The UK CITES Management Authority and Wildlife and Countryside Link (UK conservation NGO umbrella group) hold regular formal liaison meetings to discuss CITES issues.  The minutes of the most recent meetings are published below.

It was agreed that there were many positive aspects to the NGO participation at CoP12, and that lessons were learnt to improve NGO participation in the future. Defra advised that most of the preparation for CoP12 was well under way before it had been decided that NGO representatives should be included on the delegation. Defra and Link agreed that earlier identification of and contact with the NGO delegate would have been preferable.

Link were grateful for access to Defra representatives before, during and after CoP12 and suggested the possibility of NGO representation at other meetings. Martin Brasher advised that it was difficult to have a standard approach. The International Whaling Committee (IWC), for example, had a different structure to CITES, and so NGO representation could not be viewed in the same light. Each case would have to be judged on its merits.

Defra expressed their satisfaction with the outcome of CoP12 and informed Link that the process of following up CoP12 had commenced. Bob Ford explained that Defra were beginning to think about the Standing Committee meeting in April in addition to drawing up action plans to implement CoP12 outcomes.

EIA noted that the late issue and large quantity of documents issued by the Secretariat was problematic. Martin Brasher advised that Defra were also concerned about this matter, and he hoped to raise it in a future meeting with the Secretariat.

With regards to the Cayman Turtle Farm (CTF) proposal, Martin Brasher reaffirmed Defra’s obligation to Overseas Territories, but also acknowledged the need to view the situation as a whole. Defra advised that late and piecemeal submission at CoP12 of information regarding the CTF’s founder stock had not been helpful.

i) Toothfish - Management under CCAMLR; Proposed improvements

Sarah Fowler inquired what steps the UK and EU propose taking to implement the resolution on co-operation between CITES and CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) regarding trade in toothfish. Link were concerned that the resolution was weak and advised that if management of stocks of toothfish did not improve, then it was likely that a listing would be pushed at CoP13.

Defra advised that the FCO were leading on this issue but now that CITES was involved it was likely that Defra would meet with the FCO Polar Regions Section (who lead on CCAMLR) in the future.

ii) Elephants - CITES Standing Committee on conditions for ivory sales

Stanley Johnson quoted his letter to Defra of 16 December concerning the 5 conditions of the sales in ivory. IFAW felt that the April Standing Committee would need to look carefully at the 5 conditions to prepare for the subsequent meetings, when important decisions on the one-off sales would be taken.

Bob Ford noted that the EC CITES Committee meeting in December had been disappointing as the absence of a number of key players meant that important issues - such as those concerning elephants - were not discussed. Defra stressed that they would push hard at both the next EC CITES Committee meeting and CITES Standing Committee meeting to ensure that the conditions attached to the proposed ivory sale are strictly enforced. Martin Brasher said that Elliot Morley was quite determined on the issue, and that if the conditions are not met then the sales should not take place.

Stanley Johnson asked if the EU would submit a paper to the Standing Committee, detailing their thoughts on this matter. Defra advised that this would be unlikely due to the shortage of time between the next EC CITES Committee and CITES Standing Committee. They also needed to consider the CITES Secretariat’s views on this issue. Hopefully the Secretariat would prepare a paper before the Standing Committee meeting.

Jo Hastie said that the results of TRAFFIC and EIA reports on the Japanese ivory market demonstrated many loopholes and that one-off sales should only be allowed to countries with satisfactory trade mechanisms in place. Arthur Lindley reported that Willem Wijnstekers had confirmed to him that, although Japan is approved as an importing country, with regards to ivory, a thorough investigation of their controls would be undertaken.

iii) Shark Resolution - Action Plans to implement the FAO IPOA

Sarah Fowler welcomed the uplisting of the Basking shark and enquired if Defra had any further plans regarding the species. Phil Lewis advised that Defra were funding satellite-tagging research, the preliminary results of which were discussed at a Research Steering Group meeting in London on 13 January. The research was beginning to produce unique and fascinating results about the movements and feeding patterns of Basking sharks which will help with future protection and management. Defra were hoping, in the next few months or so, to draw up with JNCC a detailed specification for a further research project using DNA analysis to examine populations of Basking shark.

