House of Commons Hansard Debates for 3 Nov 1993

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : With permission, I should like to make ashort business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be : Motions on Members' pensions

Motions relating to statutory instruments on sports grounds and sporting events

Motions on parliamentary Questions

Proceedings on the following consolidation Bills :

The Crofters (Scotland) Bill [Lords] , the Scottish Land Court Bill [Lords] , the Health Service Commissioners Bill [Lords] , the Probation Service Bill [Lords] , the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] , the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords] ;

followed by a motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties. The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Could he answer two simple questions? First, he has courteously come tonight with a statement about tomorrow's business. Why could he not have come at seven o'clock with a statement about the business earlier this evening? Secondly, will he tell the House, so that there is no doubt, what will be the procedure if the Lords sustain their opposition to the Railways Bill when they receive our report tomorrow? What is the constitutional position?

Mr. Newton : On the first question, it will be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection, because he was here, that there was criticism from some quarters of my intervention at seven o'clock on the ground that, even as a brief point of order, it took time out of a guillotined debate. Some of that criticism was perhaps subsequently deployed for other reasons, but at any rate that criticism was made. If I had made a statement, which would have been followed by extensive questioning, that would certainly have damaged a guillotined debate and would have been a legitimate cause for complaint among those involved with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. As for the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is for others to give advice on the rest of the matters that he raised.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) : In thanking my right hon. Friend for an interesting and entertaining evening, may I ask whether he agrees that it does not bestow any great dignity on the House if certain Members, from whatever party, sabotage democratic procedures in such a way that the--

Madam Speaker : Order. We are dealing with a business statement. We are discussing tomorrow's business, not making long statements about what has gone on, which I deplore as much as anyone in the House. If the hon. Gentleman has a question about tomorrow's business, I will hear it. But that is all that I will hear.

Mr. Hayes : I am most grateful for that, Madam Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree with Madam Speaker that it would be quite wrong for any further sabotage to take place tomorrow?

Column 486

Mr. Newton : I can hardly decline to agree with Madam Speaker. More to the point, I should like to make the point in response to my hon. Friend --it is relevant to the business statement--that one of the reasons for the statement was our inability to get through business that was properly laid for today, because of tactics in the Division Lobbies which exceeded anything that I have seen in 20 years in the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South) : I had not intended to respond to the business statement, because I did not want to detain the House at this hour. However, it should be put on the record that it is because the Government sought to stampede their business through the House earlier tonight that they will have to come back tomorrow with business which, if they had proceeded reasonably through proper discussion and agreement, we could have dealt with tonight. It serves the Government right.

Mr. Newton : If the right hon. Lady thinks that that kind of point justifies the blocking tactics that we saw in the Division Lobby today, this is a very sorry day for this place.

Mrs. Angela Knight (Erewash) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disgraceful behaviour of Opposition Members, the filibustering and the delays in the Lobby showed the real negation of democracy tonight?

Mr. Newton : I agree that were those tactics to be seen again, that would raise real questions about the commitment of those on the Opposition Front Bench to democratic procedures in the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will not tomorrow's business be rather crowded, as there are already many orders set out in the Remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on the Order Paper? Instead of having to come to the House to make repeated business statements, would it not be better for the Government to recognise that they have put themselves in a hole through their insistence on regarding Parliament as a legislative sausage machine and extend the business into next week so that we can have a proper timetable for debate on issues such as unemployment, the difficulties of manufacturing industry and the difficulties facing people on low incomes? We could very usefully spend next week debating a host of subjects if we did not have this pressure behind us all the time.

Mr. Newton : If there is any pressure on tomorrow's business of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman objects, the fault lies with the tactics that were used by the Opposition tonight.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : If there are any messages from the other place tomorrow, at what stage in our proceedings with they be taken? Will they be taken before or after the debate on the motion on pay for Opposition parties?

Mr. Newton : I obviously cannot predict the timing without knowing the timing of progress in another place. However, I anticipate that the timing would be such that the debate on the motion to which my hon. Friend referred would be after the consideration of Lords messages.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The Leader of the House must stop whining about the proceedings earlier

Column 487

this evening and address the points at issue. Why is it not possible to make a business statement after guillotined business, as opposed to making points of order during guillotined business?

Mr. Newton : Because, as I said at the time, the obvious need for the House to consider the message from the Lords in our view--and I make no apology for that--made it right to give the House notice of the intention to discuss those messages at the earliest possible moment, and that is what I did.

Mr. Peter Luff (Worcester) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling scenes that we witnessed earlier this evening, including deliberate attempts to undermine the authority of the Chair, owed a great deal to the Labour party's embarrassment over the fact that it did not have enough hon. Members in the House to achieve a decent vote in the Division Lobby? Labour played for time to allow Labour Members to return. What conversations will my right hon. Friend have through the usual channels to ensure that the Labour party has the courtesy to have adequate numbers of hon. Members here in good time for the debates tomorrow?

Mr. Newton : I have no doubt that there will be some discussions about that matter and others through the usual channels. At least, I hope that there will be such discussions. In view of the terms used by my hon. Friend, the worst thing about tonight is that there is no sign that those on the Opposition Front Bench even have the grace to be embarrassed about it.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the motions relating to football spectators are the motions that we should have debated this evening, and that those motions were on the Order Paper as a result of a request from the official Opposition ? Bearing in mind the fact that that business was lost today as a result of the Labour party's disgraceful behaviour, why are we to debate it tomorrow ? Why not just drop it ?

Mr. Newton : That business was placed on the Order Paper properly. While I have every sympathy with and share the irritation expressed by my hon. Friend, it is proper that business that is placed on the Order Paper properly, as this busines was, should be discussed properly--if the Opposition allow that to happen tomorrow.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : In responding to my right hon. Friend's business statement 48 hours ago, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that it was a "constitutional outrage". Is not the true constitutional outrage the antics of the Labour party, which has lost both the argument and the votes tonight ?

Mr. Newton : Yes.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Given that we are debating so many fascinating and interesting matters tomorrow, would it be possible to squeeze in an extra debate on the tactics that were adopted this evening, and give the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) the opportunity to repudiate Labour Whips who lied about the figures in the Division Lobby in an attempt to get divisions declared void ?

Column 488

Mr. Newton : I shall bear that request in mind, although it might cause some difficulty if I were to make a supplementary business statement immediately.

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) : May I add my support to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) ? Tomorrow's business is full, and perhaps it might be appropriate to drop the debate on money for the Opposition parties. Perhaps it might also be made clear that the use of books to block the Serjeant at Arms from coming through the door is singularly inappropriate parliamentary action.

Mr. Newton : It was the episode with the books, which I had heard about, that led me to say earlier that, while every hon. Member has seen ups and downs, to put it mildly, over a long period--in my case, 20 years-- I have never seen tactics like that adopted, whether in this or any other cause.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Would it not be easier to handle business in the House if we met a little more often? When we come back to debate the Queen's Speech, we shall have been away for 14 out of 17 weeks. Since the election of the present Prime Minister, the House has not been sitting for 40 per cent. of those weeks. That is why some of us thought that the vote tonight was disgraceful.

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman has expressed those views in various other ways before. I can only say that they do not appear to be shared by the large number of hon. Members who clearly wish to see progress on the Jopling report.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : When we debate the financing of Opposition parties, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is time to debate the appalling behaviour of the Labour party, and will he ensure that there is time to debate the lack of discipline in it, in the context of a complete absence of leadership? Will he also ensure that there is time tomorrow to ask the question, "When will the Buddha speak?"

Mr. Newton : I shall do my best to ensure that there is time available to debate those matters, but it will depend, once again, on the Opposition, being prepared to behave in a reasonably orderly fashion.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Is it not the case that the incompetence and clumsiness of those on the Government Front Bench makes an elephant look like a dainty ballet dancer?

Mr. Newton : There is nothing in the behaviour of those on the Government Front Bench that leads to, or justifies, the blocking of Division Lobbies with books so as to prevent proper procedures in the House.

Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon) : On the subject of the behaviour of the Government Front Bench, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that if the Government get into similar problems over time tomorrow, the Government Whips will be restrained from physically assaulting hon. Members?

Mr. Newton : That is a serious allegation. I have no doubt that if the Hon. Gentleman wishes to persist with it, Madam Speaker will cause it to be looked at.

Several hon. Members rose --

Column 489

Madam Speaker : Order. That is enough. We have to move on to the petition.

PETITON

Forestry Commission Land

1.34 am

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 800 people living in Ludlow and surrounding areas, expressing their concern about the loss of public access when Forestry Commission woodlands are sold. The petition states : The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall ensure that if any further land owned or managed by the Forestry Commission is sold, provision shall be made that the public shall continue to enjoy freedom of access for recreational activities in perpetuity.

