CoP20 CITES: Document 76.2 Seizure Data, Enforcement, and Misconceptions Surrounding Legal Ivory Markets in the EU, UK, and USA
CINOA Input To the European Commission for CoP20 – CITES
Date: July 24, 2025
Ref: CoP20 Doc. 76.2: IMPLEMENTING ASPECTS OF RESOLUTION CONF. 10.10 (REV. COP19) ON THE CLOSURE OF DOMESTIC IVORY MARKETS- makes recommendations to implement paragraph 5 of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP19) to ensure that legal domestic ivory markets are not contributing to poaching or illegal trade.
Summary:
CINOA strongly supports the fight against elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade. However, we caution against drawing conclusions based solely on seizure statistics, especially in the absence of hard evidence linking legal markets to poaching. In the EU, UK, and USA, where ivory trade is now highly restricted and closely regulated, seizures may often reflect strong enforcement, legislative transitions, or technical non-compliance rather than systemic criminal trade.
Misreading these statistics risks unintended consequences for legitimate cultural and historical sectors, including museums, antique dealers, and musicians. Seizure data typically do not indicate the age of the ivory (e.g., antique vs. modern), the form (e.g., small inlays, carved items, or raw tusks), or the reason for the seizure (e.g.,failure to register antique items, import or export of antique items without a CITES permit, import/export of illegal modern tusks or carvings).
European Union (EU)
- Regulatory Changes: Since December 2021, the EU has banned all trade in ivory, with limited exemptions for:
- Worked ivory items produced before 1947;
- Musical instruments with ivory components acquired before 1975;
- Repair or exchange of historic objects held by museums or public institutions.
- International cross-border commercial trade with countries outside the EU has been prohibited: Exceptions are working musical instruments or acquisitions of objects of cultural significance by museums.
- Strict Controls: The exemptions for internal trade within the EU require certificates to be issued by the authorities of the relevant EU member state and are subject to verification. The intention is to ensure zero tolerance for unregulated trade.
Seizure Statistics Misinterpreted:
As reported in Document CITES CoP20 76.2 submitted to CITIES, between 2008–2025, ETIS data reports 3,623 seizures involving 27,336 kg of ivory within EU Member States, especially Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. However, a closer analysis of the data reveals a consistent trend since the EU’s strengthened ivory trade regulations came into effect in late 2021: the vast majority of seizures—both in terms of number and volume—have occurred within EU borders. This indicates that while enforcement operates across both domestic and international channels, the majority of infringements detected are related to internal compliance issues rather than international smuggling. This data directly contradicts the assertion in paragraph 21 of the paper that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the EU’s market may be contributing to illegal international trade in ivory”.
Explanation of Seizure Data (2022–2025):
The table distinguishes between IN seizures and OUT seizure-“In” refers to data for ivory seizure cases reportedly made within the country or territory, whereas “Out” refers to data for ivory seizure cases reportedly made elsewhere in the world but where the country or territory of interest was identified along the trade chain, either as the country or territory of origin, export/re-export, transit or destination. There are no details regarding the age or form of the ivory, nor the reason for the seizure.
See the below chart using ETIS figures : https://etisonline.org/data-aggregates
| Country | IN Seizures | IN Kg | OUT Seizures | OUT Kg |
| Belgium | 32 | 54 | 11 | 21 |
| France | 105 | 447 | 13 | 95 |
| Germany | 107 | 49 | 2 | 8 |
| Italy | 109 | 890 | 6 | 6 |
| Netherlands | 43 | 46 | 5 | 7 |
| Spain | 55 | 616 | 8 | 26 |
| Total | 451 | 2102 | 45 | 163 |
- Unintended Consequences:
Some seizures may stem from non-conformity with new internal rules, not from illicit ivory trafficking. For example, otherwise lawful antique items may have been offered for sale without the correct permit; such items are not indicative of trafficking in modern-day poached ivory. It is too early to determine the full effectiveness of the recent EU regulations. Overstating links between exempt trade or legal trade and poaching risks discrediting the compliance efforts of cultural institutions and regulated dealers.
United Kingdom (UK)
- UK Ivory Act 2018 (in force since 2022) bans trade in ivory, except for:
- Musical instruments (pre-1975, <20% ivory);
- Items made before 1947 with <10% ivory;
- Portrait miniatures (pre-1918, small surface area);
- Items acquired by museums;
- Culturally significant objects (pre-1918) with individual certification.
- ETIS Data: 1,662 seizures (2008–2025), involving 2,866 kg of ivory. Most labelled “In,” indicating effective domestic enforcement. A detailed look at the data since the UK’s near total ban on the trade in ivory took effect in 2022 shows a consistent trend. Similar to the EU, this indicates that seizures are most likely largely due to domestic regulatory breaches of objects that are antiques and which happen to incorporate old ivory rather than on large-scale international smuggling. In the judicial review of the UK government’s proposed measures to limit trade in antiques the High Court in London in November 2019 found “that in the main cultural attitudes in the UK are such that there is little or no appetite” for ivory which is not antique.
