*********************************************************
Following is the concluding speech by the Acting Secretary for the Environment, Ms Christine Loh, in a motion debate proposed by Dr the Hon Elizabeth Quat on strengthening the combat against the crime of wildlife smuggling in the Legislative Council today (December 3):
President,
I am heartened to hear such strong support from Members for the Government to do more to combat wildlife smuggling and trafficking. We will need the firm support of this Council as we go forward to implement any new measures.
Let me start by briefly summarising the overall work the Government has done, and is doing, before responding specifically to the five areas in the original motion.
I believe it is already well-known among some Members and the conservation NGOs that we have put in place an enhancement plan. Whilst there were some criticisms that this is not sufficient, I don't think anybody is implying that we shouldn't do it. So I think for the sake of clarity, I would just like to repeat very briefly what these are. There are three measures to combat smuggling and trafficking of endangered species - these include stronger liaison among our enforcement agencies, better inter-bureau-and-department collaboration and deployment of more sniffer dogs to detect smuggled species. Among the CITES controlled specimens, the trained sniffer dogs can detect pangolin scales, live reptiles, dried seahorses, and live birds. We have now trained them to also detect ivory, and we want to include sharks fin and bear gall bladder in the future. We would like to have more dogs to be able to help us.
There are also seven measures to strengthen the control on the local ivory trade. These are comprehensive stock-taking of "pre-ban" ivory; stepping-up import and re-export control of ivory that can be legally traded; using carbon dating to determine the age of ivory; raising the transparency in the licensed ivory stock; requiring licensees to report change in stock quantities; and raising the awareness of potential buyers that they cannot take or send ivory out of Hong Kong.
I would like to now address the five suggestions raised by Dr the Honourable Elizabeth Quat. I would not follow the order that she has listed them in the hope that I may be able to articulate the issues more clearly.
I would like to first address the third issue. She asks us to strictly enforce Cap. 586, so as to fulfill Hong Kong's obligations under the CITES. As I said at the opening, the main purpose of the CITES is to regulate the international trade in endangered species. The import, export and re-export of Appendix I species for commercial purposes are banned under the CITES. The local legislation that gives effect to the CITES is in line with the Convention. While controlling possession is a domestic measure, our local law is already stricter than CITES' requirements.
Nevertheless, and I think this is what Members want us to consider. This Administration is open to go further; and we thank Members for their support relating to ivory and their various ideas in this direction.
The fourth measure in the motion asks for further trade restrictions on endangered species, especially ivory. As already noted, there is a substantial amount of "pre-ban" ivory registered by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), which can be traded legally under a Licence to Possess. Before we take any decision on further restrictions, our focus is naturally to step-up control over the local commercial trade in ivory, so as to combat trafficking. I think this is agreed amongst Members. We are also closely monitoring the latest national and international development in the control of ivory and will update our strategy and measures as and when necessary.
The first measure proposed in the original motion asks the Government to allocate additional resources to enhance the scale and enforcement capabilities of our efforts. We have already diverted some existing resources to strengthening the enforcement work but we will need more resources still.
Some Members said that we only have eight people who are involved in the implementation of the CITES. This is incorrect. And I would refer Members to a question asked here by the Honourable Chan Ka-lok on November 25 this year where we provided information that currently there are 48 people in the AFCD involved in the implementation of the CITES. In fact, since the year 2012/2013, we have been able to increase a little bit of manpower. But I repeat, in the coming year, we will need more resources to do a more thorough job.
As to the concern on "ivory laundering", I believe our enhancement plan will help. We are also in touch with the relevant national and international agencies. In addition, we are also responding to information from the NGOs, which can be very helpful. I have already asked the NGOs to consider how we can collaborate further with them to "catch bad guys". My colleagues and I are in regular contact with the NGOs working on ivory and other endangered species.
As to the second measure in the original motion on penalties for the import, export, re-export or possession of any specimen of a scheduled species not in accordance with Cap. 586, the current maximum penalty is a fine of HK$5 million, imprisonment for two years and forfeiture of the specimens upon conviction. In recent days, I have been exchanging information about penalty levels around the world with the NGOs. It seems that while our penalties are in step with those of other jurisdictions, we are open-minded on increasing penalties to show our commitment to combat wildlife trafficking. I ask Members to give us a little time to consider this. Of course, we will need the support of this Council in due course should we decide to take action to propose much tougher penalties. Members are no doubt aware that sentencing, however, is the prerogative of the Court.
Education and publicity is a vital part of our ongoing efforts in endangered species protection. In recent months, we reached out to the tourist industry. We now provide training to inbound and outbound tourist guides on CITES control, including the control on ivory. The AFCD has also recently required each holder of a Licence to Possess to display a notice containing the necessary information for the public to know that the specified premises is a licensed premises holding registered ivory for commercial purposes. The notice carries a warning that the ivory cannot be re-exported out of Hong Kong. Moreover, the licence holder is required to display a poster carrying a message that no ivory can be brought into or out of Hong Kong without a licence issued by the AFCD. This new measure will apply to the licensees upon licence renewal and issue of new licences. Mr President, perhaps I can be allowed to hold up this poster I just talked about. If Members are interested, perhaps they can come and have a look.
Let me now say a few words about the amendment by the Honourable Claudia Mo. The amendment is in essence about animal cruelty; and it suggests a ban on the sale or import of Chinese herbal medicines, or proprietary Chinese medicines, containing ingredients from gall bladders of bears extracted by inhumane methods. We share the concern of animal welfare. However, the crux of the amendment falls outside the CITES and Cap. 586. The issue of separate legislation to ban the sale or import of Chinese herbal medicines, or proprietary Chinese medicines, containing ingredients from bear gall bladders is another issue altogether which I will not be able to address today.
To conclude, I thank Dr the Honourable Elizabeth Quat, the Honourable Claudia Mo and Members who have spoken. I look forward to working with this Council, and also with the NGOs, so that we can better protect endangered wildlife.
Ends/Thursday, December 3, 2015
Issued at HKT 20:18
NNNN
