Ukip MEPs Voted Against Ivory Trade Clampdown In European Parliament

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:55 pm

Ukip has been branded "morally repugnant" after it emerged the party's MEPs - including Nigel Farage - voted against a resolution designed to combat the illegal ivory trade in Europe.
Only 14 of the 671 politicians who voted opposed the resolution, and six of them were Ukip.
They included Farage, along with the party's deputy leader Paul Nuttall, Derek Clark, Gerard Batten, John Agnew and William Dartmouth.

The resolution, which was voted on in January, called on EU countries to recognise they are "a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals" and implored them "to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching".
It also called on EU countries to implement Interpol recommendations on combating the illegal online trade in ivory and to destroy any stockpiles of illegal ivory to "send a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products".
None of the Ukip MEPs present for the vote were in favour of the resolution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/23/ukip-vote-against-ivory-trade_n_5197278.html?1398253854&utm_hp_ref=uk

Sorry but did not Gerrard Batten want to ban Halal?
Hypocrisy at its best

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:53 pm

UKIP vote against anything that seeks to increase EU powers.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:55 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:UKIP vote against anything that seeks to increase EU powers.

But happy to abuse animal rights then, showing and proving my point that they do not have the interest of British people after all then, because you put aside differences that many British people have in regards to animal welfare do you not, showing and proving that UKIP have no interest in even helping out within the EU for the benefit of the British people.

Oh dear

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:06 pm

We already have laws against ivory trade......

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:08 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:We already have laws against ivory trade......

Epic fail reply, we need more, because animals are on the brink of extinction because of the ivory trade, showing UKIP does not give a fuck about animals or the interest of British people either by voting against such a policy.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:26 pm

Well maybe the Africans need to do more to stop it at source.......

We already have laws against ivory trade and have done for years.

This is not UKIP support for ivory trade but continued non support for EU expanding its powers.

If you can't see the difference then you are part of The problem.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Well maybe the Africans need to do more to stop it at source.......

We already have laws against ivory trade and have done for years.

This is not UKIP support for ivory trade but continued non support for EU expanding its powers.

If you can't see the difference then you are part of The problem.....

Who is buying the ivory?

DOH

This is UKIP being voted in to be MEP's for the British people and then wasting tax payers money doing nothing to do anything for the British people, that is an utter disgrace and the fact you cannot see that shows they are being anti-British by not doing anything for the British people

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:10 pm

China mainly.

We already have strict laws against ivory trade.....

Try again dodge!

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:12 pm

UKIP are there voting against EU expanding their powers and for the interests of British people against the corrupt EU dictatorship.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:14 pm

UKIP are voting against the interests of British people, that is not backing the British people at all as seen and people will see this even more when more of them get into the EU, it will spell their downfall as all will play on the fact they do nothing in the interest of the British people there

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:30 pm

I haven't heard anything so morally repugnant for a long time. They should be called to account by the people that voted for them, but I have never met anyone who wants the ivory trade to continue.

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:50 pm

Nobody is voting for ivory trade, it is a vote against expanding EU powers.

We already have strict laws on ivory trade and have done for years!

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 6:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Nobody is voting for ivory trade, it is a vote against expanding EU powers.

We already have strict laws on ivory trade and have done for years!

It is a vote against the interests of British people against the ivory trade, something you cannot comprehend, how are they looking after the interest of British people by voting against policies that British people want?

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:34 pm

because OUR OWN DOMESTIC LAW......ALREADY contains wording to the effect of

"to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products "
AND we ALREADY

~~It also called on EU countries to~~ implement Interpol recommendations on combating the illegal online trade in ivory and to destroy any stockpiles of illegal ivory

you see this EU law would not make one jot of difference to "the people of britain" ..Its aimed at those less civilised european countries......

so how can UKIP be against the interests of british people...when our own laws are already ahead of the game?????

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:41 pm

Another pricless reply from the idiot, because if you are against the ivory trade you do everything to ensure all nations comply, thus it is in the interest of British people concerned abouit the ivory trade.

Oh my, the apologist for UKIP, guess we now know who Victor supports at last.

Nice view you have of other EU nations as well, blimey your bigotry has no limits I guess

