1989-05-15 18:50 G.I.S
33
P.02
рарг
се
33
16/5.
51/1
HKCISI/1
ARD'S RESPONSE TO ITN FROGRAMNE
ON IVORY TRADE
In connection with the queries reined at the ITN interview with
Mr. Tony Bennet, DDAF, on May 12, 1989, during which Mr. Betmelt was
interrupted from conveying his points and was not given the opportunity
rupy
to clarify the various misconceptions, we now provide in the following
our comments for your use in response to any follow-up queries:-
2)
There is no truth in the accusation that the United Arab Emiratos
pulled out of CITES so that they could go on to export illegal
ivory to Hong Kong and Hong Kong continued to import it. As party
to CITES, Hong Kong only imports ivory approved by CITES. Despite
the fact that the United Arab Emirates only ceased to be a CITES
momber in January 1988, Hong Kong Government has not authorised
any import of raw and simply-prepared ivory from that country
since 1980. With the introduction in August last year of a
strengthened measure to control worked ivory following a CITES
resolution on the prohibition of trade in worked ivory of dublous
origin, no worked ivory items originated from United Arab Emirates
have been allowed to enter Hong Kong.
The criteria for granting import licence for raw and worked ivory
are very strict and all applications are required to be supported
by valid documents, including export permits from the authorities of the exporting countries and other documental proofs of their Requisition from CITES-approved sources. Only those applicationo
which have been verified with CIPES Secretariat to be in order,
are accepted. In addition, physical inspection is carried out for each import shipment to ensure that it conforms with those contained
in the application, If any irregularity is detected, the ahipment is detained for further investigation and/or prosecution.
P.