HC Deb 26 May 1989 vol 153 cc1292-300 1.30 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is just approaching the Dispatch Box, is making quite a name for herself. I have just returned from having another look at the Roman baths at Huggin hill about which she was able to make a halfway decent announcement. The Roman baths are to be preserved, but unfortunately we will not have access to them. She has also done some good work in regard to the Rose theatre. While she is catching her breath, I should tell her that I have a few other campaigns that she might care to join me in pursuing—the preservation of county hall, the restoration of city-wide local government in London—if she sticks with me I shall make her famous.

Today, the Minister has the chance to cover herself in more glory by taking the political initiative to help to save the African elephant by imposing an immediate ban on all raw and worked ivory being imported into the United Kingdom. The plight of the African elephant is one of impending catastrophe. I have been campaigning on the matter for the past five years, and during that time perhaps as many as 500,000 elephants have been slaughtered in Africa.

I am grateful for the recent upsurge of public and political concern, and I should like to place on record the thanks of the entire House to the television companies, newspapers and organisations which have helped to generate the great tide of feeling which is sweeping across Europe in defence of those beautiful and gentle creatures, the elephants. The Worldwide Fund for Nature recently announced that it received about 20,000 letters and calls in one week in support of a ban and in protest against the slaughter of elephants.

The centre of the problem is the massacre of those beautiful creatures for their ivory. The truly criminal element is the illegal slaughter, but the legal culling is little better. In 1970 it was estimated that there were about 2.3 million elephants in Africa. In 1979 the number had dropped to about 1.3 million—the figures are very approximate. Today it is estimated that about 750,000 elephants remain in Africa, but a reply I received recently from the Minister for Overseas Development suggested that some estimates are as low as between 300,000 and 400,000. No one knows the exact number, but it is certain that the elephant is under threat. At the present rate of slaughter, which is running at an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 a year, by the year 2000 the African elephant will be all but extinct.

The methods used by poachers to obtain ivory turns even the strongest stomach. They use machine guns, rockets, mortars and poison to kill the animals and then they use chainsaws to cut off their heads. Sometimes elephants are mortally wounded but not yet dead. When I was in Washington recently, the international organisation Monitor told me about an incident that took place 11 years ago which is typical of what happened in the past. Thousands of elephants died in just one area of Zaire in 1978 after being poisoned. The mass killing took place in a vast forest west of Kisengani, in north-east Zaire. While the death toll was staggering for the elephants, it was virtually complete for all other animals over hundreds of square miles. The mass poisoning occurred in April and May of 1978.

According to a source in Kisengani, corrupt Government officials diverted 20 metric tons of pesticide that was to have been used for spraying the coffee plantations in the province. The highly toxic poison was delivered to gangs of poachers who went into the thick forests where large numbers of elephants still roamed. The pesticide was poured into the waterholes in the marshy areas where the elephants come to drink. Within days thousands of elephants were poisoned. It took up to a week for them to die. The sickened beasts staggered through the forest in agony. The poachers eager to get the ivory first frequently hastened death by running up to the weakened elephants from the rear and disembowelling them with machetes.

Witnesses say that hundreds of tusks poured into the town of Ngazi, which is at the end of the road from Kisengani. Each week during the poisoning massacre this was happening. Many of the tusks were just eight inches long, indicating that baby elephants died in large numbers. Nobody knows how many elephants died in those two months because many, if not most, probably died deep in the forest and were never found. That still goes on, but there are fewer elephants to persecute in such a way.

There are corrupt Governments and officials in Africa who have made millions out of the illegal ivory trade. African wars are in part, still being financed by the trade in elephant ivory, rhinoceros horns and other endangered species. Terrorist organisations, such as UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique, are openly slaughtering elephants and processing the ivory through South Africa, Swaziland and other African countries. Dr. Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA presented to President P. W. Botha an exact replica of an AK47 assault rifle, intricately carved in ivory—how obscene, but how typical since so many elephants had been killed by UNITA terrorists using AK47 rifles.

I welcome the Government's announcement of their intention to go for a ban on new ivory, first at the EC Environment Ministers meeting on 8 June in Luxembourg, and in October at the meeting of the convention on international trade in endangered species CITES, the so-called regulatory body on trade in ivory. However, that may be too little too late.

The laxity in applying existing CITES regulations to new ivory makes such a ban, if we are able to achieve it, close to unenforceable. Even if we achieve an agreement at CITES in October, the ban will not come into force until mid-January 1990. Dealers will stockpile, and at the present rate of slaughter another 40,000 to 50,000 elephants will die and there will be an enormous upsurge in poaching. We need a ban on all ivory, and we need it now.

The Government are wonderfully placed to give a lead to the world because Britain is crucial to the ivory trade. First, we are a major staging post in world ivory trade, including that which is traded illegally. The Department of the Environment, in consultation with CITES, has given retrospective clearance to ivory arriving in this country without valid documentation. There are cargoes at Heathrow and Gatwick airports which I claim on good authority began as illegal ivory. I am not satisfied that the Minister is being given the best and most impartial advice by CITES or her own departmental officials. I shall return to that theme on another occasion.

The Minister says that her Department checks on all ivory, but much of the so-called legal ivory starts off as illegal ivory. It is laundered through corrupt African Governments and officials. The way in which statistics on ivory are kept in this country is wholly unsatisfactory. I have just received a reply from the Department of Trade and Industry. I asked how much raw ivory, by weight and value, had gone through this country since 1979. The DTI's answer was: In 1988, imports of raw ivory were recorded as 12.1 metric tonnes. Information prior to 1988 is not available. However, when I asked the DTI what was happening in Hong Kong, it was able to give me a run of figures back to 1984. How come I can get figures about what goes on in Hong Kong, but not about the trade in ivory in this country? Something must be done about that.

The figures which have emerged from Hong Kong show that Hong Kong has been importing raw ivory from a range of countries. I shall not give them all, but I notice that Somalia and the Ivory Coast are included. Yet in the reply to another question I also noticed that Somalia and the Ivory Coast appear among the 19 African countries where the EEC considers that the elephant population is incapable of sustaining commercial exploitation. How come? If we are told by the EEC that those countries do not have elephant populations sufficient to sustain trade in ivory, how come Hong Kong, for which we are responsible, is still accepting ivory into its shores?

The position of Hong Kong is absolutely crucial in all this because Hong Kong deals in more ivory than probably any other country, with perhaps between 50 and 75 per cent. of world trade. Indeed, 95 per cent. of the ivory entering Hong Kong is raw and comes from Japan, China, Taiwan and India among other places. If the ivory is carved, it goes to Japan, the United States of America and the EEC countries. Therefore, Hong Kong, with which we have close links, is very much at the centre. Belgian and French dealers are active in Hong Kong and a lot of ivory now comes from Francophone Africa, which is emerging as a major supplier. We in this country and therefore in this House have jurisdiction over Hong Kong until 1997. We must close down the ivory trade in Hong Kong.

One of the great obstacles that the Minister will face in attempting to secure an appendix I listing of the African elephant by CITES in October will be if any of the major trading countries enters a reservation. I want an assurance from the Minister that the United Kingdom will not on behalf of Hong Kong, enter a reservation. If we can get Hong Kong into line, we might just get the Japanese to follow suit. On this occasion, words fail me when I try to describe the Japanese role not only in the ivory trade but also in relation to whales. That country is venal. The British public should boycott Japanese goods until the Japanese stop decimating the world's animal resources in their typically wasteful and selfish manner.

I repeat my demands about the African elephants on behalf of all hon. Members and a growing tide of public opinion in this country and around the world. First, we should have a total and immediate ban on all trade in raw and worked ivory in the United Kingdom as a prelude to a worldwide ban. Secondly, there should be a similar and immediate ban in Hong Kong.

