Celebrating 10 Years of the U.S. Ivory Ban
Ten years ago, the United States initiated a wave of global momentum to protect elephants from poaching and ivory trafficking. In July 2016, the United States fully implemented a near-total ban on commercial trade in African elephant ivory, starting a cascade of major domestic ivory market closures worldwide.
In a major step to combat poaching and wildlife trafficking, the U.S. acknowledged that its market was contributing to the decline in African elephants with a legal domestic trade in ivory that was largely unregulated and full of loopholes that enabled illicit trade, including the laundering of freshly poached ivory. In closing its ivory market, the United States followed through on its commitment to doing its part to reduce the demand for ivory and make it harder for criminal markets to thrive. While not a complete ban, allowing a few narrow exemptions, the message was clear: the United States does not support the trade in elephant ivory and does support protecting elephants from trade.
The international commercial trade in ivory was banned in 1989 after a major poaching crisis cut Africa’s elephant population in half, but domestic markets around the world remained open and the demand for ivory persisted. However, a new wave of poaching that peaked in 2011 prompted a fresh approach to address poaching, trafficking, and the underlying demand. In 2015, 22 African elephant range states called for the closure of domestic ivory markets as part of the solution to combat wildlife trafficking in the Cotonou Declaration.
In 2016, countries agreed by consensus to resolution language under the Convention on International Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to urge countries to close domestic ivory markets that contribute to poaching or illegal trade, in an effort prompted by the United States and African elephant range states. Many have followed suit, including China, Hong Kong SAR, France, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Singapore, and the European Union.
EIA is a fierce advocate for the closure of all domestic ivory markets and firmly believes that all trade in ivory, legal and illegal, is a threat to elephants. Legal ivory markets confuse consumers, undermine demand reduction, and complicate enforcement against wildlife trafficking. In comparison, a ban on trade sends an unambiguous message that elephants are protected and that buying elephant ivory is harmful.
Over the past 10 years, elephant poaching and ivory trafficking have gone down overall, though smaller populations in some regions, like in West Africa, remain under threat. The closure of domestic ivory markets, especially China’s, is widely credited with being a major factor contributing to the decline in poaching, alongside increased enforcement and international cooperation. U.S. leadership and ivory ban implementation also contributed to these important global efforts. The closure of China’s market was a direct result of sustained diplomatic engagement at the highest levels of the U.S. government, and followed the U.S. demonstrating its shared commitment to elephant protection through the closure of its own ivory market.
Maintaining legal markets contradicts efforts to reduce demand worldwide – the reality is that in today’s globalized world, all markets are linked. Legal markets run the risk of both being a legal supply of ivory for those looking to illegally export ivory and serve to maintain demand and possibly stimulate demand elsewhere. With the demand for ivory being the ultimate driver of poaching, demand reduction is essential – but such efforts are futile alongside a legal market.
EIA continues to call for the closure of all markets. Today, one country remains a stubborn outlier by refusing to close its expansive ivory market: Japan.
Although the demand for ivory in Japan has gone down since its peak in the 1980s, Japan’s role in perpetuating international demand for ivory as the only country to have imported ivory after the 1989 international trade ban, in two CITES-approved one-off sales, is significant. Japan’s claims of a strictly regulated trade fall short, and the Japanese government supports the ivory industry with loophole-ridden market regulations designed to facilitate the trade in ivory. By keeping its market open, Japan has positioned itself as the last hope for the few southern African countries which would love to sell their ivory.
Last year, the international ivory trade ban was upheld under CITES, but some countries continue to try to resurrect the legal international trade at every opportunity. We know from experience that the international ivory trade doesn’t work. To end the demand for ivory and eliminate ivory trafficking, the global community must remain diligent and the message must be loud and clear: ban the trade, and keep it banned.
Looking back, the U.S. ivory ban reduced ivory sales within the country and made enforcement easier. However, the real impact of the U.S. ban is the global signal sent by closing the ivory market and the momentum created to protect the tusk-bearers – elephants are worth more than their ivory.