House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Dec 1996 (pt 13)

12.46 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has raised an issue of great interest to the House and beyond. I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the Government's approach to the subject. I shall answer in detail the hon. Gentleman's question about our attitude toward the listing of Brazilian mahogany under appendix II of the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species.

It may be helpful if I begin by reminding the House that CITES provides a framework for regulating international trade in wild plants and animals. The convention has been agreed by more than 130 countries and levels of control differ according to the degree of threat to the species. Commercial trade in more than 800 species is banned and trade in a further 25,000 species is subject to licensing procedures. The convention has three levels of controls on the international trade in endangered species. Broadly speaking, those listed on appendix I may not be traded; those listed on appendix II--to which the hon. Gentleman referred--may be traded only when both the exporting and the importing states agree that the shipment would not harm the conservation status of the species; while appendix III species are subject to monitoring at the request of the state or states for which they are listed.

The hon Gentleman has asked the Government to submit a proposal to the conference to list Brazilian mahogany on appendix II of the convention. International trade in Brazilian mahogany has been monitored under CITES since November last year, when the species was added to appendix III. Provisional figures show that some 25,500 cu m were imported into the United Kingdom in the 12 months since then. Adding the species to appendix II of the convention would not, in itself, ban imports into the United Kingdom or anywhere else but it would place an obligation on the exporting countries to ensure that timber was logged sustainably.

A proposal to list the species on appendix II failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote at the last CITES conference, in 1994, despite support from the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union. If a new proposal is put before the next conference, we will consider it carefully in the light of the scientific evidence and current circumstances. I cannot anticipate the Government's position on possible future

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1000

proposals at this stage, although it is a matter of record that we have twice supported CITES controls on Brazilian mahogany, but I can say, in response to the hon. Gentleman's concern, that we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should take the initiative and submit a proposal to the conference. I shall tell him why.

We believe that CITES listing proposals should generally be made by the range states for the species concerned. If that is not possible, there should at least be close consultation with them. Like all international agreements, CITES depends on co-operation between the member countries for its success. That does not mean consensus. There will be differences of opinion, and sometimes the evidence demands that species be protected even if some range states disagree, but no debate will be productive if the starting point is one country seeming to tell another what to do with its natural resources.

The House will have listened with interest to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in that regard, particularly to what he said about help that this country gives to assist sustainable development in Brazil. In addition to the help to which he referred, the Overseas Development Administration is providing £19 million of aid to assist Brazil with sustainable forest projects.

CITES exists because some conservation problems require global solutions. Sometimes, range states make listing proposals themselves. Sometimes they may lack the capacity to do so alone. On other occasions they may feel that CITES controls are unnecessary. Whatever the circumstances, pre-conference consultation is a prerequisite of informed discussion. The CITES parties endorsed that principle four years ago when they agreed that draft proposals should be circulated to range states well in advance of the deadline for final submission.

It is very late for the United Kingdom to begin consultations on a Brazilian mahogany proposal for the next CITES conference when final documents have to be submitted, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South rightly said, by 10 January 1997. We would be in breach of the agreed way of working if we went ahead without any consultation.

That does not mean that we shall take a back seat at the conference. The United Kingdom has always been active in promoting international action through CITES. In preparation for next year's conference, we are heavily engaged in a major initiative on the impact of traditional east Asian medicines on a wide range of animals and plants, some of them critically endangered. This is in addition to our responsibilities as vice-chair of the convention's standing committee. We shall also take a close interest in the outcome of the international working group on timber, which was established following the UK's initiative at the 1994 conference.

Mr. Simpson: The UK was involved in last month's conference in Puerto Rico, particularly with regard to Brazilian mahogany being at risk as an endangered species. What are the prospects of the conference's findings being fed into the next round, the COP 10 round? Following the "Dispatches" programme, in what way will the knowledge that the UK has about members of the Brazilian Timber Exporters Federation being actively involved in illegal and unsustainable logging and

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1001

exporting to the UK form part of the representations that the United Kingdom is making and the action that the United Kingdom plans to take?

Mr. Clappison: We will, of course, reflect on the content of the conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in our approach towards next year's conference. We will be governed as well by the principles, which I have just outlined, in the approach we take. They are valuable principles if we are to achieve international co-operation. We will seek information on the subject and will reflect carefully on it. I will deal with the important issue of private loggers in due course. The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I dealt with that subject at length in an Adjournment debate earlier this year.

I shall put the matter into context, because many of the concerns expressed about the species are as much to do with forest management in the producer countries as the effects of international trade. The vast majority of timber logged in the Amazon is used domestically. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham adverted to that when he said that up to 50 per cent. of it was used within Brazil. CITES recognises that the prime responsibility for managing wildlife lies with the countries concerned. The convention's controls provide an additional and essential safeguard for species that qualify for listing, but that does not take away the responsibility of individual countries to manage their own resources sustainably.

I now deal with the internal situation in Brazil. I understand that, shortly after the previous Adjournment debate on mahogany in July this year, the Brazilian Government announced new measures to regulate timber extraction in the Amazon basin. Private landowners were to be restricted to clearing 20 per cent. of forests on their land rather than the previously allowed 50 per cent. A two-year moratorium was proposed on the granting of new authorisations for the commercial exploitation of mahogany and other timber species. Where logging continued, management plans and practices would be inspected by the responsible Government agency. There would be an extra US$6 million for new facilities and equipment. Monitoring rates of deforestation would be intensified. Those measures were confirmed at a recent meeting of the International Tropical Timber Organisation.

I shall touch briefly on some of the actions that the UK is taking to help preserve and enhance the world's forests. I have already mentioned the funds that have been made available from the ODA. I can tell the House that current projects cover basic scientific research, biodiversity conservation and trials of sustainable land management approaches. The UK is also committed to supporting the objectives of a large multi-donor pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest.

Many other international initiatives on forest management concerned with conservation and sustainable use are in progress. The first international consensus in that sphere was a statement of principles on the sustainable management of the world's forests, agreed at the Earth summit in Rio. The UK played a leading role in securing that agreement. The UK also played a major role in establishing the UN intergovernmental panel on forests,

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1002

which will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development in 1997 with specific proposals to follow up the principles agreed in Rio.

Mr. Chris Davies (Littleborough and Saddleworth): Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clappison: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would restrain himself for a minute. I will make a little more progress, if I may.

We hope that the panel will produce agreement on criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management on the basis of national plans, and devise a mechanism for periodic international review of the forestry sector.

European countries followed up Rio with a commitment to the Helsinki guidelines for sustainable forest management. Thirty-eight European countries are now committed to implementing them. In 1994, we published "Sustainable Forestry: The UK Programme", which details UK action for sustainable forestry management at home.

CITES has been the focus of the debate. We acknowledge that it has a role to play in all this activity. It is one of the oldest of the international wildlife agreements. It offers practical safeguards for species threatened by over-intensive international trade. As an importing country, we must do our best to satisfy ourselves that the timber that we buy from other countries has been logged without endangering forest biodiversity, which is so very precious for the world. We must also recognise that, in many cases, conservation of the world's forests depends on sustainable harvesting. Import bans are not a sensible option for species such as Brazilian mahogany.

Controlled monitoring under CITES might be a useful addition to the forestry management measures that the Brazilian Government are taking. We do not believe that it would be helpful for the UK to take upon itself the responsibility of sponsoring a listing, but we have supported proposals in the past to list mahogany on appendix II and so provide further safeguards. I can reassure the House that we will look carefully at any proposal that meets the agreed criteria.