I refer to your editorial ("Make ivory the new shark's fin", October 24). The proposition that Hong Kong should regard any use of elephant ivory and shark fins as equally shameful, in order to better serve conservation interests, is in need of clarification.
All elephant species and subspecies are on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), which constitutes international, expert acceptance that their wild populations are threatened by international trade.
Only three of 440 species of sharks and rays are listed on Cites, and are on Appendix II, meaning they could become threatened in the future unless trade is controlled. Although legal trade in stockpiled ivory is occasionally sanctioned, current concerns are about the mounting illegal trade.
Trade in shark fin is legal. It is exported legally by countries all over the world and imported legally into Hong Kong. With African elephants, which provide most illegal ivory, there is a north-south spilt over the best ways to conserve, manage and sustainably use elephants.
In round figures, the 10 nations in southern Africa have 90 per cent of the African elephant population, they are secure and increasing in number, and the nations petition Cites regularly for the right to trade in excess ivory. In contrast, the 30-plus countries in north, central and west Africa, have 10 per cent of the population, and 90 per cent of the problems with illegal poaching and trade.
We should all act to curtail illegal trade in elephants and sharks, but opposing legal trade as well hurts the countries trying to manage their resources sustainably and legally.