Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-09-16-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040916.2.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I am wearing several hats this morning, so I apologise for the confusion. First of all, on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr Karl-Heinz Florenz, I should like formally to move the oral question, the subject of which is the EU strategic objectives for the 13th meeting of the CITES Convention. Specifically, what are the key strategic objectives for the European Union at the forthcoming Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora – CITES – to be held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 2 to 14 October 2004? I am also here in the absence of Mr John Bowis, our coordinator, and would like to include my contribution on behalf of the PPE-DE Group while I am on my feet, rather than speaking again after the Commissioner.
On the great white shark issue, the Community has generally supported the Appendix II listing, but rejected the zero quota on legal and scientific grounds. While I support the precautionary principle, I do not support a 'preventionary' principle. Generally, I believe in rewarding those states that have made tremendous efforts in the area of conservation. What we do must not dilute the credibility of CITES itself. Any decisions we take, even as a Parliament, apart from what the Commission and others might decide, must be scientifically grounded to ensure the credibility of CITES. That is the general thrust of the position we have taken in these areas.
This applies very strongly to the points on the black rhinoceros and the leopard. The proposal on the African lion is scientifically weak and is strongly opposed by the range states where the lion population is stable or increasing. I have an open position on this. I hope that we can find a compromise solution with the range states. However, we must not erode the credibility of the Convention by supporting scientifically weak proposals on this. Although it is a free vote, I will be recommending that we vote against, in the hope that a compromise will be found in that area.
In the case of the Irrawaddy dolphin, I recognise that the proposal has some merit. I am leaning in favour of it, but the scientific and practical doubts remain. Again, I hope that, on the basis of sound scientific principle and with proper use of the precautionary principle, which is not a 'preventionary' principle, we will be able to look after endangered species as we should. The rest of the world will follow what the EU-25 does at the Conference of the Parties. It is not just our 25 votes, but the other votes that we will attract from among the 166 parties voting on these issues.
CITES is a global conservation agreement on trade in endangered species of wild flora and fauna, which is implemented in the EU through the even stricter EU wildlife trade regulations. However, there is an urgent need for greater cooperation between the 25 Member States' enforcement agencies, especially now that our land borders, post-enlargement, have increased by over one third to more than 3 000 km and also because of the acknowledged links between the significant, though unquantified, illegal wildlife trade and organised crime.
The EU Enforcement Group, which has been set up under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, needs to be revisited somewhat urgently. It needs to be made much more effective: we need systematic compilation on the illegal wildlife trade to determine the numbers of seizures and confiscations. This must all be put on a database, so that information can be shared by all enforcement officers throughout the EU. I underline my concerns and those of my Group on the lack of proper enforcement and assistance to the enforcement agencies in this particularly important area.
CITES regulates trade in some 30 000 species of plants and animals. The EU is a major legal market. Over the five years up to 2001, for example, imports into the EU have included 5.4 million live birds, equal to 87% of global trade, with Portugal and Spain being the main importers; over one million live reptiles, equal to 16% of global trade, with Spain and Germany being the main importers; seven million live cacti and 15 million live orchids, mainly going to the Netherlands; and 383 tonnes of sturgeon caviar, 40% of the global trade, which went mainly to France and Germany.
In July 2004, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council decision on the Community position, to be adopted on certain proposals submitted to the 13th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. This proposal has been discussed at a number of meetings of the Working Party on International Environment Issues, which is made up of scientific and management experts from Member States. I understand the final meeting is to take place today. It would have been useful if we had known the outcome of the final meeting before this debate, but unfortunately I do not have any information from it and it is probably not possible to obtain it.
In relation to the CITES itself, Appendix I is reserved for the most critically endangered species. International commercial trade in wild-taken specimens of these species is prohibited in Appendix I.
Appendix II contains most of the species regulated by the Commission. Regulated commercial trade in these species is allowed, however, such trade must not be detrimental to the survival of the species concerned. It is really only Appendix I and Appendix II that require the sanction of the Conference of the Parties in this area.
Let me turn to some of the specific points in the resolution before us, which I largely welcome, although I find it rather long and verbose. However, I fully support the resolution, as does the PPE-DE Group, with perhaps a couple of caveats. First of all, the PPE-DE Group will be having a free vote on paragraph 3, as requested. I will be supporting paragraph 3 myself and will be indicating this to my Group, but there are those who have concerns about it. Likewise, our Group will have a free vote on paragraph 7, indent 1, on African lions. I will be voting against that and I will explain why in a moment.
In relation to paragraph 5, I need guidance from the Commission. It welcomes an Australian proposal to list the great white shark in Appendix II of CITES with a zero quota on precautionary principle grounds. I understand, and I would like it confirmed, that the proposers – the Australians – have now withdrawn the proposal for a zero quota. As it stands in our resolution, therefore, it may not make sense. Perhaps we should finish the point by welcoming the Australian proposal to list the great white shark in CITES, Appendix II, full stop. Others may make the case for reintroducing a zero quota if they wish, but as it stands, it makes no sense."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples