- Email: [email protected]
CITES Conference in New Delhi
OTHER INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
CITES Conference in New Delhi b y D A N I E L B. N A V I D * Background to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the proceedings of the first two meetings of the Parties to the Convention are well known to the readers of this journal (see Environmental Policy & L., 2 (4) (1976) and 5 (2) 1979). The 3rd meeting of the Parties was held in New Delhi, India from 25 February to 8 March 1981, to once again review and revise Convention procedures and lists of species covered by the Convention. At this meeting, delegations were present from 53 Parties (out of a total membership of 64 at the time of the meeting), 16 observer States and some 80 observer organizations. The steadily increasing number of participants and observers at each of the meetings of the Convention is a testament to the growing international recognition given to its importance as a conservation instrument. Especially interesting in New Delhi was the addition of several industry and trade organizations among the observers, and the constructive role that they played during the course of the meeting.
1. Introduction The 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES could be best described as being "businesslike". Unlike the first meeting, where all procedures had to be developed from scratch, and the second meeting where several fundamental problems were faced, most notably a financial crisis, the Third Meeting occurred at a time of maturity in the life of the convention. The meeting certainly had a full agenda, but the matters. considered were perhaps more routine and less fundamental than at previous meetings. In addition, this businesslike atmosphere was enhanced by exemplary organization and arrangements for the meeting, which reflected upon the work *Conference Rapporteur at New Delhi and Executive Officer for the IUCN Commission on Environmental Policy, Law and Administration, Bonn, FRG.
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
of both the Host Government and the CITES Standing Committee. In the following, a brief report is given of some of the major decisions taken at New Delhi. 2. Amendments to
the Convention
Appendices The most visable action taken at meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES is the amendment of the
cies or their products so listed is prohibited. It should be recalled that at the second meeting of the Parties, all whales had been placed on Appendix II of the Convention, with the exception of a few severely endangered species already on Appendix I. The German delegation maintained that the adoption of its proposal was an acid test for the effectiveness of the Convention, since the only way to control economic pressures was
Conference Chair; (from left to right) Lee M. Talbot, Ran Birendra Singh, Richard M. Parsons, M. K. Dalvi (Chairman), Sven Evteev and Peter H. Sand.
Convention Appendices (cf. Article XV of the Convention). For the full listing of the species decisions taken please contact editor. Pursuant to the terms of the Convention, these amendments will enter into force 90 days after the meeting (6 June 1981) for all Parties except those which enter a reservation in accordance with convention procedure. A few of the amendment decisions deserve special attention. The most notable was the adoption of the proposal by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany to transfer fin, sperm and sei whales to Appendix I of the Convention, wherein commercial trade in spe-
to act before species were so severely endangered that recovery was not possible. As was expected, the delegations of Japan and the USSR strongly protested against the proposal, indicating that its adoption would undermine efforts to harmonize work between CITES and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (IWC). A proposal by the United States to transfer only those populations of these species not covered by IWC quotas was seen to be a compromise measure, but several delegations voiced the position that it would be unworkable in practice. After much debate 75
the German proposals were adopted by a vote of 37 in favor, 2 against (Japan, USSR) and 3 abstentions. Both the delegations of Japan and the USSR announced that they would reserve their rights in relation to these decisions. Should formal reservations be taken, the amendments would not enter into force for the two countries, seriously undermining their effectiveness. Another controversial amendment proposal was that of the United Kingdom calling for the placing of all parrot species but three on Appendix II of the Convention. The delegation of the UK
appeal to international lawyers, was the decision taken by the meeting concerning the withdrawal of Appendix amendment proposals. Pursuant to the terms of Article XV of the convention, amendment proposals for Appendices I and II must be submitted 150 days prior to a meeting of the Parties. This provision allows time for internal consultations before meetings. In accordance with Article XV, the United States submitted an amendment proposal that would tighten controls on a certain monkey species. However, during the meeting, when the proposal came up for consider-
Conference in session.
