PJMAPF
HONG KONG AND THE IVORY TRADE
HMG'S POSITION
1.
In the light of evidence that existing controls were inadequate, HMG announced on 23 May 1989 that there was now a clear case for banning all trade in new elephant tusks at the earliest practical opportunity. Subsequently, Lord Caithness called successfully for
the support of European partners for a total ban on raw and worked
ivory at the council meeting of EC Environment ministers on 8 June,
and for the African elephant to be placed on Appendix I of CITES at the October CITES meeting. Lord Caithness announced that the ban on
imports of raw and worked ivory would come into immediate effect in
the United Kingdom.
HONG KONG
2.
Hong Kong has for a number of years been singled out as a "worst offender" in the market for illegal ivory. There is no clear-cut
evidence to support these allegations but they persist nonetheless.
Hong Kong is however a market centre for the import and export of
ivory from legally approved sources and the industry is worth some
£50 million per year. The allegations are also fuelled by the fact that the tabloid press have identified members of a Hong Kong family
as the owners of an organisation in Dubai working illegally procured
ivory and passing it off as legal in exporting it to other
countries. The control of their actions there is however a matter
for the authorities of the United Arab Emirates.
3.
Many people have called for the United Kingdom to impose a ban
on trade in ivory in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government enjoy a high degree of autonomy in all matters (with the exception of
defence and foreign affairs). The 1984 Sino-British Joint
Declaration provides that this will continue after 1997. It would
not therefore be appropriate for us to seek to impose a decision on
Hong Kong in this matter.