To lie upon the Table .

Column 490

Elephant Conservation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]

1.34 am

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : In retrospect, this is probably not the best night to have the Adjournment debate, but I am, none the less, grateful that I was given the opportunity. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have common concerns with regard to the welfare of animals. I strongly recommend to you a wonderful book by Heathcote Williams, entitled "Sacred Elephant". The book is a combination of epic poem, pictures and prose. It moves me to tears whenever I read it because it tells of a gentle giant of a creature with a complex social structure, a language, great intelligence, sensitivity and emotions--a glorious mystical creature at first revered by man but later killed, mutilated, exploited, tortured and humiliated by man.

The elephant's interaction with man goes back into the mists of antiquity. Brahma, it is said, concealed in each of the animals a profound secret. The elephant was

"a beast of the moon with crescent tusks who has emerged from the churning seas."

He said that he had concealed wisdom. Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, had the head of an elephant towering above her own, and elephants pulling her chariots of knowledge. To the early Christians, the elephant was the bearer of all infirmities and lord protector, treading serpents underfoot. The Romans believed that the elephant was a religious animal. Pliny observed it

"worshipping the sun and stars and purifying itself at the new moon, bathing in the river and invoking the heavens."

Those are the myths about the elephant--the facts are even more astounding. They reveal a creature remarkably like ourselves, but with one vital exception--elephants do not possess our obscene cruelty. When an elephant gives birth, another female--the midwife elephant--will stand by until the process is complete. The females will never desert their young. The young show respect for the old. Among land mammals, the only brain larger than man's is the elephant's. Elephants can communicate sub-sonically with each other. Low-frequency sounds can travel more than 12 miles. The only other example of low-frequency communication among animals is the call of the whale, another highly developed social creature. It is said that, with the single exception of the whale, the elephant is the finest swimmer of all mammals. Journeys of more than 300 miles have been recorded.

Elephants never attack the weak, even when being hunted. Threatened and attacked by overwhelming odds, the bulls will place themselves in the line of fire, dying in the cause of the greater good, and protecting the young. They can live for up to 200 years, but few are left to die naturally. Captured and tied up for hours in a logging camp, an elephant will commit suicide. Elephants mourn and bury their dead. A captured elephant will perform last rites upon itself. An elephant in distress will weep salt tears--something that we thought only human beings did.

In today's world, the elephant has much cause to weep, and so have we. Last century, there were probably 10 million elephants, in 1970 there were 2 million, in 1979 there were an estimated 1.3 million and in 1989 there were fewer than 625,000. When I had a similar Adjournment debate on the subject in May 1989, the information

Column 491

provided by the Minister for Overseas Development indicated that the elephant population in Africa could be as low as 300,000 to 400, 000.

Since 1970, the main cause of the decline has been killing for ivory--ivory for billiard balls, children's toys, jewellery, carvings and personal seals ; magnificent creatures slaughtered for ephemeral trash.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES, listed the Indian elephant on appendix I in 1976. The African elephant was not placed in appendix I until 1989. A worldwide ban on the ivory trade was finally implemented in January 1990, but with a number of countries entering reservations, including the United Kingdom on behalf of Hong Kong. The price of ivory has been greatly reduced, but the demand is still there.

Before the last CITES meeting in Kyoto, an upsurge in poaching was reported in many parts of Africa. Clearly, ivory traders were hoping that the ivory ban would be weakened. They were disappointed, but the traders will try again, supported by a number of African countries. Will the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that, at the next CITES meeting, the British Government will not waver when the question of reopening a legal ivory trade will undoubtedly be raised?

The Government informed me in July this year that they spend £2.85 million on conservation projects which may--I emphasise the word may-- include benefits for elephants, but the sum is tiny in comparison with the scale of the problem and the significance of the objective : to save the African elephant from extinction. In Zimbabwe, the department of national parks and wildlife management literally ran out of money for four months of this year. As a consequence, rhino and elephant poachers had a free hand, and 85 white rhino and an unknown number of elephants were killed. Many elephant carcases were reported to have been seen along the base of the Zambesi escarpment. Will the Government announce a substantial increase in funds dedicated to elephant conservation schemes in Africa? Money is needed for helicopters, infra-red detection equipment and Land-Rovers. All are desperately needed.