explained that its proposal was meant to help stop the continued depletion of numerous parrot species. It cited the fear that if only certain species were protected on the Appendices, trade would shift to unprotected species. It further explained the administrative advantages of the proposal, including the possible use of a simplified identification manual for only the approximately 30 species of parrots on Appendix I, considering that all other parrots except the three excluded common species would be covered by Appendix II controls. A few delegations opposed the proposal, on the grounds that its intention was contrary to the purpose of the Convention, i.e. to only list those species which themselves require trade controls. However, the proposal was adopted decisively, by the vote of 32 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions. One controversial development during the meeting, and something certain to 76
ation, the delegation of the United States announced that it had since received updated information about the status of the species and would be withdrawing the proposal. The delegation of Brazil, a country in which the species occurs in the wild, then announced that it was strongly in favor of the proposal and that it would "sponsor" it. The matter was without precedent for CITES and after much discussion, the Chairman of the meeting ruled that a) a Party might withdraw its proposal and b) no other Party might then pick up the proposal, if that Party did not also meet the requisite notice period for the submission of proposals. The Chairman's decision was ratified in a vote of the Parties, but the view of the meeting was far from unanimous on this point. The delegation of Denmark in particular took issue with what had been done, pointing out that the decision either served to amend the Convention by means of a
generalized ruling, taken by simple majority, and without observing the convention rules for amendment, or served as an interpretation of the Convention in a haphazard way, without proper examination of the issues and history involved. The Danish delegation expressed the opinion that this decision should not be seen to prejudice future decisions on the matter and to this statement the delegations of Malaysia and the Seychelles announced their agreement.
3. Implementation and Interpretation of the Convention Several agenda items were concerned with measures to improve the implementation of the Convention. In certain cases decisions were taken for immediate application by the Parties, in other cases agreement was reached on areas requiring further work. One important development concerned the decision taken on security measures. In view of the widespread evidence of permit forgeries for illegal trade, a proposal had been tabled for the Parties to utilize centrally produced security paper, similar to banknotes for their permits under the Convention. In the course of discussion, it became evident that several countries could not do this, because they either utilize joint permit/ application forms in which large numbers of blank forms are distributed to the public, or because of national legislative requirements calling for the use of nationally printed documents. To sidestep this problem, it was agreed that all Parties would utilize a serially numbered adhesive security stamp produced by the secretariat on each original permit and certificate, which would be validated by the signature of the issuing officer across the face of the stamp and onto the permit. In addition, the Parties agreed that for wildlife products of exceptional value (such as ivory), to consider the use of special security paper to deter forgeries. Another significant decision concerned ranching of endangered species. At the second meeting of the parties in Costa Rica, it was decided to establish a Ranching Committee to consider under what circumstances to allow commercial trade in ranched specimens of species listed in Appendix I. The issue was a contentious one as several countries maintained that the utilization of wildlife products for the benefit of local people, often through ranching operations, is the only way to conserve species, while other countries expressed concern over the control of ranching Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
operations to ensure that they were not detrimental to wild populations, and that the Convention expressly forbids commercial trade in Appendix I species. To resolve the dilemma, it was decided that separate populations of species listed in Appendix I, which occur within the jurisdiction of Parties, which are deemed by the Parties not to be endangered, and which would benefit from ranching operations, be proposed for transfer to Appendix II. However, it was further agreed that any proposal for the transfer of such a population to Appendix II must meet strict criteria including evidence that the operation will both be beneficial to the species and that products of the operation be adequately identified and documented. The crucial general issue of the enforcement of the Convention was addressed in a resolution dealing with compliance control. The resolution directed all Parties to ensure strict compliance for all provisions of the Convention, to take strict measures to penalize violations of the Convention and to inform each other of circumstances and facts relevant to illegal traffic. Further specific duties of care were also directed to exporting and importing Parties respectively by this resolution. Other decisions of interest included the endorsement of the work done for CITES on the species and products identification manual, the standardized nomenclature, the index to species in legislation and the guidelines for transport of live specimens. The Parties directed that further work be devoted to all of these projects. 