[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UPCOMING ISSUES AT THE TWELFTH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF
THE PARTIES (COP12)
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 17, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-152
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
81-715 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Tim Holden, Pennsylvania
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 17, 2002............................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement of............... 1
Pombo, Hon. Richard, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Hogarth, Dr. William T., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Manson, Craig, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior..................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON UPCOMING ISSUES AT THE TWELFTH REGULAR MEETING OF
THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (COP12) TO THE CONVENTION ON
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA
(CITES)
----------
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard Pombo
presiding.
Mr. Pombo. [Presiding.] Good morning. I would like to
convene today's hearing with a focus on the Twelfth Regular
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora, commonly referred to as CITES.
At this point, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Gilchrest's statement be
entered at this point in the record, without objection, and
since I am the only one here, I will not object.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pombo. It does not work that way.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of the Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland
Good morning, I am pleased to convene today's hearing which will
focus on the twelfth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, commonly referred to as CITES.
CITES is the only international organization whose primary focus is
the protection of plant and animal species from unregulated
international trade. CITES parties meet every two years and the twelfth
regular meeting of Conference of the Parties will be held this year in
Santiago, Chile from November 3rd through November 15th.
At these biennial meetings, member nations can submit a number of
documents for consideration by the Conference of the Parties. These
documents include resolutions, agenda items, discussion documents and
proposals to amend CITES Appendices. We have asked our esteemed
witnesses from the Department of the Interior and the National Marine
Fisheries Service to discuss the proposals, resolutions, agenda items
or discussion documents the United States is submitting to CITES and to
inform the Subcommittee on positions taken by the United States on
proposals submitted by other member nations.
There are many animal and plant species around the globe that are
in need of protection from illegal trade practices and CITES is working
hard to control the level of trade in these vulnerable species.
I look forward to this important discussion and I recognize the
ranking Democrat, the Honorable Robert Underwood, for any opening
comments he may have in this matter.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pombo. This is an important hearing. Over the past
several years, the Congress, specifically the House of
Representatives, has taken a more active role in its oversight
responsibilities over CITES. It is something that has an impact
on the United States, on decisions that are made, on our
ability to trade internationally. At the same time, it is
extremely important to the protection of endangered species
internationally.
I believe that the purpose of CITES is to help a sovereign
nation to manage its endangered species, to recover those
species, and to bring them back to the level of sustainability.
The role that the United States plays in that is obviously
extremely important. As a world leader on conservation issues,
it is extremely important that the United States play a major
role at CITES.
It is also important that we, in that role, bring back the
sustainable levels of populations of a number of different
species. We have had over the years a few success stories that
I think you can point to CITES as being part of that in terms
of bringing back those species. But we have also fallen victim,
I think, to some of the international politics and how that
plays out in any of these international organizations.
It is with a great deal of joy that I see our two
presenters on our first panel here, because I believe they are
both people that we have worked with in the past and they will
do a fantastic job of leading the delegation to the upcoming
CITES conference. So I welcome you here today, and I would like
to recognize Mr. Craig Manson, who is the Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the
Interior, and Dr. William T. Hogarth, who is the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
I welcome you both here today.
I am going to start with Mr. Manson for your testimony here
this morning, and then I will move to Dr. Hogarth. So Mr.
Manson?
STATEMENT OF CRAIG MANSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND
WILDLIFE AND PARKS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Manson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
say that we very much appreciate the interest that the
Committee has shown in the CITES process. As you know,
Secretary Norton has designated me to head the delegation to
the Twelfth Conference of the Parties and I am pleased to be
here to discuss proposals and resolutions there.
As you know, CITES includes now 160 states which are
parties to the Convention, including ten new ones since COP11.
It is a treaty that works. It has become one of the most
effective forces in the world today for conservation of plants
and animals.
The Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, has the lead responsibility within the United
States for implementation of CITES. We work closely with the
Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, Treasury, Justice,
the Agency for International Development, and the Office of the
United States Trade Representative in implementing the
Convention.
I would like to highlight several key proposals and
resolutions that will be before COP12. First, the CITES
Secretariat has submitted a document that includes a proposed
resolution to amend the listing criteria. At COP9, the parties
agreed to review the criteria again at COP12, and a procedure
was adopted at COP11 to complete the review and present
recommendations to COP12. The review, aimed at maintaining
scientific credibility and ensuring applicability of the
criteria to various groups of plants and animals on the
appendices, has been a major priority. We have solicited input
from the States and the scientific and conservation
communities.