Thirdly, there must be an investigation into the money received by CITES from ivory dealers and an investigation into the activities of CITES and into the Minister's own Department, the Department of the Environment, in inviting retrospective clearance to cargoes of illegal ivory in the United Kingdom. If the international regulatory body CITES, is receiving money from ivory dealers, the impartiality and objectivity of that body must obviously be questioned. I want the Minister to look into that carefully.

Fourthly, we need a programme of assistance to those African countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique which are desperately trying, against overwhelming odds in certain cases because of the activities of poachers, to protect their remaining elephant herds.

Obviously it is not the Minister's responsibility. She is responsible for the Department of the Environment, but she can talk to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office, and especially in the Ministry of Overseas Development, to ensure that those countries that request our assistance are given it. They need helicopters and Land-Rovers. I do not see why they cannot have British troops if they so request them. I should be quite happy to see the Special Air Service become involved in tracking down poachers. That would be a useful line of activity for it to engage in. It would certainly gain the support of the Opposition.

We in this country have done too little for too long to protect African elephants, but we cannot do too much now if we are to save the elephants from extinction. I do not normally make claims such as this because Members of Parliament who say, "I speak on behalf of the people of this country" are usually pompous fools, but on this occasion I cannot have that accusation levelled against me because the people of this country would welcome a dramatic political initiative from Her Majesty's Government. Opposition Members would certainly welcome it, and I am sure that Conservative Members would do so, too. The African elephant desperately needs it. It would be a crime against the world if the African elephant was slaughtered out of existence. I urge the Minister and the Government to act now.

1.44 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I am sorry that I missed part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). As usual, he was a little ahead of me. I want to endorse and fully support everything that he has said. It is awful that we, as a wealthy country in the west, along with others, have for too long allowed the importation of ivory when we know full well that it has come from smugglers and the illegal killing of elephants. The importation of ivory through Hong Kong is also a serious problem.

I hope that when the Minister replies she will be very robust in defence of the world's wildlife and will give us a commitment that the Government will do all that they can—including providing the money, and the resources, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, to those countries which are striving to uphold the elephant population and to preserve that wildlife. I hope that the Minister will show the people in this country that there is something quite awful about the fact that, despite the alleged progress in the world. every day a species dies out—every day a plant species is eradicated for ever. Yet we call a growth in civilisation the promotion of higher living standards. We need to understand that we cannot continue destroying one species after another at the present rate and expect to carry on living ourselves.

I believe that the understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and others have shown for the African elephant is an example of the growing understanding that we must work with the world's natural systems and ecosystems rather than destroying and working against them, as the evil poachers and illegal dealers in the ivory trade are doing. What my hon. Friend has said has the overwhelming support of the people of this country and, indeed, of people from all over the world. For many the plight of the African elephant has become a symbol of the plight of the world's wildlife in the same way as the panda was the symbol of the World Wildlife Fund when it was established 30 years ago.

1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)

Frankly, we are all agreed that the plight of the African elephant is extremely serious and that it is a creature that we all hold most dear. I was trying to identify what it is about the elephant that is so loveable, so endearing and makes us all respond so warmly and strongly to the present situation. I was reading the other day that it is their grandeur, their gentleness, their intelligence, even their humour. It was said that there is a strange affinity between the life cycle of the elephant their family affection and loyalties, their mutual aid, even the respect they show to their dead closely resemble the better aspects of human behaviour. It appears to lack the more unacceptable aspects of human behaviour, but shares many of the more acceptable ones.

I especially endorse the remarks about the Worldwide Fund for Nature. It is a privilege to have the headquarters of that organisation in my constituency. I have worked closely with it on a number of subjects. I especially pay tribute to its work in protecting the African elephant. It has worked over the years with the European Community and, indeed, in partnership with the Overseas Development Administration, on a number of practical subjects, which, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly said, is part of the secret of protecting the species. I want especially to pay tribute to David Shepherd, the wildlife artist and author, who has worked on behalf of the African elephant. He has specialist knowledge and he has made an evocative and powerful case on its behalf.