4. Administrative Matters The Parties expressed much satisfaction with the work of the Convention's Standing Committee established at their San Joss meeting. In fact, they took the opportunity of this meeting to expand the Committee's terms of reference, giving it increased authority to represent the Parties between meetings, to provide guidance and advice to the Secretariat on the implementation of the Convention, to oversee the Convention's budget, etc. In line with the rotating membership in the Committee, three new regional members were elected (France, Canada and Papua New Guinea) to replace the three members stepping down in New Delhi (UK, USA and Australia). The Conference of the Parties elected India to provide the President of the Standing Committee, a vote interpreted as an acknowledgement of the
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
significant lead that that country had financial provisions (see Environmental been playing in the promotion and im- Policy &Law, 5 (4) (1979) p. 174. plementation of the Convention. Two other financial matters were deThe Parties also agreed to make per- cided upon: the location of the Secremanent a second committee, the Tech- tariat and the establishment of a Confernical Expert Committee, upon which all ence fee for observer organizations. For the Parties might sit to provide a continu- the former, the Parties agreed to drop ing source of expertise to consider tech- their long search for a secretariat locanical problems of implementation of the tion which might provide greater finanConvention. The United Kingdom was cial benefit than does the present locaelected to provide the Chairman of this tion of Switzerland. The Parties here body. The evolution of CITES to now noted the advantages of having the Sehave a permanent administrative body cretariat housed with the IUCN in (Standing Committee) and a permanent Switzerland. However, they urged the technical advisory body (Technical Ex- Swiss authorities to give sympathetic
The Prime Minister greeting delegates.
pert Committee) is most interesting in light of other recent convention developments. For example, the Migratory Species Convention was originally envisaged to have two such bodies (an Executive Committee and a Scientific Council), but in the course of the final adoption of the text, the former was dropped as being too complicated and expensive. Similar remarks have been heard about proposed bodies required under the Ramsar Convention. The problem of financing the secretariat and meetings of the Parties was also an issue again. The Parties established a budget for the coming year, and a medium-term indicative budgetary plan for the future. Despite the fact that the secretariat was acknowledged to be severely understaffed, no growth was written into the budget. Problems with the receipt of membership contributions from the Parties continued since progress has been slow in acceptance of the amendment to the Convention which would provide for the establishment of
consideration to providing tax exemption status to the secretariat to save on convention expenditure. Regarding the issue of cOnference fees, it was decided to levy a Conference admission charge of US $50 upon each observer organization (except for those guaranteed the right of admission to Conferences of the Parties by the Convention itself), registering for meetings. This charge was established to offset the costs of providing documentation and other services to the observers, but it was agreed that it might be waived in cases of severe hardship. Several organizations in attendance in New Delhi expressed the view that $50 was grossly inadequate to meet the costs of what they had been provided and in several cases they offered to give additional contributions to the Convention secretariat. 5. Items for Future Consideration by the Parties Having given attention to all of the matters mentioned above, and more, the Parties found that there was insuffi77
cient time to adequately consider a few remaining agenda points. These w e r e consequently deferred to the Technical Experts Committee. They included e.g., proposals prepared on exemptions under Article VII of the Convention, the effects of reservations, and the disposal of Appendix I Specimens. Furthermore, several items were only touched upon as individual countries undertook to provide reports and proposals on them at the fourth meeting of the Parties (to be held at the invitation of the Government of Botswana in Gaborne in 1983). These included such matters as a ten year review of the Convention Appendices and the possibility of a reverse listing concept for the Appendices. The latter proposal being extremely interesting but highly controversial as if adopted it would in effect stand the Convention on its head. 6. C o n c l u s i o n CITES, now in force for six years, and after three meetings of the Conference of the Parties can be seen to have successfully passed from its early development stage. The international trade regulation system that CITES established is in place and the Convention mechanisms are smoothly functioning thanks to the work of its secretariat, Standing Committee and now permanent Technical Experts Committee. Membership continues to increase, although a few important trading countries remain out-