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:41 pm

The European Parliament,
–   having regard to the resolution of April 2013 of the UN Commission on Crime, Prevention and Criminal Justice, endorsed by the UN Economic and Social Council in July 2013, encouraging UN member states to ‘make illicit trafficking in wild fauna and flora a serious crime when organised criminal groups are involved’, thereby placing it on the same level as human trafficking and drug trafficking,
–   having regard to the investigation carried out by Interpol and IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare) into the online ivory trade within the EU, which noted that enforcement of online wildlife crime is in its infancy and called for the introduction of specific e-commerce legislation regulating wildlife trade in the EU,
–   having regard to its resolution of 6 February 2013 on the strategic objectives for the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to be held in Bangkok (Thailand) from 3 to 14 March 2013(1),
–   having regard to the outcome of the above Conference of the Parties (CoP 16) meeting, at which the parties agreed on a number of concrete actions against poaching and wildlife trafficking, including Decisions 16.39-16.40 and Decisions 16.78-16.83,
–   having regard to the CITES Convention, implemented in the EU through Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein(2), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97(3),
–   having regard to Recommendation No 155 (2011) of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention on the illegal killing, trapping and trade of wild birds, adopted on 2 December 2011, and to the Commission’s subsequent Roadmap towards eliminating illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds (12/2012),
–   having regard to the recent initiatives taken by the US, the Philippines and Gabon to destroy their stockpiles of illegal ivory, in order to create public awareness regarding the increased demand for ivory and the increased levels of illegal trade and poaching, with the aim of cracking down on wildlife trafficking,
–   having regard to the joint statement of 26 September 2013 by 11 African elephant range state leaders, as part of the Clinton Global Initiative commitment to action for the Partnership to Save Africa’s Elephants, urging other countries to ‘declare or restate national moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching’,
–   having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on ‘organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendation on action and initiatives to be taken (final report)(4), and in particular paragraph 127 thereof, and to its resolution of 11 June 2013 on ‘organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (interim report)’(5),
–   having regard to the outcome of the workshop on international wildlife crime held by its Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 27 February 2013 in Brussels,
–   having regard to the question to the Commission of 29 October 2013 on wildlife crime (O‑000123/2013 – B7‑0529/2013),
–   having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas wildlife crime, including poaching and illegal harvesting, the transit of illegal wildlife products and derivatives, and the illegal sale and use of those products in consumer countries is now a serious transnationally organised criminal business with an annual turnover of at least USD 19 billion, and is now the fourth largest illegal activity in the world, after drug trafficking, counterfeiting and human trafficking;
B.  whereas illicit wildlife trafficking often involves transnational organised criminal networks and is used as a source of revenue for such networks and for militant rebel groups;
C. whereas wildlife crime constitutes a threat to the welfare of the individual animals and to the conservation of the animal and plant species concerned, and puts the local ecosystems as a whole at risk;
D. whereas wildlife crime has become a serious threat to the security, political stability, economy, local livelihood, natural resources and cultural heritage of many countries; whereas the extent of the response required to effectively address these threats is often beyond the sole remit of environmental or wildlife law enforcement agencies, or of one country or region alone;
E.  whereas illicit wildlife trafficking is not only a major threat to security, the rule of law and the development of the local communities where wildlife resources are depleted, but also to the peace and security of the nations and regions where those communities are located, as well as to global sustainable development;
F.  whereas tackling wildlife crime requires a coordinated global response at the highest political level and between enforcement agencies at international and national level, as well as the effective use of tools to strengthen law enforcement and criminal justice systems;
G. whereas as long as demand for wildlife products remains high and enforcement effort is low, legal trade will continue to serve as a front for the illegal trade and will drive poaching;
1.  Stresses that the EU is both a significant market and a transit route for illegal wildlife trade; draws attention to the fact that Europol estimates that revenues generated by the trafficking of endangered species amount to between EUR 18 billion and EUR 26 billion per annum, with the EU being the foremost destination market in the world;
2.  Emphasises that the aim of CITES is to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is not a threat to the survival of species in the wild;
3.  Is alarmed that the illegal trade in wildlife products on the internet alone was estimated by the Global Financial Integrity Report ‘Transnational Crime in the Developing World’ in February 2011 as being worth USD 10 billion per annum;
4.  Expresses its concern at the increasing links between persons and money connected with wildlife trade and other forms of organised criminal activity, including drugs and arms trafficking, corruption and fraud, as well as militancy and terrorism;
5.  Is concerned that organised crime groups, especially those with smuggling capabilities, find wildlife trafficking attractive because of the lack of law enforcement capacity and implementation, and because of high profits and weak penalties;
6.  Stresses that if the EU and its Member States wish to play a genuine leading role in the protection of endangered species, it is necessary not only to ensure, as a matter of urgency, the active and ambitious promotion of international negotiations, but also to create the most appropriate legal framework and the conditions of implementation that will ensure that all loopholes contributing to this illicit trade end at the Union’s borders;
7.  Draws attention to the fact that wildlife crime can be a serious threat to the rule of law and to sustainable development;
8.  Is aware that poaching of various species of wild fauna happens on EU territory too, and that killing, taking, capturing and trading in rare species which are specially protected – and even endangered species as listed in Annex IV to Directive 92/43/EEC (Habitats Directive) and Annex I to Directive 2009/147/EC (Birds Directive) – are still taking place;
Action within the EU
9.  Urges the Commission to establish without delay an EU plan of action against wildlife crime and trafficking, including clear deliverables and timelines;
10. Stresses that the EU is a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals, as highlighted in a recent report by TRAFFIC(6), and is therefore in a privileged position to control this trade;
11. Calls on the Member States to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching;
12. Calls on the Member States to join other CITES Parties in sending out a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products by destroying their stockpiles of illegal ivory;
13. Calls on the Member States to implement fully Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; recommends that Member States provide for immediate confiscation of any seized specimens, in order to better implement CITES and protect the welfare of live animals;
14. Calls on the Commission to engage the CITES Standing Committee regarding Decision 16.47 from CoP 16 on provisions to streamline the disposal of illegally traded and confiscated specimens in order to ensure coordinated approaches to information exchange and rapid rehoming of confiscated live animals;
15. Encourages the Member States to strengthen the judiciary in the EU by means of enhanced awareness, capacity and resources, in order to ensure that prosecutions for illicit wildlife trafficking are conducted effectively and to the full extent of the law, and that wildlife criminals receive penalties which are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; urges the Commission, therefore, to streamline harmonisation between Member States under Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC in order to avoid Member States with the lowest penalties being exploited as a preferred entry point;
16. Calls on the Commission to monitor and supervise thoroughly the implementation of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, given that even now, in some Member States, provision has not yet been made for effective criminal penalties, which are also required under the directive for those who kill, destroy, possess or take specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species;
17. Calls, on the grounds of concerns similar to those expressed in the UN resolution of May 2013, which includes forest crimes, for a review of existing EU instruments concerning illegal timber trading and other forest-related acts, in order to determine whether they are sufficiently adequate and effective to be able to deal with the high levels of illegal trading figures currently being recorded in the Union;
18. Draws attention to the fact that currently, within the EU, there are still huge differences between Member States as regards the system of penalties against those who trade, take, capture or possess specimens of protected wildlife; points out that this diversity of treatment between Member States as regards penalties often has an adverse impact on the effectiveness of monitoring systems and the efficiency of those responsible for monitoring in each Member State;
19. Calls for appropriate sanctions for breaches of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, in order to deter wildlife crime, and also for account to be taken of the market value and conservation value of the species involved in the offence, as well as the costs incurred; calls for the development of a system which provides for the regular updating and adjustment of the amounts of the penalties;
20. Underlines the fact that Directive 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law harmonises the definitions for wildlife crime related offences throughout the Union; points out, furthermore, that the directive requires the Member States to put in place effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions, and therefore urges them to set appropriate levels of sanctions for wildlife crime offences without delay;
21. Calls on the Commission and the Council to support dedicated training for the complete enforcement chain under the relevant existing financial instruments;
22. Calls on the Member States to use all relevant European and domestic instruments for fighting organised crime, corruption and money laundering and ensuring asset forfeiture when combating wildlife crime;
23. Calls on all Member States to comply with the resolution of April 2013 of the UN Commission on Crime, Prevention and Criminal Justice by updating their legislation to ensure that illicit trafficking of wild fauna and flora with the involvement of organised criminal groups is defined as a criminal offence punishable by up to four years of prison or more, so that the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime can be used as a basis for international cooperation and mutual legal assistance;
24. Calls for the EU and the Member States to fully implement the recommendations laid down in ‘Project WEB’, an Interpol/IFAW investigation into the online ivory trade within the EU;
25. Is aware that unsustainable and unethical trophy hunting has caused large-scale declines in CITES Appendix I and II -listed endangered species, and urges the Member States to support a possible revision of the EU’s legal provisions governing the import of hunting trophies into Member States and to require permits for the import of trophies of all species listed in Annex B to the relevant text;
26. Notes the documented problems of wild-caught animals being laundered through the use of less restrictive captive breeding provisions; calls on the Commission to support Decisions 16.63-16.66 from CoP16 on captive bred and ranched specimens, and to provide funding support for a study evaluating concerns over species claimed to be captive-bred and for the development of guidance for inspecting facilities;
27. Calls for the establishment of a specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol, which would have full transnational powers and responsibilities as well as sufficient and skilled human resources and adequate funding, with a view to centralising information and analysis and coordinating investigations, the result being more joint investigations and a more coordinated strategic approach; calls for the connection between local inspection bodies in the Member States and international inspection bodies to be optimised and enhanced, in order to improve the exchange of information and thus increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the local inspectors’ work;
28. Calls on the Member States, to this end, to establish the National Environmental Security Task Force (NESTs) recommended by Interpol, and to engage in coordinated operations through the proposed specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol;
29. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the resources dedicated to CITES within its services are sufficient to allow the EU to play a leadership role, in the light of the entry into force of the Gaborone Amendment to CITES;
30. Calls on the Commission and the Council to leverage their trade and development instruments to establish dedicated programmes, with substantial funding, to strengthen the implementation of CITES and provide resources for capacity-building against poaching and trafficking, in particular by supporting, strengthening and expanding enforcement initiatives such as ASEAN-WEN (ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network), HA-WEN (Horn of Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network), LATF (Lusaka Agreement Task Force) and PAPECALF (Plan d’Action sous-régional des pays de l’espace COMIFAC pour le renforcement de l’application des législations nationales sur la faune sauvage 2012 – 2017), which aim to establish regional centres of expertise and provide models for cooperation against wildlife crime;
31. Encourages the EU and its Member States to work proactively in order to make European citizens aware of the fact that wildlife crime is not an issue only concerning other continents but is, rather, an urgent issue concerning our planet and our ecosystem having a political, economic and social impact on communities around the world,
International action
32. Urges the Commission and Council to include the fight against wildlife crime as a priority in the programming of the financial instruments for development aid, in both thematic and regional programming;
33. Welcomes the fact that wildlife crime has been ‘upgraded’ to the same level of serious international organised crime as human trafficking and drugs trafficking following the UNCCPCJ Resolution of 26 April 2013, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to leverage trade and development policy in order to ensure that the international agreement is fully implemented; notes that among the EU’s priorities for the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly as adopted in Council in June 2013, there remains the idea of increasing efforts against wildlife crime and illegal logging and promoting improved governance;
34. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to do their utmost, at CITES and in bilateral dialogue with consumer countries, to ensure the closure of parallel legal markets, international and domestic, that are stimulating demand for species at significant risk such as elephants, rhinos and tigers;
35. Points out that there are mechanisms available under CITES for non-compliant Parties; urges the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to use these to their full extent if warranted;
36. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a Trust Fund or similar facility under Article 187 of the revised financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union, with the objective of safeguarding protected areas and combating wildlife trafficking and poaching, as part of an Action Plan against wildlife trafficking;
37. Calls for the EU and its Member States to strongly support the International Consortium on combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), comprising CITES, Interpol, UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation, including through provision of financial resources and specialist expertise, in order to facilitate capacity-building by governments and the exchange of information and intelligence, and support enforcement and compliance by ICCWC members;
38. Welcomes the fact that at the last G-8 summit (held at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June 2013) it was decided to take action to tackle the illegal trafficking of protected or endangered wildlife species and to offer political and practical support to those regional and international organisations which are leading efforts to enhance the ability of countries to monitor and control their borders and tackle facilitating factors such as corruption, transnational organised crime and illicit trafficking which undermine governance and the rule of law and in some cases provide an important source of funding for terrorists;
39. Calls on the Commission, through its work with African and Asian range states, to help those countries strengthen their policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, develop effective judicial systems and reinforce mechanisms to tackle corruption, in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional levels, including by supporting and financing the application of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit;
40. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, address intelligence technology needs, and develop effective judicial systems in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional level, inter alia by supporting the implementation of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit and the training of specialised wildlife crime prosecutors;
41. Calls on the Commission to develop and implement regional wildlife enforcement strategies and networks that are interconnected through a global coordinating mechanism, inter alia by supporting Interpol’s Environmental Crime Programme and the establishment of NESTs and their integration with regional enforcement bodies such as the Lusaka Agreement Task Force, HA-WEN, SAWEN (South Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network) and ASEAN-WEN;
42. Notes the high and increasing demand for illegal wildlife products from China and south-east Asia, and emphasises the need to put this issue on the agenda of the EU-Asia dialogue, at the highest political level; in this connection supports, as a significant step, the agreement signed in July 2013 by Commissioner Potocnik and the Chinese State Forestry Administration Vice Minister, Zhang Jianlong, on common efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and wishes to see its full implementation;
43. Urges the Commission and the Member States to explore the issues with the African Union, NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), AMCEN (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment), and the African Union Commission, in the framework of the forthcoming Africa EU Summit 2014, in order to identify areas of collaborative action on this global challenge for the future Joint Africa-EU Strategy 2014-2020;
44. Encourages the Commission to incorporate the issue of wildlife trafficking into transatlantic cooperation, with a view to developing a common approach ensuring effective legal regimes that prevent illegally traded products from entering the European and American markets and improving channels of communication for sharing information on wildlife management and trade regulations;
45. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to support efforts in key countries to work across ministries in order to design and implement well-researched demand reduction campaigns and ensure adequate long-term investment for the implementation of these strategies;
46. Calls on the Commission to support the development of alternative livelihoods for local communities closest to the wildlife concerned that demonstrably contribute to the recovery and conservation of wildlife populations and engage the communities in anti-poaching operations;
47. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt and implement clear and effective laws and policies that dissuade consumption of products derived from vulnerable wildlife species, to educate consumers on the impact of their consumption of wildlife species, and to provide adequate information on the consequences and dangers inherent in the uncontrolled spread of certain alien species through native ecosystems;
48. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the CITES secretariat, Interpol, Europol, UNODC, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:49 pm

