Ivory Trade

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for initiating this debate and for what he said, with which I agree. Like him, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

Despite a ban on the international trade in ivory, tens of thousands of elephants are killed every year for their tusks. There has been an upsurge in poaching in recent years, which has led to steep declines, particularly in forest elephant numbers as well as some savannah elephant populations. It is a tragedy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said.

Thriving but unmonitored domestic ivory markets continue in a number of countries. Insufficient anti-poaching capacity, weak law enforcement and corruption compound the problem. I served as Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from September 2012 to May 2015. During that time, among other things, I was lucky enough to have ministerial responsibility for the United Kingdom’s efforts to bear down on the poaching and trafficking of wildlife. We were fortunate to be granted several million pounds specifically to fund projects around the world which contributed to this effort. That money was wisely and effectively spent. We also organised a conference at Lancaster House in February 2014, convened by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and attended by both his sons as well as—I think I recall—four heads of state and government Ministers from over 40 countries. This conference was followed by one the following year in Kasane in Botswana, which I attended on behalf of the British Government, and one a year later in Hanoi. There will be one again next year, again in London.

Our commitment should be in no doubt, and we have made some progress. Savannah elephant populations in parts of southern Africa are even now expanding, with almost 300,000 elephants now roaming across the sub-region. Enforcement is now better co-ordinated and punishments have been made stricter—but more, of course, must be done. Consumer countries such as China and Vietnam have become engaged. Indeed, the Chinese Government this year announced plans to ban their domestic ivory trade, with exemptions for cultural relics. However, there is much still to do.

I am now chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association. TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring organisation, has published a survey which found that the number of market stalls offering ivory for sale had declined by approximately two-thirds since 2004, and that the number of items offered for sale had halved. No new or raw ivory was seen in any of the physical market outlets or online platforms. The Government now propose a total ban on sales of ivory, with targeted exemptions. Incidentally, I assume that the Government have an answer to those such as the US Government’s Fish and Wildlife Service, whose website says:

“We know those items created long ago aren’t threatening today’s wild elephants”.


Assuming that the Government’s ears are blocked to that point, the exemption on the grounds of historical, cultural and artistic significance seems reasonable, and, if enacted as currently proposed, should protect the interests of owners of works of art who would otherwise be deprived of the value of their possessions by an indiscriminate ban. However, the proposed de minimis exemption warrants further consideration. The question has to be: where does the cut-off level fall, and how is it to be measured? There are many valuable and precious items which it is technically feasible to date so as to demonstrate that they have had no effect on recent or current populations of elephants, but which may nevertheless have a significant ivory content.

I can show the Minister a number of examples of such items: for instance, a 1720 George I games table in respect of which the de minimis level would need to be set at 20% for it not to be caught, or an 1890 ivory inlaid hardwood Anglo-Indian octagonal table, where the de minimis level would need to be set at 50% for it not to be caught. Above those respective levels these items would need certification as being deemed of genuine artistic, cultural or historic significance, which they might well not qualify for, which would mean they would be unsaleable and therefore worthless, and which could ultimately lead to them being destroyed. That would be an act of vandalism. Unless the cut-off is set at a meaningful level, many thousands of these sorts of items may go the same way. There would also be a question over whether the Government would be breaching the human rights of those who owned them.

The Government have said that they do not want to continue to rely on the current 1947 cut-off date, after which worked ivory cannot be sold, but this could offer the key to resolving what might otherwise be a thorny problem. I urge the Minister to consider the fact that 1947 is now 70 years ago, and that it is technically feasible to age—and then certificate—ivory.

I strongly encourage everyone on all sides of the argument to respond to the consultation, which closes on 29 December, providing as much detailed evidence as they can, to enable the Government to assess the impact of the exemptions. It is vital that they are precise, proportionate and workable. If they are, the impact on objects whose significance depends not on their ivory content but on their status as works of art should be limited. However, the far more numerous ivory carvings of no recognisable artistic, cultural or historical significance, generally produced in huge numbers for a tourist market, should not fall within any of these exemptions and should therefore be banned from sale. My concern, as I have said, centres on items which fall between the two.

I will say a final word on portrait miniatures, in which I declare a personal interest, having a small collection. Dating from about 1700 until about 1900—when a celluloid substitute replaced the need for ivory—they were typically painted on wafer-thin slivers of ivory. They are numerous in British private collections and there are dealers who specialise entirely in them. I hope that the idea of an exemption for these, which would obviate the difficulty of attempting a judgment as to whether a miniature falls within one of the other exemptions when the volume of ivory is almost impossible to assess without damaging the piece, would not be too controversial. The ivory element in portrait miniatures is of no possible application to any alternative use.

I completely share the Government’s objective of eliminating the poaching of elephants and indeed other rare wild animals. However, the kind of works of art that my trade association’s members are involved in selling are unconnected with the illicit market and it would be disproportionate to prevent the sale of such works of art simply because they are associated with ivory as a substance. This point is acknowledged by those in the NGOs with whom my colleagues have been in discussion.