DE 18-77
IMPORT OF KILLER WHALE TO HONG KONG
AUTOFCHICU
143
I have received the attached letter from DOE enclosing a telex from the Hong Kong authorities about the possible import of a killer whale from Japan.
Is Hong Kong covered by IWC rules ?
Miss Abbot-Watt has taken legal advice on this and been told that we should assume that Hong Kong is subject to IWC requirements via UK membership. Apparently there is a general concept that for all international Conventions ratified before 1963 UK membership should be taken to cover all the dependent territories as well (note: the actual documents of UK ratification to the IWC only refer to "the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland").
Would the Hong Kong import actually infringe any IWC rules ?
There are no IWC rules relating to trade in live animals and the only question arising therefore is whether the capture of the whale might have been an offence. This must be regarded as very unlikely although technically possible
the only IWC provision specifically relating to killer whales (Schedule paragraph 10d) states that they shall not be taken, killed or treated by factory ships or vessels allied to these. Note that the general moratorium relates to "catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes" as being zero as we are dealing with live capture here this must be irrelevent.
-
If we assume that no IWC rule has been contravened the question may still arise as to whether we should be advising Hong Kong against the import because of the political embarrassment this might cause. In this respect you should note that Greenpeace have recently been in touch with the IWC to ask whether
* UK membership covers Hong Kong the implications are obvious.
I have spoken to DOE about the CITES implications. They do not have a final view yet but their initial position is that although Hong Kong is a party to CITES via UK membership, as with the IWC, it has the authority to make its own decision about the import regardless of UK policy concerns. Apparently DOE have had difficulties before with Hong Kong re CITES on things like ivory imports: DOE have to answer for Hong Kong in the CITES forum but effectively have no power over them. Of course we do not know whether technically the same sort of relationship exists in the IWC context this is something the FCO would have to advise us on.
I should be grateful for your advice on how to proceed.
Mr Ibbotson
MRK
REOL..
153/2
1. RECISTRY
- 8 SFT 1988
-
Renaud Whon
R M Wilson
MAFF Fisheries IIIa
1 September 1988
cc Miss Abbot-Watt
FCO
De
IND
Mr Robbins
DOE
duon Taken
* and were simply told that the ratification does refer to Great Britain and Northern Ereland
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.