Update on Japan’s Domestic Ivory Market at CITES CoP20

Among the many issues EIA focused on during the 20th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP20) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was the closure of domestic ivory markets. 

Legal domestic markets validate and stimulate the demand for ivory, and directly undermine the international ban on commercial ivory trade. Under CITES, Parties have been urged to close their domestic markets since 2016. The reality is, all markets fuel the demand for ivory, and demand for ivory is why elephants are poached for their tusks. 

At CoP20, Japan’s legal domestic ivory market was called out by four African elephant range States. These countries recommended that CoP20 adopt a decision inviting Japan to close its market and align with clear provisions in Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP19) that urge Parties to close their ivory markets if they contribute to poaching or illegal trade.

The Parties’ rationale for inviting Japan to close its market is based on CITES ivory seizure data  which clearly indicates that Japan’s market is contributing to the illegal international trade based on the volume of ivory seizures illegally exported from Japan. The available ETIS data, presented in Doc. 76.2 and Doc. 76.5, highlight how Japan’s market may be contributing to illegal trade, complementing information from the Japan Tiger and Elephant Fund (JTEF) and EIA that demonstrates how ivory purchased legally in Japan is seized abroad, both for illegal re-sale in the importing country and as tourist souvenirs, underscoring persistent challenges with the regulation of Japan’s domestic ivory market. Significant ivory seizures linked to Japan have continued to occur in the context of extensive legal domestic ivory trade and the huge ivory stockpile in Japan, including the second largest seizure of worked ivory between 2021 and 2023 involving a sea freight shipment of Japanese ivory reportedly destined for Thailand (Doc 76.5).

Japan strongly opposed the proposed decision calling for the closure of its ivory market and submitted an Information Document to protest the recommendation. In the lead up to the meeting, EIA and JTEF prepared a briefing, Japan’s Domestic Ivory Market: Myths vs. Realities, to directly address some major myths about Japan’s market. The reality is that Japan has a massive stockpile of ivory, and its ivory market is not well controlled, contributes to the international illegal trade, and does not conform with CITES. Japan’s regulatory and enforcement actions to date have been inadequate to prevent its domestic market from contributing to the illegal ivory trade. 

When domestic ivory markets were discussed on the floor, several Parties voiced support for Japan. They echoed arguments frequently made by Japan including the notion that CITES does not have a mandate to address domestic trade and therefore recommendations urging the closure of domestic markets are not appropriate. However, Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP19) is one of several CITES resolutions that urge Parties to close domestic markets that contribute to poaching or illegal trade to ensure that national policies do not undermine implementation of the Convention. 

Closing domestic ivory markets that contribute to poaching or illegal trade is critical to protect elephants and enforce the CITES ban on international commercial ivory trade. Several Parties voiced strong support for the closure of domestic ivory markets, including many African elephant range states as well as the United States and European Union. 

Ultimately the Parties agreed with a recommendation from the CITES Standing Committee to renew decisions compelling Parties with legal markets to report on measures they are taking to prevent their markets from contributing to poaching and illegal trade, but Japan was not formally invited to close its market. 

The 1989 international ban on commercial ivory trade was also under threat at CoP20 – Namibia submitted proposals to resurrect the international trade in ivory, as well as in rhino horn. As explained succinctly in EIA’s briefing We’ve Been Here Before: International Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn, previous attempts to commercialize the ivory trade have never worked and instead have catalyzed increased elephant poaching. Trade in ivory stimulates demand and confuses consumers, undermines enforcement efforts, and ultimately increases poaching and illegal trade. Specific arguments made by the pro-trade lobby to reopen international trade have been repeatedly debunked. 

At the meeting, Parties overwhelmingly voted to uphold the international ban on ivory trade, firmly rejecting Namibia’s proposal in a major win for elephant conservation. Only 22 Parties voted in favor of the proposal, but among them were Japan and China. While China closed its ivory market in 2018, Japan maintains the only major legal domestic ivory market today. Japan’s vote in favor of the proposal indicates a potential interest in acquiring more ivory, which would further stimulate the demand for ivory products and exacerbate poaching pressure on wild elephant populations. 

Evidence has long made it clear that ivory trade is not compatible with the conservation of elephants, and we continue to advocate for the closure of all markets. A clear outcome from CoP20 is that support for the closure of domestic markets, and monitoring of those that remain open, stands. 

EIA strongly urges Japan to close its domestic ivory market to align itself with most elephant range States and former leading consumer countries. Japan is in the process of reviewing its wildlife conservation law – now is the time for Japan to make changes regarding its domestic ivory regulations and close the market.