from the Hong Kong Government to HMG, and we could face litigation
in the UK courts.
e) A short-term reservation was made for Hong Kong when the African
elephant was originally listed on Appendix II of the Convention in
1977, although this was in the early days of CITES when the public's
perception of environmental issues was rather different and before
the dramatic deterioration in the position of the African elephant.
8.
The main arguments against entering a reservation are that
a) It would run counter to the Department of the Environment's
policy of seeking to take a leading role in the international
campaign to ban the ivory trade and would damage the UK's standing in CITES even if we made clear that the reservation applied only to
Hong Kong. In particular, it would conflict with the UK's own
recommendation that the ban should be implemented immediately and
would turn on its head our voting record at the last CITES
Conference.
b) Our abstention on behalf of Hong Kong was almost universally
condemned by the press and any departure from the 90 day deadline will be fiercely criticised by the press and the conservationist
lobby on the grounds that it will offer a loophole through which
poached ivory can continue to reach the market. There is
considerable scepticism among conservationist bodies about the
effectiveness of the Hong Kong Government's controls against illegal
trade in ivory, despite their undoubted good intentions. There is
also considerable dispute about the status of Hong Kong's stock pile. While the Hong Kong Government maintain that it has all been
imported legally, the conservationists believe that a large
proportion of the ivory was originally poached.
PJMASB (4)
Page 60Page 61
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.