RESTRICTED
importance to Hong Kong, which then had an estimated 670 tonnes of ivory worth some £85m. Hong Kong, as a Dependent Territory, is not separately a Party to CITES but was represented on the UK delegation. The Conference was not however convinced by the presentation of Hong Kong's case and voted heavily against continued trade. The UK abstained on behalf of Hong Kong, as did Portugal on
behalf of Macao.
3. The amendments to the CITES Appendices came into force on 18 January. Under Article XV of CITES any Party could before that date enter a Reservation exempting itself from applying the new listing. The UK received representations to enter a Reservation from the Hong Kong and Kowloon Ivory Manufacturers Association (representing the traders), the Hong Kong Ivory Manufacturing Workers General Union (representing the workers) and from the Hong Kong Legislative Council who all stressed the importance of the ivory industry in which some 3,000 people are employed, and the need to have a breathing space to adjust to the ban.
On 17 January the UK entered a Reservation by means of a Diplomatic Note to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs
4.
in Berne. The Note made clear that the Reservation would be
withdrawn after six months and would not apply to the United Kingdom or to any Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong. Six other countries also entered Reservations - China, Botswana, Zimbabwe,
Malawi, South Africa and Zambia. With the exception of China (which however like the others did not support Appendix I listing at the Conference) all the others indicated in Lausanne that they were
considering entering Reservations. The stated purpose of the UK Reservation was to allow Hong Kong traders time to dispose of their legally-acquired stocks in an orderly fashion and to enable the carvers and workers to find alternative employment. There is a precedent for the entering of a Reservation on behalf of Hong Kong. The UK did so in February 1977 against the Appendix II listing of the African elephant; this was withdrawn in June 1978.
5. The Reservation has drawn intense criticism from MPs, Non
Government Organisations (NGOs) and the general public. NGOS, including the influential Worldwide Fund for Nature, maintain that
RESTRICTED