Not surprisingly, the new draft criteria and the process to
develop them have become very controversial. Although the terms
of reference for the review of the criteria specifically called
for a consensus report to be developed by the chairs of the
animals and plants committees for COP12, those chairs were
unable to reach consensus on the revisions.
We believe that the draft criteria reflects significant
effort and thought on behalf of the parties and explore many
important aspects of the current listing criteria. It is our
position that the parties should seek to retain the aspects of
the review that can garner the support of a majority of the
parties.
With regard to species proposals for COP12, we focused our
efforts on species from North America. Of the 16 proposals
sponsored or cosponsored by the United States, eight are for
taxa native to the United States or its waters. For native
species, we have worked closely with both the States and other
Federal agencies to ensure that the proposals meet the CITES
criteria. We also cosponsored several proposals submitted by
other countries.
Since our priority is to focus on North America, we
submitted no proposals for species not native to the United
States that were not cosponsored with a range country. For
example, we worked closely with China and India in developing
several proposals to address the threat to freshwater turtles
in Southeast Asia. These cooperative conservation efforts
reflect scientific cooperation with our colleagues throughout
the world in order to deal with and find solutions to complex
conservation problems.
I will discuss a few of the key proposals submitted by
other countries submitted for consideration. First, trade in
African elephant parts and products has been a contentious
issue at every COP. To protect African elephant populations
from illegal ivory trade, the United States declared a
moratorium on ivory imports in the spring of 1989. All African
elephants were subsequently uplisted from Appendix 2 to
Appendix 1 at COP7 that same year. The United States continues
to support aspects of the monitoring programs instituted at the
previous two conferences through our African Elephant
Conservation Act grant program administered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
As in the past, several African countries have submitted
proposals regarding elephants. We believe that Botswana,
Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe deserve much credit for
maintaining healthy elephant populations, particularly in
comparison to the elephant declines that have occurred in most
other African countries. However, because the monitoring
systems have not yet provided significant data on the effects
of the ivory trade, we are concerned about the potential
effects that trade could have on elephants in other countries
in Africa and Asia.
Bigleaf mahogany is currently listed in Appendix 3 by
several range countries in the Americas, including Costa Rica,
Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Bigleaf mahogany
is a species of concern for us. The United States is the
largest importer of mahogany timber. As a party to CITES and in
support of the President's initiative on illegal logging, we
have been actively engaged in working with Brazil in particular
to ensure that shipments of bigleaf mahogany imported to the
United States are legal. Though we received a recommendation of
a proposal to include this species in Appendix 2, we did not
submit a proposal for this species. This decision was made
after extensive discussion within the government and in light
of previously unsuccessful efforts to list the species in
Appendix 2.
Guatemala and Nicaragua have submitted a proposal for
consideration to include neotropical populations of bigleaf
mahogany in Appendix 2. We are evaluating the proposal,
particularly for any advantages that might be gained beyond the
current Appendix 3 listing.
Japan has submitted several proposals for whale species. If
adopted, these proposals would reopen international commercial
trade in whale products and could foster increased poaching of
protected whale species. The United States continues to be
strongly opposed to the downlisting of whale species, subject
to the commercial whaling moratorium of the International
Whaling Commission. In addition, we believe that close
cooperation of the IWC and CITES must continue in order that
conservation needs of whale species, both for management and
control of international trade, will be met.
There is growing concern over the status of some
commercially exploited marine species in addition to whales.
This is reflected in the proposal submitted for consideration
at COP12. A rapidly growing trade in seahorses for traditional
medicines, as aquarium pets, and for curios, compounded by
large-scale habitat loss, has resulted in over-exploitation of
many coastal seahorse populations.
We also anticipate that the Patagonian toothfish, also
known as Chilean sea bass, will be the subject of considerable
debate as the parties consider whether or not the status of
this Antarctic fish would be improved by an Appendix 2 listing.
That concludes my oral testimony. The Department has
submitted written testimony for the record. I would be pleased
to answer any questions that the Committee may have at this
time.
