News - Parliamentary Questions

Conference of Parties | Standing Committee | Plants Committee | Animals Committee | EC CITES Committee | EC CITES Scientific  Review Group | CITES notifications | SUN meetings | Link meetings | Other news | Research projects | Parliamentary Questions | Biennial Report

Parliamentary Questions

The following is a list of Parliamentary Questions put to Ministers in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on CITES related issues. To go directly to each question, please click on the relevant link.

Traditional Medicine (PQ 468)

HOUSE OF COMMONS – Written Question

Mr John Lyons (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Government is doing to control the sale of endangered animal parts for eastern herbal medicines.

Mr Morley

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which regulates trade in endangered species of animals and plants, is strictly implemented in the UK under both European and National legislation.  Medicines derived from species listed in the Appendices to the Convention need an import permit issued by my Department before they can enter the country.  Permits will not normally be issued for products containing the most endangered species, which are listed on the Convention’s Appendix I.  As a result any products that are derived from, or even claim to be derived from, Appendix I specimens taken from the wild will not normally be allowed on sale in the UK.

CITES is actively enforced in the UK by Her Majesties Customs and Excise and the Police who work together with my Department, other Government Departments and certain non-governmental organisations in the Government’s Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.  My Department produces general guidance on the Convention and maintains a dedicated website on CITES implementation in the UK.  We have also worked with the enforcement agencies to produce specialist material including leaflets, posters and videos aimed directly at Britain’s Chinese speaking community.  We are also currently funding, with the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), research into the use of alternatives to replace certain endangered species contained in traditional medicines.

5 December 2002

Defra

Back to Top

Outcome of CITES CoP12 (Written Ministerial Statement)

HOUSE OF COMMONS – Written Ministerial Statement

Mr Morley

130 Parties attended the Conference in Santiago, which took place in a very positive atmosphere in the excellent facilities provided by the Chilean Government.

 The Conference considered 60 proposals to amend the species covered by CITES, which are listed in three Appendices.  Appendix I lists highly endangered species which are prohibited in international trade.  Appendix II lists species in which trade is permitted only under licence.  Appendix III contains species which are listed for monitoring purposes only. 

I attended the Conference during its second week and presented the UK’s proposal to list the basking shark on Appendix II.  Our first attempt - made at the 11^th Conference in Nairobi in April 2000 - failed to gain the two-thirds majority needed.  Since then we have worked hard to produce a stronger proposal based on sound science.   This time, following a narrow defeat in an initial vote, we were eventually successful when we took the issue back to the final Plenary session, where we achieved a resounding 82 votes in favour, 36 against and 3 abstentions.   I am delighted that our second listing attempt at Santiago has succeeded, providing much needed protection through proper CITES regulation and monitoring of trade.  We also welcomed the successful bid by the Philippines to list the whale shark, the world's biggest fish, on Appendix II.

Another significant success was the Conference decision to support the proposal from Nicaragua and Guatemala to list bigleaf mahogany on Appendix II.  We lobbied hard in support of this proposal, and very much welcome the outcome which will help enormously in properly regulating trade in this much sought after timber.  

We also lobbied against certain proposals and were particularly pleased that the Parties rejected Japan’s proposals to downlist Minke and Bryde’s whales from Appendix I to Appendix II.  We are opposed to all forms of whaling other than subsistence whaling by indigenous people and all EU Member States opposed these proposals at the Conference. 

There has been considerable public interest in the elephant proposals.  We believe that the outcome of the elephant proposals was fair and reasonable.   The proposals from Zambia and Zimbabwe for a limited trade in products from their elephant populations were rejected, whilst those from Botswana, Namibia and South Africa were adopted with significant amendments to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place before a one-off sale takes place.  Under the terms of the agreement reached in Santiago, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa may conduct one-off sales of their raw ivory stockpiles, but not before May 2004 and only provided that a number of strict conditions relating to trade controls, monitoring and the use of the funds raised for elephant conservation have first been met.  The sale will not take place if any of these conditions are not met.  Under the agreement, the only trade which may go ahead will be in:

a) hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes;

b) live animals for in-situ conservation programmes;

c) hides;

d) leather goods for non-commercial purposes;

e) registered raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces) subject to the following:

i. Only registered government-owned stocks, originating in [Botswana/Namibia/South Africa] (excluding seized ivory and ivory of unknown origin);

ii. Only to trading partners that have been verified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported ivory will not be re-exported and will be managed in accordance with all requirements of CITES Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade;

iii. Not before May 2004, and in any event not before the Secretariat has verified the prospective importing countries, and MIKE (the 'Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants' programme) has reported to the Secretariat on the baseline information (e.g. elephant population numbers, incidence of illegal killing);

iv. A maximum amount of [20,000kg/10,000kg/30.000kg] of ivory may be traded, and dispatched in a single shipment under strict supervision of the Secretariat;

v. The proceeds of the trade are used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programs within or adjacent to the elephant range;

vi. Only after the Standing Committee has agreed that the above conditions have been met.

On a proposal from the Secretariat, the Standing Committee can decide to cause this trade to partially or completely cease in the event of non-compliance by exporting or importing countries, or in the case of proven detrimental impacts of the trade on other elephant populations. All specimens that are not allowed to be traded under the above provisions shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix I and the trade in them shall be regulated accordingly.”

In addition to the 60 species listing proposals the Conference considered 71 Resolutions relating to implementation of the Convention.  These included a Resolution to address conservation of and trade in tigers and other Asian big cat species such as the leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard and Asiatic lion; and another agreeing to continue the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group for the intersessional period to the next Conference.  The Conference rejected a proposal by Switzerland to exempt synthetically derived material from the requirements of the Convention, but adopted a Resolution outlining simplified procedures for issuing permits and certificates for time sensitive biological samples which will reduce the administrative burden on those transmitting DNA or other diagnostic samples for example.  

The UK’s application on behalf of the Cayman Islands to register the Cayman Turtle Farm narrowly failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority for approval, despite support from the CITES Secretariat and many Parties.  The main concerns were over the lack of proof of legality of the founder stock, and possible mixing with and contamination of wild stocks.  The Farm will now seek to address the concerns which emerged in debate, with a view to resubmitting this application under the CITES postal procedure.

I believe that this represents an excellent outcome overall, not only for the UK but also for the CITES process itself, which has demonstrated that countries all over the world can unite to provide effective conservation measures to protect a wide range of commercially exploited species.

7 January 2003

Defra

Back to Top

Mr Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will seek greater protection for big leaf mahogany under CITES.

The Government intends to explore with other member states the possibility of listing big leaf mahogany on Annex B of Council Regulation 338/97. Such a listing would require member states to be satisfied that the trade would not be detrimental to the conservation of the species before the timber could be imported into the EU.

Back to Top

Mr Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what preparations her Department is making for the CITES 12^th Meeting of the conference of the Parties.

All proposals for discussion at the Conference of Parties have to be with the CITES Secretariat by 6 June. A proposal to list the basking shark on Appendix II has been prepared and will be submitted shortly. Officials have also contributed to the preparation of a draft resolution on trade in biological samples. These and proposals by other EU member states will be discussed at a meeting on 16 May. A further meeting to agree a common position on all CITES proposals will be held at the end of July. Views on these proposals will be sought from NGOs and other interested parties in the run up to this later meeting.

Back to Top

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the mandate of the Committee for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement.

The Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora was set up under the terms of Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 to assist the Commission in carrying out the functions set out at Article 19 of the Regulation, relating to the implementation within the Community of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). It is composed of representatives from each member state and the UK is represented on the Committee by DEFRA officials.

The Committee has met 3 times over the last 12 months. The annual cost of its work is relatively small, although detailed figures cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. The items currently under consideration by the Committee include:

• Preparations for the 12^th Conference of CITES Parties
• Imports of mahogany from Brazil
• Treatment of vagrant species listed in the European Birds directive
• Regulation of trade in primates, rhinos, tigers and bears and parts or derivatives thereof
• Status and transmission of SRG opinions
• Treatment of ecological threat species
• Marking of specimens in trade
• Use of transponders
• Import of hunting trophies
• Annual and biennial reports
• Outcome of CITES Committee meetings
• Imports of reptiles from Madagascar.

