon Dr Nick Smith 2013 141

Instigate an awareness campaign covering the issues of: impacts of ivory trade on elephant populations, elephant conservation efforts, illegal poaching, illegal ivory trade, likely enforcement and penalties, targeting all potential purchasers and traders/sellers (To provide a “no excuses” environment)

It is time for the New Zealand Government to act. Please, don’t let the elephant only exist in our children’s imagination. I would be more than happy to discuss further any of the above with you in more detail. Your sincerely,

Fiona Gordon. BA Assoc NZPI Acc.M.LEADR Policy Analyst, Mediator & Facilitator David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust Volunteer – NZ International March for Elephants Wellington Event Organiser

Appendix 2: Petition Text

INTERNATIONAL MARCH FOR ELEPHANTS CAMPAIGN OCTOBER 4 2013

Only Elephants Should Wear Ivory To: The NZ House of Representatives “We the undersigned request the House of Representatives urge the Government to take decisive and affirmative action to help save the elephant from the very real threat of extinction resulting from the current poaching crisis and subsequent Ivory trading.” Wholesale slaughter throughout much of Africa, for their tusks, to meet predominantly Asian demand, has decimated the herds and seen a drastic drop in numbers which is a cause of major concern worldwide. We, therefore, call upon our political leaders to speak out, demand and take immediate action on: a global ban on ALL aspects of Ivory trading including within all borders the protection of the elephants’ habitat from destruction and exploitation To make it very clear through diplomatic channels, to those offending nations currently involved in Ivory trading, that New Zealand strongly disapproves of, and opposes, such action more stringent penalties to be imposed here in New Zealand, and internationally, on those caught participating in Ivory trading, if elephants are to have any hope of survival. There is no valid defence for any trade whatsoever in Ivory items, given the devastating impact on elephant populations, as a result of the incessant demand for Ivory. We call upon you to acknowledge the will of many concerned people here in New Zealand, and around the world, for this crisis facing elephants to be addressed, as a matter of urgency, and, therefore, act immediately to protect these iconic creatures now and for posterity.

Only Elephants Should Wear Ivory STOP the demand = STOP the trade = STOP THE KILLING NOW before it is too late! Full Name

Full Address Signature Email

Appendix 3: Copies of Formal Letters of Support from International Organisations.      

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF): Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO. Born Free Foundation: Will Travers, Founder and CEO. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA): Mary Rice, Executive Director Environmental Investigation Agency UK. Humane Society International (HIS): Andrew Rowan, Ph.D. President and CEO, Humane Society International Chief Scientific Officer, The Humane Society of the United States. Tanzania Association of Tour Operators (TATO): Vice Chairman, Peter Lindstrom. Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS): Cristian Samper, President and CEO.

February 7, 2014 Rt Hon John Key Prime Minister Parliament Buildings Wellington Dear Prime Minister Key, As the CEO of an African conservation organization, I cannot stress enough the crisis we are facing with regard to the survival of the African elephant. Between 25,000 and 35,000 African elephants—perhaps more—are poached every year, all to satisfy skyrocketing consumer demand for vanity ivory. Governments in Africa, Asia, and North America are beginning to take action. The United States, China, Hong Kong, Kenya, Gabon, the Philippines and others have either destroyed or committed to destroying their ivory stockpiles. This is a courageous and necessary first step. When governments continue to store seized ivory, they reinforce the notion that ivory has a legitimate, commercial value and may someday be released back into the marketplace. On the other hand, when they destroy their ivory stocks, they devalue and deflate any and all ivory futures. As is the case when authorities seize narcotics or counterfeit currency, these contraband items, after they are used as evidence in court, are destroyed to eliminate further risk to society and to remove the financial burden of permanent storage. Ivory should be treated in the same way. Countries that destroy their national stockpiles send a clear signal to consumers, traffickers, and speculators that ivory has no value and no future. Given the recent actions taken by China, the world’s largest ivory market;; the United States, the second largest ivory market in the world; France, the first European country; and Kenya, an important elephant range state (among many others) to destroy all or part of their stockpiles, we are hopeful that an international consensus is emerging that ivory is not, and should never be, a commodity like any other commodity to be traded and speculated on. It is our hope that the momentum to destroy ivory stockpiles will gain speed at the upcoming wildlife trafficking summit in London. As a final note, the decision to destroy ivory stockpiles is an important one, but we would urge countries to go a step further and consider a moratorium on ivory trade altogether. Though a 1989 international ban on ivory trade exists, domestic trade in “legal” ivory continues in many countries, including New Zealand. It is now the legal trade that is contributing to the demise of Africa’s elephants, as it provides a convenient cover for the illicit ivory industry. We are, therefore, respectfully asking every country with ivory to destroy it, and every country that allows ivory trade to ban it. This will systematically dismantle the infrastructure and incentives supporting the illegal trade and remove the very notion of ivory as a tradable commodity. Sincerely,

Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO, African Wildlife Foundation