Mr. Gilchrest. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Judge. We
appreciate that information and look forward to the question
and answer timeframe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manson follows:]
Statement of Judge Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior
INTRODUCTION
I appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today regarding
the Administration's preparations for the twelfth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which will
take place in Santiago, Chile, from November 3rd through November 15th
of this year.
CITES is a treaty that works. At COP-11, 150 countries were parties
to the treaty. Since then, 8 more countries have become parties. Kuwait
and Bhutan will do so during COP-12, bringing the total to 160
countries. It has become one of the most effective forces in the world
today for conservation of plants and animals, both in halting the trade
in species which are threatened with extinction and in ensuring that
trade in other vulnerable species is consistent with sustainable
management and conservation. The lead responsibility within the United
States for implementation of CITES rests with the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
The Service works closely with the Departments of State, Commerce
(National Marine Fisheries Service, in particular), Agriculture (both
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the U.S.
Forest Service), Treasury (Customs), Justice, the Agency for
International Development, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative in implementing the Convention.
In addition, the States play a key role in the implementation of
CITES, and the Service works closely with them in carrying out our
CITES obligations, both in regulating trade in species which are listed
in the Appendices and in preparing our submissions for the COP. In
fact, after COP10, the Service developed an innovative new relationship
with the States which allows designated State agency representatives to
participate in our CITES deliberations on an equal basis with other
Federal agencies for issues affecting native U.S. species. Non-
governmental organizations also participate actively in CITES
domestically, through an extensive public participation process, as
well as internationally during the COPs themselves. During our COP12
preparations, we have published five Federal Register notices, held two
public meetings, placed regular updates of CITES information on the
Service's worldwide web pages, and undertaken countless informal
consultations with interested groups representing every point of view.
As the Service testified in September 2000, we were pleased with
the overall outcome of COP11. We met our goals on many key issues and
reaffirmed the United States'' leadership within the international
conservation community. At COP11 the United States was elected Chair of
the Standing Committee, Vice-Chair of the Animals Committee and was
nominated by the Parties to chair the Budget Committee, which was
elevated to full committee status for the first time. The United States
was also selected to serve as Chair for many of the temporary working
groups during the COP itself.
Included among the successes at COP11 were the rejection of
attempts to reopen commercial trade in several whale and sea turtle
species and the adoption of several initiatives the United States
strongly supported. Our cooperative efforts with developing countries,
for the benefit of species conservation, were very productive. We
worked closely with India, Sri Lanka and Nepal on several proposals
including one that resulted in further protection for 3 species of
pangolin (Manis spp.), a small mammal used for leather, food and
medicine. We also successfully co-sponsored proposals to include the
Mantellag frogs of Madagascar and Asian box turtles (Cuora spp.) in
Appendix II, both of which are heavily traded for use as pets.
A Bushmeat Working Group was created at COP11 to address the
commercial bushmeat trade in Africa. The Parties, with broad support
from Central and West African countries, agreed to address the need for
improved enforcement of CITES provisions with regard to this trade
which impacts a large array of Appendix I and Appendix II species. We
supported this effort at the COP and have contributed funding to enable
the working group to meet several times since COP11. The Bushmeat
Working Group has facilitated communication between Central African
directors of wildlife and protected areas, developed an action plan,
and secured funding to implement the plan.
We also supported the establishment of a Mahogany Working Group at
COP11, comprised of all range States for bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia
macrophylla) as well as principal importing countries, including the
United States. We contributed funding and actively participated in the
Mahogany Working Group meeting held in Bolivia in October 2001. The
Secretariat has prepared and submitted the report and recommendations
of the Mahogany Working Group for consideration at COP12.
Attached to this testimony is a copy of the Federal Register notice
that summarizes the proposals that the United States submitted for
consideration at COP12. The Service held a public meeting on September
10th to receive comments on other country's proposals. We are currently
in the process of drafting our negotiating positions and we anticipate
that those draft positions will be published in the Federal Register in
the next few weeks. As in the past, we will fully discuss the progress
of negotiations during daily public briefings for American observers
and non-governmental organizations attending COP12.
Of the numerous issues to be addressed at COP 12, there are several
that we would like to highlight.
RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
Contributions Made by Observers at COPs and the Rules of Procedure
CITES is unique because the text of the Convention allows non-
governmental observers the right to participate in meetings and to
speak on issues of interest to them. We support admission to the
meeting of all technically qualified non-governmental organizations. We
also support flexibility and openness in approval of documents produced
by NGOs and the dissemination of these documents to delegates.
Review of the Listing Criteria
The current criteria for listing species on the CITES Appendices
were adopted at COP9 in 1994, after extensive debate and review. The
United States was a leader in that effort. At that time, the Parties
agreed to review the criteria again at COP12 and a procedure was
adopted at COP11 to complete this review and present recommendations to
COP12. This review, aimed at maintaining scientific credibility and
ensuring applicability of the criteria to the various groups of plants
and animals on the appendices, has been a major priority for us. We
have solicited input from the States and the scientific and
conservation communities. We also hosted a meeting of the Listing
Criteria Working Group (CWG), in conjunction with a joint meeting of
the CITES Animals and Plants Committees, in December 2000, at our
National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.
Not surprisingly, the new draft criteria and the process to develop
them have become very controversial. Although the terms of reference
for the review of the listing criteria specifically called for a
consensus report to be developed by the Chairs of the Animals and
Plants Committees for COP12, the Chairs were unable to reach consensus
on the revisions. The Secretariat has submitted a document that
includes a proposed resolution to amend the existing listing criteria.
We believe that the draft criteria reflect significant effort and
thought on behalf of the Chairmen and the Parties, and explore many
important aspects of the current listing criteria. It is our position
that the Parties should seek to retain the aspects of the review that
can garner the support of a majority of Parties.
SPECIES LISTING PROPOSALS
Of the 16 proposals sponsored or co-sponsored by the United States,
8 are for taxa native to the United States or its waters. For native
species, we worked closely with both the States and other Federal
agencies, to ensure that our proposals met the CITES criteria. We also
co-sponsored several proposals submitted by other countries. Since our
priority is to focus on North American species first, we submitted no
proposals for species not native to the United States that were not co-
sponsored with a range country. We worked closely with China and India
in developing several proposals to address the threat to freshwater
turtles in southeast Asia. These cooperative conservation efforts
reflect scientific cooperation with our colleagues throughout the
world, in order to deal with and find solutions for complex
conservation problems.
I will discuss a few of the key species proposals. Commercially
valuable species, like whales, elephants, and mahogany, are often the
most controversial as well. Please see the attached Federal Register
notices for a comprehensive list of proposals.
African elephants
Trade in African elephant parts and products has been a contentious
issue at every COP. In the spring of 1989, concern that African
elephant populations were being devastated to supply a largely illegal
ivory trade resulted in major importing countries, including the United
States and the European Union, declaring a moratorium on ivory imports.
All African elephants were subsequently uplisted from Appendix II to
Appendix I at COP7 that same year. At COP10, elephants in Botswana,
Namibia, and Zimbabwe were downlisted from Appendix I to
Appendix II and a one-time sale of ivory stockpiles was authorized.
The COP10 decision also called for the establishment of systems to
monitor poaching and illegal ivory trade. The Secretariat and Standing
Committee, working with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) established
two systems: MIKE (Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants), and ETIS
(Elephant Trade Information System). At COP11, the Parties reached a
compromise that was adopted by consensus, where South Africa's
population was transferred to Appendix II, allowing trade in certain
parts and products, but not ivory; Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia
withdrew their proposals for increased ivory trade; and Kenya and India
withdrew their proposal to return all populations to Appendix I. The
intent was to allow time for the Parties to improve systems for
monitoring elephant populations, poaching and illegal trade. The United
States continues to support aspects of these monitoring programs
through our African Elephant Conservation Act grant program
administered by the Service.
For COP12, Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe have proposed to amend
the terms of their existing downlisting annotations, which currently do
not allow any further ivory trade, with annual quotas of ivory for
commercial export. South Africa proposes to amend their downlisting
annotation to allow for an initial sale of the Kruger National Park
stockpile of ivory, and a subsequent annual quota. In addition, Zambia
has proposed to transfer its elephant population from Appendix I to
Appendix II, with an annotation to permit trade in up to 17,000 kg of
whole tusks owned by Zambia's Wildlife Authority. Kenya and India, on
the other hand, propose to return all Appendix II populations of
elephants to Appendix I. We continue to believe that Botswana, Namibia,
South Africa, and Zimbabwe deserve much credit for maintaining healthy
elephant populations, particularly in comparison to the elephant
declines that have occurred in most other African countries. However,
because the monitoring systems have not yet provided significant data
on the effects of the ivory trade, we remain very concerned about the
potential effects any further trade could have on elephants in other
countries in Africa and in Asia.
