TNAG-2129-FCO40-3044-Hong-Kong-and-the-ivory-trade-1990 — Page 31

BACKGROUND

CONFIDENTIAL ·

1. The State Department have told the Embassy in Washington that

Secretary Baker will wish to raise with the Secretary of State US

concern at the entering of a Reservation on behalf of Hong Kong

against the listing of the African elephant on Appendix I

(effectively a ban on international commercial trade in ivory) of

the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES).

2.

The UK entered a Reservation on 17 January (the day

before the new listing came into force) to allow Hong Kong

traders to dispose of their ivory in an orderly fashion and to

enable the carvers and workers (some 3,000 in total) to find

alternative employment. The Reservation was the best way

of fulfilling our responsibilities to a Dependent Territory without compromising our support for measures to secure the future of the

African elephant. We have made it clear that the Reservation

applies only to Hong Kong, and not to the UK or any other British

Dependent Territory, and that it will be withdrawn after six months,

by which time legislation to implement the CITES ban will be in

force. We have denied any contradiction with our support for

Appendix I listing at the CITES conference in Lausanne in October

1989, pointing out that we abstained on behalf of Hong Kong on the

separate vote on trade in existing stocks.

3. Opponents of the Reservation are arguing that by allowing continued trade in ivory from Hong Kong we are creating a loophole for the entry of illegal ivory onto the market and thereby encourage more poaching. They also claim that 80% of the ivory in Hong Kong

came from poached elephants. Wildlife NGOs in the US, which are far

more influential and vociferous than those in the UK, will have

pressed these arguments forcefully with the State Department. We do not believe that the Reservation will lead to more poaching. Given

the difficulties in disposing of the legal stock of ivory already in Hong Kong, it would make no sense to attempt to import new ivory, illegally, into the Territory. And the measures taken by the Hong Kong authorities since June 1989, eg import, export, and possession

CONFIDENTIAL