side of the Convention, e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Mexico, Thailand. The only major problem on the horizon seems to be that of money. Ever since UNEP notified the Parties in 1978 of its intention to withdraw financial support from the Convention, over a four year period, the Parties have been faced with the responsibility of meeting the costs of its operation themselves. A Convention amendment allowing for this was quickly adopted, but as noted above, individual Party acceptance at national level has been very slow. In the absence of the amendment coming into force; a system of voluntary contributions was instituted, but several Parties have had difficulties in making these payments, sometimes due to internal legal problems. The financial situation for the Convention thus remains uncertain, but in view of the successes the Convention has achieved and the international recognition given to it, the signs for the future should be hopeful. -if]
78
Although the Rhine riparian states have not accepted the French proposal for building an international salt works, the Netherlands' Government has stated that it "is still optimistic" that agreement can be reached. At the International Conference on the Pollution of the Rhine, held at The Hague on 26 and 27 January 1981, the Ministers responsible for the Environment from the riparian countries decided to make a determined effort to solve the problem. Three technical solutions will be studied before the next meeting in July 1981 : the injection of surplus salt from the mines into the subsoil in Alsace; transporting the salt in barges to the North Sea; and - building a salt pipeline from Alsace to soda works in Lorraine. []
-
The Polluter Pays Principle in Accidental Oil Spills OECD Member States adopted last April a Recommendation to the effect that public authorities should charge the full cost of clean-up operations they carry out after an accidental oil spill in their marine environment, and
Siting of Nuclear Plants The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) recently released a "Statement Concerning the Licensing Aspects of Nuclear Power Plant Siting" prepared by the CSNI (Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations), Sub-Committee on Licensing, which brings together the regulatory authorities of Member countries. Although the choice of sites is a matter of national policy, the national authorities of NEA Member countries in the field of nuclear regulation have made a review of the overall approaches to the siting of such plants, which is the subject of growing public interest. Since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in the United States, the authorities in that country have been studying proposals for new siting criteria, which would place greater weight on the density of population in the neighbourhood of any
Hope at Last?
nuclear site. These proposed criteria are such that they would rule o u t power plants being located in certain regions where local population densities are higher, despite the possibility in practice of maintaining the level of public protection by introducing additional "engineered" safety features. If these criteria are accepted, the United States would be adopting an approach to nuclear siting different from that presently established within most NEA Member countries. This makes obvious the interest of an exchange of view at international level and, to facilitate such a discussion, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency arranged a special meeting of the CSNI Sub-Committee on Licensing. As a result of this meeting, the Agreed Statement (see page 95) was drawn up, placing siting in the context of overall safety. []
not only the incremental costs such as food and board for personnel and gasoline for bulldozers, trucks and pumps. Thus polluters would have to pay for the salaries of military people participating in the clean-up operation as well as the wear and tear of the equipment used by them (in particular ships). The heavy financial burden of oil spills on coastal states would thus be alleviated. Furthermore OECD recommends its Member States to adopt on a bilateral or multilateral basis roles concerning financial aspects of assistance provided by one State to another in case of an oil spill so as to promote more rapid and more complete assistance and to avoid difficulties after the provisions of assistance. In the absence of such rules, OECD considers that the cost of assistance provided on request should be paid by the requesting State to the assisting State. The adopting of this Recommendation by the OECD Member States is a new progress in environmental law. It sets the principle that taxpayers money should not be used to reduce the financial burden on the liable person for the pollution he causes in case of an accident, (See p. 100). An article on this topic will be published by EPL in the forthcoming issue. []
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
CITES Conference in New Delhi b y D A N I E L B. N A V I D * Background to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the proceedings of the first two meetings of the Parties to the Convention are well known to the readers of this journal (see Environmental Policy & L., 2 (4) (1976) and 5 (2) 1979). The 3rd meeting of the Parties was held in New Delhi, India from 25 February to 8 March 1981, to once again review and revise Convention procedures and lists of species covered by the Convention. At this meeting, delegations were present from 53 Parties (out of a total membership of 64 at the time of the meeting), 16 observer States and some 80 observer organizations. The steadily increasing number of participants and observers at each of the meetings of the Convention is a testament to the growing international recognition given to its importance as a conservation instrument. Especially interesting in New Delhi was the addition of several industry and trade organizations among the observers, and the constructive role that they played during the course of the meeting.