Mahogany
Bigleaf mahogany is currently listed in Appendix III by several
range countries, in the Americas including: Costa Rica, Bolivia,
Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Colombia. Species listed in Appendix III can
be traded commercially. Once a species is added to Appendix III, the
countries that list the species are required to issue permits and
ensure that specimens are legally acquired; non-listing range countries
must issue certificates of origin; and importing countries are required
to ensure that all shipments are accompanied by the appropriate CITES
documents. The issuance of Appendix III documentation is dependent on
legal findings and does not include the biological determinations that
are required for export of Appendix II listed species.
Proposals to include this species in CITES Appendix II were
submitted at COP8 and COP10 with the United States as a co-sponsor with
Costa Rica and Bolivia, respectively, and at COP9 by the Netherlands.
In our April 18, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 Fed.Reg. 19207) we
indicated that we did not plan to submit a proposal for this species,
although we had received a recommendation to do so. This decision was
taken after extensive discussion within the United States'' government,
and in light of the previously unsuccessful efforts to list the species
in Appendix II. However, bigleaf mahogany is a species of concern for
us. It is being exploited at what some scientists and non-governmental
organizations believe is an unsustainable rate, illegal trade in the
species is suspected to be substantial in some countries, and the U.S.
is the largest importer of bigleaf mahogany timber. As a Party to
CITES, and in support of the President's emphasis on combating illegal
logging, we have been actively engaged in working with Brazil, in
particular, to ensure that shipments of bigleaf mahogany imported into
the United States are legal under CITES.
Guatemala and Nicaragua have submitted a proposal for consideration
at COP12 to include the neotropical populations of bigleaf mahogany
(Swietenia macrophylla), including logs, sawn timber, veneer, and
plywood, in Appendix II. The purpose of the proposal is to promote
sustainable management of bigleaf mahogany in order to help ensure its
conservation and maintain trade for the future. We are evaluating the
proposal, particularly for any advantages that might be gained beyond
the current listing in Appendix III. An interagency task force has been
created to evaluate the Appendix II proposal, determine its impact, and
consider how best to work with range countries in the conservation of
this species.
Whales
Japan has submitted two proposals to downlist stocks of both
Bryde's whales and minke whales from Appendix I to Appendix II. Japan
has also submitted a proposed resolution that would repeal Resolution
Conf. 11.4, which outlines a cooperative relationship between the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) and CITES, and would establish,
among other provisions, that any trade in whale species downlisted to
Appndix II should be limited to trade among IWC Members. If adopted,
these proposals would re-open international commercial trade in whale
products, and could foster increased poaching of protected whale
species. Similar proposals were defeated at the last three COPs.
The United States continues to be strongly opposed to the
downlisting of whale species subject to the commercial whaling
moratorium of the IWC. We believe that CITES should honor the request
for assistance in enforcing the moratorium which was communicated by
the IWC to CITES in 1978. In addition, we believe that the close
cooperation of IWC and CITES must continue in order that the
conservation needs of whale species--both for management and control of
international trade--will be met. While the scientific committee of the
IWC has developed the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for setting
quotas if commercial whaling were to resume, the IWC has not completed
the development of a complementary and necessary Revised Management
Scheme (RMS) for monitoring catch and trade of whale products. Mexico
has submitted a proposed resolution that would reaffirm the
complementary relationship between CITES and the IWC as a crucial
element for the conservation of whale stocks. The resolution would
retain whale species in the CITES appendices as they are currently
listed while work continues on developing the RMS. We also note that,
independent of the IWC issue, these whales do not meet several of the
CITES criteria for downlisting to Appendix II.
