Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 21 May 2024

The Ivory Act 2018 (the act) bans dealing in items made of or containing elephant ivory in the UK, unless they fall within 1 of 5 exemptions. Dealing means the sale, purchase or hire, and offering to sell, purchase or hire. The ban applies to dealings taking place within the UK and to exports from and imports into the UK for commercial purposes.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) ran a consultation from 17 July 2021 to 11 September 2021 on extending the Ivory Act 2018 (the act) to other species. Section 37(2) of the act provides a power to amend the scope of the act by regulations to include ivory from other species.

Scope of the consultation

The consultation set out 3 options:

1. Option 1 – extend the act to hippopotamus ivory.
2. Option 2 – extend the act to ivory from 5 species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus).
3. Option 3 – do nothing and continue to apply current international and domestic conservation rules.

The power to extend the act to other species is a devolved matter and is therefore exercisable by the appropriate national authority in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Defra consulted on behalf of the devolved administrations, with their agreement. This is an agreed UK-wide response.

Overview of respondents

The consultation received 997 responses. A total of 95 responses were by, or on behalf of, an organisation, and 902 responses were by individuals.

Campaign responses

One organisation, 38 Degrees, submitted a response stating that they conducted a survey asking whether the act should be extended to other species. The survey ran from 8 September 2021 to 11 September 2021 and received 27,582 responses. To the question: “Do you think the government should extend the Ivory Act to include ivory from five more endangered species - hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus?”:

• 25,978 (99%) responded “yes”
• 220 (0.8%) responded “no”
• 58 (0.2%) responded “not sure”

There was also a petition on their website stating “Please extend the Ivory Act to include a ban on the trade of ivory from hippopotamuses, narwhals, killer whales, sperm whales, and walruses”. This launched on 1 September 2021. In their response they stated it had received 65,727 signatures.

Another organisation, Lady Freethinker, submitted a response stating that they had published a petition titled “Ban ivory sales from poached hippos, walruses and whales” on their website in support of option 2. Their response stated that the petition had received 26,782 signatures.

Both of these responses are counted as single responses in our analysis of the responses received.

Organisational Responses

The 95 responses by, or on behalf of, organisations came from 81 individual organisations. Annex A provides a list of all organisations that responded and that did not request their response to be confidential. The organisations that responded were made up of the following groups:

Category of organisation	Number of responses
Antiques associations and antique dealers	11
Galleries, museums, and academic institutions (including prescribed institutions)	13
Music sector organisations	4
Wildlife non-governmental organisations (NGOs)	32
Other NGOs	6
Other organisations	15

Responses by question

Questions 1 to 4 asked for information about the respondent, so analysis of the responses starts at question 5. The percentages stated in this analysis are rounded to whole numbers, which means that some options can receive different numbers of responses in favour but the same percentage. This is due to the large number of responses, as 1% of the total is between 9 and 10 responses.

Question 5

We would like to understand your preferred option and the reasons for that preference. Please state your preferred option and why.

A. Option 1 – extend the Ivory Act to include ivory from hippopotamus.
B. Option 2 – extend the Ivory Act to include ivory from five CITES listed species (hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus).
C. Option 3 – do nothing and continue to apply the current international and domestic conservation rules.
D. Other: Please suggest any alternatives.

Please add any comments on your preferred options, including any reasons for your preference.

Summary of responses

A total of 98% (981) of respondents stated a preference for an option in response to this question. Of those, 1% (12) selected option 1, 93% (912) selected option 2, 3% (25) selected option 3, and 3% (32) selected ‘other’.

For those who expressed a preference for option 1, reasons included:

• that poaching threatens hippopotamus but not the other species
• opposition to the ivory trade
• as an alternative to option 2, due to the concerns about the impact of option 2 on hunting by indigenous communities

Option 2 received the support of the clear majority of respondents. Some respondents cited concerns about displacement of demand from elephant ivory, which is already banned under the existing terms of the act, and the possibility of ivory from a banned species being laundered as ivory from a species whose ivory can be traded legally. Many respondents raised moral objections to commercial exploitation of species that are endangered or in need of protection (including under CITES). Others gave reasons relating to animal rights or welfare, or opposition to the trade in ivory or killing of animals, including trophy hunting.