1. Introduction The 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES could be best described as being "businesslike". Unlike the first meeting, where all procedures had to be developed from scratch, and the second meeting where several fundamental problems were faced, most notably a financial crisis, the Third Meeting occurred at a time of maturity in the life of the convention. The meeting certainly had a full agenda, but the matters. considered were perhaps more routine and less fundamental than at previous meetings. In addition, this businesslike atmosphere was enhanced by exemplary organization and arrangements for the meeting, which reflected upon the work *Conference Rapporteur at New Delhi and Executive Officer for the IUCN Commission on Environmental Policy, Law and Administration, Bonn, FRG.
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
of both the Host Government and the CITES Standing Committee. In the following, a brief report is given of some of the major decisions taken at New Delhi. 2. Amendments to
the Convention
Appendices The most visable action taken at meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES is the amendment of the
cies or their products so listed is prohibited. It should be recalled that at the second meeting of the Parties, all whales had been placed on Appendix II of the Convention, with the exception of a few severely endangered species already on Appendix I. The German delegation maintained that the adoption of its proposal was an acid test for the effectiveness of the Convention, since the only way to control economic pressures was
Conference Chair; (from left to right) Lee M. Talbot, Ran Birendra Singh, Richard M. Parsons, M. K. Dalvi (Chairman), Sven Evteev and Peter H. Sand.
Convention Appendices (cf. Article XV of the Convention). For the full listing of the species decisions taken please contact editor. Pursuant to the terms of the Convention, these amendments will enter into force 90 days after the meeting (6 June 1981) for all Parties except those which enter a reservation in accordance with convention procedure. A few of the amendment decisions deserve special attention. The most notable was the adoption of the proposal by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany to transfer fin, sperm and sei whales to Appendix I of the Convention, wherein commercial trade in spe-
to act before species were so severely endangered that recovery was not possible. As was expected, the delegations of Japan and the USSR strongly protested against the proposal, indicating that its adoption would undermine efforts to harmonize work between CITES and the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (IWC). A proposal by the United States to transfer only those populations of these species not covered by IWC quotas was seen to be a compromise measure, but several delegations voiced the position that it would be unworkable in practice. After much debate 75
the German proposals were adopted by a vote of 37 in favor, 2 against (Japan, USSR) and 3 abstentions. Both the delegations of Japan and the USSR announced that they would reserve their rights in relation to these decisions. Should formal reservations be taken, the amendments would not enter into force for the two countries, seriously undermining their effectiveness. Another controversial amendment proposal was that of the United Kingdom calling for the placing of all parrot species but three on Appendix II of the Convention. The delegation of the UK
appeal to international lawyers, was the decision taken by the meeting concerning the withdrawal of Appendix amendment proposals. Pursuant to the terms of Article XV of the convention, amendment proposals for Appendices I and II must be submitted 150 days prior to a meeting of the Parties. This provision allows time for internal consultations before meetings. In accordance with Article XV, the United States submitted an amendment proposal that would tighten controls on a certain monkey species. However, during the meeting, when the proposal came up for consider-
Conference in session.