Other Marine Species
In addition to whales, there is growing concern over the status of
some commercially exploited marine species. This is reflected in the
proposals submitted for consideration at COP12. There are proposals to
list the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) and basking shark (Cetorhinus
maximus) on Appendix II. The United States has submitted proposals to
list seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) and humphead wrasse (Cheilinus
undulatus) in Appendix II. A rapidly growing trade in seahorses for
traditional medicines, as aquarium pets, and for curios, compounded by
large-scale habitat loss, has resulted in overexploitation of many
coastal seahorse populations. Humphead wrasse, extremely vulnerable to
overfishing because of late maturity and other biological
characteristics, are heavily exploited for the destructive live reef
fish trade, primarily to supply restaurants in Hong Kong and other
Asian markets.
We will be discussing this and other impacts on coral reefs and
trade in coral-related species at the Coral Reef Task Force meeting on
October 2nd and 3rd. I anticipate that we will develop a consensus
among the Federal, State and territorial members of the Task Force as
to where we should go in the future regarding coral and coral-related
trade, and we will communicate that to the Parties in order to assist
both in making decisions on individual species and in guiding future
actions.
We anticipate that Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) will be
the subject of considerable debate as the Parties consider whether or
not the status of this Antarctic fish would be improved by a CITES
Appendix II listing. Patagonian toothfish are managed under the
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) to which the United States is a Party. Because of the high
market value of toothfish, also known as Chilean sea bass, and the
difficulty in detecting and halting illegal fishing in remote Antarctic
waters, illegal harvest is lucrative and relatively low-risk. If agreed
to by the Parties, this would be the first Appendix II listing for a
marine fish species that attempts to combine the regulatory regime of a
regional fishery management organization with that of CITES. The
Parties would need to decide on many complex implementation issues,
including how the two permitting systems might work together and how to
address the difficulties in making scientific findings for high seas
species. These matters and others related to potential listings of high
seas marine fish species have not been fully explored and such
proposals have not succeeded at previous COPs.
This concludes my written testimony and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have about CITES implementation and our
preparations for COP12 in Santiago.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I want to apologize for being late and thank
Mr. Pombo for taking the Chair.
Dr. Hogarth?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, PH.D., ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Hogarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pombo. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee
regarding CITES and the upcoming COP12.
I am Bill Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with
you some recent NOAA achievements in the CITES arena and our
preparation for the next COP12.
As you just heard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of
the Department of Interior has the legislative authority for
the implementation and enforcement of CITES. However, several
highly visible marine species that are listed in either
Appendix 1 or Appendix 2 of CITES fall within the domestic
jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce and NOAA based on
legislative authority contained in the Endangered Species Act,
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Fur Seal Act, and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This
includes great whales, dolphins, queen conch, hard corals, five
species of seals, and marine turtles.
In recent conferences of the parties to CITES, some of the
most contentious issues have involved marine species and the
number of marine species discussed at CITES meetings is ever
increasing. These issues have ranged from efforts to reopen
trade in large whales and endangered hawksbill turtles to
looking at ways the CITES may be used for both the conservation
of sharks and other marine fisheries through regulation of
international trade.
NOAA has contributed its expertise concerning marine
species to discussions of these issues in numerous CITES
meetings and in the day-to-day implementation of the treaty.
Some of the achievements that we have at the most recent
conferences of the CITES parties, our members of the delegation
have led efforts to prevent the downlisting from Appendix 1 to
Appendix 2 of five populations or species of great whales,
which would lead to resumption of international trade in these
species by CITES. We have also prevented the reopening of
international trade in hawksbill turtle shells in the
Caribbean. We have improved cooperation among parties to
monitor and reduce illegal trade in whale meat, and we have
promoted the conservation of sharks and other marine fisheries
by consideration of regulation of the international trade
through potential listings on Appendix 2.
We feel we have been highly effective in day-to-day
activities to enhance international protection of such CITES
species as hard corals, queen conch, marine turtles, and
whales. One important CITES related project which we have
initiated with the Caribbean Fishery Management Council is the
development of an international queen conch initiative in the
wider Caribbean. This product would promote a regional
conservation regime for this species, whose significant
international trade is regulated by CITES.
Additionally, NOAA has provided expertise to developing
countries in both the Indopacific and the Caribbean to assist
them in developing sustainable management plans for exports of
hard corals. We have also developed an identification guide
that will be used internationally to help countries ensure that
their coral trade is legal and sustainable.
Preparations for COP12, we have had input into the
development of the U.S. positions for the CITES meetings which
is accomplished through the CITES COP12 task force, which
includes representatives from all NOAA Fisheries regional
offices, science centers, and headquarters offices, as well as
representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service and
Department of State. The task force evaluates recommendations
for the listing of marine species and develops the United
States proposals.
There are a number of marine species that will be of
particular interest to the United States at the CITES meeting
this fall. U.S. proposals concerning marine species include
both seahorses and humphead wrasse under Appendix 2 of CITES.
The U.S. also expects to oppose the Japanese proposal to
transfer Northern Hemisphere minke and Byrde's whales from
Appendix 1 to Appendix 2, which would reopen the international
trade in whales. The position of the United States at previous
COPs has been that CITES should continue to honor the request
for assistance enforcing the IWC's moratorium on commercial
whaling, which was communicated by the IWC to CITES in 1978.
Among the resolutions and discussion documents that will be
discussed at COP12 will be the criteria for amendment of
Appendices 1 and 2. In 1994, CITES revised its criteria for
listing species on the CITES appendices and also called for an
evaluation of whether the revised criteria are workable. NOAA
Fisheries has been actively involved in the review process,
including leading the interagency task force to evaluate the
criteria and participating in consultations on this issue
hosted by other organizations. We hope that adoption of the
refined criteria will result in a more streamlined listing and
deslisting process.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, I would like to note that NOAA
Fisheries involvement in CITES has been ever increasing and the
consideration of marine issues at CITES has been expanded. Not
only are we involved with the development of U.S. listed
proposals, resolutions, and discussion documents, we also play
an important role in the day-to-day improvement of the
implementation of the treaty.
This concludes my testimony. Once again, I thank you for
the opportunity to be here today and I look forward to
answering any questions you or the members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hogarth follows:]
Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). I am Dr. William T.
Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I appreciate the opportunity to
discuss with you some recent NOAA achievements in the CITES arena. I
will also describe NOAA's preparation for the next Conference of the
CITES Parties (COP12), including our role in attaining United States
objectives concerning proposals, resolutions and agenda items
concerning marine species.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department
of the Interior is responsible for the implementation and enforcement
of CITES, and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for enforcement of CITES
for plants. FWS has an inter-agency collaborative working group in
which NOAA Fisheries actively participates and contributes to United
States policy on CITES.
However, several highly visible marine species that are listed in
either Appendix I or II of CITES are within the domestic jurisdiction
of NOAA, in the Department of Commerce. These include the great whales,
dolphins, queen conch, hard corals and five species of seals. In
addition, all marine turtles, whose protection under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) is shared by the two agencies, are listed in Appendix
I of CITES. In NOAA, responsibility for protection of these marine
species has been delegated to the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NOAA Fisheries).
In recent meetings of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, some
of the most contentious issues have involved marine species, and the
number of marine species discussed at CITES meetings is ever-
increasing. These issues have ranged from efforts to reopen commercial
trade in large whales and endangered hawksbill turtles, to looking at
ways that CITES might be used to promote the conservation and
management of sharks and other marine fishes through regulation of
international trade in CITES Appendix II. In addition to our
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, NOAA is charged with
the implementation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Fur Seal
Act with respect to the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction.
We manage and sustain commercial fish species through the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA has contributed
its expertise concerning marine species to discussions of these issues
in numerous CITES meetings and by advising FWS in its implementation of
the Treaty.
CITES Background
The structure of CITES is similar to that of the United States
Endangered Species Act, in that species are listed according to their
conservation status. In addition, in order to be listed under CITES,
species must meet the test that their population is, or may be,
affected by trade. Species listed in CITES Appendix I (such as whales
and marine turtles), for which there is no international trade for
primarily commercial purposes, are ``threatened with extinction.''
Appendix II species (such as queen conch, sturgeon and stony corals)
are ``not necessarily threatened with extinction,'' but may become so
unless trade is strictly regulated. This regulation takes the form of a
requirement for documentation from the country of export or re-export,
monitoring of trade and, in a few cases, national export quotas.
Another form of regulation is listing in Appendix III (under which
great white sharks from Australia are regulated). A country may
unilaterally (without a vote) list in Appendix III any species that is
subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for which the cooperation
of other Parties is needed. Exporting range countries must issue export
or country of origin permits for Appendix III species.