The table distinguishes between IN seizures (those made within the country) and OUT seizures (those involving cross-border activity) using ETIS figures from 2022 to 2025 : https://etisonline.org/data-aggregates.
| UK | IN Seizures | IN Kg | OUT Seizures | OUT Kg |
| 341 | 720 | 34 | 45 |
- Risk of Misinterpretation:
Without an explanation for these seizures i.e. age, form or the reason for the seizure, and bearing in mind the High Court’s findings concerning the lack of demand for modern ivory in the UK, it is wrong to draw the conclusion that the paper has mistakenly done in its paragraph 65, namely that there are allegedly “reasonable grounds to believe that the UK ’s market may be contributing to illegal international trade in ivory”. - We believe that it is more likely to be the case that seizures reflect a growing awareness and application of the new law rather than trade in items made from poached ivory. Traders’ misunderstanding of the complex rules, rather than intentional trafficking, could be the likely reason for infractions.
United States of America (USA)
- Federal Ban: Since 2016, the US has enforced a near-total ban, with narrow exemptions for antiques, pre-Convention musical instruments, scientific samples, and museum collections.
- ETIS Data: 2,225 seizures between 2008–2025, totaling 6,227 kg. Again, most seizures were “In,” reflecting enforcement capacity, not necessarily a thriving illegal market.
The table distinguishes between IN seizures (those made within the country) and OUT seizures (those involving cross-border activity) using ETIS figures from 2016 to 2025 : https://etisonline.org/data-aggregates.
| USA | IN Seizures | IN Kg | OUT Seizures | OUT Kg | |
| Since 2016-25 | 738 | 1321 | 122 | 298 | |
| Since 2020-25 | 249 | 45 | 51 | 45 |
- Trends and Context:
Analysis of ETIS data from 2016 to 2025 indicates that U.S. ivory trade legislation is having a measurable impact. Since 2020, both the number and volume of ivory seizures have significantly decreased, with domestic (IN) seizures dropping to just 45 kg compared to 1,321 kg over the full period. Cross-border (OUT) seizures remain limited in both number and volume, suggesting that large-scale smuggling has declined. The shift toward smaller, internal infractions reflects improved compliance and effective enforcement, reinforcing that the legal framework introduced since 2016 is working to curb illegal ivory trade.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Paragraph 89 of the paper states: “The EU, the UK, and the USA have adopted legislative and regulatory measures consistent with the approach shown in the Resolution. The enforcement measures implemented so far are considered effective, or are expected to be once fully implemented.”
In light of this acknowledgment, the following points should be taken into account when assessing future policy directions:
- Lack of Hard Evidence:
No clear data links current, highly regulated legal markets in the EU, UK, or USA with active poaching or cross-border ivory trafficking. - Seizures ≠ Criminal Trade:
Seizure statistics must be interpreted cautiously. Many cases likely reflect:- Technical infractions;
- Misunderstandings of new legal frameworks;
- Effective customs inspection, not a breakdown in regulation.
- Support for Enforcement, Not Overregulation:
These regions already have some of the strictest ivory trade controls in the world. Their cultural and historic sectors should not be further penalized without verifiable cause. - Cultural Consequences:
Continued misinterpretation could hinder the legitimate circulation of historic objects of cultural and artistic value—undermining conservation-compatible trade and public heritage access.
CINOA urges the European Commission to ensure that CITES Parties apply a measured, evidence-based approach when assessing seizure data and to acknowledge the compliance efforts already undertaken in the EU, UK, and USA. Importantly, the analysis of the figures supports the conclusion that legitimate, well-regulated trade—particularly in exempted items such as antiques and musical instruments—does not contribute to poaching or illicit trafficking. Rather, the data suggests that while enforcement efforts address both domestic and international trade, the majority of compliance challenges stem from internal non-conformity —although this cannot be confirmed without details regarding the age, form of the ivory, and reason for the seizure. Compliance issues may be due in part to confusion or difficulties in adhering to overly complex or restrictive regulations. Misinterpreting seizure data risks unjustly impacting legitimate cultural and heritage sectors, including museums, antique dealers, and musicians.
In some cases, legislation may be so restrictive that even well-intentioned actors find it hard to comply. Improving the clarity and proportionality of these legal frameworks could reduce unnecessary internal seizures while continuing to uphold conservation objectives. This underscores that effective, balanced legislation—not blanket prohibitions—is key to disrupting the illegal ivory trade without undermining lawful cultural and commercial practices.
***