yes...and...

a lot of whereas and wherefores still doesnt get round the simple fact that UK law, particularly in its enforcement of CITES regulations ....is already ahead of the game.....

what part of that monstrous C&P is particularly relevant???

All THAT is is a recipe for sending oodles of cash, which we aint got.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:54 pm

Dear me, how does that help British people wanting all nations to be on board with UKIP voting against a policy?

DOH

You really are the idiot I suspected you truly are.

British people not only care about what happens with our nation but all nations, or does that escape your feeble mind?

I suppose you will next tell me UKIP voting against or abstaining any equality for homosexuals is not in the interest of British people as well

Pathetic defense of a pathetic joke party.

Yep was wrong to have any respect for a dummy, so indoctrinated with bullshit

Cannot even be bothered tonight with such ignorance

Bye

by Irn Bru Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:05 pm

Didge wrote:Ukip has been branded "morally repugnant" after it emerged the party's MEPs - including Nigel Farage - voted against a resolution designed to combat the illegal ivory trade in Europe.
Only 14 of the 671 politicians who voted opposed the resolution, and six of them were Ukip.
They included Farage, along with the party's deputy leader Paul Nuttall, Derek Clark, Gerard Batten, John Agnew and William Dartmouth.

The resolution, which was voted on in January, called on EU countries to recognise they are "a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals" and implored them "to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching".
It also called on EU countries to implement Interpol recommendations on combating the illegal online trade in ivory and to destroy any stockpiles of illegal ivory to "send a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products".
None of the Ukip MEPs present for the vote were in favour of the resolution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/23/ukip-vote-against-ivory-trade_n_5197278.html?1398253854&utm_hp_ref=uk

Sorry but did not Gerrard Batten want to ban Halal?
Hypocrisy at its best

Excellent points there Didge and it really is Hypocrisy at its best for those that are bleating on about animal slaughter in a way that makes them seem like they acually care about them.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:11 pm

Didge wrote:Dear me, how does that help British people wanting all nations to be on board with UKIP voting against a policy?

DOH

You really are the idiot I suspected you truly are.

British people not only care about what happens with our nation but all nations, or does that escape your feeble mind?

really??? Is that why we keep getting our lads killed fighting in others wars????..perhaps we should learn to keep our noses out of others affairs..

I suppose you will next tell me UKIP voting against or abstaining any equality for homosexuals is not in the interest of British people as well

domestic matter????not relevant

Pathetic defense of a pathetic joke party.

Yep was wrong to have any respect for a dummy, so indoctrinated with bullshit

Cannot even be bothered tonight with such ignorance

Bye

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:12 pm

Didge wrote:Another pricless reply from the idiot, because if you are against the ivory trade you do everything to ensure all nations comply, thus it is in the interest of British people concerned abouit the ivory trade.

Oh my, the apologist for UKIP, guess we now know who Victor supports at last.

Nice view you have of other EU nations as well, blimey your bigotry has no limits I guess

No didge..I see reality...something you cant live with in your happy happy hippy world.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:15 pm

and just who the hell do you think is going to pay for this....

