I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy Coughlan, and her officials. The purpose of the meeting is to consider the approval of the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, as amended. The Minister of State will speak first and we will then have Opposition statements.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
I seek the approval of the Dáil for the terms of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, commonly known as CITES. Copies of the convention were laid before Dáil Éireann on 19 October this year. The convention aims to control international trade in certain species of wild animals and plants where this trade threatens these species with global extinction. It provides for co-operation between states and for a system of permits and certification for regulating international trade by control of imports and exports of specified species. It also requires that national measures be taken, including the penalisation of trade in, or possession of, these species. The convention covers all cross-border movements of specimens and applies to live and dead animals and plants and wildlife products and derivatives. Items covered by the convention include tigers, parrots, snakes, cacti, ivory and coral. The convention was signed, subject to ratification, by Ireland in 1974. We do not come under it, we are not an endangered species yet.
I do not know, there is an election looming.
At this stage the convention is a long-standing and respected instrument in the international arena and has a membership of 152 countries to date. The EU adopted the terms of the convention by way of regulation in 1982, with revised and improved regulations taking effect in 1997. The EU also attaches considerable significance to this convention and Ireland is the only EU country which has not ratified it.
The EU CITES regulations are directly applicable in Ireland and give full effect to the convention. While Ireland had not ratified the convention, the national parks and wildlife service of my Department has actively participated in the enforcement of the EU regulations through the issue of permits and certificates and the provision of expert scientific advice. Notwithstanding this, Ireland, to date, could not formally ratify the convention due to the lack of primary legislation on matters such as the seizure and detention of specimens and the imposition of adequate penalties. With the enactment of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000, which was signed into law on 18 December 2000, the relevant primary legislation is now in place. The convention plays a key role in controlling unsustainable wildlife trade and in contributing to the conservation of biological diversity.
Although Ireland has a relatively small level of trade in the species covered, it is important this State ratifies the convention. Internationally we should be seen to actively support its aims. We do not want to be regarded as an unrestricted point of entry to the European Union for traders of species covered by the convention. Ratification will send an important political signal by Ireland to the international community that we unequivocally support the aims and objectives of the convention.
The motion comes before the committee because Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution requires that the terms of any international agreement involving a charge on public funds must be approved by Dáil Éireann. The charge on public funds will not be significant. Based on the United Nations contribution scale, Ireland's annual contribution would amount to approximately £8,000 at current rates. No significant additional costs will ensue within my Department. Apart from the involvement of my Department as indicated already, other Departments will be involved in the implementation of the convention.
Under the Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000, I have designated a number of ports and airports for the import-export of CITES species. These designated ports and airports have been agreed as the appropriate points of entry-exit in discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and with the Customs and Excise. The convention requires the confiscation of illegally held specimens. It has been agreed with the Zoological Society of Ireland, that the Zoological Society of Ireland premises at the Phoenix Park is the designated Irish rescue centre for animals. The National Botanic Gardens is the Irish rescue centre for plants.
The convention was amended at Bonn in 1979 to provide the legal basis for contributions towards the running costs of the convention. It was further amended at a meeting in Gaborone in 1983 to allow accession of regional economic integration organisations to the convention such as the EU.
It is vital Ireland finally ratifies this convention. As I have said, we must clearly and unequivocally demonstrate our commitment to nature conservation on an international level and confirm our solidarity in this regard with our EU partners. I ask the committee, therefore, to approve the terms of the convention and allow ratification to proceed.
I think the committee will help you towards the resolution of this matter regarding the convention. Recently a BBC television programme indicated that a substantial amount of wildlife is imported regularly through the airports in the UK. Have you received figures from Irish airports? Since the foot and mouth disease crisis measures were taken at airports, for instance, I note there is greater observation. Has the Department received notification of the volume of these imports? How many or what species are coming in?
I have been advised that there is a problem in the UK. That is not necessarily the situation in Ireland. We would not have statistics on any illegal importation of these species through the airports. We would only have facts on the amount of legally imported animals or plants where permits would have been provided. Certainly with the foot and mouth disease restrictions, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has advised that it has not shown numbers of illegally imported animals or plants? The UK would have a huge problem, particularly because of colonisation and the huge migrant community in the UK. As a consequence it has a problem in this regard but we would not necessarily have one. That is not to say that we in Ireland do not have species, be it plant or animal, which would have been illegally imported under this convention but it would not be a huge problem in Ireland. According to the information available from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the foot and mouth disease restrictions have not thrown any light on the importation of illegal species through Irish airports.
Ní bheidh deacreacht ar bith againn tacaíocht a thabhairt don moladh seo atá ós comhair an chomhcoiste, mar a deir siad, in éalaigh is fearr go mall ná go brea nó mar is mall is mithid or it is better late than never — sin trí slí chun é a rá. It is amazing that this convention has been around for almost 30 years and, for all we say about wildlife conservation etc., it has taken us 30 years to come to this stage of ratification. For that reason I welcome it even at this stage.
I note that the Minister of State, Deputy Coughlan, mentioned a number of species — tigers, parrots, snakes, cacti etc. Like you, Chairman, I remember television programmes where private individuals had some of these species, particularly snakes, as pets. Snakes have not been native to this country for the past 1,500 years.
Saint Patrick saw to that.
He did. Is there such a thing as legitimate trading in these species? If somebody wants to import a snake as a pet, does he or she need a licence to do so or are there licences available? I remember seeing in one such television programme that, I think, in Clondalkin a person had tigers or lions in the back garden as pets. It is very unfair to keep these wild animals as pets in a suburban garden in Dublin or, indeed, any other city. Does the ownership of these pets come under this convention?
