8 CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL
TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES (CITES)
(28580)
—
—
| Draft Council Decision on the Community position to be adopted on certain proposals submitted to the 14th meeting of the Conference of the parties to the Convention on International trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
|
| Legal base | Articles 133, 175 and 300(2)EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
EM of 26 April 2007 |
| Previous Committee Report |
None |
| To be discussed in Council
| 8 or 15 May 2007 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
8.1 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, this
change has yet to be fully ratified, and consequently representation
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, it is necessary
to adopt a Community position on proposals submitted to the Convention.
It has therefore been seeking, as on previous such occasions,
to establish such a position before the 14th meeting of the Conference
of the parties to be held in The Hague from 3-15 June 2007.
The current document
8.2 This process has been complicated by the 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, each of which could have
a direct impact on Council Regulation 338/97. Moreover, not all
the documents to be discussed at the Conference were available
in sufficient time for the Commission to propose a Common Position,
and outstanding issues will therefore be considered by the Member
States during the Conference itself on the basis of further proposals.
In the meantime, the Commission has circulated an unofficial text.
8.3 This suggests that the Community's general objectives
should be to ensure that amendments are based on scientific assessment
of their likely impact on the species concerned; to ensure that
any decisions taken maximise efficiency by directing resources
to issues of real conservation concern; to seek greater synergies
with other multilateral initiatives (such as the Convention of
Biological Diversity); and to achieve a greater focus on effective
enforcement, in order to reduce illegal killing, taking and trade,
and ensure that trade in species is sustainable.
8.4 The Commission text also highlights the following
specific issues:
- Whales:
In the hope that this will demonstrate that whales do not meet
the criteria relevant to their current listing, Japan has submitted
a proposal to include all cetaceans in the CITES Periodic Review
Process, which is usually reserved for irregularly monitored species
in order to check that their CITES listing is still scientifically
appropriate: the Commission says that no decision should be taken
which undermines the primacy of the International Whaling Commission
(IWC) in this area, and that no reviews of whale stocks leading
to a possible lowering of their protection status under CITES
should be considered until the IWC deems that the appropriate
management controls on whaling are in place;
- Elephants: Namibia
and Botswana have proposed annual export quotas on ivory, whilst
Kenya and Mali have tabled a resolution calling for a 20-year
moratorium on trade from all countries where a controlled trade
in endangered populations is permitted: the Commission says that
much will depend on whether a decision taken in 2002 to allow
a one-off sale of ivory legally stock-piled in South Africa, Namibia
and Botswana is implemented, and that the Community should be
unwilling to allow any resumption in the trade in ivory, unless
it is satisfied that this will not result in an increase in illegal
killing of elephants;
- Fish and shellfish: Germany
(on behalf of the Community) is proposing that two shark species
(the Porkbeagle Shark and the Spiny Dogfish) should be listed
in Annex II, whilst the Community has also proposed the listing
of the European eel: the Commission says that all these species
are coming under increasing threat from over-exploitation, and
that, although there are some concerns about how effectively controls
can be enforced, the Community should be favourably disposed towards
stricter regulation; and
- Timber: Because of
the threat of increasing deforestation, several tropical timber
species are proposed for CITES listing: the Commission believes
that the Community should support all measures to combat the illegal
exploitation of these species, and thus supports the listing of
these species.
The Government's view
8.5 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 26 April 2007,
the Minister for Biodiversity, Landscape and Rural Affairs at
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Barry
Gardiner) says that, although the UK may differ on some of the
detailed negotiating points, it is content with the broad thrust
of the negotiating position set out in the proposed Decision.
He also points out that the UK itself has put forward three proposals
(agreed with the other Member States), calling for greater collaboration
across sectors and regions, for the establishment of a working
group to investigate the scale of trade resulting from the use
of the internet, and for CITES parties to collaborate to produce
a mechanism to asses the impact of CITES measures on the livelihoods
of poor people.
8.6 The Minister also refers to the proposed legal
basis for this Decision (Articles 133, 175 and Article 300(2)).
He says that the UK and some other Member States believe that
Article 133 is not appropriate, as Council Regulation 338/97 was
adopted on the basis of Article 175, and that this issue is to
be discussed in COREPER on 4 May.
Conclusion
8.7 We note that, although the Government believes
that Article 133 would not be an appropriate legal basis, it has
no problem with the substance of this proposal. Also, the question
of the legal base is to be pursued in COREPER shortly. Consequently,
although we think it right — as our predecessors have done
prior to earlier meetings of the Convention — to draw this
document to the attention of the House, we are clearing it.
1 17 7 OJ No. L 61, 3.3.97, p.1. Back
|