Oh thats right...you would see us at a third world subsistance level (for everyone except didge and his cronies) just to institute your particular brand of idiocy......

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:27 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:and just who the hell do you think is going to pay for this....

Oh thats right...you would see us at a third world subsistance level (for everyone except didge and his cronies) just to institute your particular brand of idiocy......

The resolution, which was voted on in January, called on EU countries to recognise they are "a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals" and implored them "to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching".
It also called on EU countries to implement Interpol recommendations on combating the illegal online trade in ivory and to destroy any stockpiles of illegal ivory to "send a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products"

Now, how is that going to cost a fortune, and please don't tell me that you DON'T want to stop elephants becoming extinct?

"Elephants ‘extinct within 12 years’
ELEPHANTS have thrived for 50 million years in the forests and grasslands of Africa.

But these iconic creatures could be lost in little more than a decade due to a poaching bloodbath, an expert claims.

Conservationist Dr Dame Daphne Sheldrick revealed an elephant is being killed every 15 minutes in Africa to supply an insatiable and unsustain-able demand for ivory.

From her charity’s base in Nairobi National Park, she said: “Today is World Elephant Day but in 12 years’ time there may not be any elephants left in Africa to celebrate.

“A world without elephants is hard to comprehend, but it is a real possibility. Against a submachine gun or poacher armed with a spear, they stand little chance.”

About 36,000 elephants in Africa were slaughtered last year despite a ban on ivory.

They fall victim to highly organised and well-armed gangs. In Kenya, 162 elephants out of a population of 35,000 were killed by poachers between January and July.

Ivory is in soaring demand in the Far East for trinkets.

Dame Daphne, 79, said that in just two raids last month Kenyan authorities seized 4½ tons of ivory.

In Hong Kong at the same time, Customs obtained more than 1,100 tusks.

Dame Daphne, who heads the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust named after her late husband, said captured contra-band is thought to equate to just 10 per cent of actual smuggling. She picks up the pieces of this grisly trade by helping orphaned elephants.

These include three-day-old Ajabu, who was found following tourist safari vans in Kenya’s Tsavo National Park.

She was so young that her fresh umbilical cord could still be seen while the soles of her feet were sore from having walked so far to find help.

Her mother is thought to have been killed by poachers.

Ajabu is recovering at the Trust’s Nairobi Nursery and will be returned to the wild.

Dame Daphne insisted the poaching epidemic is not just a problem for Africa and the Far East as London acts as a hub for the illegal trade in endangered species.

She said: “Don’t buy ivory. That means all ivory, be it antique or pre-ban, in the UK or on holiday.

“Buying ivory only serves to fuel a trade which results in more senseless deaths of these beautiful animals. We can’t let man-made extinction be the end of this iconic species.

“I have been ashamed to be a member of the human race in view of how elephants have been treated. Each elephant is an individual, just as are we, and each has its own unique personality. Like us, they are bonded together by family.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/421411/Elephants-extinct-within-12-years

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:47 pm

read the WHOLE OF IT sassy......

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:52 pm

I have Victor:

Action within the EU
9. Urges the Commission to establish without delay an EU plan of action against wildlife crime and trafficking, including clear deliverables and timelines;
10. Stresses that the EU is a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals, as highlighted in a recent report by TRAFFIC(6), and is therefore in a privileged position to control this trade;
11. Calls on the Member States to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching;
12. Calls on the Member States to join other CITES Parties in sending out a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products by destroying their stockpiles of illegal ivory;
13. Calls on the Member States to implement fully Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; recommends that Member States provide for immediate confiscation of any seized specimens, in order to better implement CITES and protect the welfare of live animals;
14. Calls on the Commission to engage the CITES Standing Committee regarding Decision 16.47 from CoP 16 on provisions to streamline the disposal of illegally traded and confiscated specimens in order to ensure coordinated approaches to information exchange and rapid rehoming of confiscated live animals;
15. Encourages the Member States to strengthen the judiciary in the EU by means of enhanced awareness, capacity and resources, in order to ensure that prosecutions for illicit wildlife trafficking are conducted effectively and to the full extent of the law, and that wildlife criminals receive penalties which are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; urges the Commission, therefore, to streamline harmonisation between Member States under Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC in order to avoid Member States with the lowest penalties being exploited as a preferred entry point;
16. Calls on the Commission to monitor and supervise thoroughly the implementation of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, given that even now, in some Member States, provision has not yet been made for effective criminal penalties, which are also required under the directive for those who kill, destroy, possess or take specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species;
17. Calls, on the grounds of concerns similar to those expressed in the UN resolution of May 2013, which includes forest crimes, for a review of existing EU instruments concerning illegal timber trading and other forest-related acts, in order to determine whether they are sufficiently adequate and effective to be able to deal with the high levels of illegal trading figures currently being recorded in the Union;
18. Draws attention to the fact that currently, within the EU, there are still huge differences between Member States as regards the system of penalties against those who trade, take, capture or possess specimens of protected wildlife; points out that this diversity of treatment between Member States as regards penalties often has an adverse impact on the effectiveness of monitoring systems and the efficiency of those responsible for monitoring in each Member State;
19. Calls for appropriate sanctions for breaches of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, in order to deter wildlife crime, and also for account to be taken of the market value and conservation value of the species involved in the offence, as well as the costs incurred; calls for the development of a system which provides for the regular updating and adjustment of the amounts of the penalties;
20. Underlines the fact that Directive 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law harmonises the definitions for wildlife crime related offences throughout the Union; points out, furthermore, that the directive requires the Member States to put in place effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions, and therefore urges them to set appropriate levels of sanctions for wildlife crime offences without delay;
21. Calls on the Commission and the Council to support dedicated training for the complete enforcement chain under the relevant existing financial instruments;
22. Calls on the Member States to use all relevant European and domestic instruments for fighting organised crime, corruption and money laundering and ensuring asset forfeiture when combating wildlife crime;
23. Calls on all Member States to comply with the resolution of April 2013 of the UN Commission on Crime, Prevention and Criminal Justice by updating their legislation to ensure that illicit trafficking of wild fauna and flora with the involvement of organised criminal groups is defined as a criminal offence punishable by up to four years of prison or more, so that the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime can be used as a basis for international cooperation and mutual legal assistance;
24. Calls for the EU and the Member States to fully implement the recommendations laid down in ‘Project WEB’, an Interpol/IFAW investigation into the online ivory trade within the EU;
25. Is aware that unsustainable and unethical trophy hunting has caused large-scale declines in CITES Appendix I and II -listed endangered species, and urges the Member States to support a possible revision of the EU’s legal provisions governing the import of hunting trophies into Member States and to require permits for the import of trophies of all species listed in Annex B to the relevant text;
26. Notes the documented problems of wild-caught animals being laundered through the use of less restrictive captive breeding provisions; calls on the Commission to support Decisions 16.63-16.66 from CoP16 on captive bred and ranched specimens, and to provide funding support for a study evaluating concerns over species claimed to be captive-bred and for the development of guidance for inspecting facilities;
27. Calls for the establishment of a specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol, which would have full transnational powers and responsibilities as well as sufficient and skilled human resources and adequate funding, with a view to centralising information and analysis and coordinating investigations, the result being more joint investigations and a more coordinated strategic approach; calls for the connection between local inspection bodies in the Member States and international inspection bodies to be optimised and enhanced, in order to improve the exchange of information and thus increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the local inspectors’ work;
28. Calls on the Member States, to this end, to establish the National Environmental Security Task Force (NESTs) recommended by Interpol, and to engage in coordinated operations through the proposed specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol;
29. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the resources dedicated to CITES within its services are sufficient to allow the EU to play a leadership role, in the light of the entry into force of the Gaborone Amendment to CITES;
30. Calls on the Commission and the Council to leverage their trade and development instruments to establish dedicated programmes, with substantial funding, to strengthen the implementation of CITES and provide resources for capacity-building against poaching and trafficking, in particular by supporting, strengthening and expanding enforcement initiatives such as ASEAN-WEN (ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network), HA-WEN (Horn of Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network), LATF (Lusaka Agreement Task Force) and PAPECALF (Plan d’Action sous-régional des pays de l’espace COMIFAC pour le renforcement de l’application des législations nationales sur la faune sauvage 2012 – 2017), which aim to establish regional centres of expertise and provide models for cooperation against wildlife crime;
31. Encourages the EU and its Member States to work proactively in order to make European citizens aware of the fact that wildlife crime is not an issue only concerning other continents but is, rather, an urgent issue concerning our planet and our ecosystem having a political, economic and social impact on communities around the world,
International action
32. Urges the Commission and Council to include the fight against wildlife crime as a priority in the programming of the financial instruments for development aid, in both thematic and regional programming;
33. Welcomes the fact that wildlife crime has been ‘upgraded’ to the same level of serious international organised crime as human trafficking and drugs trafficking following the UNCCPCJ Resolution of 26 April 2013, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to leverage trade and development policy in order to ensure that the international agreement is fully implemented; notes that among the EU’s priorities for the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly as adopted in Council in June 2013, there remains the idea of increasing efforts against wildlife crime and illegal logging and promoting improved governance;
34. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to do their utmost, at CITES and in bilateral dialogue with consumer countries, to ensure the closure of parallel legal markets, international and domestic, that are stimulating demand for species at significant risk such as elephants, rhinos and tigers;
35. Points out that there are mechanisms available under CITES for non-compliant Parties; urges the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to use these to their full extent if warranted;
36. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a Trust Fund or similar facility under Article 187 of the revised financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union, with the objective of safeguarding protected areas and combating wildlife trafficking and poaching, as part of an Action Plan against wildlife trafficking;
37. Calls for the EU and its Member States to strongly support the International Consortium on combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), comprising CITES, Interpol, UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation, including through provision of financial resources and specialist expertise, in order to facilitate capacity-building by governments and the exchange of information and intelligence, and support enforcement and compliance by ICCWC members;
38. Welcomes the fact that at the last G-8 summit (held at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June 2013) it was decided to take action to tackle the illegal trafficking of protected or endangered wildlife species and to offer political and practical support to those regional and international organisations which are leading efforts to enhance the ability of countries to monitor and control their borders and tackle facilitating factors such as corruption, transnational organised crime and illicit trafficking which undermine governance and the rule of law and in some cases provide an important source of funding for terrorists;
39. Calls on the Commission, through its work with African and Asian range states, to help those countries strengthen their policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, develop effective judicial systems and reinforce mechanisms to tackle corruption, in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional levels, including by supporting and financing the application of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit;
40. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, address intelligence technology needs, and develop effective judicial systems in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional level, inter alia by supporting the implementation of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit and the training of specialised wildlife crime prosecutors;
41. Calls on the Commission to develop and implement regional wildlife enforcement strategies and networks that are interconnected through a global coordinating mechanism, inter alia by supporting Interpol’s Environmental Crime Programme and the establishment of NESTs and their integration with regional enforcement bodies such as the Lusaka Agreement Task Force, HA-WEN, SAWEN (South Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network) and ASEAN-WEN;
42. Notes the high and increasing demand for illegal wildlife products from China and south-east Asia, and emphasises the need to put this issue on the agenda of the EU-Asia dialogue, at the highest political level; in this connection supports, as a significant step, the agreement signed in July 2013 by Commissioner Potocnik and the Chinese State Forestry Administration Vice Minister, Zhang Jianlong, on common efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and wishes to see its full implementation;
43. Urges the Commission and the Member States to explore the issues with the African Union, NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), AMCEN (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment), and the African Union Commission, in the framework of the forthcoming Africa EU Summit 2014, in order to identify areas of collaborative action on this global challenge for the future Joint Africa-EU Strategy 2014-2020;
44. Encourages the Commission to incorporate the issue of wildlife trafficking into transatlantic cooperation, with a view to developing a common approach ensuring effective legal regimes that prevent illegally traded products from entering the European and American markets and improving channels of communication for sharing information on wildlife management and trade regulations;
45. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to support efforts in key countries to work across ministries in order to design and implement well-researched demand reduction campaigns and ensure adequate long-term investment for the implementation of these strategies;
46. Calls on the Commission to support the development of alternative livelihoods for local communities closest to the wildlife concerned that demonstrably contribute to the recovery and conservation of wildlife populations and engage the communities in anti-poaching operations;
47. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt and implement clear and effective laws and policies that dissuade consumption of products derived from vulnerable wildlife species, to educate consumers on the impact of their consumption of wildlife species, and to provide adequate information on the consequences and dangers inherent in the uncontrolled spread of certain alien species through native ecosystems;
48. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the CITES secretariat, Interpol, Europol, UNODC, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation.

Is that suddenly going to send us into bankruptcy?

And from my previous link:

Dame Daphne insisted the poaching epidemic is not just a problem for Africa and the Far East as London acts as a hub for the illegal trade in endangered species.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:00 pm

Sassy wrote:I have Victor:

Action within the EU
9. Urges the Commission to establish without delay an EU plan of action against wildlife crime and trafficking, including clear deliverables and timelines;
10. Stresses that the EU is a major transit destination for illegal wildlife products such as ivory and live animals, as highlighted in a recent report by TRAFFIC(6), and is therefore in a privileged position to control this trade;
11. Calls on the Member States to introduce moratoria on all commercial imports, exports and domestic sales and purchases of tusks and raw and worked ivory products until wild elephant populations are no longer threatened by poaching;
12. Calls on the Member States to join other CITES Parties in sending out a clear signal against wildlife trafficking and demand for illegal wildlife products by destroying their stockpiles of illegal ivory;
13. Calls on the Member States to implement fully Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC identifying a set of actions for the enforcement of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; recommends that Member States provide for immediate confiscation of any seized specimens, in order to better implement CITES and protect the welfare of live animals;
14. Calls on the Commission to engage the CITES Standing Committee regarding Decision 16.47 from CoP 16 on provisions to streamline the disposal of illegally traded and confiscated specimens in order to ensure coordinated approaches to information exchange and rapid rehoming of confiscated live animals;
15. Encourages the Member States to strengthen the judiciary in the EU by means of enhanced awareness, capacity and resources, in order to ensure that prosecutions for illicit wildlife trafficking are conducted effectively and to the full extent of the law, and that wildlife criminals receive penalties which are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; urges the Commission, therefore, to streamline harmonisation between Member States under Commission Recommendation No 2007/425/EC in order to avoid Member States with the lowest penalties being exploited as a preferred entry point;
16. Calls on the Commission to monitor and supervise thoroughly the implementation of Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law, given that even now, in some Member States, provision has not yet been made for effective criminal penalties, which are also required under the directive for those who kill, destroy, possess or take specimens of protected wild fauna or flora species;
17. Calls, on the grounds of concerns similar to those expressed in the UN resolution of May 2013, which includes forest crimes, for a review of existing EU instruments concerning illegal timber trading and other forest-related acts, in order to determine whether they are sufficiently adequate and effective to be able to deal with the high levels of illegal trading figures currently being recorded in the Union;
18. Draws attention to the fact that currently, within the EU, there are still huge differences between Member States as regards the system of penalties against those who trade, take, capture or possess specimens of protected wildlife; points out that this diversity of treatment between Member States as regards penalties often has an adverse impact on the effectiveness of monitoring systems and the efficiency of those responsible for monitoring in each Member State;
19. Calls for appropriate sanctions for breaches of Regulation (EC) No 338/97, in order to deter wildlife crime, and also for account to be taken of the market value and conservation value of the species involved in the offence, as well as the costs incurred; calls for the development of a system which provides for the regular updating and adjustment of the amounts of the penalties;
20. Underlines the fact that Directive 2008/99 on the protection of the environment through criminal law harmonises the definitions for wildlife crime related offences throughout the Union; points out, furthermore, that the directive requires the Member States to put in place effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions, and therefore urges them to set appropriate levels of sanctions for wildlife crime offences without delay;
21. Calls on the Commission and the Council to support dedicated training for the complete enforcement chain under the relevant existing financial instruments;
22. Calls on the Member States to use all relevant European and domestic instruments for fighting organised crime, corruption and money laundering and ensuring asset forfeiture when combating wildlife crime;
23. Calls on all Member States to comply with the resolution of April 2013 of the UN Commission on Crime, Prevention and Criminal Justice by updating their legislation to ensure that illicit trafficking of wild fauna and flora with the involvement of organised criminal groups is defined as a criminal offence punishable by up to four years of prison or more, so that the UN Convention on Transnational Organised Crime can be used as a basis for international cooperation and mutual legal assistance;
24. Calls for the EU and the Member States to fully implement the recommendations laid down in ‘Project WEB’, an Interpol/IFAW investigation into the online ivory trade within the EU;
25. Is aware that unsustainable and unethical trophy hunting has caused large-scale declines in CITES Appendix I and II -listed endangered species, and urges the Member States to support a possible revision of the EU’s legal provisions governing the import of hunting trophies into Member States and to require permits for the import of trophies of all species listed in Annex B to the relevant text;
26. Notes the documented problems of wild-caught animals being laundered through the use of less restrictive captive breeding provisions; calls on the Commission to support Decisions 16.63-16.66 from CoP16 on captive bred and ranched specimens, and to provide funding support for a study evaluating concerns over species claimed to be captive-bred and for the development of guidance for inspecting facilities;
27. Calls for the establishment of a specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol, which would have full transnational powers and responsibilities as well as sufficient and skilled human resources and adequate funding, with a view to centralising information and analysis and coordinating investigations, the result being more joint investigations and a more coordinated strategic approach; calls for the connection between local inspection bodies in the Member States and international inspection bodies to be optimised and enhanced, in order to improve the exchange of information and thus increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the local inspectors’ work;
28. Calls on the Member States, to this end, to establish the National Environmental Security Task Force (NESTs) recommended by Interpol, and to engage in coordinated operations through the proposed specialised Wildlife Crime Unit within Europol;
29. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the resources dedicated to CITES within its services are sufficient to allow the EU to play a leadership role, in the light of the entry into force of the Gaborone Amendment to CITES;
30. Calls on the Commission and the Council to leverage their trade and development instruments to establish dedicated programmes, with substantial funding, to strengthen the implementation of CITES and provide resources for capacity-building against poaching and trafficking, in particular by supporting, strengthening and expanding enforcement initiatives such as ASEAN-WEN (ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network), HA-WEN (Horn of Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network), LATF (Lusaka Agreement Task Force) and PAPECALF (Plan d’Action sous-régional des pays de l’espace COMIFAC pour le renforcement de l’application des législations nationales sur la faune sauvage 2012 – 2017), which aim to establish regional centres of expertise and provide models for cooperation against wildlife crime;
31. Encourages the EU and its Member States to work proactively in order to make European citizens aware of the fact that wildlife crime is not an issue only concerning other continents but is, rather, an urgent issue concerning our planet and our ecosystem having a political, economic and social impact on communities around the world,
International action
32. Urges the Commission and Council to include the fight against wildlife crime as a priority in the programming of the financial instruments for development aid, in both thematic and regional programming;
33. Welcomes the fact that wildlife crime has been ‘upgraded’ to the same level of serious international organised crime as human trafficking and drugs trafficking following the UNCCPCJ Resolution of 26 April 2013, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to leverage trade and development policy in order to ensure that the international agreement is fully implemented; notes that among the EU’s priorities for the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly as adopted in Council in June 2013, there remains the idea of increasing efforts against wildlife crime and illegal logging and promoting improved governance;
34. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to do their utmost, at CITES and in bilateral dialogue with consumer countries, to ensure the closure of parallel legal markets, international and domestic, that are stimulating demand for species at significant risk such as elephants, rhinos and tigers;
35. Points out that there are mechanisms available under CITES for non-compliant Parties; urges the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to use these to their full extent if warranted;
36. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish a Trust Fund or similar facility under Article 187 of the revised financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union, with the objective of safeguarding protected areas and combating wildlife trafficking and poaching, as part of an Action Plan against wildlife trafficking;
37. Calls for the EU and its Member States to strongly support the International Consortium on combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC), comprising CITES, Interpol, UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation, including through provision of financial resources and specialist expertise, in order to facilitate capacity-building by governments and the exchange of information and intelligence, and support enforcement and compliance by ICCWC members;
38. Welcomes the fact that at the last G-8 summit (held at Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June 2013) it was decided to take action to tackle the illegal trafficking of protected or endangered wildlife species and to offer political and practical support to those regional and international organisations which are leading efforts to enhance the ability of countries to monitor and control their borders and tackle facilitating factors such as corruption, transnational organised crime and illicit trafficking which undermine governance and the rule of law and in some cases provide an important source of funding for terrorists;
39. Calls on the Commission, through its work with African and Asian range states, to help those countries strengthen their policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, develop effective judicial systems and reinforce mechanisms to tackle corruption, in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional levels, including by supporting and financing the application of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit;
40. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen policies and legal frameworks, increase law enforcement capacity, address intelligence technology needs, and develop effective judicial systems in order to better combat wildlife crime at local, national and regional level, inter alia by supporting the implementation of initiatives such as the ICCWC toolkit and the training of specialised wildlife crime prosecutors;
41. Calls on the Commission to develop and implement regional wildlife enforcement strategies and networks that are interconnected through a global coordinating mechanism, inter alia by supporting Interpol’s Environmental Crime Programme and the establishment of NESTs and their integration with regional enforcement bodies such as the Lusaka Agreement Task Force, HA-WEN, SAWEN (South Africa Wildlife Enforcement Network) and ASEAN-WEN;
42. Notes the high and increasing demand for illegal wildlife products from China and south-east Asia, and emphasises the need to put this issue on the agenda of the EU-Asia dialogue, at the highest political level; in this connection supports, as a significant step, the agreement signed in July 2013 by Commissioner Potocnik and the Chinese State Forestry Administration Vice Minister, Zhang Jianlong, on common efforts to combat wildlife trafficking, and wishes to see its full implementation;
43. Urges the Commission and the Member States to explore the issues with the African Union, NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), AMCEN (African Ministerial Conference on the Environment), and the African Union Commission, in the framework of the forthcoming Africa EU Summit 2014, in order to identify areas of collaborative action on this global challenge for the future Joint Africa-EU Strategy 2014-2020;
44. Encourages the Commission to incorporate the issue of wildlife trafficking into transatlantic cooperation, with a view to developing a common approach ensuring effective legal regimes that prevent illegally traded products from entering the European and American markets and improving channels of communication for sharing information on wildlife management and trade regulations;
45. Encourages the Commission and the Member States to support efforts in key countries to work across ministries in order to design and implement well-researched demand reduction campaigns and ensure adequate long-term investment for the implementation of these strategies;
46. Calls on the Commission to support the development of alternative livelihoods for local communities closest to the wildlife concerned that demonstrably contribute to the recovery and conservation of wildlife populations and engage the communities in anti-poaching operations;
47. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt and implement clear and effective laws and policies that dissuade consumption of products derived from vulnerable wildlife species, to educate consumers on the impact of their consumption of wildlife species, and to provide adequate information on the consequences and dangers inherent in the uncontrolled spread of certain alien species through native ecosystems;
48. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the CITES secretariat, Interpol, Europol, UNODC, the World Bank and the World Customs Organisation.