It took us 30 years to ratify this convention. Indeed, it is indicative of Ireland's attitude to wildlife. It was only earlier this year that the EU had to send Ireland a strong reminder or rap on the knuckles regarding our failure to ratify the wild birds directive. I do not know if progress has been made since we received formal notice from the EU earlier this year regarding our failure to ratify that directive. Everyone is familiar with the species, many of which are not native to Ireland, to which the directive refers. However, species such as the corncrake and the cuckoo are endangered. Approximately 20 years ago, cuckoos could be found in 90% of areas throughout the country. Latest information indicates that this figure has fallen to 70% or less. The cuckoo may not yet be endangered but its numbers are on the decrease. Más mall é an Bill is mithid.
I wish to refer to one or two of the points that have been raised. This directive refers specifically to endangered species. Under no circumstances can endangered species be brought into this country, even by regulation. There are regulations whereby certain other species can be brought in and, consequently, they are not necessarily endangered. The position in respect of them is being regulated. On occasion, permits would have been issued to allow regulated importation.
The Deputy referred to large cats. For example, importation of tigers would not be permitted. Some cats are kept as pets and some of these are often bred in captivity. These animals are controlled through regulations as opposed to through the convention.
The Deputy also referred to the implementation of the birds directive, which was taken on board by the State in 1980. The complaint from the EU refers to a number of specific points regarding the implementation of parts of that directive, which were accepted in 1980. The position is being clarified, but the parts of the directive which I mentioned refer mainly to protective areas and wild birds. However, the actual directive was passed in 1980. It is the implementation of certain details that have been queried by the EU.
I have no difficulty supporting the ratification of CITES. As Deputy McGinley said, it has taken a long time but it is finally here and we should take a positive view in respect of it. The Minister of State indicated that there are a number of designated ports and airports. Is she in a position to identify these? She also mentioned that the Irish rescue centres will be the Zoological Gardens for fauna and the Irish Botanical Gardens for flora. What facilities will be provided at these centres.
In cases where indigenous species of flora and fauna are removed from the country, what powers are granted under the convention to pursue those who have effectively committed a crime? How can the flora and fauna in question be reclaimed? I welcome the fact that CITES is to be ratified because it is an important instrument for conservation.
I thank Members for their support for the convention. With regard to the designation of ports of entry and exit, Dublin Airport will be designated for live animals, Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports and Dublin and Cork ports will be designated for live plants, while Dublin, Cork, Drogheda, Foynes, Greenore, Limerick and Wicklow ports will be designated for timber. For parts and derivatives of animals and plants, Dublin, Shannon and Cork Airports, and Dublin and Cork ports will be designated. Therefore, the larger ports, mainly those in the Cork and Dublin areas, will be designated.
Regarding the facilities that will be made available by the Zoological Gardens and the Botanical Gardens, I assume that anything brought to the attention of the authorities will be transported there and that those who run these institutions will be in a position to deal adequately with and care for whatever fauna or flora are deposited with them.
Deputy O'Shea referred to a situation where a person removes indigenous flora or fauna from this country and takes it abroad, and inquired if they would be prosecuted. I am informed that a reciprocal arrangement exists with all the signatories to the convention which have facilities or designated areas to which flora or fauna can be taken. They would consequently deal with the relevant paperwork on our behalf. I am not sure of the position in respect of reinstatement. However, I am informed that the authorities in the country in which a person who was involved in committing an offence is apprehended would initiate proceedings against him or her. If, for example, a plant or animal was illegally transported to the UK, the authorities there would deal with the offender. The situation would be reversed if a person transported a plant or animal illegally from the UK to Ireland. The country in which the person is apprehended has the necessary powers under the convention to deal with the offence committed.
I also support the ratification of CITES. I was watching the "Dispatches" programme on BBC 2 last night which showed William Hague making a contribution on this matter in the House of Commons. He pointed out that animals, both living and dead, are being imported through airports in Britain. Are our laws more stringent than those in the UK, or could a similar situation arise here? Are the UK laws governing this area extremely lax?
The UK is a signatory to the convention so there is parity between the legislation in both countries. From what we can ascertain, the major difficulty in the UK is that huge quantities of animals and birds are being imported from former colonial countries. I assume these are often brought in as pets but not necessarily accepted in the UK as pets. It is a historical problem in the UK where animals are brought in. One cannot say that it does not necessarily happen here but it has not come to the attention of the authorities. Even though we have not signed this convention, it has been implemented for a number of years and under the wildlife Act passed last year there are very severe penalties for anyone trading illegally in animals. The problem in the UK is that they cannot cope with the volume of animals coming into the country because of their historic connections.
The briefing note is very helpful and states that for ratification national measures should be taken, including the penalisation of trade in or possession of these species. The Minister of State has mentioned wildlife legislation. Is it envisaged that further legislation will have to be introduced?
No, the problem previously was that we did not have primary legislation in this area to deal with the imposition of penalties. When primary legislation was introduced it was decided to go ahead with the implementation of the convention. At present there is no necessity for the introduction of further legislation to deal with the implementation of this convention. However, life is fluid and if an additional amendment is needed to the wildlife Act, that will be done. At present the necessary legislation and fines come under that Act.
The Minister for Finance will not lose any sleep as £8,000 a year is a very modest sum.
It is modest, but the penalties are up to £50,000 and two years in prison.
The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has laboratories which examine imported seeds and plants. Is there a partnership between the Minister of State's Department and that Department in that regard? There are agricultural officers at airports but will this convention see a coming together of those sections?
Yes. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, in consultation with my Department, considered the designation of courts where facilities would be available to them for investigative work. There is a lot of co-operation between both Departments on this issue. There is a lot of cross-referencing but there is substantial comhoibriú idir ár Roinn agus an Roinn Talmhaíochta.