Sarah Fowler also queried the possibility of similar research for the Whale shark. Bob Ford advised that this was improbable as the Whale shark was not native to British waters and there were limited Defra research funds. Other government departments might be able to fund such research. FCO stated that due to the eco-tourism value of the Whale shark in overseas territories, funding for this year could be considered if a project proposal was submitted within two weeks.

Sarah Fowler was concerned that neither the UK nor the EU had made progress with their International Plans of Action (IPOA) for sharks. This was now important following agreement of the shark resolution at CoP12 and Defra should be pushing this forward in the EU. Bob Ford explained that Defra’s Fisheries Division had the lead on this but that GWD would liaise closely with them in view of the CITES angle. Martin Brasher said that GWD would look at the agenda for the FAO (COFI) meeting in Rome in February and consider attendance. Link advised that although the FAO understood the need for concern, limited funds restricted their involvement on this issue. The Shark Trust hoped the UK would take a lead on the EU IPOA and ensure that POA were produced for all UK waters.

Sarah Fowler advised that the Appendix II listing for seahorses was a huge challenge for CITES in view of the number of specimens and exporting countries involved. Minimum landing sizes will not have an impact on the Traditional Chinese Medicine market because they usually utilise larger specimens, but the aquarium trade would be affected since they tend to buy smaller specimens. JNCC advised that the aquarium industry were aware of the implications involved and that a shift to more captive breeding seemed likely.

v) Black Sea bottlenose dolphin - Follow-up to listing

Mark Simmonds thanked Defra for their support on the zero quota but reported his alarm over applications for scientific research by Russia and their concern that some Parties would put in a reservation on the zero quota. Defra were unsure as to whether a Party were able to make a reservation on a CITES established quota.

vi) Tigers - India’s SEU and the Thailand – China trade

Debbie Banks referred to Martin Brasher’s letter to India regarding the setting up of the new Wildlife Crime Unit. She reiterated advice (from the British High Commission in India) that a letter at Ministerial level might have more effect, as the Indian CITES Management Authority had been out of operation since before Martin Brasher's letter had been sent. Bob Ford advised that Defra would wait for a letter from EIA to Elliot Morley on this subject so that this could be used as a mechanism to advise the Minister to write to his opposite number in India.

Debbie Banks raised EIA’s concerns about 100 tigers being exported from Thailand to China on Thai permits under the zoo exemption. EIA and the CITES Secretariat did not believe the Thai facility where the tigers had been bred qualified as a zoo, or that the export could be considered 'non-commercial' according to the guidelines. [CITES enforcement officers had written to the Chinese Management Authority on this issue]. EIA asked if Defra could contact the relevant Management Authorities and the CITES Secretariat for details of the transaction and subsequent communication. They also advised that IUCN had said the tigers were not genetically suitable for scientific conservation captive breeding. Defra advised that this matter could be followed-up by FCO.

Link considered that there was a need for increased co-ordination between the EU member states on politically important issues and for a common position to be reached for the Standing Committee meetings. Link also felt that there was a lack of transparency regarding the EU position, and that with the forthcoming increase in member states from Eastern Europe, more complications would occur. Link believed it was in the public interest for NGOs to have access to information, particularly with regards to EC CITES meetings. Link also suggested that a level of public accountability could prevent member states changing their positions late in proceedings. Defra agreed to consider these issues.

Defra shared concerns over the prospect of increasing of EU abstentions at major international events. However, an open public forum at EC coordination meetings was unrealistic. Defra understood that EU consultation with NGO’s needed to be considered more carefully.

ii) Wildlife trade incentives - UK opinions/plans for intersessional activities

Link asked if Government funding of external conservation projects would be reduced. Defra advised that as a government department, they had to compete for funds but reported that FCO were changing their structure with regards to environment funding. FCO informed Link that the changes to the Environment Fund would provide increased funding over the next 2/3 years for key environment and energy issues to be taken forward, if the bids were clearly tied to environmental governance.

Defra advised that although budgets were constrained, Defra had in the past contributed to many projects through their international subscriptions budget, and hoped to continue doing so in the future.

