asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will prepare an impact assessment for amendments to the list of species in Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [HL3763]
My department will publish an impact assessment to accompany any statutory instrument that may amend Schedule 4.
Until a decision has been made on how to amend Schedule 4, it is not possible to say when the impact assessment will be prepared.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they have taken to ensure that captive populations of species that they intend to remove from Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are DNA-tested to check that they are of legitimate stock and to provide baseline data on any future parenting claims made for the species. [HL3764]
My department has no plans to carry out DNA testing on all birds that may be removed from Schedule 4. The department has no evidence to suggest that the population of birds currently listed in Schedule 4 is other than from primarily legitimate sources. The costs of DNA testing the whole captive population would be prohibitively expensive and would not be justified by any possible enforcement or conservation benefit. Any DNA testing to be carried out by Animal Health will be based on a risk and intelligence-led approach.
Modern breeding techniques use artificial insemination from a variety of possible male donors. The movement and death of many of the birds involved in this process means that any comprehensive testing scheme for all birds subject to registration would simply not be logistically possible.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they revised the criteria used to decide which species should be listed in Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [HL3765]
The prohibition on the import of wild birds into the EU was extended in July 2007 and with this prohibition likely to remain in force for the foreseeable future the situation in the commercial trade of wild birds has changed. My department therefore revised the criteria for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) assessment of species to be listed in Schedule 4. The list of species provided by the JNCC was considered in terms of the proportionality of the burden that registration of these species would place on keepers, balancing any conservation benefit that may arise from registration against the regulatory burden imposed by registration.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
How individual birds issued with Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) transaction specific certificates, but removed from Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, will be traced by the police for DNA testing if they are suspected of being taken from the wild. [HL3766]
The UK CITES Management Authority (UKMA) makes every effort to ascertain the legality of acquisition of a bird before issuing a transaction specific certificate. However, if information came to the attention of the UKMA after issuing a certificate which led it to doubt the veracity of the original application, it would trace the ownership via the name and address in box 1 “holder”, as the certificate is re-issued every time the bird is used on a commercial basis by a new keeper. Applications for certificates will also contain details of parent birds, if known.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which of the 11 non-European Union species proposed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for inclusion in Schedule 4 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already have captive populations in the United Kingdom; and whether this has any effects on the laundering of wild birds smuggled into the United Kingdom. [HL3768]
Of the 12 species originally proposed by the JNCC for listing in Schedule 4, nine are non-EU species. Animal Health has issued CITES permits for six species (red-browed amazon; red-tailed amazon; hyacinth macaw; blue-throated macaw; red vented/Philippine cockatoo; and Bali starling) in the past 10 years, indicating that these species have been kept in captivity in the UK.
The EU ban on wild bird imports has meant that, other than birds imported for conservation programmes, only captive-bred birds from approved breeding establishments have been permitted for import into the EU. Any import of wild non-EU birds would be contrary to the ban and CITES regulations. I consider that these regulations maintain a satisfactory level of control on any trade in the nine species, and there is no evidence to suggest that these controls do not work.
I do not consider that the listing of the nine non-EU species in Schedule 4 in England would have any effect on any illegal take of these species that may occur from the wild in third countries.