CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED
SPECIES (CITES)
(21127)
7213/00
COM(00) 146
|
Draft Council Decision on the Community position to be adopted on
certain proposals submitted to the 11th meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Gigiri, Kenya, 10-20 April
2000.
|
| Legal base:
| Article 133 EC; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated:
| 17 March 2000
|
| Forwarded to the Council:
| 23 March 2000
|
| Deposited in Parliament:
| 14 April 2000
|
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Undated EM |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| See paragraph 4 below
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared; but further information requested
|
Background
12.1 Although the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was
changed in 1983 to allow organisations such as the Community to
become a party, an insufficient number of parties have ratified
this change for it to come into effect, and representation thus
still remains with the Member States. However, the Commission
takes the view that, since the decisions taken under the Convention
affect the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97[17]
on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating
the trade in them, it is necessary, on the basis of Article 133[18]
of the Treaty, to adopt a Community position on proposals submitted
to the Convention. It therefore sought in this document to establish
such a position before the 11th meeting of the Conference of the
parties held in Kenya from 10-20 April 2000.
The current document
12.2 As the document makes clear, there
were a large number of agenda items for the Conference, covering
strategic and administrative matters, interpretation and implementation
of the Convention, and proposals to amend the appendices. According
to the Commission, the first group of items does not generally
impact on Council Regulation No. 338/97, and the second group,
whilst of some technical importance, was unlikely to have a very
high public profile. On the other hand, the Commission regarded
the amendments to the appendices, dealing with the level of protection
afforded to different species, as "certain to prove controversial".
In particular, it identified four areas as likely to dominate
discussions:
- whales, where the
Commission said the Community's position of no return to commercial
whaling until the International Whaling Commission deems that
the appropriate management controls are in place, should be "unambiguous";
- African elephants,
where it said that, following the experimental re-opening of international
trade which took place last year, the Community should reject
conflicting proposals put forward by African states to expand
or halt international trade, pending an assessment of the impact
of the trade already sanctioned;
- sea turtles, where
it suggested that, because of the doubts which remain over the
sustainability of any long-term harvesting of these animals, the
Community should oppose a Cuban proposal to allow an annual export
quota of turtle shell, and consider at the conference its position
on another Cuban proposal to allow a one off sale of its turtle
shell stockpile;
- sharks, where the
Commission considered that three proposals for tighter regulation
of international trade in various species "merit attention
or support", but that care needed to be taken to ensure that
these do not cut across actions taken in other fora, such as FAO[19].
However, the Commission also pointed out that many
of the documents for the Conference were not available, and that
a Community position on these would need to be established during
the meeting on the basis of further Commission proposals.
The Government's view
12.3 In an undated Explanatory Memorandum,
received on 11 May 2000, the Minister for the Environment (Mr
Meacher) says that the approaches suggested by the Commission
in these four areas correspond with that adopted by the UK. He
goes on to note that Member States all opposed Japanese and Norwegian
proposals on the resumption of whaling for Minke and Grey Whales,
which were defeated; that an outcome withdrawing proposals seeking
ivory quotas was unanimously agreed; that Cuban proposals on sea
turtles were either withdrawn or defeated, but that a number of
Member States failed to follow the agreed Community position on
the proposal for a one-off sale of shell; and that, although all
Member States supported the proposals on sharks, these were all
defeated.
12.4 The Minister's Explanatory Memorandum
also highlights the difficulty of establishing a Community position
in advance of the Conference. In part, this appears to have been
due to the reason given by the Commission (see paragraph 2 above),
but the Minister goes on to comment that the Commission's own
proposals were published too late to be properly considered by
the Council prior to the CITES Conference. In the event, he says,
there was apparently only a general discussion at official level,
with Council Conclusions being adopted on 10 April — the
day the Conference started — which noted the paper, asked
Member States to take it into account at the Conference when agreeing
a common position, and outlined an agreed common position on the
four key issues highlighted above.
Conclusion
12.5 We have no problem with the substance
of this proposal, nor with the concept of the Community seeking
to establish a common position among the Member States party to
the Convention; and, in any event, we recognise that the outcome
of the CITES meeting depends, not just on the Community Member
States, but on the view taken by the Parties as a whole. We are
therefore clearing the document.
12.6 Nevertheless, even allowing for
the absence of certain Conference documents, we are concerned
that the Commission was not able to put forward its proposals
earlier, and that the Council was apparently being asked to agree
conclusions on the very day the Conference began. We also note
that, on one proposal at least relating to turtle shell, a number
of Member States departed from the agreed Community line. It seems
to us that it would be desirable in any future instances for the
ground to be properly prepared well in advance of the Conference,
and necessary, if the establishment of a Community position is
to have any real meaning, for all Member States to adhere to the
agreed position. We would welcome the Minister's comments on these
two points.
17 OJ No. L 61, 3.3.97, p.1. Back
18
This states that "the common commercial policy shall be based
on uniform principles, particularly in regard to....trade agreements". Back
19 United
Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. Back
|
