[] TL: ENDANGERING WILDLIFE (GP) SO: Greenpeace UK DT: Unknown Keywords: terrec endangered species uk europe trade greenpeace groups reports gp cites / [part 1 of 2] HOW THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ENCOURAGES TRAFFICKING IN ENDANGERED SPECIES from: GREENPEACE U.K. SUMMARY CITES in the EC: Severe problems remain with the enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the European Community (EC). Despite uniform Community-wide regulations, their implementation remains up to individual EC member states. This results in many loopholes through which animals and products traded in violation of CITES can enter member states. Because there are no effective CITES controls between EC member states, these animals and products can enter the entire EC market with only minimal restrictions. Full and uniform enforcement of CITES in the EC is crucial to the enforcement of CITES worldwide because the EC is one of the three biggest importers of ClTES-listed animals and products. The EC argues that the regulations which came into force in 1984 guarantee full and uniform implementation of CITES. However, this report documents some of the wide variations and loopholes in national implementation among eight of the twelve EC countries: Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. Permits: Contraventions of CITES: Each EC country has its own Management and Scientific Authorities. This leads to wide variations in the basis for granting and accepting CITES permits. Several EC members have authorised imports which contravene either provisions of CITES or of the EC regulations. Inspection Shortcomings: In many EC countries, the chances of detection of illegal trade by the customs and internal inspection services are slight. Shortcomings abound in the areas of: physical checking of imports and exports; insistence on containers whose contents can be thoroughly inspected from the outside; designation of a limited number of ports of entry and exit; animal handling facilities in these ports; identification experts; training of customs officers in CITES matters; free ports; animals and products in transit; and inspection of internal trade. Traffic Continues: Few Prosecutions: No convictions for CITES offenses have been obtained in some EC countries, and there are examples in many EC countries of illegal trade remaining unprosecuted A lack of investigative effort, limited powers to apprehend offenders ambiguous legal procedures and a lack of penalties in some member states all contribute to the low numbers of prosecutions. Even when convictions are obtained, the penalties imposed are usually small, relative to the profits to be made from illegal wildlife trading. French Guiana: Conduit for Trade: French Guiana's (and hence the EC's) borders with Brazil and Surinam are difficult to control. Hence, ClTES-listed animals and products (especially Caiman skins) easily get into French Guiana and then into the rest of the EC without CITES control. While new legislation has improved the legal situation, the enforcement task remains overwhelming due to lack of resources. Conclusion: The loopholes and gaps in enforcement detailed in this report demonstrate that the aim of a full and uniform implementation of CITES by the EC is far from being achieved. It is clearly apparent that EC-wide legislation with enforcement by individual member states will never be effective. The EC must either immediately institute a unified management and enforcement agency under the control of the Commission, which would be responsible for the implementation of CITES in all member states, or re-impose full and effective CITES controls at all borders between EC member states. Given the EC's determination to remove all internal border controls by 1992, and given the EC's commitment concerning their future implementation of CITES (stated at the meeting of the Parties in Botswana in 1983), the only feasible option is the unified system of enforcement. CONTENTS BACKGROUND TO THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES (CITES) CITES IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (EC) 1. LEGISLATION AND INFORMATION 2. PERMITS 2.1 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY PROBLEMS 2.2 SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY PROBLEMS 2.3 CONTRAVENTIONS OF CITES AND EC REGULATIONS 2.4 PRE-CONVENTION STOCKS 3. INSPECTION 3.1 CUSTOMS SYSTEMS 3.2 DESIGNATION OF PORTS 3.3 FREEPORTS 3.4 TRANSIT 3.5 INTERNAL TRADE 4. CATCHING THE TRAFFICKERS 4.1 THE PROSECUTION RECORD 4.2 THE INVESTIGATIVE EFFORT 4.3 THE POWER TO APPREHEND 4.4 THE PATH TO PROSECUTION 4.5 THE PENALTIES 4.6 DISPOSAL OF SEIZED ANIMALS 5. FRENCH GUIANA: CONDUIT FROM SOUTH AMERICA TO THE EC 5.1 WILDLIFE TRADE IN FRENCH GUIANA 5.2 LEGISLATION 5.3 ENFORCEMENT 5.4 EFFECTS OF THE NEW LAWS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY E O R E W O R D Many people think that the threat to endangered species is controlled by national and international law. Unfortunately, the European Community has ignored its international