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
|
| |
| Department: |
Environment, Transport and the Regions
|
| Basis of consideration:
| Minister's letter of 19 June 2000
|
| Previous Committee Report:
| HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 12 (17 May 2000)
|
| To be discussed in Council:
| See paragraph 7.2 below
|
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important |
| Committee's decision:
| Cleared (decision reported on 17 May 2000)
|
Background
7.1 Although representation on the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) still rests with the Member States, the Commission
takes the view that decisions taken under the Convention affect
the implementation of the relevant Council Regulation, making
it necessary 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 April of this year. However, as we noted in our
Report of 17 May 2000, this process was hindered by a number of
factors. In part, this was because of the lack of prior availability
of many of the documents for the Conference, but it also appeared
that the Commission's own proposals were published too late to
be considered properly by the Council beforehand, and that thereafter
on one proposal at least a number of Member States then departed
from the agreed Community line. Consequently, although we cleared
the document on the basis that we had no difficulty with the substance
of the Community position, we did ask the Government to comment
both on the apparent procedural defects before the Conference
and on the need for all Member States to adhere to the agreed
position.
Minister's letter of 19 June 2000
7.2 In his letter of 19 June 2000, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (Mr Mullin) says that the Government
shares our concerns. As regards the timing of decisions, he points
out that last November the UK pushed for a meeting of Member States
as soon as possible to agree a position, as a result of which
the Commission agreed to convene a special meeting in January,
where a broad consensus on most of the key issues was reached.
However, he goes on to say that we had to accept that the final
position could not be formalised until the Environment Council
on 30 March, when one Member State insisted on re-opening the
debate on one of the items. As a result, despite UK objections,
the Council referred the whole Commission paper back to COREPER
for further discussion, so that the Council conclusions were not
finally agreed until the first day of the Conference on 10 April.
The Minister acknowledges that such a late decision makes it difficult
for us to perform our rôle, and he also observes that it
reduces the opportunity for the Community as a whole to influence
other CITES parties in the run-up to the Conference, and indeed
at the meeting itself. He says that the Government will therefore
be raising at the next Community meeting on CITES later this month
the procedures for reaching a common position to try to ensure
that such delays are avoided wherever possible in future.
7.3 As regards the failure of some Member
States to adhere to the agreed common position, the Minister says
that this kind of behaviour brings the Community into disrepute,
and undermines mutual confidence between Member States. He adds
that, although the UK voted in accordance with the Community position,
the vote in question was a secret ballot, and that it is thus
not possible to be certain which Member States departed from that
position. He says that the UK will be asking the Commission to
investigate, and to advise how any repetition can be avoided,
and he believes that several other Member States (and the Commission)
share our concern.
Conclusion
7.4 We are grateful to the Minister for
this explanation, and are glad to note the action being taken
to avoid a repetition of the two points to which we had earlier
drawn attention.
|