Back to Top

Mr John Bercow (Buckingham): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the mandate of the Scientific review group for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement

The Scientific Review Group was set up under the terms of Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 to examine scientific questions relating to the application of these Regulations. These questions may be raised by the Chairman, either on his own initiative or at the request of the members of the Group, or by members of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora. It is composed of representatives from each member state and the UK is represented on the Committee by scientific advisors from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (fauna) and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (flora).

The Group has met 3 times over the last 12 months. The annual cost of its work is relatively small, although detailed figures cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs. The items currently under consideration by the Committee include:

• Application of Articles 4.1(a)(i) and 4.2(a) of the Regulation – opinions of the SRG on:
• procedure for making & transmitting SRG opinions
• imports form Madagascar
• Psittacus erithacus/Nigeria
• replies to consultations with third countries on Phelsuma comorensis
• review of Annex B animals subject to import restrictions
• Amazona aestiva/Argentina
• Geochelone carbonaria/Suriname
• Export quotas 2002
• Private husbandry or reptiles
• Coral mariculture and fossil corals
• 18^th meeting of the CITES Animals Committee
• 12^th meeting of the CITES Plants Committee
• Preparations for the 12^th Conference of CITES Parties
• Mortality in transport
• Negative effects of captive breeding/artificial propagation operations

Together with Member States, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com (2001) 783 Final).

As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

Back to Top

Mr Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will support the proposal from Nicaragua and Guatemala to upgrade mahogany from CITES Appendix III to Appendix II at the 12^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in November.

As with all plant proposals put to the 12^th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, we shall be advised on this by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, our Scientific Authority on these matters.

I can confirm, however, that in principle we support the proposal by Nicaragua to include the neotropical populations of Swietenia macrophylla (Big leaf mahogany) in Appendix II of the Convention.

Back to Top

Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what new steps her Department has taken to regulate British companies trading in products derived from endangered and threatened species.

British companies are subject to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which is implemented in the EU by Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1808/02.

Under these Regulations all commercial trade in endangered species is prohibited and permits may only be granted for trade in threatened species where it is clear that trade will not be detrimental and that the specimens were lawfully acquired. No new steps to regulate British companies have been taken, although the Regulations governing the enforcement of CITES are under review. One of the issues being considered is whether offences relating to internal trade should be made arrestable and the existing penalties increased. We intend to go out to public consultation on these proposals later in the year.

Back to Top

Mr Angus Robertson (Moray): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when the EU Committee for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade is next due to meet: whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement;

(2) when the EU scientific review group for the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade is next due to meet: whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement.

The next meeting of the Committee on Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora is on 30 July 2002. The Scottish Executive is not represented on the Committee, or the related Scientific Review Group, as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is not a devolved matter. The July meeting will focus on agreeing a common position on proposals for the next Conference of CITES Parties, which takes place in Santiago, Chile in November. We are currently seeking views from our overseas territories and other interested parties on the merits of these proposals.

The next Scientific Review Group meeting is on 5 September 2002. The UK is represented on the Committee by scientific advisors from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (fauna) and the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew (flora). The Scientific Review Group was set up to examine scientific questions relating to the implementation of CITES within the EU. The meeting in September is likely to focus on preparations for the next CITES Conference.

Back to Top

Mr Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans she has to raise the issue of unsustainable bushmeat trade at the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species.

The Secretariat to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has prepared a progress report on the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group, and a draft Decision extending the life of the Working Group, for consideration by the forthcoming Conference of CITES Parties in November. We shall support the draft Decision and continue to encourage and support the work of the Working Group.

Back to Top

Mr Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if her Department has approached governments in countries in Central and West Africa to establish mechanisms to control the illegal international trade in bushmeat.

As a result of my Department’s representations at the eleventh Conference of CITES Parties in April 2000, the CITES Bushmeat Working Group was established. We have contributed £55,000 to the Group, which aims to help Central and West African range states develop and implement their own solutions, including the revision and harmonisation of their wildlife policies and legislation. We have also funded research analysing existing knowledge and expertise on the bushmeat trade, highlighting gaps in data and understanding, and making recommendations on further action. The results of this research have been made available to the CITES Working Group and we expect them to be discussed at the Group’s next meeting, due to take place in Brazzaville later this month. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) hopes to represent the UK at this meeting.