Is that suddenly going to send us into bankruptcy?

how many billion euros?

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:08 pm

You seem to think it will, I would say it is an extension of what is already being done.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:12 pm

Sassy wrote:You seem to think it will, I would say it is an extension of what is already being done.

indeed...with a few fat EU monkey making additions....and extension it might be...that doesnt stop it costing a fortune...this IS the unaccountable, corrupt, twisted ponzi scheme known as the EU.....who's "books" as it is well known, havnt been signed off in years......

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:24 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Sassy wrote:You seem to think it will, I would say it is an extension of what is already being done.
indeed...with a few fat EU monkey making additions....and extension it might be...that doesnt stop it costing a fortune...this IS the unaccountable, corrupt, twisted ponzi scheme known as the EU.....who's "books" as it is well known, havnt been signed off in years......

Blimey not you as well. Yes they have.

UK media – for example the Daily Mail, Daily Express and the Times – yet again reported that the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has not signed off the EU accounts. Some media -this time including the Daily Telegraph – claim that UK taxpayers will be liable to pay back GBP 800 million. Both statements are simply false.

The Court did in fact sign off as accurate the EU’s accounts for 2012 – as it has done each year since 2007. It stated this clearly in its press release http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/AR_2012.aspx.

The ECA (not the European Commission) was so concerned by the flagrant inaccuracy of so many reports that it tweeted Mail online and other media in UK and beyond to request changes @EUAuditorsECA

The ECA annual report tracks the amount of errors that affect financial transactions under the EU budget against a stringent set of rules and procedures.

Many media neglect to emphasise that – while the Court makes clear the Commission also has more work to do – most of the errors take place at national level, including frequently in the UK, and concern decentralised programmes like agriculture and regional funding rather than money managed centrally in Brussels. Member States are responsible for managing 80% of EU funds.

They fail to mention that where errors have serious budgetary effects, the Commission succeeds in clawing most of the money back so it can then be used for other projects: about £3.8 billion/EUR 4.4 billion in 2012.

So the fact that the error rate for 2012 is 4.8% (compared to 3.9% for 2011) does not mean – as the newspapers claim, despite having the situation fully explained to them – that the extrapolated amount of money from the EU annual budget total is written off.

Nor does this mean that the UK (or any other member state) will have to pay back any amount into a bank account in Brussels.

Neither does the fact that a project has not fully adhered to the procedures as it should have, always signify that the money is wasted or that the main project objectives were not achieved.

For example, if member state authorities spending EU money on a new bridge did not properly follow public procurement rules – that is not acceptable. But it does not mean that the bridge is not built or the money is wasted.

These Court of Auditors reports and the increase in the error rate this year, after a long period of improvement, are serious matter, something which the Commission fully recognises. It has in the past seven years endeavoured to reduce the number of errors by introducing modern accounting practices, tighter rules on EU spending, stricter supervision, and stronger control measures.

Under the next seven-year budget 2014-2020 the EU will implement further reforms http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-947_en.htm to simplify the system and introduce even more stringent rules to encourage all Member States – including the UK – to take more care about the way they spend EU funds.

For example, the Commission has had to claw back from UK nearly EUR 300 million in corrections to UK administered EU agriculture spending over the last three years. There have also been significant errors in regional policy –payments to UK programmes have had to be interrupted several times.

As a reader put it on one of the newspapers’ blog threads – this is not the EU wasting member states’ money, but member states misspending European money.

That is certainly a very simplistic summary.

But it is perhaps less simplistic than much of the media reporting of the ECA report which has yet again seen newspapers throwing incorrect figures around to kindle public outrage

http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/european-auditors-point-to-errors-but-sign-off-eus-accounts/

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:37 pm

mmmm....ok....but they are also asking for ridiculous increases in revenue too...well above inflation and so on...dunno how much of that was stopped....
and even IF the books were signed off...it doesnt change the fact that its corrupt.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:44 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:mmmm....ok....but they are also asking for ridiculous increases in revenue too...well above inflation and so on...dunno how much of that was stopped....
and even IF the books were signed off...it doesnt change the fact that its corrupt.....

Is it, or is it the same as anything and there is some corruption, as there is in any 'big firm' and the stories of corruption as the same as the stories about the books not being signed off?

You might find this useful Victor: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm

Wink

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:08 pm

you never see a poor EU burgher comissioner or whatever......

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:10 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:you never see a poor EU burgher comissioner or whatever......

You don't see a poor MP either lol

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:11 pm

and anyway...what has the Eu ever done for me?

I'm a white straight, law abiding citizen......I dont get a look in....just made to pay.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:11 pm

Sassy wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:you never see a poor EU burgher comissioner or whatever......

You don't see a poor MP either lol

true......but....paying for our own bent buggers is one thing.......paying for ANOTHER (10) layers is altogether another

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:17 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:and anyway...what has the Eu ever done for me?

I'm a white straight, law abiding citizen......I dont get a look in....just made to pay.....

Rubbish, I've posted threads here where the EU has stepped in and saved British factories, and BA did a thread the other day of 'say something good about the EU' and was very surprised when I did post after post citing cases. He wasn't expecting that.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:17 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Sassy wrote:

You don't see a poor MP either lol

true......but....paying for our own bent buggers is one thing.......paying for ANOTHER (10) layers is altogether another

Except - is that just another myth?

by Tommy Monk Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:30 pm

Ivory is in soaring demand in the Far East for trinkets.

From your post Sassy.

We already have strict law against the trade.

UKIP always vote against EU trying to expand powers.

There are people killing the animals, not us.

There are people buying again not us.

This is an irrelevant bit of EU bureaucracy and attempt to smear UKIP.

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:38 pm

Sassy wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:and anyway...what has the Eu ever done for me?

I'm a white straight, law abiding citizen......I dont get a look in....just made to pay.....

