TNAG-0634-FCO40-782-Violation-of-legislation-for-protection-of-endangered-specie-1977 — Page 34

RESTRICTED

Reference

RECEIVED IN

REGISTRY DO. 51

R & R

16

"K

16

Mr

Dayja,

HAD

16 MAY 1977

PICK

WASHINGTON CONVENTION: HONG KONG

1. You asked for comments on Mr Nichols' letter of 29 April.

2.

that

While I appreciate the difficulties that the Hong Kong authorities are encountering in implementing the provisions of the Washington Convention, Mr Nichols still seems to consider the rather haphazard method of controlling live species (see the section of his letter on endangered species) is satisfactory and goes as far as to quote the difficulties the UK authorities are having in this area. The need for control of Appendix 2 items is probably not that pressing but the Appendix 1 species, which are virtually banned from international trade, certainly need a far tighter control mechanism than that being now operated in liong Kong. As I have already mentioned in previous correspondence on this question, such species require both an import and export permit therefore there should be no question of Appendix 1 items entering China/Hong Kong trade. This would not seem to be the case at present, and if conservationists come forward with proof that the Hong Kong authorities are in breach of the washington Convention in respect of these rare species, then I fear it would be difficult

to refute this to come up with any acceptable arguments against what would be a breach of the provisions of the Convention. Regarding the reference to UA, I have always understood that we do not have problems on the import of live species, but only parts and derivatives. As you can well imagine, it is very difficult for customs authorities to be able to recognise all derivatives of endangered species.

3. As for the point raised by ir Nichols on the review being carried out on the long Kong ivory trade, I would once more emphasise that there is no distinction in the Convention between raw and worked ivory. It is the species which a listed and parties to the Convention are expected to control all readily recognisable parts and derivatives of such species. It will therefore not be possible for Hong Kong to simply schedule raw ivory. I always understood that ong nong imported raw ivory and exported finished ivory goods, and am therefore none too clear why there would be any difficulty for the ilong Kong authorities to schedule everything.

4.

I ould very much welcome meeting Mr Nichols during his visit to the UK, and would strongly recommend that DOE and Customs officials, involved in the implementation of the provisions of the Convention, also be present. It would then be possible to clear up any misunderstandings that ir Nichols might have, and on the face of it he certainly seems to have a few, on the Convention. As agreed, I will not approach the DOE on this until you have received clearance from Hong Kong for such a meeting.

CODE 18-77

16 May 1977

SS 10/76

O'Hara

Science and Technology Department