Argument
CONFIDENTIAL
International Buy-Out Fund
8. It was not until the closing stages of the CITES Conference that
the Hong Kong Government informed us of their wish to raise the idea
of an international compensation fund. But by that time it was too
late to do so at the Conference itself. If we were now to pursue
this idea outside the Conference we would have to argue that it was
in the interests of all CITES parties to try to prevent the ivory
trade from going under ground, particularly as the Convention does
not provide for compensation. But in view of the substantial
majority at the CITES Conference against trade in existing scheme,
there is no reason to suppose that other CITES parties would be
willing to contribute to a fund primarily for Hong Kong's benefit.
If the UK were to take the lead in calling for such a fund, we would
no doubt have to be prepared to contribute to it (unless the Hong
Kong Government was prepared to contribute on behalf of Hong Kong
and the UK). Furthermore this could lead to calls for compensation
for three Southern African States which have been deprived of
revenue from raw ivory as a result of the CITES decision.
Six Month Reservation
The main arguments in favour of entering a six month reservation
on Hong Kong's behalf are that
9.
(a) unless Hong Kong's ivory traders are given sufficent time to
dispose of their stocks in an orderly fashion, the trade will simply
be driven underground.
b) LegCo could block or delay the introduction of the legislation
necessary to implement the ban beyond the 90-day period. This could
cause a serious constitutional crisis. It could also prevent Hong
Kong from complying with the ban, thus putting the UK in breach of
the Convention.
c) It would be difficult for HMG to refuse to enter a reservation on
Hong Kong's behalf, now that we have been formally asked to do so,
CONFIDENTIAL