TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
Letter from Elliot Morley MP, Minister
for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection, DEFRA to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 18 November expressing
concern about the late arrival of the Explanatory Memorandum concerning
the Council Decision setting out the Community's position on the
12th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which met over the period
3-15 November in Santiago, Chile.
I am very sorry that it has taken so long to
reply. The draft was in fact prepared very promptly, but subsequently
went astray within Defra. We have taken a number of steps to improve
our management of correspondence flows, and there should be no
repetition of this sort of unfortunate lapse.
As to your original concern, I agree that it
was regrettable that the Explanatory Memorandum arrived so late
but the final draft of the proposed Council Decision was not issued
until 11 October 2002. This left very little time to prepare and
circulate an Explanatory Memorandum that was based on an agreed
text. However, the Council Secretariat was not entirely to blame
for this, as a number of the papers for the CITES Conference was
submitted very late in the day thereby putting great pressure
on all member states to establish their policy lines very quickly.
Indeed a number of the papers were still not available at the
time of the Environment Council meeting. I agree that this was
a very unsatisfactory situation for all the parties concerned
and is an issue on which we are already pressing for improvement
in the run up to the next Conference of the CITES Parties in October
2004.
As to the question of the legal basis for the
Council Decision, it is standard practice for all negotiating
mandates to be agreed by way of a decision sui generis. This practice
has developed in this way as it will not always be clear from
the outset of negotiations what the appropriate legal base of
the instrument will be.
I am, however, pleased to report that the Conference
itself proved to be very successful from the UK point of view.
Marine species issues dominated the agenda: Japan's proposals
to allow trade in Minke and Bryde's whales were soundly rejected
while the UK's own proposal to list basking shark in Appendix
II of CITES was successful. Proposals to list whale shark and
seahorses in Appendix II were also accepted.
These decisions mark a significant departure
from the traditional view that fisheries related issues should
be dealt with by FAO. It also signals that CITES is now seen as
an appropriate mechanism for securing better protection and sustainable
management of certain marine species. Another significant breakthrough
was the listing of mahogany in Appendix II after several previous
attempts over the last decade had failed. Hopefully this will
act as a spur to encourage range states to list tropical timber
species as means to bring illegal logging and unsustainable forestry
under the closer scrutiny of international regulation.
Although views were divided on the elephant
proposals, the eventual outcome was consistent with the position
set out in the Council Decision. Contrary to some reports in the
media, the Conference of the Parties has not authorised a resumption
in the trade of ivory. What was agreed was that three southern
African countries (Botswana, Namibia and South Africa) would be
permitted to undertake a one-off sale of their ivory stocks to
a pre-arranged destination but not before May 2004 and only then
if certain conditions (which include strict controls on the market,
stringent monitoring requirements and a condition that the proceeds
of any sale are to be used for elephant conservation) are met
in full and verified by the CITES Secretariat in conjunction with
the CITES Standing Committee.
In the run up to the next Conference (in Thailand
in autumn 2004) we will be working closely with interested parties
to secure the effective implementation of the decisions taken
at COP12. We shall also be exploring with other EU Member States
how best to co-ordinate EU action at future conferences, taking
into account the need to accommodate the views of accession states.
26 May 2003
|