Action: Defra will provide Link with a list of recipients of GWD funding.

Wendy Elliot informed the meeting that Slovenia’s hunting quotas had doubled to a cull of 115 animals, or 25% of the population. She advised that Slovenian bears are similar in body weight to Scandinavian bears, suggesting that they have similar rates of reproduction. This level of hunting was 10% higher than the recommended maximum sustainable yield in Scandinavia.

Wendy Elliot was also concerned about over hunting in British Columbia to an unsustainable level, and requested the Scientific Review Group (SRG) to look at habitat, mortality and management issues concerning the bears.

Vin Fleming responded that they were aware of the situation in Slovenia and that the issue would be discussed in full at the next SRG. The issue of bear hunting in British Columbia would be reviewed when the report of their independent panel was available.

Callum Rankine congratulated Defra on releasing the consultation, and reminded them of the WWF and TRAFFIC campaign to increase maximum offences under COTES. Defra advised that 4 April was the closing date for comments. [Secretary's note: the consultation paper was issued on 16 January.]

Mark Simmonds advised that the ratification by UK territories had not yet been completed and hoped the UK could press for this.

It was agreed that due to the cost of train travel for morning meetings, future meetings at Temple Quay House, Bristol, could start at noon, possibly with a working lunch.

Apologies received from Richard Page (Greenpeace).

The purpose of this "mini-meeting" was for Defra to update Link on the situation regarding the preparations for CITES CoP12 and for Link to put any further concerns they might have to Defra before the second meeting of the European Working Party on International Environmental Issues (EWPIEI) on 2 October.

Defra advised that EU Member States had met at the end of July to discuss a possible common position on the issues to be debated at CoP12. As a result of discussions at this meeting and the meetings of the EWPIEI, the European Commission would prepare a Council Decision for formal approval by the European Council of Ministers on 17 October.

Defra advised that EU Member States - including the UK - have significant doubts about the scientific justification for uplisting Black Sea bottle-nosed dolphins to Appendix I. Member States have agreed, therefore, to await further information on the biological criteria for listing the species in Appendix I before finalising their position. Defra also suggested that Link may like to contact the Chair of the Animals Committee for further details on the areas in which the proposal is lacking in information.

Defra confirmed that the UK is strongly opposed to any proposals for the resumption of trade in ivory without evidence that such trade will not lead to an increase in poaching. The views of EU Member States on this issue are divided and it has been proposed, therefore, that all EU Member States should await the outcome of the African Elephant Range State Dialogue meeting before coming to a final decision on the matter.

Link raised concerns that the related Article in the draft Council Decision did not adequately reflect the conservation aspect of the debate and suggested that the text be amended to read "…unless it is satisfied…that there will be no resulting increase in illegal killing of elephants and no unfavourable impact on the conservation status of elephant populations…".

Defra advised that EU Member States - including the UK - have doubts about the scientific justification for the listing of the Patagonian toothfish on Appendix II; and that there are legitimate fears that the proposal may undermine the CCAMLR Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for this species. It is also thought that the proposal may undermine efforts to develop links between the FAO and CITES. EU Member States have agreed to await the outcome of a CCAMLR meeting in October, which will consider the CITES Appendix II proposal and examine the relationship with the CDS, before finalising their position.

Link added that the FAO’s misconception that a CITES Appendix II listing effectively equals a trade ban, had meant that the potential economic benefits of a CITES listing for commercially exploited fish species had not been fully considered. For example, the quotas set by CCAMLR under the CDS, take into account all catch levels including IUU fishing. A CITES Appendix II listing, through the regulation of trade, would potentially take illegal catches out of the equation and, thus, result in higher quotas for commercial fisheries.

Link thanked Defra for writing to the CITES Management Authority of India and offering to provide practical assistance in the setting up of their new Wildlife Crime Cell to combat wildlife crime and illicit trade. Defra agreed to forward a copy of the letter that was sent to Link and to keep them updated on any progress

Defra clarified that the purpose of the application is to allow the CTF a limited trade in Green turtle shell souvenirs as a by-product of an operation that already supplies the domestic market with turtle meat. They did not consider it appropriate, therefore, to withdraw the application on the basis that a limited legal trade may stimulate illegal trade in turtle shell products generally; and they also do not believe that as a result of the application, a demand for Green turtle shell - instead of meat - may eventually lead the market.

