TNAG-0532-FCO40-627-Conservation-of-wildlife-in-Hong-Kong-1976 — Page 17

1

DFL

Department of the Environment Caxton House Tothill Street London SW1H 9LZ

A J Colquhoun Esq

FCO

London SW1A 2AH

Telephone 01-834 8540 ext 1

Your reference

Our reference

Elwond

PSC4/2065/1

Date

Subment

MR 9/9

g September 1975

RECEIVED IN

REGISTRY No. 38

(26)

VI,

M...

it

}

1

Dear Andrew

WETLANDS CONVENTION HONG HONG

Com

·SEP 1975

MSE

7/1

47

1. Thank you for your letter of 7 July enclosing a letter from Hong Kong about the implications of the convention for the Mai Po Marshes. Both this Departmont and the NCC are keen to see Hong Kong included in the instrument of ratification since the convention contains many useful points apart from the most conspicious one of Wetland designation. The Hong Kong government's fears are understandable but can be dispelled. I hope that consideration of the following points will prove sufficiently reassuring.

2.

As far as the UK is concerned it is the Nature Conservancy Council that is solely responsible for proposing Wetland sites (IUCN being the confirming body) and we envisage that the council will play a similar role in respect of dependent territories. This can only be done in full co-operation and consultation with the local administrations since the NCC Statutory authority runs only in the British Isles. As an official agency answerable to the Secretary of State for the Environment I do not believe that the NCC would propose the designation of a Wetland against the wishes of a dependent territory.

3. The NCC say that the Mai Po Marshes do have certain characteristics that would, on the face of it make them suitable for consideration as a Wetland under the terms of convention. The Council has, however, been careful to designate only those sites where there are reasonably good administrative safeguards and a long-term prospect of maintaining them in a suitable state. NCC think that the same argument for exclusion could apply to the Mai Po Marshes should the pressure for designation arise.

4. The Hong Kong Government should, presumably, be able to take care of any ') direct pressure to take the initiative in making a designation. If it has been taking conservation as seriously as implied in the letter that should account for a great deal.

5. This, I think, should be sufficient material upon which to base a reply. If not, please let me know.

Yours sincerely

Soon Aler

ROBERT HUMM

་ད