explained that its proposal was meant to help stop the continued depletion of numerous parrot species. It cited the fear that if only certain species were protected on the Appendices, trade would shift to unprotected species. It further explained the administrative advantages of the proposal, including the possible use of a simplified identification manual for only the approximately 30 species of parrots on Appendix I, considering that all other parrots except the three excluded common species would be covered by Appendix II controls. A few delegations opposed the proposal, on the grounds that its intention was contrary to the purpose of the Convention, i.e. to only list those species which themselves require trade controls. However, the proposal was adopted decisively, by the vote of 32 in favour, 4 against and 2 abstentions. One controversial development during the meeting, and something certain to 76
ation, the delegation of the United States announced that it had since received updated information about the status of the species and would be withdrawing the proposal. The delegation of Brazil, a country in which the species occurs in the wild, then announced that it was strongly in favor of the proposal and that it would "sponsor" it. The matter was without precedent for CITES and after much discussion, the Chairman of the meeting ruled that a) a Party might withdraw its proposal and b) no other Party might then pick up the proposal, if that Party did not also meet the requisite notice period for the submission of proposals. The Chairman's decision was ratified in a vote of the Parties, but the view of the meeting was far from unanimous on this point. The delegation of Denmark in particular took issue with what had been done, pointing out that the decision either served to amend the Convention by means of a
generalized ruling, taken by simple majority, and without observing the convention rules for amendment, or served as an interpretation of the Convention in a haphazard way, without proper examination of the issues and history involved. The Danish delegation expressed the opinion that this decision should not be seen to prejudice future decisions on the matter and to this statement the delegations of Malaysia and the Seychelles announced their agreement.
3. Implementation and Interpretation of the Convention Several agenda items were concerned with measures to improve the implementation of the Convention. In certain cases decisions were taken for immediate application by the Parties, in other cases agreement was reached on areas requiring further work. One important development concerned the decision taken on security measures. In view of the widespread evidence of permit forgeries for illegal trade, a proposal had been tabled for the Parties to utilize centrally produced security paper, similar to banknotes for their permits under the Convention. In the course of discussion, it became evident that several countries could not do this, because they either utilize joint permit/ application forms in which large numbers of blank forms are distributed to the public, or because of national legislative requirements calling for the use of nationally printed documents. To sidestep this problem, it was agreed that all Parties would utilize a serially numbered adhesive security stamp produced by the secretariat on each original permit and certificate, which would be validated by the signature of the issuing officer across the face of the stamp and onto the permit. In addition, the Parties agreed that for wildlife products of exceptional value (such as ivory), to consider the use of special security paper to deter forgeries. Another significant decision concerned ranching of endangered species. At the second meeting of the parties in Costa Rica, it was decided to establish a Ranching Committee to consider under what circumstances to allow commercial trade in ranched specimens of species listed in Appendix I. The issue was a contentious one as several countries maintained that the utilization of wildlife products for the benefit of local people, often through ranching operations, is the only way to conserve species, while other countries expressed concern over the control of ranching Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
operations to ensure that they were not detrimental to wild populations, and that the Convention expressly forbids commercial trade in Appendix I species. To resolve the dilemma, it was decided that separate populations of species listed in Appendix I, which occur within the jurisdiction of Parties, which are deemed by the Parties not to be endangered, and which would benefit from ranching operations, be proposed for transfer to Appendix II. However, it was further agreed that any proposal for the transfer of such a population to Appendix II must meet strict criteria including evidence that the operation will both be beneficial to the species and that products of the operation be adequately identified and documented. The crucial general issue of the enforcement of the Convention was addressed in a resolution dealing with compliance control. The resolution directed all Parties to ensure strict compliance for all provisions of the Convention, to take strict measures to penalize violations of the Convention and to inform each other of circumstances and facts relevant to illegal traffic. Further specific duties of care were also directed to exporting and importing Parties respectively by this resolution. Other decisions of interest included the endorsement of the work done for CITES on the species and products identification manual, the standardized nomenclature, the index to species in legislation and the guidelines for transport of live specimens. The Parties directed that further work be devoted to all of these projects. 