AMENDMENTS OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORTS) ACT 1976 (Hansard, 13 July 1981)

§ Mr. Hardy

I beg to move amendment No. 242, in page 73, line 12, at end insert— '(ac.) shall only he issued for species to which Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act apply, or items to which Schedule 3 to this Act apply, if they originate from a Ranch or Farm which meets the standards of practice defined by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; this provision to conic into effect within five years of the passing of this Act.'.

I do not think that we need a long debate on this subject, important though it is. Hon. Members will recall that we debated the matter in Committee. I do not expect that the Minister is in a position to respond as favourably as I had hoped in Committee. He was kind enough to write to me, and I read his letter with interest. He properly referred to the need for active consideration of the position of declining species, not least those listed in schedule 2, whose position is deteriorating. I hope that the Minister will secure progress for those species.

I accept that progress is more likely to be made if there is an approach based on the principle of mutually beneficial co-existence—to which the Minister referred—which is at the heart of world conservation and which the House could debate more fully with value before long. We must accept that species numbers must be sufficient to allow a reasonable level of controlled exploitation. I know that the Minister feels that that could be beneficial and would make conservation more acceptable in some parts of the world where there is a temptation to destroy wildlife to allow other economic activity to take place. If there is to be a controlled level of exploitation the world will have to give rather more priority to the recovery of those animals and other species that are endangered.

943 While I do not disagree with the Minister's assessment in his letter—he may care to comment briefly on that assessment—I hope that he can convince the House that the Government will maintain a substantial interest in the matter. I hope that the efforts in international negotiations will not simply continue to command the Government's commitment, and that we can have from time to time adequate public reporting of the Government's efforts. We hope that those efforts will achieve some success.

I shall not press the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for his letter. I understand the difficulties faced by the Department. I hope that we have not only the international effort but some reporting on the nature of those efforts and the results that accrue.

§ Mr. Monro

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for the way in which he moved the amendment. He has had a splendid letter from me explaining the position. There are problems, which he highlighted. The developing countries have most of the wildlife that comes into trade and they have the problem.

There is considerable pressure to develop the land where wildlife still survives. Unless ways can be found for the wildlife to be a source of revenue, it will be doomed. Wildlife reserves need protection, and the protectors must be paid. It has been a recognised way of paying them to allow controlled exploitation. The Washington convention is an important supporter of controlled exploitation. Farming, ranching, management, quotas and controlled culls all have a place. The farming and ranching criteria to which the amendment refers are related solely to species that are already considered to be in danger of extinction and to circumstances in which it is recognised that their best hope for survival is for man to derive an economic return from protecting them.

The United Kingdom has taken and will continue to take an active part in encouraging better management and control, but it would be wrong for us to cut off the means whereby that management and control can be justified in poor countries that are rich only in their wildlife. It is far better to continue the reinforcement of enlightened management and exploitation in line with world conservation strategy so that man anti wildlife can co-exist to their mutual benefit.

The amendment would stop a high proportion of United Kingdom trade in wildlife from less developed countries. That would be a retrograde step, which we could not accept. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind what I have said and to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall return to the amendment frequently from time to time, possibly in questions or in correspondence, until a satisfactory solution is reached.