We in this country might have some economic problems, but saving the African elephant is far more significant. Economic problems, rather like Governments, come and go, but should the African elephant go it will never come back. An announcement of a significant increase in funding for elephant conservation schemes from the Government would receive widespread support in the House and country. The great paradox of elephant conservation in Africa is that, while the total number of elephants is falling, there are a few areas where local over-population occurs. As a result, steps are being taken to control the elephant population, and culling is the usual method adopted. About 500 elephants are killed each year in the Kruger national park to keep South Africa's sole remaining sizeable elephant population at about 8,000.

Zimbabwe usually kills a few thousand each year, but in December 1991, the director of the Zimbabwe wildlife department announced the need to eliminate half the country's elephant population. If it goes through, it will kill some 35,000 animals.

Column 492

Culling of elephants is cruel, inhumane and ethically wrong. There are alternatives, and I am deeply grateful to Ian Redmond, co-ordinator of the African Ele-Fund for providing me with details. Culling is portrayed as the humane, almost clinical, removal of a proportion of the population. Whole families of elephants are surrounded and killed in order to avoid leaving stressed individuals or groups who have lost their close relatives. That reasoning ignores the higher social organisation of elephant clans, their ability to communicate over several kilometres by means of infrasonic distress calls and their acute sense of smell. In addition, calves kept alive to be sold into captivity undergo severe trauma. Most are destined for a short life of social and sensory deprivation.

The question is whether culling can pay for conservation. It is often said that sales of elephant products resulting from culling operations can help to pay for conservation work. Yet culling elephants is itself an expensive business. In 1989, a Zimbabwean warden estimated that it cost $102 per elephant to cull 500, and a further $334 per animal to recover the carcases. At those prices, the proposed cull of 35,000 elephants would cost the Zimbabwean authorities more than $15 million.

Then the question of whose elephants they are arises. When elephants cross international boundaries, they create problems for wildlife managers. Elephant populations are calculated on a national basis, and management decisions taken accordingly. But is it right for one country, say, to provide artificial water holes which attract elephants from neighbouring countries, then count them all and decide that there are too many for the habitat to sustain and order a cull? That is questionable, especially when the resulting ivory and skins are intended to be sold to raise foreign exchange for the Government Treasury.

Revenue from tourism may suffer in two ways from culling--first, tourists who oppose culling are likely to visit other countries with more benign attitudes tvations by tourists will be difficult. Many scientists believe that elephant populations will find their own level if left alone, but that may fluctuate in cycles. The natural way allows elephants to survive in extreme situations in genetic terms, but the survival of the fittest will prevail. Culling, on the other hand, does not improve the gene core. It reduces the genetic and cultural diversity of the population by wiping out families with the loss of their accumulated knowledge of local conditions and the end of their genetic lines. Most conservationists are fighting to maintain genetic diversity in populations of endangered species. Culling, as practised today, does exactly the opposite.

Increasing the areas available to elephants is an ideal solution, given the amount of pressure that man puts on herds. Given the profitability of eco- tourism, wildlife reserves are increasingly seen as an alternative, more sustainable way of managing elephant resources. It is much more profitable than agriculture.

Care for the Wild relies on voluntary donations for the removal of a large number of elephants. The relocation of elephants seems to be the way that management of the resource could be achieved. In Asia, elephants whose habitat has been converted to agriculture, or whose crop raiding behaviour becomes a problem, are moved. Individuals, especially bulls, are tranquillised and

Column 493

transported on trucks or barges, and herds have been driven over considerable distances to save protected areas. African wildlife departments could learn from their Asian counterparts and adopt those techniques when conditions allow.

Recently, I had a meeting with members of Care for the Wild who were involved in the moving of complete family groups to suitable areas or other countries where elephant populations have been depleted by poaching. In July, Care for the Wild moved 500 elephants at a cost of £305 per head. New reserves are being set up in Zimbabwe by ranchers getting rid of uneconomic cattle. In one project, 800,000 acreas have been established and elephants moved there.

Zimbabwe national parks want a further 500 elephants removed from one of the areas early next year. Of course, an organisation such as Care for the Wild can greatly assist. It relies on voluntary donations. Recently, it received an exceedingly generous donation of £500,000 from Mr. Peter Borender, but more funds are desperately needed. Will the Government earmark special funds for removal schemes such as those operated by Care for the Wild?