4. Administrative Matters The Parties expressed much satisfaction with the work of the Convention's Standing Committee established at their San Joss meeting. In fact, they took the opportunity of this meeting to expand the Committee's terms of reference, giving it increased authority to represent the Parties between meetings, to provide guidance and advice to the Secretariat on the implementation of the Convention, to oversee the Convention's budget, etc. In line with the rotating membership in the Committee, three new regional members were elected (France, Canada and Papua New Guinea) to replace the three members stepping down in New Delhi (UK, USA and Australia). The Conference of the Parties elected India to provide the President of the Standing Committee, a vote interpreted as an acknowledgement of the
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)
significant lead that that country had financial provisions (see Environmental been playing in the promotion and im- Policy &Law, 5 (4) (1979) p. 174. plementation of the Convention. Two other financial matters were deThe Parties also agreed to make per- cided upon: the location of the Secremanent a second committee, the Tech- tariat and the establishment of a Confernical Expert Committee, upon which all ence fee for observer organizations. For the Parties might sit to provide a continu- the former, the Parties agreed to drop ing source of expertise to consider tech- their long search for a secretariat locanical problems of implementation of the tion which might provide greater finanConvention. The United Kingdom was cial benefit than does the present locaelected to provide the Chairman of this tion of Switzerland. The Parties here body. The evolution of CITES to now noted the advantages of having the Sehave a permanent administrative body cretariat housed with the IUCN in (Standing Committee) and a permanent Switzerland. However, they urged the technical advisory body (Technical Ex- Swiss authorities to give sympathetic
The Prime Minister greeting delegates.
pert Committee) is most interesting in light of other recent convention developments. For example, the Migratory Species Convention was originally envisaged to have two such bodies (an Executive Committee and a Scientific Council), but in the course of the final adoption of the text, the former was dropped as being too complicated and expensive. Similar remarks have been heard about proposed bodies required under the Ramsar Convention. The problem of financing the secretariat and meetings of the Parties was also an issue again. The Parties established a budget for the coming year, and a medium-term indicative budgetary plan for the future. Despite the fact that the secretariat was acknowledged to be severely understaffed, no growth was written into the budget. Problems with the receipt of membership contributions from the Parties continued since progress has been slow in acceptance of the amendment to the Convention which would provide for the establishment of
consideration to providing tax exemption status to the secretariat to save on convention expenditure. Regarding the issue of cOnference fees, it was decided to levy a Conference admission charge of US $50 upon each observer organization (except for those guaranteed the right of admission to Conferences of the Parties by the Convention itself), registering for meetings. This charge was established to offset the costs of providing documentation and other services to the observers, but it was agreed that it might be waived in cases of severe hardship. Several organizations in attendance in New Delhi expressed the view that $50 was grossly inadequate to meet the costs of what they had been provided and in several cases they offered to give additional contributions to the Convention secretariat. 5. Items for Future Consideration by the Parties Having given attention to all of the matters mentioned above, and more, the Parties found that there was insuffi77
cient time to adequately consider a few remaining agenda points. These w e r e consequently deferred to the Technical Experts Committee. They included e.g., proposals prepared on exemptions under Article VII of the Convention, the effects of reservations, and the disposal of Appendix I Specimens. Furthermore, several items were only touched upon as individual countries undertook to provide reports and proposals on them at the fourth meeting of the Parties (to be held at the invitation of the Government of Botswana in Gaborne in 1983). These included such matters as a ten year review of the Convention Appendices and the possibility of a reverse listing concept for the Appendices. The latter proposal being extremely interesting but highly controversial as if adopted it would in effect stand the Convention on its head. 6. C o n c l u s i o n CITES, now in force for six years, and after three meetings of the Conference of the Parties can be seen to have successfully passed from its early development stage. The international trade regulation system that CITES established is in place and the Convention mechanisms are smoothly functioning thanks to the work of its secretariat, Standing Committee and now permanent Technical Experts Committee. Membership continues to increase, although a few important trading countries remain out-