Some respondents raised concerns about the survival of, or threats to, particular species that were included in option 2. These included climate change, poaching and concerns about the threat of general biodiversity loss. A few of these respondents suggested option 2 as a precautionary approach to these threats.

A few respondents explained that the government should extend the ban to these species to prevent their ivory being seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol.

A small number of respondents suggested that the UK Government should implement option 2 to demonstrate international leadership, or to show that the ivory trade is unacceptable, and that the UK is not “associated with any form of ivory”.

Respondents who selected option 3 gave reasons, including that:

• the current domestic and international regulations are sufficient
• banning the ivory trade has little impact on animal populations
• the causes of the main threats to ivory bearing species are outside of the UK
• they disagreed with banning dealing in ivory

Other respondents cited concerns about the impact of option 2 on indigenous communities who derive an income from ivory that is a by-product of subsistence hunting. Some respondents also noted that the UK trade in ivory from the species listed under option 2 is very low.

Of those who expressed a preference for ‘other’, a majority wanted the ban extended to include additional species not included in the options listed. Most of these stated that they wanted to ban dealing in ivory from all species, while one respondent specified warthog. Some of these respondents suggested extending the act to ban the trade in animal parts that do not contain ivory, including skins and wildlife trophies.

Other reasons given by respondents who selected this option include objecting to the impact on particular sectors, such as musicians or 20th century art. Others also objected to how the extension could negatively impact hunting. This included subsistence hunting of narwhal and walrus by indigenous communities. However, these respondents did not propose alternative options other than exempting the particular types of ivory items about which they were concerned.

A small number of respondents included comments that were outside the scope of the consultation. These included banning trade in parts from species that do not bear ivory, such as pangolins and rhinoceros, changing the exemptions in the act, and concerns about the destruction of ivory items.

Question 6

Do you have any alternative options to those proposed which could encompass different species? If so, please provide the evidence to support this alternative, including any reasons for your preference.

Summary of responses

A total of 12% (121) of respondents responded to this question with alternative options. Out of the 121 respondents, around half suggested alternative ways to extend the act. Most of these suggestions were species-based, ranging from “all species” to individual species. The most common suggestion for a species to be included that was not covered by option 2 was warthog, which was listed by 14 respondents. Reasons for extending the act to warthog included:

• suggestions that they are hunted for their tusks
• that there is some trade in their ivory aimed at tourists
• a risk of demand displacement from other banned species
• that their range overlaps with that of elephants, which could make them an easy target for those targeting elephants.

Extinct species, including mammoth and sabertoothed tiger, were also suggested for inclusion.

A number of species that do not bear ivory were included in alternative proposals. These included helmeted hornbill, pangolins, rhinoceros, sharks and turtles.

Several respondents suggested various changes to the exemptions in the act. These included:

• banning all sales, except to museums
• permitting trade in the teeth of sperm whales that have died of natural causes
• allowing trade in narwhal and walrus ivory from indigenous communities
• exempting items that are 100 years old

A small number of respondents stated that they wanted trophy hunting, or the import of hunting trophies to be banned, while one respondent said that hunting trophies should be exempt from the act.

Question 7

Do you have additional information or evidence on the potential impacts of the proposed extension of the Ivory Act on these species as set out in options 1 and 2?

A. Option 1 potential impacts information or evidence.
B. Option 2 potential impacts information or evidence.

Summary of responses

A total of 9% (88) of respondents responded to this question.

A few respondents suggested a negative economic impact. This was mainly focussed on option 2 with concerns around indigenous communities in Canada and Alaska who hunt narwhal and walrus for subsistence purposes and derive an income from the ivory, which is a by-product. One of these responses also suggested a negative cultural impact on these communities, stating that the pre-1947 date for the de minimis exemption (for items that contain less than 10% ivory by volume) in the act is too early for Inuit art. Another response stated that extending the act to include walrus and narwhal would infringe on the rights of indigenous communities set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One response suggested a negative economic impact for option 1, stating that the hippopotamus ivory trade provides some employment in African nations. This respondent suggested that the UK’s international aid budget could be used to address economic impacts of potential loss of employment or income in low-income communities (for both option 1 and option 2 species).