Through the FCO, we have also been using the UK diplomatic missions in Harare, Accra, Abuja, Cairo, Pretoria, Kampala, Abidjan, Maseru, Dakar, Luanda, Nairobi, Kigali, Mbabane and Tunis to raise awareness of the restrictions on importing meat into the UK.

Back to Top

Mr Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what representations she has made to the Department for International Development to establish a joint approach to tackling the unsustainable bushmeat trade.

My Department and the Department for International Development (DfID) already take a joint approach to tackling unsustainable trade in bushmeat and are in regular contact on this issue. For example, officials participate in the UK Tropical Forest Forum’s Bushmeat Working Group; DEFRA and FCO are represented on the Steering Group for DfID’s Wildlife and Poverty research study; DfID represented UK (including DEFRA) interests at the IUCN’s Bushmeat Seminar in Yaounde in September 2001, and officials from DfID and the Overseas Development Institute produced DEFRA’s bushmeat paper for the last CITES Conference in April 2000.

Back to Top

Mr Keith Vaz (Leicester East): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps the Government are taking to stop the illegal trade in ivory.

Commercial trade in ivory is currently prohibited under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In order to prevent illegal trade, the UK has strict controls which are actively enforced by HM Customs and Excise. Between 1 April and 30 September 2002, Customs made 55 seizures of ivory, including two weighing 26.6kg and 445kg. Under the Customs and Excise Management Act (1979) the illegal import or export of ivory can result in an unlimited fine and/or up to seven years imprisonment. Similarly, under the Control of Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations (1997) the illegal, commercial use of ivory within the UK can lead to an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment.

The UK has also provided £60,000 towards the Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS) which provides information on the world-wide illegal trade in ivory. ETIS has just produced a detailed report which will be considered at the twelfth Conference of CITES Parties (CoP12), in Chile, next month, when the issue of whether to allow the resumption of trade in ivory from five southern African states will be discussed. The UK will not support any proposal which seems likely to undermine the conservation of the elephant, or lead to an increase in the illegal killing of elephants.

Back to Top

Mr Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions her Department has had with other governments which are party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to ensure that the proposal to list mahogany on Appendix II of CITES received the two-thirds majority required for the listing.

Officials from British Embassies and High Commissions have discussed the mahogany listing proposal with the relevant authorities in a total of 96 countries, including those in Central and South America. In addition, officials from my Department have discussed the proposal with officials of the United States of America and Brazilian governments to try to persuade them of the merits of an Appendix II listing. We shall continue lobbying in support of this proposal at the CITES Conference in Santiago next month.

Back to Top

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what her policy is in respect of the trade in elephant products where these can be authenticated as having come from properly managed stock.

Where there are clear safeguards, the Government would in principle support a limited trade in ivory that is authenticated as being derived from a properly managed source, i.e. where the elephants are managed in a sustainable manner that is not detrimental to the conservation of the species. However, we could only agree to such trade if we were satisfied that the intended market for this ivory was itself properly managed in accordance with the principles set out under the appropriate CITES Conference Resolution, and would not provide a cover for trade in illegally acquired ivory. We do not believe that the conditions to permit this are yet in place.

Back to Top

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what action she is taking to prevent trade in ivory products; and if she will make a statement.

Under EU CITES Regulations, commercial trade in ivory products, including internal sales, is prohibited. The only exception relates to worked items acquired before 1 June 1947. The recent CITES decision to allow a one-off sale of limited ivory stocks after May 2004, subject to strict conditions, will not affect the EU’s current position on trade in ivory.

Back to Top

Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Government’s policy is on the CITES agreement reached in November on the sale of stocks of ivory.

The agreement provides South Africa, Botswana and Namibia with the prospect of a one-off sale of legal stocks of raw ivory after May 2004 provided that a number of strict conditions have first been met. These include verification of trading partners by the CITES Secretariat (to prevent illegal ivory entering legal markets), a requirement that baseline data on population and poaching levels is available from the MIKE system (Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants) and any funds raised must be used for elephant conservation. If any of the conditions are not met, the sale will not take place.

The Government believes that the agreement strikes the right balance between meeting the legitimate expectations of the southern African states that they should be able to engage in sustainable utilisation of their natural resources, whilst establishing strict controls to secure the conservation of wider elephant populations.