side of the Convention, e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands, Mexico, Thailand. The only major problem on the horizon seems to be that of money. Ever since UNEP notified the Parties in 1978 of its intention to withdraw financial support from the Convention, over a four year period, the Parties have been faced with the responsibility of meeting the costs of its operation themselves. A Convention amendment allowing for this was quickly adopted, but as noted above, individual Party acceptance at national level has been very slow. In the absence of the amendment coming into force; a system of voluntary contributions was instituted, but several Parties have had difficulties in making these payments, sometimes due to internal legal problems. The financial situation for the Convention thus remains uncertain, but in view of the successes the Convention has achieved and the international recognition given to it, the signs for the future should be hopeful. -if]
78
Although the Rhine riparian states have not accepted the French proposal for building an international salt works, the Netherlands' Government has stated that it "is still optimistic" that agreement can be reached. At the International Conference on the Pollution of the Rhine, held at The Hague on 26 and 27 January 1981, the Ministers responsible for the Environment from the riparian countries decided to make a determined effort to solve the problem. Three technical solutions will be studied before the next meeting in July 1981 : the injection of surplus salt from the mines into the subsoil in Alsace; transporting the salt in barges to the North Sea; and - building a salt pipeline from Alsace to soda works in Lorraine. []
-
The Polluter Pays Principle in Accidental Oil Spills OECD Member States adopted last April a Recommendation to the effect that public authorities should charge the full cost of clean-up operations they carry out after an accidental oil spill in their marine environment, and
Siting of Nuclear Plants The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) recently released a "Statement Concerning the Licensing Aspects of Nuclear Power Plant Siting" prepared by the CSNI (Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations), Sub-Committee on Licensing, which brings together the regulatory authorities of Member countries. Although the choice of sites is a matter of national policy, the national authorities of NEA Member countries in the field of nuclear regulation have made a review of the overall approaches to the siting of such plants, which is the subject of growing public interest. Since the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in the United States, the authorities in that country have been studying proposals for new siting criteria, which would place greater weight on the density of population in the neighbourhood of any
Hope at Last?
nuclear site. These proposed criteria are such that they would rule o u t power plants being located in certain regions where local population densities are higher, despite the possibility in practice of maintaining the level of public protection by introducing additional "engineered" safety features. If these criteria are accepted, the United States would be adopting an approach to nuclear siting different from that presently established within most NEA Member countries. This makes obvious the interest of an exchange of view at international level and, to facilitate such a discussion, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency arranged a special meeting of the CSNI Sub-Committee on Licensing. As a result of this meeting, the Agreed Statement (see page 95) was drawn up, placing siting in the context of overall safety. []
not only the incremental costs such as food and board for personnel and gasoline for bulldozers, trucks and pumps. Thus polluters would have to pay for the salaries of military people participating in the clean-up operation as well as the wear and tear of the equipment used by them (in particular ships). The heavy financial burden of oil spills on coastal states would thus be alleviated. Furthermore OECD recommends its Member States to adopt on a bilateral or multilateral basis roles concerning financial aspects of assistance provided by one State to another in case of an oil spill so as to promote more rapid and more complete assistance and to avoid difficulties after the provisions of assistance. In the absence of such rules, OECD considers that the cost of assistance provided on request should be paid by the requesting State to the assisting State. The adopting of this Recommendation by the OECD Member States is a new progress in environmental law. It sets the principle that taxpayers money should not be used to reduce the financial burden on the liable person for the pollution he causes in case of an accident, (See p. 100). An article on this topic will be published by EPL in the forthcoming issue. []
Environmental Policy and Law, 7 (1981)