February 7, 2014 Hon Dr. Nick Smith Minister for Conservation Government of New Zealand Dear Dr. Smith, As the CEO of an African conservation organization, I cannot stress enough the crisis we are facing with regard to the survival of the African elephant. Between 25,000 and 35,000 African elephants—perhaps more—are poached every year, all to satisfy skyrocketing consumer demand for vanity ivory. Governments in Africa, Asia, and North America are beginning to take action. The United States, China, Hong Kong, Kenya, Gabon, the Philippines and others have either destroyed or committed to destroying their ivory stockpiles. This is a courageous and necessary first step. When governments continue to store seized ivory, they reinforce the notion that ivory has a legitimate, commercial value and may someday be released back into the marketplace. On the other hand, when they destroy their ivory stocks, they devalue and deflate any and all ivory futures. As is the case when authorities seize narcotics or counterfeit currency, these contraband items, after they are used as evidence in court, are destroyed to eliminate further risk to society and to remove the financial burden of permanent storage. Ivory should be treated in the same way. Countries that destroy their national stockpiles send a clear signal to consumers, traffickers, and speculators that ivory has no value and no future. Given the recent actions taken by China, the world’s largest ivory market;; the United States, the second largest ivory market in the world; France, the first European country; and Kenya, an important elephant range state (among many others) to destroy all or part of their stockpiles, we are hopeful that an international consensus is emerging that ivory is not, and should never be, a commodity like any other commodity to be traded and speculated on. It is our hope that the momentum to destroy ivory stockpiles will gain speed at the upcoming wildlife trafficking summit in London. As a final note, the decision to destroy ivory stockpiles is an important one, but we would urge countries to go a step further and consider a moratorium on ivory trade altogether. Though a 1989 international ban on ivory trade exists, domestic trade in “legal” ivory continues in many countries, including New Zealand. It is now the legal trade that is contributing to the demise of Africa’s elephants, as it provides a convenient cover for the illicit ivory industry. We are, therefore, respectfully asking every country with ivory to destroy it, and every country that allows ivory trade to ban it. This will systematically dismantle the infrastructure and incentives supporting the illegal trade and remove the very notion of ivory as a tradable commodity. Sincerely,

Dr. Patrick Bergin CEO, African Wildlife Foundation

Statement from Born Free Foundation Email to Fiona Gordon Wednesday 5th February 2014 From Shelley Waterland, mailto:shelley@bornfree.org.uk

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Born Free Foundation has been protecting elephants and supporting initiatives to eliminate the illegal trade in ivory for more than a quarter of a century. Recent initiatives by Gabon, the Philippines, United States of America, China, Hong Kong and France to destroy their ivory stockpiles are to be applauded. Destruction sends a clear message to the global community that illegal ivory trade is completely unacceptable. It also puts the ivory forever beyond the reach of criminals and ensures it will never be made available for any potential future legal trade. In the run up to the High Level Summit on illegal wildlife trade, taking place in London on the 13th of February 2014, Born Free hopes that New Zealand will join the ever lengthening list of governments showing their support and commitment to this vital message by announcing its intention to destroy its own ivory stockpile. Born Free also urges the New Zealand government to commit significant funds to the implementation of the African Elephant Action Plan, agreed and adopted by all 38 African elephant range States as the only blueprint for the survival of the species throughout its range.â&#x20AC;?

Tanzania Association of Tour Operators CCM District Building, Fire Road E+-mail: tato@cybernet.co.tz http://www.tatotz.org P. O. Box 6162, Arusha, Tanzania

Tel/Fax: 0272506430 Tel : 027-2504188 Mobile : 0784281170

31st January 2014 TATO positions on Proposal that New Zealand crush its Ivory stockpile TATO as an association representing the needs of its members, conducted a March through the city of Arusha, Tanzania on October 4th 2013. On the the same date a similar march was held in Wellington New Zealand to highlight and create awareness of the shocking losses of our African elephants. We view the slaughter as a National shame and part of a wider problem of supply and demand with international dimensions. Since the downgrading of the elephant to Appendix 2 of the CITES Agreement and with limited sales of ivory being permitted poaching throughout Africa and in particular East Africa has become an epidemic of frightening proportions threatening our Tourism Industry and at current rates of killing in our own country we may have 2 -3 years left before our population becomes extinct. The elephant is a keystone species creating suitable habitats for many other animals thereby enhancing biodiversity and the very act of protecting it protects a wide spectrum of wildlife. Demand for Ivory is strongest from China but also Vietnam, Thailand and other far eastern countries and the illegal trade continues unchecked. It is our understanding that New Zealand Tourists are visiting China, Thailand and Viet Nam in increasing numbers and a significant number visit Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Africa. Through ignorance these tourists may buy Ivory souvenirs without a thought that however small a purchase might be, such purchases are a factor in the demise of our elephants. Awareness brought about by crushing ivory will send out a strong message to the New Zealand public and to others abroad and individuals will surely think twice before buying any ivory on a visit to for example China. The Tanzanian Association of Tourism Operators (TATO) estimates that of all the illegal ivory seized across the globe over the last decade, one third of it comes from Tanzania's Elephants. Rich in elephants Africa is no longer. Peter Lindstrom, Vice Chairman of TATO, reports that "Tanzania is losing at least 10,000 elephants per annum, and from a population of over 200,000 in the early 1970s , about 100,000 in the census of 2009 and has only about 30-35,000 left now, based on the limited census of Selous Game Reserve and Ruaha National Park, in December 2013." He says: "Poaching is accelerating as the value of ivory increases, and Africa's elephant populations continue to diminish. The demand for ivory continues to grow, particularly from the increasing number of the new wealthy middle class in China." On another level we need as much International attention to focus on the plight of our elephants and any gesture however small helps what we hope will be a groundswell that will move others to do the same and more importantly see the TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BAN ON TRADE IN IVORY TO BE REIMPOSED before it is too late. Loss of our elephants in Tanzania and Africa as a whole will deprive many of jobs, reduce Government revenue from taxes on the Tourism industry as well as contributions in social taxes from industry employees, all of which play a large part in the national economy and see the largest and most iconic of land mammals driven to extinction. Yours sincerely, Peter Lindstrom Vice Chairman 98 ALL OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN

Appendix 4 Department of Conservation Flow Chart for Personal and Household Effects. Source: http://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/com/sc/62/E62-40-A2.pdf

100