Despite a commitment made seven years ago, Australia still lacks a ban on the domestic ivory trade. Recent findings reveal that approximately $1.2 million worth of elephant ivory items were listed for sale across various platforms in Australia over a six-month span last year.
A study published in Biological Conservation indicated that fewer than 1 percent of the 1,698 ivory listings examined from 70 different sellers included documentation verifying their legal importation. In contrast, selling a feather from a native bird typically requires a permit in most Australian regions, yet elephant ivory can be traded on social media without any proof of ethical sourcing, even as both African and Asian elephant populations face the threat of extinction due to poaching.
The study highlighted that only about 9 percent of the ivory items had a specified country of origin, with 62 percent indicating an approximate age. Damien Huffer, the study’s lead author and an illicit tracking researcher at the University of Adelaide, noted that very few sellers openly stated that their items came with proper paperwork. He emphasized that without enforceable regulations mandating sellers to disclose an item’s composition, origin, or legality, ambiguity in the trade has become the norm.
The research pointed to a lack of political will at both state and federal government levels to close legal loopholes that necessitate certification for ivory imports but not for domestic sales. A federal promise made in 2019 to implement a ban on the trade of ivory and rhinoceros horn remains unfulfilled.
In terms of legal ivory in Australia, only ivory sourced from Asian elephants prior to 1975 and African elephants before 1990 can be imported, provided there is certification to verify the legitimacy of the items. This regulation comes as a result of Australia’s commitment to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which discourages the trade of ivory and rhinoceros horn due to their role in promoting poaching.
Elephant populations have significantly declined over the last century, with Asian elephant numbers estimated to have halved to around 50,000 in the past 75 years. Meanwhile, African elephants, once numbering in the millions, plummeted to about 1.3 million by 1979, and current estimates suggest there are now only around 400,000 remaining.
Ten years ago, a CITES conference recommended the closure of domestic ivory markets, raising concerns about their link to poaching. Meanwhile, countries like China, the United Kingdom, and the United States have instituted local bans on such trades.
When the ABC inquired with Environment Minister Murray Watt’s office about the potential for a domestic ban, the questions were redirected to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). A spokesperson from DCCEEW stated that the government remains committed to supporting iconic species and ensuring that domestic wildlife markets do not contribute to poaching or illegal trade. They also asserted that Australia does not represent a significant threat to wild elephant or rhino populations, nor is it known for substantial ivory smuggling.
However, Dr. Huffer argued that laundering poached ivory into Australia or other nations with active markets is relatively straightforward. He noted that Australia is among the few countries still allowing trade in elephant ivory, while many others are taking measures to close their markets.
Concerns about the legal framework surrounding domestic ivory sales are not only shared by scientists and conservation organizations but also by industry representatives. Troy Williams, Chief Executive of the Auctioneers and Valuers Association of Australia, emphasized the need for a clear and consistent national framework for the trade of elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. He pointed out that provenance is crucial for establishing legitimacy and building buyer confidence.
Williams highlighted the study’s findings on the lack of documentation as significant, calling for reforms in the sector. He advocated for a prohibition on commercial trade in ivory and rhinoceros horn, with narrowly defined exemptions for legitimate historical and cultural items. He expressed that there is a compelling case for the government to reconsider the issue, as a uniform regulatory framework would enhance protections against illegal trade.
Dr. Huffer also raised concerns about ivory-like materials from other species, indicating that research is in progress to assess online auction listings from 2019 to 2026 for materials such as mammoth, narwhal, hippopotamus, orca, sperm whale, and warthog. He anticipates that various categories of ivory or similar products may also exploit the same loopholes seen in the current ivory trade.