A small number of respondents noted that the UK trade in ivory from all the species covered by the consultation is low, and therefore the impact both in the UK and on international trade would be small. Some of these respondents added that where ivory from these species is used, the items are generally considerably more than 10% ivory, and would therefore not meet the threshold for the de minimis exemption in the act.

One respondent stated that piano restorers have already lost income and extending the act is likely to increase this problem. Conversely, another stated that they believed very little ivory from these species was used in musical instruments.

Other comments included that extending the ban would help protect other vulnerable species.

A number of respondents raised moral or ethical objections to either the hunting of these species or the trading of the ivory. These included:

• moral objections to trading in ivory from vulnerable or endangered species
• the need to stop “cruel and unnecessary practices”
• that people should be dissuaded from “killing for pleasure”
• that the ivory trade “debases all humanity”

Some respondents highlighted conservation concerns about other threats to the species included in option 2, such as climate change, industrial development, and loss of habitat, in addition to hunting and poaching.

A few respondents also suggested other actions that could be taken to protect these species, including stopping hunting and poaching, and tighter border controls.

Question 8

Do you have additional information or evidence on potential barriers to implementation for options 1 and 2?

A. Option 1 potential barriers to implementation information or evidence.
B. Option 2 potential barriers to implementation information or evidence.

Summary of responses

Fewer than 1% (6) of respondents responded to this question. This does not include respondents who responded to say that they did not have any additional information or evidence on potential barriers to implementation.

One respondent stated that the barriers to implementation will be similar to those for the act as it applies to elephants. This includes the way a ban on dealing ivory from these species comes into force, and the implementation of the exemptions in the act in relation to these species.

Another respondent stated that not extending the act to the species in option 2 could result in significant barriers to implementing the ban as it applies to elephants, due to the challenges of distinguishing between ivory from different species. They added that option 2 would make enforcement of the act simpler, in addition to protecting the species covered.

Other issues raised include:

• access to experts in these types of ivory
• ensuring museums are not affected with regard to sharing collections with other institutions
• the potential loss of income for indigenous communities harvesting walrus and narwhals for subsistence purposes

Government response

The government recognises the clear majority of responses to the consultation support option 2 – extending the act to the 5 ivory-bearing CITES listed species (hippopotamus, narwhal, walrus, sperm whale and killer whale).

Having carefully considered the responses to this consultation, we intend to implement option 2. This decision is based on the conservation risk to each species as exhaustible natural resources, including the trade (legal and illegal) in their ivory, and how this relates to their conservation status and the other threats they face. It is also based on the clear demonstration, in the proportion of respondents who supported option 2 and the comments submitted, that commercial exploitation of species that are endangered or accepted as being in need of protection from the threat posed by trade in their parts (including under CITES) violates public morality. We are pleased that we are able to implement the option that received the support of the overwhelming majority of respondents and fulfils our manifesto commitment to extend the act to other ivory bearing species.

The case for extending the act to hippopotamus ivory is very clear. After elephants, this species is the most at risk from the trade in its ivory. There is evidence of illegal activity in range countries (countries in which they are a native species) and seizures of hippopotamus ivory indicate that there are illegal markets for hippopotamus ivory (see Annex C).

We recognise that some indigenous communities depend on subsistence hunting of walrus and narwhal, and derive part of their income from trading the ivory that is a by-product of this hunting. We do not expect the extension of the act to walrus and narwhal to have a significant impact on indigenous communities. The extension of the act would ban dealing in ivory from these species in the UK, including imports into the UK for the purposes of sale or hire. However, individuals (such as tourists) could still travel to the region, purchase items containing ivory from these species directly from indigenous communities and bring them back into the UK as personal possessions (subject to the CITES requirements). The resulting effect is therefore closing the secondary market for ivory from these species and preventing others from profiting from the trade in their ivory, whilst having minimal direct economic impact on indigenous communities who derive an income from the sale of those items. It also removes any incentive for illegal killing of these species for their ivory to supply a UK market.