Rubbish, I've posted threads here where the EU has stepped in and saved British factories, and BA did a thread the other day of 'say something good about the EU' and was very surprised when I did post after post citing cases. He wasn't expecting that.

and the price.....

oh yes...we can send every ******** over to you...and you can pay for em.....

funny how when I was in germany a few years back...I had to pay for medical treatment UP FRONT....then claim back ...from the UK govt...If I had needed an interpreter...i would have had to pay........funny that........

Funny how we have to keep foreign prisoners at our expense on the flimsiest of excuses.....because of the EUROPEAN human rights act......

Nah...i dont care what anyone says ...you cant convince me that there is an overall positive benefit.....

by Guest Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:40 pm

It is anti small business...it may save big factories, whoopee...no surpries...wonder which EU burgher got a back hander for that..but small businesses...it puts every obstacle possible in the way....believe me I KNOW....

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:07 am

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:Another pricless reply from the idiot, because if you are against the ivory trade you do everything to ensure all nations comply, thus it is in the interest of British people concerned abouit the ivory trade.

Oh my, the apologist for UKIP, guess we now know who Victor supports at last.

Nice view you have of other EU nations as well, blimey your bigotry has no limits I guess

No didge..I see reality...something you cant live with in your happy happy hippy world.....

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Hippy world, hilarious, what a wally, don;t worry UKIP will never gain power and will look forward to laughing in your face about it mate, because you are utterly clueless

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:33 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Sassy wrote:

Rubbish, I've posted threads here where the EU has stepped in and saved British factories, and BA did a thread the other day of 'say something good about the EU' and was very surprised when I did post after post citing cases. He wasn't expecting that.

and the price.....

oh yes...we can send every ******** over to you...and you can pay for em.....

funny how when I was in germany a few years back...I had to pay for medical treatment UP FRONT....then claim back ...from the UK govt...If I had needed an interpreter...i would have had to pay........funny that........

Funny how we have to keep foreign prisoners at our expense on the flimsiest of excuses.....because of the EUROPEAN human rights act......

Nah...i dont care what anyone says ...you cant convince me that there is an overall positive benefit.....

Nothing you can do much about the ECHR dummy, The ECHR is a Council of Europe institution set up by the Treaty of London and is not related to the European Union. Every country from Iceland to Russia (excluding Belarus) abides by the court.

DOH

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:33 pm

The vote concerned was not about ivory, but a wide ranging motion calling for the EU to take more powers and spend more money harmonising law across Europe.
• These harmonisation moves frequently threaten to water down existing UK legislation which is already more than fit for purpose, as in this case. They get 'averaged down' to a European standard, making our laws less effective.
• The Conservatives, Lib-Dems and Labour habitually vote for harmonisation moves which give more powers to the EU, water down UK law and throw more taxpayers' money at issues, to make themselves look good. It is UKIP that is taking its responsibilities seriously here, while the others just put their hands up when told to.
• The other parties will continue to pick out inaccurate claims like this to damage UKIP and pretend that they are doing something useful in Brussels.

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:28 pm

Folks this is a story from the Huffington Post.........ignore it.

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:52 pm

sphinx wrote:The vote concerned was not about ivory, but a wide ranging motion calling for the EU to take more powers and spend more money harmonising law across Europe.
• These harmonisation moves frequently threaten to water down existing UK legislation which is already more than fit for purpose, as in this case. They get 'averaged down' to a European standard, making our laws less effective.
• The Conservatives, Lib-Dems and Labour habitually vote for harmonisation moves which give more powers to the EU, water down UK law and throw more taxpayers' money at issues, to make themselves look good. It is UKIP that is taking its responsibilities seriously here, while the others just put their hands up when told to.
• The other parties will continue to pick out inaccurate claims like this to damage UKIP and pretend that they are doing something useful in Brussels.

More babble to prove that UKIP are doing nothing for the money they are being paid to do by acting in the interest of all people concerned about the ivory trade with yet more proof they are not worth anything but an utter joke onto the British society They have have voted against or abstained all equality policies for homosexuals, then give this lame excuse how they do not wish to help globally end the ivory trade and as seen offer nothing for their poor reason voting against when many others voted for.
The claim to more powers to the EU is also a smoke screen when the vast majority agree on a unilateral move to help matters that concern many in the world, they use lame things like the ECHR which is actually separate from the EU to excuse their poor value to being elected in the first place.
I hope more get voted in to be MEP to see the extent of how they will show they do not have the best interest of the British people at heart but instead are a party that throws their dummies out over not working together with other nations, because that is how they act like spoilt brats

by Guest Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:54 pm

Six Ukip MEPS, including leader Nigel Farage, have come under heavy criticism after it emerged they had voted ‘No’ to a resolution that would help prevent the illegal trade of ivory in Europe.

The vote that took place in January, saw only 14 of Europe’s 671 MEPs vote ‘no’ to a motion that, according to the creators of the resolution, would “send a clear signal against worldwide wildlife trafficking.”

Of these 14, six were from UKIP.

The resolution also aimed at moving towards creating a moratorium to outlaw the commercial import and export of ivory and other wildlife products in Europe.

During the vote, none of the UKIP MEPs present were in favour of the resolution, which would also see all stockpiles of ivory in Europe destroyed.

These MEPS included Farage, himself, as well as Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall and UKIP, founder member Gerrard Batten, John Stuart, William Dartmouth and Derek Roland.

The ‘No’ vote follows a trend by UKIP to go against any vote that could potentially expand European legislative power.

The decision by UKIP MEPs has been followed by a wave of criticism.

Historian and columnist Tim Stanley wrote in The Telegraph on Wednesday: "(I) expect Ukip to explain that they always vote against anything that expands EU power.

"As a passionate anti-EU conservative, I appreciate that stance. But when it comes to taking action against something as squalid as the ivory trade, even this rabid patriot would compromise my anti-EU principles. What next? Refusing to uphold a ban on child labour?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-criticised-after-its-meps-vote-no-on-a-resolution-to-tackle-world-ivory-trade-9278390.html

This shows more than anything that the UKIP more than anything only care about one thing, themselves, and people will get to see this more and more, that they are nothing more than a danger to the future of Britain with their incompetance

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:44 pm

More dodgy waffle.

How many times have I got to say, UKIP always vote against anything that will increase EU power.

We already have tough laws against ivory trade.

by Guest Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:52 am

Tommy Monk wrote:More dodgy waffle.

How many times have I got to say, UKIP always vote against anything that will increase EU power.

We already have tough laws against ivory trade.

Thanks for proving my point that a vote for UKIP is thus an utter waste of time.

The EU has no power as I have told you so many times, why is it we and other nations ignore EU rulings.

Where all agree, means that some policies are also in our interest and this is clearly in the interest of the world to help save the extinction of animals, unless you are a clueless UKIP supporter and agree with voting against that will help save endangered species, because we need all countries on board, not just Britain laws dummy

by Tommy Monk Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:08 pm

If a vote for UKIP is a total waste of time and The EU has no power, then why do you get so upset with UKIP support, why does the EU even exist at all, and Why do you get so upset about the prospect of leaving the EU if it is such an irrelevance?

As usual you try to have it both ways!

by Guest Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:12 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If a vote for UKIP is a total waste of time and The EU has no power, then why do you get so upset with UKIP support, why does the EU even exist at all, and Why do you get so upset about the prospect of leaving the EU if it is such an irrelevance?

As usual you try to have it both ways!

A vote of them to be an MEP, a waste of money, when others could be put to better use.

Simple, they will ruin the country if voted in a general election

by Sponsored content