Defra also confirmed that, further to Link’s concerns over welfare conditions at the Farm, the CTF had been subject to an independent inspection. The inspection Report had been peer reviewed and would shortly be submitted to Ministers for approval.

Link pointed out that they were not satisfied that the inspection had been completely independent or that the peer review was adequate. Defra asked Link to put these concerns in writing to them and agreed to send Link a copy of the peer reviewed Report once it had been approved by Ministers.

Link also pointed out that while measures have been proposed to allow a properly regulated trade in whole carapaces, they were concerned at the potential enforcement implications concerning the sale of turtle shell jewellery in the CTF shop. The current situation whereby it is up to the assistant who takes the sale to determine whether the customer is a tourist and may, therefore, be exporting the jewellery was thought to be inadequate. Defra asked Link to put their concerns on this in writing and agreed to check with the CTF on what information is/would be available to advise tourists that Green turtle shell jewellery could not be sold for export.

Defra advised that Ministers had agreed that two NGO representatives (one Link member and one member of the Sustainable Users Network) could be included on the UK delegation to CoP12. They required confirmation from Link of the name of the person they would be putting forward by 7 October for approval by the Minister. Defra outlined the key responsibilities for the NGO representatives as:

• To act as a point of contact between other NGOs and the UK delegation
• To participate in UK delegation meetings (but not EU co-ordination meetings)
• To take the minutes and summarise the outcome of sessions attended

Link pointed out that they were unhappy that the NGO representatives would be excluded from attending EU co-ordination meetings. Defra agreed to note Link’s concern.

Defra agreed to check with the CITES Secretariat on Link’s concerns about Rule 2 (Observers); and to put Link’s concerns about Rule 17 (Right to speak) to the EWPIEI

Defra and Link agreed that it was premature to repeal the associated existing Resolutions (as these underpin the UK’s Stricter Measures policy) until the CITES Secretariat could develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with these species.

Defra advised that they would ask their colleagues in the Wildlife Crime Branch to liaise directly with Link on the timetable for the COTES public consultation exercise

Defra/Link meeting - 15 July 2002

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the species proposals/working documents for discussion at CITES CoP12

Link reaffirmed their request that the UK strongly supports this proposal. They advised that individual specimens were uniquely identifiable, which would be an advantage in international trade and added that the IUCN and ACCOBANS both agreed that the taxon should be listed in Appendix I of CITES.

Defra advised that while a decline could be inferred, the case for uplisting is weak as there is very little hard data available on this species. In addition, Defra had three other main concerns: that an uplisting would create a split-listing at sub species/country level (i.e. Turkey, for example, would have both Appendix I and II populations of the same species); that there is presently no reliable method to distinguish Black Sea dolphins from other populations in trade; and that as domestic trade was greater than international trade, an Appendix I listing would not address this.

Defra’s preferred action is to make the Appendix II listing work using the Significant Trade process as an alternative to uplisting. This might require, for example, range states to demonstrate positive actions such as justifying non-detriment findings. An Appendix I listing would simply prevent international trade and, thus the issue that specimens are uniquely identifiable would be of little importance.

Link suggested that the Significant Trade process was suitable only as a fallback position should the uplisting proposal be unsuccessful.

Defra confirmed that the UK was firmly against any downlisting proposals that would allow the resumption of international trade derived from commercial whaling.

Link advised that while some members supported the Kenyan/Indian proposal to uplist African elephants to Appendix I, the agreed Link line is that the UK should take the lead among EU Member States in strongly opposing all the proposals on elephants put to the Conference. Their main concerns were over the failure of the MIKE system to generate any meaningful data before CoP13; and the absence of any baseline data, which makes it impossible to detect any changes in elephant poaching levels.

Defra advised that all Appendix II populations belonged "biologically" on Appendix II and that they did not believe there was a case for the UK to support the Kenyan/Indian uplisting proposal. They also outlined their reservations with the data provided in the downlisting proposal submitted by Zambia, which appears to be in contrast with the data provided by Kenya/India. However, they saw no reason to oppose trade in hides from the existing Appendix II populations.

Defra’s preferred action is for the EU to reserve its position until after the African Elephant Range States Dialogue meeting, which is being held immediately before the CoP. The Minister agreed that the UK should have a clear line to take to the EU meeting. Defra will contact Nigel Hunter, Director of the MIKE project to inform him of our position.

Link raised additional concerns about Botswana’s proposal for "trade in live animals for commercial purposes to appropriate and acceptable destinations (and as determined by the national legislation of the country of import)". Link claimed that live elephants were being transported to zoos in countries with inadequate zoo legislation, which were clearly not "appropriate and acceptable" destinations and requested that the UK takes this issue on board.

Link reaffirmed their position on the above as set out in their written comments to Defra.

Link advised that they had concerns over the welfare conditions at the Farm and that - as Res. Conf. 11.14 states that "the operation should be carried out in a humane (non cruel) manner" - the UK should undertake an independent review and consider withdrawing the application to register the Farm as a captive breeding operation under CITES as premature.

Additionally, Link were concerned that any legal, international trade in Chelonia mydas may stimulate illegal trade and that the outcome of Defra’s Research project should be awaited before the UK supports any proposals in favour of resuming international trade in marine turtles; and also that the Farm could not demonstrate that the species had been bred to F2 at the facility.

Defra were confident that the farm met the CITES criteria i.e. breeding to F2 but agreed to consider the other points raised by Link.

Defra confirmed their support for the Whale shark proposal; and agreed that it was desirable for DEFRA and Link to work together on their lobbying strategy for the Basking shark proposal. Link also requested an update on the revision of the Basking shark leaflet circulated at CoP11. Defra advised that work on this was about to get underway.

Defra advised that they were in the process of consulting the UK representatives on the CCAMLR Scientific Committee.

Defra advised that the UK supports this proposal and, if it proved unsuccessful, the UK would in any event press for Bigleaf mahogany to be listed on Annex B of Reg. 338/97.

Defra confirmed that they did not support these documents.

Link suggested that it was premature to delete Decisions 11.43, 11,44, 11.45, 11.46 and 11.80. Defra agreed to consider Link’s comments in reaching a view on this.

Link requested UK support for India’s Resolution to change the scope of existing Resolutions to include reference to leopard, snow leopard and clouded leopard - in response to an increased demand for these species in the curio and skin trades.

Defra agreed to consider Link’s comments in reaching a view on this Resolution.

Defra and EIA agreed to speak separately about tiger conservation strategies. Defra assured Link of its support for maintaining tigers as a "Priority" species.

Link advised that the Secretariat’s reasons for wanting to repeal Res. Conf. 9.14 as outlined in this document are unsatisfactory. Instead it was felt that Parties should be forced to implement this Resolution as, if repealed, there would be no alternative requirements for reporting on rhino populations, trade data etc.

Defra advised that as the UK implements stricter measures for the import of rhino products - and was seeking to persuade other EU Member States to do the same - the UK would need to look carefully at this issue.

Link support the draft Resolution but suggested it needed strengthening to specify targets etc…

Link requested the UK to strongly support this document.

Link reaffirmed their positions on the above as set out in their written comments to DEFRA.

Link requested an update from the last Standing Committee meeting on this.

Defra advised that the views of the Chairs of the Animals/Plants Committee’s were put forward. The general view was that a lot of good work had been done and that damaging splits should be avoided by seeking consensus if possible. In the end the Standing Committee agreed that the Secretariat should put a single paper to CoP12 with the separate reports of the Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees appended as Annexes.

Defra acknowledged that NGOs had many valuable skills and that NGO participation on UK delegations to "single issue" meetings such as the IWC and Hawksbill Turtle Dialogue meeting worked well but as CITES is a "multi-issue" meeting, it was not felt that an NGO representative on the UK delegation would be appropriate.

Link suggested the possibility of being represented on the UK delegation as a "liaison" point.

c. Shark week

Link advised that a 40ft model of a Basking shark would be floating down the River Thames on 17 August promoting the UK’s Appendix II listing of the Basking shark during London Aquarium’s "Shark Week".