These species are already threatened by climate change, and the continuing trade in their ivory may exacerbate these threats and the likelihood of their long-term survival. TRAFFIC states that the lack of long-term monitoring, and poor quality of information on population estimates for walrus, makes it difficult to determine whether the harvest and resulting legal international trade will affect the overall conservation of the species. Therefore, on balance, we consider a precautionary approach is needed for walrus and narwhal.

Killer whales and sperm whales are species that are listed as data deficient and vulnerable respectively by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list. There are also reports that ivory is salvaged from beached whales, indicating a demand for ivory from these species. Therefore, on balance, we consider a precautionary approach is also needed for these species.

All 5 species are listed under CITES, and hippopotamus, walrus and sperm whale are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN red list. The continued commercial exploitation of these species that are assessed as being in need of protection is a violation of public morality. This is demonstrated in both the overwhelming majority of individual responses supporting an end to the trade in their ivory in the UK, and the number of signatures and survey responses received by the 2 campaign responses.

Whilst some responses suggested that the act should also be extended to include warthog, we do not believe this is necessary. Both species of warthog, common warthog and desert warthog, are classified as ‘least concern’ by IUCN, and neither are listed in CITES. Warthog are hunted primarily for their meat rather than their ivory. It is also highly unlikely that warthog ivory could become a substitute for elephant ivory or mask the illegal trade of elephant ivory, due to the physical differences between warthog and elephant ivory, including its small size.

We will also not be extending the act to extinct species, such as mammoth or sabertoothed tiger. No rationale was provided as to why the act should be extended to these species in response to the consultation, and there is no conservation benefit to those species from doing so.

Extending the act to the 5 ivory bearing CITES listed species reduces opportunities for laundering ivory under the guise of another species that is not banned. This makes enforcement of the act simpler and more effective. Furthermore, it sends a strong signal that ivory should not be seen as a commodity for financial gain or status symbol, especially when the ivory trade threatens the survival of a species.

The costs of extending the act to the 5 ivory bearing CITES listed species is relatively small. UK trade and commercial dealing of items made of non-elephant ivories is limited. We estimate that only about 1% of ivory items in the UK are made of ivories from the 5 CITES (hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus) listed species. The Equivalent Annual Net Direct Cost to Business (EANDCB) of banning dealing in ivories from these species (option 2) is around £273,000. In addition, we expect individuals to have to bear some costs because owned ivory items that cannot be sold will lose value.

Taking forward such an extension to the act and acting in a precautionary manner will help to protect and enhance the conservation status of these species. A ban on their trade will also address the widespread public opposition to the continued trade in these species. Extending the ban to these species and therefore closing the UK market by banning domestic sales, imports, and exports of these ivories will reduce demand from the UK market and supply to foreign markets. This would also have the potential to help:

• reduce opportunities for the laundering of poached ivory from these species by passing it off as being legally sourced
• reduce the opportunity for elephant ivory to be laundered under the guise of other ivory bearing species
• reduce the allure of ivory and stop ivory being seen as a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol
• mitigate the risk that global bans on the trade in elephant ivory lead to displacement onto other ivory bearing species

Extending the act to include these species will help us to meet our commitment, set out in the 25 Year Environment Plan, to provide international leadership in protecting and improving international biodiversity. It will send a clear message that the UK considers that these species, already recognised internationally through their CITES listing as requiring protection in terms of their international trade, should not be further exploited for the trade in their ivory.

We will bring forward secondary legislation to implement the extension of the act to the 5 ivory bearing CITES listed species when parliamentary time allows.

Annex A

List of organisations that responded to the consultation

This is a list of all the organisations that responded to the consultation that did not request their response be treated as confidential. Five other organisations responded to the consultation but requested that their responses be treated as confidential.