Back to Top

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether the EU decision to abstain in respect of the vote at the CITES meeting in Santiago, relating to whether to allow elephant ivory stockpile sales by Namibia, Botswana and South Africa, reflected the position the UK Government advocated in its discussions with EU partners prior to the vote.

At the meeting of the Environment Council on 17 October Member States agreed that the Community was unwilling to agree to a resumption in commercial ivory trade unless it was satisfied, following consultation with all range states, that there would be no resulting increase in illegal killing of elephants and no unfavourable impact on the conservation of elephant populations. The Community would continue to support the co-operation of range states to this effect.

In Santiago the UK supported the EU view that the initial set of proposals put forward by the range states did not meet these criteria for a resumption in commercial ivory trade. Following a meeting between representatives of range states and the EU, a revised set of proposals was prepared which sought only a one-off sale, subject to strict conditions which must be fulfilled before the sale could go ahead.

On these, the EU agreed to abstain because it was clear that there was no prospect of achieving an agreed view, even on qualified majority voting, to support or oppose the revised proposal. The UK does not believe that the necessary conditions are currently in place, even for a one-off sale. However, if the strict requirements of the agreement (which include a minimum 18-month delay, strict control of the market, stringent monitoring requirements and a condition that the proceeds of any sale are used solely for the benefit of elephant conservation) are met in full and verified, we believe that this agreement strikes the right balance between meeting the legitimate expectations of the southern African states that they should be able to engage in sustainable utilisation of their natural resources, whilst establishing strict controls to secure the conservation of wider elephant populations, as envisaged in the Environment Council decision.

MP Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what financial support her Department intends to provide the CITES Bushmeat Working Group in future years.

Following the agreement reached at the last Conference of CITES Parties (Santiago, 2002) to extend the work of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group, we have recently contributed a further £15,000 to the Group to help it carry forward its work to the next CITES Conference in 2004. This brings our total support for the CITES Bushmeat Working Group since its inception in April 2000 to £70,000.

Back to Top

MP Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what analysis her Department has made of the progress the CITES Bushmeat Working Group has made in tackling the unsustainable bushmeat crisis.

We have analysed reports produced both by the CITES Bushmeat Working Group itself and by those attending meetings of the Working Group on behalf of this Department. From these we believe that, after a slow start, the Group is now making good progress towards its aim of establishing strategies to overcome the problem of unsustainable trade in bushmeat in Central and West Africa.

The Group is highly committed and dedicated and has produced some useful work. In particular, it has completed an important study of laws and policies across the sub-region in support of its specific objective to develop strategies for the sustainable use of bushmeat within a lawful legislative context. We believe this study will provide a valuable resource for all the countries of the region in their efforts to harmonise and strengthen controls.

Back to Top

MP Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which members of her Department will be attending the forthcoming CITES Bushmeat Working Group in Cameroon.

This Department will be represented at the next CITES Bushmeat Working Group meeting (in Douala, Cameroon, from 26 to 28 March) by Dr David Brown of the Overseas Development Institute’s Forest Policy and Environment Group.

Dr Brown co-authored the UK Government’s 11^th CITES Conference discussion paper "Bushmeat as a Trade and Wildlife Management Issue" (April 2000), which included the recommendation to establish a CITES Bushmeat Working Group. Dr Brown also represented the Department at the Working Group’s last meeting (in September 2002).

Back to Top

MP Barry Gardiner (Brent North): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions her Department has had with the President and Secretariat of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group.

My Department and our representatives have had informal discussions from time to time with the President and members of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group about the general direction being taken by the Group and about progress being made. However, we have always strongly maintained that the Group should remain first and foremost a Central and West African initiative. We have therefore deliberately sought not to initiate or participate too deeply in formal discussions. Our input to the direction taken by the Group and the development of its strategies and solutions is therefore taken forward mainly in the context of our participation in meetings of the Group, such as that taking place in Douala from 26 to 28 March 2003.

Back to Top

Introduction | Enforcement | News | Licensing | Information for travellers | Contacts

www.jncc.gov.uk Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Monkstone House, City Road Peterborough, PE1 1JY United Kingdom.	www.defra.gov.uk/animalhealth/ Wildlife Licensing and Registration Service Defra, 1/17 Temple Quay House, 2 The Square,Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6EB United Kingdom.	www.rbgkew.org.uk Conventions and Policy Section, Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AE United Kingdom.