In recent weeks and months the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has raised a number of topics on which I hope I have been able to offer some encouragement and assistance on behalf of the Government. There is no doubt that in the area of animal welfare and the protection of wildlife the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing reputation of identifying areas that need particular attention.

We are all united in our concern about the plight of the African elephant. We are fully committed to the protection of all endangered species and have demonstrated that commitment through our active participation in the implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES.

We were one of the original signatories to the convention in 1973. It entered into force in July 1975 and since that time the United Kingdom has played its part in strengthening CITES controls, bringing more species under its protection and encouraging other countries to accede to it.

For example, at the 6th conference of the parties to CITES in 1987, the United Kingdom was successful in securing the conference's agreement to the inclusion, under CITES, of 20 species of bustards, nine species of butterfly, and the medicinal leech. I am pleased to say that another species of butterfly was transferred from appendix II to appendix I. Over 400 species of flora and fauna are listed in appendix I alone, including the Indian elephant, several species of dolphin, the rhinoceros, the alligator, and orchid.

We have fulfilled our role by attendance at the biennial conference of the parties, the meetings of the standing committee and the important African elephant working group, which was set up to consider ways in which to improve the protection of this species. The next meeting of the group will take place in Botswana in July.

Within the European Community we attend the regular EC CITES committee meetings, and we played a key part in initiating a review of the implementation of the EC regulations, which apply CITES throughout the Community. In the light of that review, the regulations will be revised to clarify and tighten existing controls.

We work in close co-operation, of course, with our scientific advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council and the royal botanic gardens at Kew. Both organisations have justly deserved reputations in the conservation world, and we frequently call on their expertise. We have regular meetings with them, usually prior to EC meetings. Our scientific advisers attend the EC CITES scientific working group, which advises the EC CITES committee on the scientific aspects of its work.

The Government have become increasingly concerned about the reported decline in the number of African elephants, and it is important to view it within the working of CITES. As the hon. Gentleman said, figures are notoriously difficult to rely on, but it seems that there are fewer than 700,000 African elephants remaining, and many estimates are between 300,000 and 400,000. We have been actively involved in promoting the survival of the African elephant, through strengthening controls on imports and exports of ivory and through aid to those African producer countries seeking to protect their elephant populations. The African elephant has been listed on appendix II of the convention since 1977. Under the terms of the convention, trade in ivory may take place only if certain strict criteria are met.

Mr. Corbyn

rose—

Mrs. Bottomley

I will not give way. I have little time left. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and I should like to deal properly with the subject.

In 1985, CITES parties recognised the increasing threat to the African elephant, and the United Kingdom was instrumental in introducing stricter controls on trade in ivory. They included the quota system and the establishment of the Ivory Trade Monitoring Unit, which is based in Lausanne at the CITES secretariat and to which the United Kingdom annually contributes £5,000. Under the system, most producer countries set quotas agreed by CITES for the export of raw ivory. The ivory is appropriately marked, and exports beyond the quota or of unmarked raw ivory have to be checked with the secretariat in Lausanne to ensure that the export is within the agreed quota and that the documentation is in order.

We in Europe, however, considered that that was not enough. The EC CITES regulations set a higher standard of protection than that of the convention for many species, including the African elephant. For example, the convention requires import permits only in the case of appendix I species; under the EC regulations, import documents are required for all species covered by the CITES appendices. The EC regulations also prohibit several commercial activities, such as sale, in respect of the most endangered species. For the African elephant and certain other species, import permits may be issued only when the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species or on the population of the species in the country of origin.

In May 1988, the Community agreed to ban the commercial import of ivory from 18 African countries, and it has recently increased it to 19. We have also supported an additional tightening of controls with the Community.