Defra advised that Steve Lee-Bapty may be in touch regarding a similar meeting on 6 September, in Peterborough, in advance of the CMS CoP.

A further meeting would be arranged closer to the conference.

Apologies received from Martin Brasher (Defra) and Richard Page (Greenpeace).

Link affirmed that the pre-Christmas meeting and subsequent letter from Martin Brasher on this issue were very positive and provided a good foundation on which to proceed. They provided an example of how NGO representation on UK delegations works well within the IWC.

Whilst Defra is not opposed, in principle, to the participation of NGOs on UK delegations, they outlined a number of considerations, which needed to be taken into account such as their obligations to other interest groups (i.e. sustainable users).

Link specifically raised the issue of NGO representation on the UK delegation at the forthcoming Hawksbill Turtle Dialogue meeting. Defra advised that they had not yet seen an agenda for this meeting so could not comment on what expertise would be required at this stage. However, they agreed to consider any case Link wished to put to them in writing.

Link additionally asked whether Defra would raise at the next Standing Committee meeting, the issues of attendance of NGOs at Standing Committee meetings (in light of US, Indian and German support) and secret ballots.

Defra advised that on both counts they were in favour of openness and agreed to take soundings in the margins of the next Standing Committee meeting.

Defra advised that they had not yet considered the revised version of Res. Conf. 9.24 in detail. However, the vast majority of the UK's comments - which incorporated many Link views - appeared to have been accepted and they felt that - in terms of the effort that had gone into the process, and in getting the issue resolved - the Paper should be put to CoP12. Delaying to CoP13 would send out the wrong message to others such as the FAO/COFI.

Link also asked for Defra's thoughts on the Review of the applicability of criteria to other taxonomic groups.

Defra advised that this was at the core of concerns expressed by the Chair of the Plants Committee and by the European Community. However, there was unlikely to be any progress on this before CoP12.

Link raised two issues on tigers:

• whether Defra was in favour of, and would support financially, the CITES Secretariat's proposal for a Technical Mission to Thailand to examine the domestic control of trade in tiger specimens;
• whether Defra could provide an update on the Global Tiger Forum's (GTF) Resolution on captive breeding of tigers for commercial purposes.

On the proposed Technical Mission to Thailand, Defra confirmed that they were in favour of the recommendation for a mission and would support this proposal in debate at the Standing Committee meeting. Defra would also have no difficulty, in principle, in providing funding to the Secretariat to enable the mission to take place. They stressed, however, that they would not be in a position to make any firm commitment on this at the Standing Committee meeting. Defra also suggested that if Link knew of potential support from other CITES Parties, it would be useful to know about this.

Defra reported that they had not heard any further from the GTF Secretariat about the Resolution.

Link raised three issues on Basking sharks:

• whether any data on trade in Basking sharks had been generated as a result of the Appendix III listing proposal;
• whether there had been any progress regarding funding for the reprint of the Basking shark leaflet, circulated at CoP11;
• whether Defra could provide an update on their lobbying strategy and if there was anything they could do to assist.

On the issue of trade data, Defra advised that they would request a report from their colleagues in the CITES Licensing branch. Preliminary enquiries suggested that little data (if any) had been generated. Defra had also written to the CITES Management Authorities in New Zealand, Canada and Norway but no trade data had yet been provided.

On the question of the reprint of the Basking shark leaflet, Defra confirmed that they would be putting in a bid for the necessary funds.

Finally, on a lobbying strategy for the Basking shark, Defra advised that they had been holding regular strategy meetings and had issued lobbying telegrams to around 80 relevant overseas Posts. Posts in countries that did not support the Appendix II listing proposal for the Basking shark at CoP11, were also asked what changes they would like to see that would enable them to support it.

Link also noted that they felt the intervention on CITES competence on fisheries matters by the FAO at CoP11 was one of the reasons why the UK's Appendix II listing proposal for the Basking shark was unsuccessful. Defra confirmed that they were building bridges with the FAO and that they had sent a representative to the most recent FAO Technical Consultation meetings. It was also noted that WWF had circulated a report highlighting why CITES might be an appropriate forum for regulating international trade in commercial marine fisheries products.