responsibilities to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The situation is made even worse by an active presumption in favour of the wildlife trade by many governments. Against the powerful trading interests are a small group of dedicated customs officers, veterinarians, game wardens and conservationists trying in vain to uphold the regulations of CITES. Greenpeace seeks far greater enforcement powers for the EC as a whole, but until internal border controls are removed in 1992, all EC countries must drastically increase the resources made available to enforcement authorities to ensure endangered wildlife is not wiped out. Unless this happens, the only available solution to protect threatened or endangered species will be to implement far reaching import bans on such species into the EC. For those governments and traders who recklessly ignore CITES, this fact must be totally clear. ALLAN THORNTON, GREENPEACE UK. (JULY 1987) BACKGROUND TO CITES International trade endangers wildlife: The world's diverse wildlife is threatened by the international wildlife trade, along with habitat destruction and hunting for local use. In the last few decades, the international trade in wild animals and products derived from them has contributed to bringing many species close to extinction. Some of the better known examples are: - chimpanzees for medical research and zoos; - the large whales for meat, oil and other products; - tigers, cheetahs and leopards for their furs; - Asian elephants for their ivory; - rhinoceroses for their horns; - some of the larger Amazon parrots for aviarists; - sea turtles for their meat, shells and other products; and - several crocodile species for their skins. As these species declined, exploitation of other species has continued or increased. Thus for example, rhesus monkeys, ocelot skins, African elephant ivory, many species of parrots and the skins of the smaller crocodiles and caimans are now heavily traded. The Convention: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a multinational treaty aimed at regulating the trade in endangered species. It came into effect in 1975 and 95 countries are now Parties to the Convention. The Convention provides for three levels of protection, depending on the conservation and trade status of the species. The highest level of protection is accorded to species which are in danger of extinction and are, or may be, affected by trade. These species are listed in Appendix I. Trade for commercial purposes in Appendix I animals or products based on them is prohibited. Some exemptions are a]lowed for scientific exchange, animals genuinely bred in captivity, specimens acquired before the Convention came into force and personal and household effects. In these cases import and export permits are required. Species which may become endangered if trade in them is not controlled are listed in Appendix II. Trade in Appendix Il animals and products is regulated by a system of export permits. Countries which want to protect their populations of particular species can place them on Appendix III. Trade in animals and products from these populations is then regulated by a system of export permits similar to those applying to Appendix II species. The Convention requires each Party to designate a Management Authority to process and grant permits, and a Scientific Authority to provide scientific advice to the Management Authority. Enforcement is usually the responsibility of the customs service or similar agency. Parties to the Convention meet every two years to update the Appendices and review implementation problems. The original motivation for the Convention was the protection of wildlife endangered by trade. However, a momentum has gradually developed to change the purpose of CITES to one of promoting the trade in wildlife. CITES IN THE EC There are still serious problems with the implementation of CITES within the EC. Despite uniform Community-wide regulations and permit forms, CITES continues to be enforced by individual member states. This results in many loopholes through which illegally traded ClTES-listed animals and products can enter member states. Soon there will be no border controls within the EC. Such animals and products will then gain access to the entire EC market with only minimal restrictions. Ten of the twelve EC member states have individually ratified CITES. However, the enforcement of CITES depends primarily on border controls on imports and exports of the listed animals and animal products. The EC intends to remove all border controls between member states by 1992, to enable free trade within the Community. In order to remove its internal border controls, the EC has to harmonise the controls applied at its external borders. In other words, it has to ensure that uniform conditions are applied by member states in trade with non-member states. One of these border controls is CITES. As CITES is an agreement regulating trade, it was feared that its application by some member states, but not by others, might lead to trade di