Another possibility is elephant birth control. The Born Free Foundation has drawn up a three-year project for elephant fertility control under the supervision of Professor Roger Short, who recently published papers on the matter in The Lancet. Funds for the project are needed. They are not immense funds--certainly they are well within the compass of the Government to afford, and they would get the support of the House and the country as a whole. Will the Government discuss the Born Free Foundation project with a view to funding it? Culling is not the only solution to the problem of local over-population of elephants. The alternatives presented here could, by capitalising on eco-tourism, be more profitable than culling, and would be more compatible with the mood of the public worldwide. They also have the advantage of saving rather than destroying the lives of elephants.

I quote :

"In Pali scriptures it is duly set forth that the form under which Buddha will descend to the earth for the last time, will be that of a beautiful young white elephant, open-jawed, with a head the colour of cochineal, with tusks shining like silver sparkling with gems, covered with a splendid netting of gold, perfect in its organs and limbs, and majestic in appearance'."

If that is the form in which Buddha returns to earth, he is likely to feel very lonely, as he could end up being the only elephant left.

1.49 am

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for raising this important issue, and pay tribute to him for his long-standing interest in elephant protection and conservation. Elephant conservation is an interest I share personally and a cause to which the Government remain fully committed, as evidenced by the support on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope).

I led the United Kingdom delegation at the conference in Kyoto last year of the parties to CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The discussion of the elephant issue loomed large. In talks with Ministers and senior representatives from African countries, I was able to hear

Column 494

at first hand of the problems they face in conserving their elephant population in their differing countries and of their concerns.

Since the CITES conference, we have been playing a full and, indeed, leading role in maintaining dialogue with various Governments and we have also been active in promoting and funding conservation projects. I therefore welcome this opportunity to review action on promoting elephant conservation.

The United Kingdom was among the first countries to recognise the seriousness of the threat to elephants from poaching and pressure of human populations. A number of United Kingdom-based organisations, from the World Wild Fund for Nature to Elefriends and others mentioned, have been active in ensuring people had a good understanding of possible threats to elephant populations. The Government have long been in the forefront of international efforts to save this magnificent creature from extinction, so can I set out some of the action that we are taking.

Under CITES, the Asian elephant has always been fully protected, and monitoring of trade in some African elephants began in 1976. Numbers continued to decline, and tighter restrictions were introduced the following year. Commercial trade was then allowed only if sanctioned by the exporting country.

Sadly, despite these efforts, the African elephant continued to suffer losses at the hands of ruthless, determined and well-organised poachers. In 1980, there were estimated to be some 1.3 million elephants in Africa. Less than 10 years later, only 600,000 or so survived.

By 1989, it was clear that the threat to the elephant was both serious and immediate. We decided that the African elephant should, without delay, be given the maximum protection available by the international community. We made clear our intention to support a worldwide ban on trade in elephant products. We went further and persuaded our European Community partners to join us in imposing an immediate ban on imports of ivory into the Community without waiting for a decision on a general international ban through CITES. The whole question of the conservation of the African elephant and the proposed trade ban was fully discussed at the CITES conference held in 1989. Amid some controversy, the conference agreed to ban the ivory trade, but acknowledged that different elephant range states had different problems. The conference accordingly decided to leave the door open for countries that had stable or increasing elephant populations, and were able to meet strict conditions, to apply in due course to resume trade in their elephant populations. Such countries argued that income from any trade in elephant products could be reapplied to the overall conservation and would give local farmers and local people an incentive to protect elephants.

At the Kyoto conference, South Africa, on its own, and the four other Southern African countries which form the Southern African Centre for Ivory Marketing--SACIM--put forward proposals to reopen such trade under the conditions laid down in 1989. The SACIM countries are Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and Malawi. The essence of the conditions was that any proposals had to satisfy a panel of experts appointed by CITES that particular elephant populations were healthy and free from danger, and that any legal trade in ivory would not give rise to illegal trade threatening elephant populations in other countries.

Column 495

The panel of experts' report indicated that some of those countries had managed to meet most of the conditions drawn up in 1989. Before the Kyoto conference, we had held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We had examined all the available evidence, including the panel of experts' report, and I told the conference :

"the ban on trade imposed in 1989 has been highly effective : the price of ivory has plummeted taking with it interest in poaching. The UK is determined that there shall be no return to the dismal days before the ban, when poaching was rife. We have held extensive discussions with experts from around the world, and national and international organisations. We have examined all the available evidence and we have noted in particular that the Panel of Experts found continuing illegal trade elsewhere in Southern Africa. Further, the Panel commented on the problems of controlling open bush borders. We therefore remain unconvinced that any country can prevent the mixing of legal and illegal ivory. Allowing trade in other elephant products would inevitably be seen by some as a precursor to the resumption of trade in ivory. This would lead to more poaching and mounting ivory stock piles.

We recognise, however, that import bans alone can achieve nothing. A United Kingdom--or even a global--boycott of elephant products will not guarantee the survival of elephants. Their well-being depends instead on the efforts of the African countries where they are found. We understand the pressures which poverty and growing populations place on some countries. The burden of conserving elephants for all our children to enjoy must not fall on them alone."

That is what I said in Kyoto and, against that background, we and the rest of the international community agreed that the existing ban on the trade in elephant products should continue.

That decision left the SACIM countries feeling hurt and misunderstood, and it is clear that opinion within Africa remained worryingly divided on elephant conservation. There was even talk of some countries leaving CITES. So we saw an urgent need to develop greater understanding among all concerned on the question of elephant conservation and trade. The challenge was to look for a way forward that took account of the legitimate concerns and aspirations of elephant range states, without jeopardising the progress made since the introduction of the ivory trade ban, and which recognised the importance of a coherent and co-ordinated African approach to elephant conservation.

At our instigation, the European Community pressed strongly in Kyoto for the dialogue between elephant range states and other interested parties to be maintained between conferences. Since then, the United Kingdom has taken the lead in promoting and co-ordinating further discussions.

In November last year, the United Kingdom led a delegation of EC officials to Africa to discuss the issues of elephant conservation and trade in depth. The main objective of the mission was to explore the scope for building consensus among African states on the elephant and ivory trade issue before the next CITES conference in 1994. During nearly two weeks of intensive discussions, the mission visited four countries and met representatives of nine African Governments, including the SACIM group, as well as a number of non-governmental organisations, field workers and independent experts.

The mission was thus able to gain a valuable insight into the problems which African countries face in trying to conserve their elephant populations. It recognised the validity of the concerns of the countries seeking a

Column 496

reopening of trade, whose elephant populations were stable or increasing, and remained relatively unaffected by poaching--except possibly in Zimbabwe, which has had some recent problems. On the other hand, other range states felt equally strongly that any relaxation in the CITES trade ban would put their own more vulnerable elephant populations at risk. From all Governments, there was a recognition that countries should be able, other things being equal, to use wildlife sustainably, and that trade could play a part in that.

It was therefore clear to the mission that there was both scope and need to work harder to diminish the misunderstandings and tension evident at the CITES conference. In the light of its discussions, the mission concluded that the best way of promoting dialogue and improving understanding would be to promote a further meeting of key African elephant range states and other interested parties to prepare the ground for whatever might be proposed at the 1994 CITES conference.

Following the mission, we consulted extensively on the proposals for a further meeting, which were supported in principle by African states, our EC partners and other interested parties. We proposed a meeting covering the concerns of the SACIM countries and South Africa as well as those of the other African range states.

We hoped that such a meeting would provide an opportunity for southern African countries and range states from elsewhere in Africa to explain their concerns in a calmer climate than has been possible at CITES conferences.

We have since been trying to finalise an agenda on the basis I have outlined, but this has not proved to be an easy task. In particular, the SACIM countries have suggested that the main purpose of the discussion should be to explore the possibility of persuading others to accept the SACIM position on the reopening of the ivory trade. While we recognise SACIM's particular problems and concerns, and agree that it is important that any meeting should devote a substantial part of the agenda to those concerns, other parties have indicated that any meeting should allow enough room for their perspectives and points of view to be considered alongside SACIM's. That must be right. The conservation of the African elephant is essentially an African issue, which will be resolved only if we can find a way forward that all parts of Africa can support.

We are now trying to draw up a balanced agenda that provides an adequate opportunity for all the regions of Africa to express their views on this complex and sensitive subject. I remain hopeful that we shall be able to find a basis for discussion that is acceptable to all those involved.

Some African countries have already made impressive progress in improving the management of their wildlife resources. In Kenya, for example, the Kenyan wildlife service, under Richard Leakey's leadership, has dramatically improved the management of Kenya's wildlife and its network of protected areas. Kenya has succeeded in virtually eliminating elephant poaching, and has made impressive strides in developing intelligence networks and increasing the involvement of local communities.

Kenya's experience has shown how much the conservation of Africa's elephants and other wildlife depends on national wildlife departments that are adequately resourced, well organised and well managed. The problem is that not all elephant range states have the resources and expertise that they need to monitor,

Next Section

Home Page