Link also raised a number of concerns on shark finning, especially with regard to a likely future EC regulation. Defra pointed out that shark finning was not a CITES issue but said that if Link wished to put their concerns in writing, they would forward these to their colleagues in the Fisheries Directorate.

Link asked whether Defra had a plan for the distribution of the Shahtoosh identification kits.

Defra advised that Andy Fisher (Metropolitan Police) and Roy Pitt (GWD's Enforcement team) would be responsible for distributing the kits to PWLOs and HMC&E within the UK. Roy will also be responsible for distributing the kits to other CITES Parties - including liaising with other Management Authorities over issuing relevant CITES permits. The UK delegation plans to provide the Secretariat with a small number of kits at the next Standing Committee meeting.

Link raised three issues on whales:

• Progress towards the next IWC
• Black sea bottlenose dolphin
• Russian orca takes

Link raised their concerns over allegations that Japan had been involved in encouraging some CITES Parties to join the IWC, and feared that this might result in a whale downlisting proposal at CoP12.

Defra said that CITES should defer to the IWC on whaling matters. They noted that they were liaising with their colleagues responsible for IWC matters who would keep them informed of any developments. Overseas Posts had also been made aware that this is a key issue, on which feedback should be sought.

IFAW additionally provided details of their report 'Whales and Fisheries', which highlights the issues surrounding the culling of whales.

Link advised that populations of the Black sea bottlenose dolphin were becoming seriously depleted as a result of takings for Dolphinaria purposes. It is expected that the Ukraine and the US will put forward an uplisting proposal and Link asked whether the UK would support such a proposal.

Defra advised that they would consider such a proposal if one was submitted. However, they suggested that the proper application of article 4 of the Convention and action through ACCOBAMS may instead resolve the problem.

Link also expressed concern at the taking of orcas from Russian waters for public display in Japan and asked whether the UK would raise these concerns with the Japanese and Russian authorities.

Defra pointed out that direct UK intervention in this matter would not be appropriate.

Defra provided an update on the current situation on this issue and asked Link if they had any particular concerns for Defra to feed into discussions at the Standing Committee meeting.

Link pointed out that there were probably differences of opinion on this matter within Link. There was some agreement, however, that an uplisting for the Beluga would not help in the conservation of the species as currently 90% of consumption is domestic and a complete ban would make it difficult to encourage sustainable utilisation in range states. It was also noted that CITES had done a good job in encouraging range states to co-operate on a management plan.

Link asked whether Defra's genetic research work on marine turtles would generate sufficient data to inform the UK's position at CoP12; and whether there was any conflict of interest in DEFRA's reasons for undertaking the research.

Defra advised that as the project, which got underway in October 2001 will take three years to complete, it was unlikely to generate sufficient data for CoP12. JNCC also pointed out that the project goes wider than just genetics but will also look at several other issues including markets, trade levels and the effectiveness of current regulations, and the extent and impact of 'by-catch' and illegal offtake.

Defra indicated that they were not presently aware that Cuba - or any other CITES Party - was planning to submit any downlisting proposals for marine turtles to CoP12. Defra confirmed that there was no conflict of interest in commissioning the research. The UK’s interests were on the basis of those of the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) in the Caribbean.

Link further asked for clarification as to why representatives of the Cayman Island's turtle farm (which farms Green turtles) were present on the UK delegation at the last Conference of the Parties. Defra advised that this was simply because the Cayman Islands have 'resident expertise' on turtle issues in the region. FCO added that, where possible, representatives of OTs are encouraged to attend meetings as it helps with Governance and the implementation of treaties.

Defra and JNCC outlined the problems associated with the premature release of information and asked that in future Link consult them before publicising anything considered to be potentially sensitive.

Defra welcomed WWF's report in so far as it contributed to the debate on enforcement issues. However, they felt that some of the claims contained within the report were over stated or reported out of context; and they certainly did not subscribe to the view that the UK is a 'soft touch' when it comes to the enforcement of CITES.