Despite those extra controls, we are conscious of concern about their effectiveness. We are, for example, aware of concern—also expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—about the control of the ivory trade in Hong Kong. In most matters the Hong Kong Government exercise a high degree of autonomy. That includes trade in endangered species, and they apply CITES controls through their own specific legislation. In view of the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, we are understandably keen to encourage this autonomy. We have been in touch with the Hong Kong authorities about the Government's decision to support a ban on trade in new ivory and the reasons for it. The Hong Kong Government have informed us that they are considering their own position on the issue.

Hong Kong has strictly adhered to all of the conservation and enforcement measures called for by CITES and recently has strengthened its controls on the import of worked ivory. The only ivory which may legally be imported into Hong Kong at present is that which comes from a CITES-approved source and is subject to the issue of a licence.

Mr. Tony Banks

If it is a matter of entering a reservation to CITES at the meeting in October, can Hong Kong enter a reservation on its own or are we the signatories on behalf of Hong Kong to CITES? Therefore, should any such reservation be entered through us?

Mrs. Bottomley

I understand that we are the parties to CITES. We have had discussions with Hong Kong and I can tell the hon. Gentleman of many of the steps taken by the Government to tighten their control over the ivory trade. I understand that in Hong Kong all applications are handled with extreme care to ensure that only legal ivory is exported or imported. On arrival, shipments are physically checked by staff of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department to ensure that they are accompanied by the necessary CITES documents. The ivory itself is inspected to ensure that it matches with the numbers, weight and markings. In any case of doubt, the consignment is detained pending investigation or clarification with the CITES secretariat.

We have also made representations to the Government of the United Arab Emirates, to encourage them to tighten controls on the ivory trade which passes through their country.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has criticised the licensing system in the United Kingdom, particularly in respect of two recent cases concerning ivory. It is not possible to go into the full detail of the cases because such matters are dealt with confidentially, but I assure the House that we strictly implement all CITES controls and those of EC regulation 3626/82. We do not allow the import or export of raw ivory which has not first been approved by the CITES secretariat. The Department of the Environment, acting as the managing authority under CITES, takes these obligations extremely seriously and exercises them rigorously. It applies great care to each case.

When the consignment to which the hon. Gentleman referred arrived in this country, we were concerned because the documentation and the markings on the tusks did not accord with the requirement of the ivory trade control unit. We consulted the unit which in turn consulted the management authority of Zaire. We were advised that the ivory was legal and we were given revised tusk numbers. An official of the Zairean embassy re-marked the tusks, observed, I hasten to add, by representatives of the Customs and Excise and of the Department of the Environment. The official working on behalf of the Department of the Environment behaved with absolute propriety and with great care throughout the proceedings.

Mr. Tony Banks

What about the Zairean Government?

Mrs. Bottomley

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment about the behaviour of any other parties to this matter, it is for him to make representations to them.

The Department of the Environment is thoroughly committed to the workings of the arrangements and to the preservation of wild life in general.

The hon. Gentleman stated that the secretariat receives funding from ivory traders. That is in line with the wishes of the conference of the parties. At the sixth conference a resolution was passed urging trader groups, among others, to contribute to the secretariat.

The legitimate traders have been as keen as we are to see the illegal trade stamped out. They have made a valuable contribution to the secretariat's work. Through those contributions, the secretariat has been able to function more effectively. We have no evidence of corruption. Indeed, I am sure that the international community as a whole would join our rebuttal of any suggestion of corruption within the secretariat. It performs a difficult and arduous task and it relies a great deal on the professional dedication of its staff.

The secretariat has already done much to assist the plight of endangered species and without it their plight would be much worse than it is today. I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that we will be urging the European Community to take action together to ban the import of raw ivory prior to the decisions of the CITES meeting. Furthermore, when we go to CITES, we will make representations to the effect that, rather than wait the normal 90 days for the resolution to take effect, we should act immediately to preserve and protect the African elephant.

I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will be encouraged in the belief that the Government, through their commitment to help the African elephant, are prepared with our partners to take all further steps that are necessary to ensure that this noblest of animals continues to play a part in our world heritage for future generations.