TNAG-0634-FCO40-782-Violation-of-legislation-for-protection-of-endangered-specie-1977 — Page 48

Mr Hinchcliffe

Mr Barrett

Reference.......

By Enter a ph

1%

WASHINGTON CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR NICHOLAS JAMES, FREELANCE JOURNALIST

1.

Mr James, a freelance journalist, telephoned News Dept last week in order to discuss Hong Kong and the Washington Convention.

It was agreed with News Dept and HKD, that I would, in the first instance, handle the enquiry. I spoke to Mr James yesterday and the following

is a resume of our conversation.

2. Mr James asked for background information in Hong Kong's ratification of the Convention. I explained that as the Convention did not contain a territorial extension clause, we wished to include as many Dependant Territories as possible in the UK Instrument of Ratification, which was deposited with the Swiss Government of 2 August 1976. To this end, we consulted all Dependant Territories, including Hong Kong and asked them if they would be prepared to be included in the UK Instrument. Hong Kong and 16 other Dependant Territories agreed to inclusion; this entailed, in the case of Hong Kong, drawing up new legislation in order to implement the provisions of the Convention. The Hong Kong Government rushed through legislation in spite of a heavy legislative programme but reserved on the Indian Elephant and all species of reptiles. I was asked why Hong Kong thought it necessary to enter reservations, especially on the Indian Elephant which virtually did not enter into internatio- nal trade. In reply I said that because of the deadline for their legislation, Hong Kong wished to consider the implications of implementing the provisions of the Convention in respect of these species. I did stress however, that Hong Kong was currently reviewing its reservations with a view to withdrawing some of these in the near future.

3. Mr James then went on to enquire about the position of Hong Kong in respect of the African Elephant, which was added to Appendix II of the Convention at the Conference of the Parties in Berne last November. I said that Hong Kong had also reserved on this species but was also including the African Elephant in its general review of species on which they had reserved, and it may be that this reservation would also be withdrawn.

4.

?

if

Mr James probed on more than one occasion into the pressure, any, that HMG had exerted on Hong Kong both to ratify and to lift its reservations. I reiterated the point that Hong Kong was treated as any other Dependant Territory. On the reservations, I said that Hong Kong had done extremely well in pushing through its legislation and was now making strenuous efforts to implement its provisions; they must however be given time to iron out any difficulties and to complete their review.

5. It was evident that Mr James wanted to try and nail down Hong Kong's role in international ivory trade. He repeatedly said that it was one of the entrepôts for illegal imports of African ivory. I said that this was rather a serious allegation and I could see no reason why Hong Kong should resort to illegal trade in ivory, as until last November, there was no control at an international level in the trade of this product.

Even now, the fact that the African Elephant had been put on to Appendix II of the Convention meant that importers could still trade in it albeit

/with

}

RESTRICTED