WILDLIFE CRIME

WILDLIFE TRADE, TRAFFICKING AND REGULATION IN HONG KONG
Enforcement and prosecution
Hong Kong’s CED is charged with the duty to
prevent the smuggling of threatened species
into Hong Kong. Where threatened species
or their derivatives are shipped without the
appropriate permits, cargo can be seized
and confiscated. Over the past five years, the
value of such seizures has been increasing,
reaching more than HK$110 million in 2013 and
HK$117 million by October 2015 199 . Notably
CED estimates that only 10% of illegal goods
are successfully seized 200 . While AFCD is in
charge of inspecting and monitoring wildlife
products in the local market, without effective
collaboration between AFCD and CED, goods
that have evaded customs controls on
their way into Hong Kong are unlikely to be
discovered on their way out, when there is no
obligation to check them.
AFCD is charged with a duty to check that
the country of origin export permits are
compliant with local licensing requirements
under Cap 586 201 . Where permits are found to
be irregular (e.g. the wrong species is listed),
the Department can refuse to issue requisite
import or possession licenses 202 and may seize
animals (parts or products) that contravene
CITES restrictions. Notably, import permits
to meet the requirement of CITES (under Cap
586) are issued by AFCD only for i) Appendix I
listed species and ii) Appendix II listed species
that are live animals or plants of wild origin,
and thus are not required for wildlife products
such as shark fin 203 . Appendix I captive bred
animals and artificially propagated plants are
treated as Appendix II specimens 204 .
In practice, imports are accepted and where
required, import permits for Hong Kong and
export permits to the rest of the region are
usually issued by AFCD without investigation
of the validity of the CITES exports permits
that support entry to the Territory 205 (see
Appendix B for examples). While it may be
impractical for AFCD to contact corresponding
national CITES authorities for every shipment,
these export permits are accepted by AFCD
at face value, even where animals are being
sourced from countries known to have a high
occurrence of illegal trade and unsustainable
harvesting. If the HKSAR Government is to
ensure that it is not complicit in the laundering
of CITES Appendix II and III listed animals
by approving import permits on face value
without investigation of whether the animals
have been sustainably harvested, the current
protocols for issuing import licenses should be
reviewed 206 .
Such practices contravene the rules and spirit
of CITES which require that trade in Appendix II
listed species should only be permitted where
there is no detrimental effect to the survival
of the species and Appendix III listed species
must have been legally harvested to be legally
traded 207 . Parties are also expected to remain
in communication regarding trade in listed
species.
Improving legislation and practices to control
the trade in threatened species will not
assist in meeting the problems highlighted
in this paper unless such improvements
are supported by effective enforcement,
prosecutions and sufficient penalties. Low
inspection 208 rates for sea vessels, reporting
exemptions that appear to be outdated, lax
controls on locally registered fishing boats
that are functionally cargo vessels (not fishing
vessels), ready provision of permits for import
and export of CITES listed species, and Hong
Kong’s generally open attitude to commerce
have all contributed to making the Territory an
epicentre for trade in threatened species 209 .
23