WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle.
C 280 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 (2000/C 280 E/053) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2488/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: CITES and the hawksbill sea turtle Can the Commission assure me that the EU will not be supporting the Cuban proposal for downlisting the hawksbill sea turtle from Appendix I to Appendix II at the next CITES Conference in 2000? I believe that the Cuban justifications for downlisting are based on erroneous population models and biology and, furthermore, that if the hawksbill is downlisted, it will serve to fuel the existing illegal trade in sea turtle shell. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2000) The Community has, unfortunately, not yet been able to become a party to CITES. Those Member States that are party to this Convention will vote individually at the forthcoming 11th conference of the parties. In view of the existence of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1), there is Community competence on many of the issues to be discussed at the Conference, including the two Cuban proposals concerning hawksbill sea turtles. The position of the Community and its Member States on these issues, including the way in which the Member States which are party to CITES vote, is determined by the Council on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. Experts from a number of Member States visited Cuba in September 1999 to examine the situation concerning hawksbill turtles. Trade controls appear to be good and the capture of turtles is well regulated. However, the impact of the harvest on the populations of this species is more difficult to assess because of the life history and biology of the species. The Commission will focus on this aspect when comparing these proposals with the scientific criteria established by CITES for judging such proposals. The Com- mission also wishes to take into account the CITES secretariat and expert non- governmental organizations. As a consequence, no firm conclusion has been drawn to date. the opinions of (1) OJ L 61, 3. 3. 1997. (2000/C 280 E/054) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/99 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission (16 December 1999) Subject: Production of counterfeit goods in CEECs According to reports by the UN Economic Commission for Europe, Central and Eastern Europe have become a thriving market for counterfeit goods, as Asia has been for some time, and such goods are reaching the EUís internal market via those regions. Counterfeit goods production is also a major obstacle to increases in EU investment in Eastern Europe, as businesses see that they will not enjoy the requisite legal protection in the countries concerned. How will the Commission step up its efforts to combat the manufacture and distribution of counterfeit goods in Eastern Europe? What will the Commission do to improve cooperation with the authorities of Eastern European countries in this regard?Is there any way in which the Commission can include measures against counterfeit goods in the pre-accession partnership programmes?