• 38 Degrees
• Action for Elephants UK
• Amati Instruments Limited
• Amesbury Stonehenge Druids
• Animal Interfaith Alliance
• Animal Welfare Party
• Antiquities Dealers Association
• BADA
• Ban Trophy Hunting
• Beare Violins Limited
• Blue Ocean Images
• Booker Pet Care
• Born Free Foundation
• Born This Way Foundation
• Braintree District Council
• British Food Importer Association
• Centre for Japanese and East Asian Studies
• Charles Miller Ltd
• Chess Collectors International
• Chester Zoo
• Christies, Manson & Woods Ltd
• Committee for Cultural Policy
• Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation
• Elephant Haven European Elephant Sanctuary
• English Heritage
• Explorers Against Extinction
• Field Studies Council
• Four Paws UK
• Friends of the Earth
• Gemmological Association of Great Britain
• Government of the Northwestern Territories, Canada
• H. Blairman & Sons, dealer in furniture and fine art
• Hants Wildlife Trust
• Humanists UK
• IFAW
• Incorporated Society of Musicians
• International Wildlife Bond
• JC Auto Lease
• Kallos Gallery Limited
• Lady Freethinker
• LAPADA & BADA
• Leading Leaders
• London Wildlife Trust
• Michael German Antiques Ltd.
• Musicians’ Union
• National Museums Scotland
• Newcastle University
• NMDC
• Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI)
• Pegasus Puppetry & Arts
• PETA
• Precious Paws Rescue
• Protect All Wildlife
• Queensbury Academy
• ROCAD
• Royal Collection Trust
• Save the horses
• Surrey County Council
• Tampa Animal Equity
• The Northumbrian Pipers’ Society
• The War on Wildlife Project
• Tusk Task Force
• Two Million Tusks
• University of Manchester
• University of Oxford
• University of Sheffield
• Verify Humanity
• Watches of Switzerland Group
• WCL
• West Midland Safari Park
• Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC)
• Wildlife Conservation Society
• Wooley and Wallis Fine Art Auctioneers
• World Animal Protection
• WWF Sweden
• WWF UK

Annex B

List of consultation questions

Question 1: What is your name?

Question 2: What is your email address?

Question 3: What is your organisation?

Question 4: Would you like your response to be confidential? A) Yes/No B) If Yes please give your reason

Question 5: We set out three options above. We would like to understand your preferred option and the reasons for that preference. Please state your preferred option and why:

A. Option 1 - extend the Ivory Act to include ivory from hippopotamus.
B. Option 2 - extend the Ivory Act to include ivory from five CITES listed species (hippopotamus, narwhal, killer whale, sperm whale and walrus).
C. Option 3 – do nothing and continue to apply the current international and domestic conservation rules
D. Other: Please suggest any alternatives.

Please add any comments on your preferred options, including any reasons for your preference.

Question 6: Do you have any alternative options to those proposed which could encompass different species? If so please provide the evidence to support this alternative, including any reasons for your preference?

Question 7: Do you have additional information or evidence on the potential impacts of the proposed extension of the Ivory Act on these species as set out in options 1 and 2?

A. Option 1 potential impacts information or evidence.
B. Option 2 potential impacts information or evidence.

Question 8: Do you have additional information or evidence on potential barriers to implementation for options 1 and 2?

A. Option 1 potential barriers to implementation information or evidence.
B. Option 2 potential barriers to implementation information or evidence.

Annex C

Hippopotamus ivory: evidence of seizures and illegal activity in range countries (countries in which hippopotamus are a native species)

1. TRAFFIC – Moneron, S. & Drinkwater, E. (2021) The Often Overlooked Ivory Trade: A Rapid Assessment of the International Trade in Hippo Ivory Between 2009 and 2018. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2. EAGLE (Eco Activists for Governance and Law Enforcement) January Briefing (2019)
3. EAGLE (Eco Activists for Governance and Law Enforcement) Annual Report (2018)
4. Andersson, A. & Gibson, L. (2017) Missing teeth: Discordances in the trade of hippopotamus ivory between Africa and Hong Kong, African Journal of Ecology, vol 56, issue 2, pp. 235–243