27Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
|
Committee’s assessment |
Legally important |
|
Cleared from scrutiny; further information requested |
|
|
Document details |
Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, with regard to proposals from various parties to the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals for amendments to the Appendices of the Convention at the twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties |
|
Legal base |
Article 192(1) and 218(9), TFEU; QMV |
|
Department |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |
|
Document Number |
(38994), 11770/17, COM(17) 455 |
Summary and Committee’s conclusions
27.1The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an inter-governmental treaty, concluded under the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and is concerned with the conservation of wildlife and habitats on a global scale. It is a mixed agreement, with both the EU and its Member States being partners.
27.2Appendices to the CMS identify the species deemed to be at threat of extinction (Appendix I) or deemed to have an “unfavourable conservation status” (Appendix II). Once species are listed, contracting Parties to the CMS must act to protect them. Various proposals have been made for additions to the appendices of the CMS, which will be discussed at the 12th Conference of Parties (CoP 12) in Manila, Philippines, between 23–28 October 2017.
27.3The draft Council Decision recommends that the European Commission, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, should support all of the listing proposals (see below) on the basis that the proposals are science-based and in line with Union legislation and with the Union’s commitment to international cooperation for the protection of biodiversity.
27.4The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment (Dr Thérèse Coffey) says that the list of species included in the Annex does not correctly reflect discussions to date as part of the EU preparatory process for CoP 12. There are a number of discrepancies between the draft Council Decision and the proposed changes to the CMS, which will need to be resolved. The UK does not believe that enough consideration has been given to the proposal for Indian Gazelle (Gazella bennettii) where the UK believes the evidence for listing on Appendix II of CMS is currently insufficient. The Scientific Council of the Convention did not support this listing proposal. The UK will only support the draft Council Decision if these changes are made.
27.5Furthermore, the Minister notes that 23 of the species proposed for listing are non-indigenous to the EU and are not covered by EU law. The Government considers that they fall outside EU competence and should not therefore be included within the Council Decision.
27.6As anticipated, agreement was reached on 13 October. The Government abstained in the vote and did not therefore override the scrutiny reserve.
27.7This document does not raise any significant policy issues, but, as we have indicated, the Government has expressed concerns that some of the species which it is proposed should be listed are not indigenous to the EU and therefore a matter for national competence. We support the Government’s vigilance against competence creep in this area of shared competence,353 and, although we see no need to hold the document under scrutiny, we think it right to draw those concerns to the attention of the House.
27.8We understand that agreement was reached on 13 October. We would welcome a report from the Government on the outcome, including the UK’s final position and the Government’s success—or otherwise—in resisting some of the listings. The document is cleared from scrutiny.
Full details of the documents
Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the European Union, with regard to proposals from various parties to the Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals for amendments to the Appendices of the Convention at the twelfth meeting of the Conference of the Parties: (38994), 11770/17, COM(17) 455.
Background
27.9The European Union has been a Party to the (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals CMS) since 1 November 1983. The approach to be taken, and how Member States will vote on the listing or delisting of species on the Annexes of the Convention, must be agreed by Member States through this Council Decision as regards matters falling within EU competence.
27.10In accordance with article XI of the Convention, an amendment to the Appendices enters into force for all Parties ninety days after the CoP at which it is adopted, except for those Parties who, within ninety days, make a reservation which means that they will not apply the listing.
27.11The Decision recommends that the European Commission, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, should support all of the agreed listing proposals for Appendices I and II (chimpanzee, African wild ass, Przewalski’s horse, hoary bat, eastern red bat, southern red bat, southern yellow bat, lion, leopard, Gobi bear, Caspian seal, Indian gazelle, giraffe, Christmas frigatebird, steppe eagle, white-rumped vulture, Indian vulture, slender-billed vulture, red-headed vulture, white-backed vulture, Cape vulture, Rüppel’s vulture, hooded vulture, white-headed vulture, lappet-faced vulture, black noddy, yellow bunting, great grey shrike, lesser grey shrike, whale shark, angelshark, common guitarfish, dusky shark, blue shark and whitespotted wedgefish)354 on the basis that the proposals are science-based and in line with Union legislation and with the Union’s commitment to international cooperation for the protection of biodiversity.
27.12Most of the proposals to amend the Appendices to the Convention are for species that are already covered by EU rules or international agreement and would not therefore require any changes to EU legislation. Similarly, no EU legislative changes will be required for species not occurring in the EU.
Minister’s Explanatory Memorandum of 11 September 2017
27.13The Minister says that the draft Decision raises competence issues by covering all the listing proposals. She argues that an EU position should only be agreed for proposals which are covered by EU rules, or the listing of which would affect EU rules or alter their scope under article 3(2) TFEU. Where these conditions are not met, she says, Member States retain competence to act and any common negotiating position on such listings would be separate from a Council Decision, and Presidency-led.
27.14According to the Minister, 23 of the species proposed for listing are non-indigenous to the European Union area and are not covered by EU law, while 14 of the species are covered. The Government believes that consideration of the listing of non-indigenous species is not a matter of EU competence as they are neither covered by existing legislation nor fall within exclusive competence by virtue of the Treaties. The Government’s view is that these proposals remain within the competence of Member States and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the Council Decision.
27.15The Minister goes on to explain that Member States remain responsible for species present in their dependent territories that are not part of EU territory and may represent them separately. A number of species proposed for listing have ranges within the UK Overseas Territories or Crown Dependencies.
27.16Finally, the Minister observes that the inclusion of three fish species on Appendix I of the CMS may require a change to legislation adopted under the Common Fisheries Policy. Otherwise, the proposals will not require a change to EU or domestic law as they concern either migratory species which already benefit from appropriate protection under EU law, including the Birds and Habitats Directives, or species whose range occurs outside the European territory of Member States.
Previous Committee Reports
None.
353 Where competence is shared it may be exercised by extra the EU or the Member States. Government policy is that, in general, shared competence should be exercised by Member States.
354 Both the common names and taxonomic references, along with UK interest, are set out in the annex to the Government’s EM: http://europeanmemoranda.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/memorandum/proposal-for-council-decision-on-the-position-to-be-adopted-on-behalf-of-the-european-1504083525.
1 December 2017