MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the crimes of killing and smuggling wildlife for profiteering have become increasingly rampant in recent years. According to the statistics of APEC, the total wildlife smuggling trade is valued at a staggering US$23 billion per year.
It is noteworthy that illegal wildlife trading has driven many wild animals such as elephants, rhinos and tigers to near extinction, directly jeopardizing the ecosystem of Earth. These animals are illegally hunted because their teeth, hides or other body parts are deemed by humans to be of extremely high value.
In addition, wildlife smuggling has fuelled corruption and organized crime in certain countries. There are many cases indicating that crime syndicates have used the colossal profits made from wildlife smuggling to finance purchases of weapons and ammunition or even terrorist attacks by armed elements. Some criminal gangs also have sophisticated weapons, and even use armed helicopters for cross-border poaching.
Wildlife smuggling not only threatens the ecological balance and affects regional security, but even poses a threat to public health. According to a report of the World Health Organization, up to 75% of human diseases including SARS, avian influenza and the Ebola virus are caused by pathogens originating from animals. In the light of this, the fight against wildlife smuggling not only serves to protect animal rights, but is absolutely a win-win action that benefits mankind as well as wildlife.
As the final destinations of most smuggled wildlife are Asian markets, in particular China and Thailand, Hong Kong often becomes a transit point for such contraband. Unfortunately, while the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED) has continuously cracked cases of wildlife smuggling, these smuggling activities remain unabated due to deficiencies in the existing monitoring system, penalties, prosecution and resource allocation.
As far as the monitoring system is concerned, although Hong Kong has in place a ban whereby only a stockpile of ivory imported before 1990, so-called “legal ivory”, is allowed to be sold, currently the authorities merely maintain a record of whole tusks and large cut pieces of ivory, but do not keep a record of ivory products. The black sheep of the ivory trade would, very often, process illegal ivory and sell it as legal ivory; that is, they would “launder” it, so to speak. This aside, under the existing legislation, the maximum penalties for wildlife smuggling are a fine of $5 million and imprisonment for two years. However, for the past two years, the average fine only ranged from $20,000 to $60,000. A fine at this level can hardly offset the huge illegal profits and does not have any deterrent effect.
Moreover, there is a lack of transparency of the Government’s disclosure of information on the ivory trade, making it difficult for the community to monitor the trade. For instance, as the authorities do not have a list of legal ivory traders and licensees in Hong Kong …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, as our fellow Members are so fond of having meetings, even to the extent of holding meetings over Christmas, let us summon them back! Please do a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, please continue with your speech.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): For instance, as the authorities do not have a list of legal ivory traders and licensees in Hong Kong, consumers do not have sufficient information to verify whether the ivory products purchased by them are legal. Also, the authorities’ law-enforcement efforts are inadequate. As at the beginning of this year, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) had only several inspectors responsible for inspecting all shops selling products made from precious, rare and endangered species. This reflects that the department has not devoted enough resources to inspections.
Therefore, the Hong Kong Government should step up its efforts both externally and internally. On the external front, the Government should enhance its communication and co-operation with other countries and regions, and deepen information exchanges and policy studies at the international level. On the internal front, the authorities should co-ordinate the collaboration of various departments, including the C&ED and the Immigration Department, in strengthening immigration control and intelligence gathering; conducting regularly joint and dedicated operations among various departments; plugging the loopholes in the existing system for monitoring the legal ivory stockpile in Hong Kong to ensure that every ivory product has a unique record serial number; as well as conducting regular spot checks. The authorities should also allocate additional resources to the front-line enforcement officers of the AFCD and the C&ED, and consider increasing the penalties as appropriate to achieve a greater deterrent effect.
The Government must also beef up its publicity and education efforts targeted at consumers, such as by putting up posters and notices in large shopping malls and major public places including the airport and boundary control points, and launching awareness campaigns on Internet platforms, with a view to raising public awareness of wildlife crime.
All in all, wildlife is the world’s natural treasure. If a species becomes extinct, it cannot be revived. Furthermore, species extinction and smuggling are putting the entire Earth in grave peril. We must, therefore, oppose and combat the smuggling of endangered wildlife. Not only is this the Government’s duty, but it also calls for the involvement of every member of the community.
By the way, I would like to say that Mr Martin LIAO agrees with what I said in this speech. I so submit.