Council of the European Union Brussels, 17 December 2019 (OR. en, fr) 14741/19 ENV 978 WTO 334 INFORMATION NOTE From: General Secretariat of the Council To: Delegations Subject: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP18) (Geneva, 17-28 August 2019) - Statements by the EU and its Member States Delegations will find in the Annex, for information, a compilation of agreed statements on behalf of the EU and its Member States for the above meeting. 14741/19 LZ/mb 1 TREE.1.A EN/FR ANNEX Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES): Eighteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP18) (Geneva, 17-28 August 2019) - Statements by the EU and its Member States - Document No: 4 Agenda item: Rules of procedure Proponent: Secretariat (4.1)/Standing Committee (4.2) 1. Dear Madam Chair, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, we welcome the need to further the design of the Convention’s Rules of Procedure to accommodate any necessary improvements. 2. We agree that the Rules of Procedure must remain valid through CoP18, as per Rule 32 of the Convention. 3. We support the establishment of a new mandate for the Standing Committee to review Rule 25. In relation to the Rules of Procedure the following statement on the EU voting right was made: 1. Thank you Chair. I am intervening on a very important issue for the European Union and its Member States. The rights of the European Union as a party have been challenged by Japan in this Committee in the context of the vote on listing proposal 45 before the lunch break. We cannot accept that our rights as a party are challenged, Chair. 2. We would like to recall the understanding based on which this Conference adopted its Rules of Procedure at the start of the meeting. It is recorded in the draft summary report of the first plenary session (CoP18 Plen. Rec. 1): "The 28 EU Member States will remain present during the entire CoP18. It is understood that the EU Member States will attend each session of the CoP and it is understood that no Party will challenge the EU’s exercise of its right to vote at CoP18." 3 We agreed to renew this understanding in good faith at this CoP with the aim of having a pragmatic way of allowing the Conference of the Parties to proceed without delay. 4. It is not consistent with this general understanding if individual Parties, or indeed the Chair, ask for confirmation, with regard to any particular session, that all EU Member States are present in the room. We trust that this will not repeat itself, and that the compromise reached on the Rules of Procedure will not be challenged anymore. 5. We would like this statement to be recorded in the summary of this meeting. ------------------------ 14741/19 LZ/mb 2 ANNEX TREE.1.A EN/FR Document No: 7.6 Agenda item: Sponsored delegates project Proponent: Secretariat 1. Dear Mr Chair, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, we consider the Sponsored Delegates Project as a very successful instrument, which has given many delegations the opportunity to attend the Conference of the Parties to the Convention. 2. As the main donor to the project, we see the participation of a maximum number of Parties to CoP meetings as a key element. There are significant benefits in informing decisions with knowledge and experience from a large number of countries, and ensuring ownership of the decisions adopted by the CoP. 3. The EU and its Member States encourage also other Parties to financially contribute to the project. At the same time, any financial support of delegates outside the framework of the project should be done in a transparent way, in line with Resolution Conf. 17.3. 4. The EU and its Member States support therefore the Secretariat’s recommendations to delete Decision 17.17 and to adopt the draft decision presented in Annex 1 to document CoP18 Doc. 7.6. 5. The EU and its Member States also support the recommendation to continue applying the current selection criteria to prioritize Parties to benefit from the Project as well as the Secretariat’s proposal to explore the extension of the project to the meetings of the Animals, Plants and Standing Committees. ------------------------ Document No: 8 Agenda item: Draft resolution on language strategy for the Convention Proponent: Iraq 1. Mister Chair, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, we acknowledge the need to improve the linguistic tools and to make documents accessible for all Parties to the CITES Convention. 2. However, any change to the current language strategy must consider the budgetary implications as well as the potential delays translations may impose on document production. The cost estimate provided by the Secretariat in its comment to document 8 are not reassuring in this regard. 3. Arabic is one of three UN languages currently not included in the CITES language strategy. Fairness would require that, if the strategy was to be changed, Chinese and Russian would also be added. This would not be feasible without significant additional resources. 4. The before mentioned issues (budgetary implications and fairness) should be considered in the in-session working group. ------------------------ 14741/19 LZ/mb 3 ANNEX TREE.1.A EN/FR Document No: 10 Agenda item: CITES Strategic Vision post-2020 Proponent: Standing Committee 1. Madam Chair, on behalf of the EU and its Member States, we welcome and support the adoption of the revised Strategic Vision. 2. We also support the need to amend the draft decisions in order to task the Secretariat to compare the objectives with existing Decisions and Resolutions and base this analysis on indicators. ------------------------ Document No: 11 Agenda item: Review of the Convention Proponent: DRC, Namibia, Zimbabwe 1. The EU and its Member States thank the DRC, Namibia and Zimbabwe for their efforts in putting forward this proposal. We agree with the proponents, that the first (and only) comprehensive review of the effectiveness of the Convention, dating back to 1994, has been a fruitful initiative that has led to many improvements in the workings of the Convention. Indeed, knowledge of the effectiveness of its mechanisms, and flexibility to address potential deficits, remains critical to maintain the Convention's credibility in the face of increasingly intense and complex challenges. 2. With regard to the proponents’ proposal to review the equitability of the Convention, we are of the view that the Convention has developed wide-ranging mechanisms to address equitability and fairness in the treatment of both, States and people. This includes, among others, Res. Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15) on National laws for the implementation of the Convention, Res. Conf. 10.3 on the Designation and role of the Scientific Authorities, with a current parallel process for Management Authorities, Res. Conf. 13.2 (Rev. CoP14) on Sustainable use of biodiversity: Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines, Res. Conf. 15.2 on Wildlife trade policy reviews, Res. Conf. 16.6 (Rev. CoP17) on CITES and livelihoods, and many others, including long-term initiatives to support national efforts in legislative development, enforcement, training and capacity-building. There is clearly room for improvement on some relevant issues, such as in engaging rural communities. 3. However, we are not in a position to support this proposal to review the equitability of the Convention, but will continue to consider the issue of equitability in the context of existing CITES mechanisms. 4. We would remain open, however, to consider a second review of the effectiveness of the Convention, with a focus on issues of practical importance that can be addressed without having to renegotiate the text of the Treaty. 14741/19 LZ/mb 4 ANNEX TREE.1.A EN/FR 5. On the issue of perceived contradictions between CITES and GATT, and the proposed comprehensive review of the relationship between these two organizations, we acknowledge that this has, on many occasions in the past, been the subject of intense discussions. However, we believe that the relationship between CITES and GATT has been a harmonious one for many years and we therefore agree with the CITES Secretariat that we cannot see sufficient justification for a review. 6. With regard to revisiting the Periodic Review of the Appendices in Res. Conf. 14.8 (Rev. CoP17), we recognize that despite many attempts during the last years, little progress has been made to ensure that the Appendices are an accurate reflection of the conservation status of its listed species, as is called for in Res. Conf. 16.3 (Rev. CoP17) on CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2020, and the current draft revision that was submitted to this Conference of the Parties. This is clearly an issue that may affect the credibility of the Convention and one that requires attention. Nevertheless, as is the case for a review of the Convention, the proposal does not provide the necessary funding and this would have to be considered and substantial revisions of the content of the proposal would have to be undertaken before taking these proposals further. 7. In summary, while we are not in a position to support the proposals now in front of us, the EU and its Member States would be open to engaging with other Parties in discussing the mandate, the process and funding for some of the proposed work. ------------------------ Document No: 12 Agenda item: Securing better implementation of marine fish species listings in the Appendices Proponent: Antigua and Barbuda 1. Thank you Mr Chair.