EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/65

(2004/C 70 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1865/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: National interpretation of EU legislation on protection of endangered animals

The scarlet macaw is a species of bird included on the EU's list of endangered animals (Annex A). EU legislation, which is based on and strengthens the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) seeks to protect wild plants and animals from extinction by restricting and controlling trade therein.

The Swedish Board of Agriculture is the authority responsible for the implementation of the EU legislation in Sweden. According to staff of the Board of Agriculture, EU rules may be interpreted in such a way that a scarlet macaw which has lived in Sweden for fifty years, first in a pet shop and then in a tropical wildlife centre, and whose origin is not documented, may no longer be displayed to the public but must be impounded and possibly put down. However, the bird is ‘pre-convention’, i.e. it was imported into the country before the entry into force of the EU legislation or CITES. It should therefore be exempt. Moreover, the interpretation of the Swedish Board of Agriculture runs counter to the spirit of the legislation which is there to promote animal welfare.

Does the Commission consider that the Swedish Board of Agriculture has made a reasonable interpretation of the EU's legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The primary purpose of CITES and of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1), which implements it in the Community, is to protect wild species of flora and fauna from unsustainable trade.

The species listed on Appendix I of the Convention, which corresponds to Annex A of the Regulation, are those most at risk. In view of this, commercial use of wild-caught specimens is prohibited. The scarlet macaw is one of these species.

Derogations are provided for in this regard if the specimen entered the territory of the Member State before CITES legislation applied. However, such derogations are only granted on a case-by-case basis where the CITES Management Authority in the relevant Member State has satisfied itself regarding the facts of the case and issues a certificate accordingly. Otherwise, it would be possible to trade commercially in illegally taken wild animals or plants by misrepresenting them as ‘pre-convention specimens’ and the objective of Annex A listing would be undermined.

If the specimen is being used for commercial purposes and no derogation is granted, this constitutes an offence and the specimen must be seized and confiscated. Unless they can feasibly be returned to their country of origin, live specimens (of animals or plants) are sent to a designated rescue centre in such circumstances. If they cannot remain there in the long term, they are usually passed on to reputable zoos or breeders but the prohibition on commercial use remains.

The Commission has contacted the Swedish Management Authority about the present case. It had come to the attention of the authorities in Sweden that the bird was being displayed without a certificate. Quite correctly, the owner was advised to apply for a certificate. This certificate has subsequently been granted. In the meantime, on the basis of media reports, a misunderstanding arose that the bird would be killed if a certificate could not be granted. The Commission is informed that this was never the Swedish Management Authority's intention.

The Commission is satisfied that the Swedish Authorities interpreted Community legislation correctly and acted properly in this case. The welfare of the bird was not put at risk and the overriding objective of preventing fraudulent or unsustainable use of endangered species in Annex A species was respected.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.