TNAG-1953-FCO40-2782-Trade-of-rare-and-endangered-species-in-Hong-Kong-1989 — Page 102

1989-05-15 18:50 G.I.S

33

P.02

рарг

се

33

16/5.

51/1

HKCISI/1

ARD'S RESPONSE TO ITN FROGRAMNE

ON IVORY TRADE

In connection with the queries reined at the ITN interview with

Mr. Tony Bennet, DDAF, on May 12, 1989, during which Mr. Betmelt was

interrupted from conveying his points and was not given the opportunity

rupy

to clarify the various misconceptions, we now provide in the following

our comments for your use in response to any follow-up queries:-

2)

There is no truth in the accusation that the United Arab Emiratos

pulled out of CITES so that they could go on to export illegal

ivory to Hong Kong and Hong Kong continued to import it. As party

to CITES, Hong Kong only imports ivory approved by CITES. Despite

the fact that the United Arab Emirates only ceased to be a CITES

momber in January 1988, Hong Kong Government has not authorised

any import of raw and simply-prepared ivory from that country

since 1980. With the introduction in August last year of a

strengthened measure to control worked ivory following a CITES

resolution on the prohibition of trade in worked ivory of dublous

origin, no worked ivory items originated from United Arab Emirates

have been allowed to enter Hong Kong.

The criteria for granting import licence for raw and worked ivory

are very strict and all applications are required to be supported

by valid documents, including export permits from the authorities of the exporting countries and other documental proofs of their Requisition from CITES-approved sources. Only those applicationo

which have been verified with CIPES Secretariat to be in order,

are accepted. In addition, physical inspection is carried out for each import shipment to ensure that it conforms with those contained

in the application, If any irregularity is detected, the ahipment is detained for further investigation and/or prosecution.

P.