NOAA CITES Achievements
NOAA has the considerable expertise necessary to contribute to
United States policy on CITES for marine species under its
jurisdiction. At the most recent meeting of the Conference of the
Parties to CITES, NOAA members of the United States delegation provided
valuable support to efforts to:
prevent the ``downlisting'' from Appendix I to Appendix
II of five populations or species of great whales which would have led
to resumption of international trade in these species by CITES;
prevent the reopening of international trade in hawksbill
turtle shells in the Caribbean;
improve cooperation among Parties to monitor and reduce
illegal trade in whale meat; and
promote the conservation of sharks and other marine
fishes by supporting various listing proposals and monitoring other
international efforts, such as the U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization's International Plan of Action for sharks.
NOAA has been highly effective in day-to-day activities to enhance
international protection for such CITES species as hard corals, queen
conch, marine turtles and whales. One important CITES-related project
that we have initiated with the Caribbean Fishery Management Council
and the Department of State is the development of an International
Queen Conch Initiative in the Wider Caribbean. This would promote a
regional conservation regime for this species, whose significant
international trade is regulated by CITES. In addition, NOAA and FWS
provided expertise to developing countries in both the Indo-Pacific and
Caribbean to assist them in developing sustainable management plans for
exports of hard corals and has developed an identification guide that
will be used internationally to help countries ensure that their trade
is legal and sustainable.
Preparations for COP12
NOAA's input in the development of United States positions for
CITES meetings is accomplished by our CITES COP12 Task Force, which
includes representatives from all regional offices, science centers and
headquarters offices. The Task Force evaluates recommendations for the
listing of marine species and assists FWS in the development of United
States proposals. They also assist in the development of resolutions
and discussion papers for consideration at the COP. After the deadline
for submission of proposals and resolutions, they use their expertise
to evaluate the submissions of other countries and determine United
States positions.
A Federal Register notice detailing draft United States positions
on all agenda items will be published in the next few weeks. A final
United States position on all proposals will be determined after the
public comment period.
SPECIES PROPOSALS
Prospective positions of the United States concerning marine
species include the following:
Seahorses, Hippocampus spp. (Proposal of the United States)
The rapidly growing trade in Hippocampus species for traditional
Chinese medicine and its derivatives, aquarium pets, souvenirs and
curios is resulting in overexploitation of wild populations. Because of
this escalating exploitation for international trade combined with the
rarity of and limited reproductive potential of seahorses, the United
States proposed these species for listing in Appendix II. A recent
CITES-sponsored workshop endorsed the need for this listing.
Humphead, or Napoleon wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus (Proposal of the
United States)
The humphead or Napoleon wrasse is a large fish found in coral reef
and channel slope habitats throughout much of the Red Sea, the Indo-
Pacific, and Micronesia. It is particularly vulnerable to over-
exploitation due to its life history, including slow growth, late
maturity, long life and complex social structure. Despite its
widespread distribution, the species is uncommon throughout its range
and is subject to over-fishing. Although humphead wrasse are generally
found in small social units, they have historically formed large
aggregations during peak reproductive periods. The targeting of wrasse
and grouper spawning aggregations (mainly for the live reef food fish
trade) has led to the elimination of breeding populations from some
locations after two to four years of intensive fishing. This proposal
is for listing of the species in Appendix II.
Black Sea bottlenose dolphin, Tursiops truncatus ponticus (Proposal of
the Republic of Georgia)
The United States tentatively supports this proposal to transfer
this species from Appendix II to Appendix I. Threatened by direct
hunting, pollution, habitat degradation and bycatch, there are
indications that many populations in this region have declined. Despite
this, bottlenose dolphins from this area may potentially be taken for
export to public display facilities at unsustainable levels. Although
there are questions concerning whether this is a distinct sub-
population, it is believed that transferring the species from its
current place in Appendix II to Appendix I will assist in the
conservation of this species by stopping the international portion of
this potentially damaging trade.
Northern Hemisphere Minke and Bryde's whales, Balaenoptera
acutorostrata and Balaenoptera edeni (Proposals of Japan)
These proposals seek to transfer these species from Appendix I to
Appendix II, thus reopening international trade in whales. The United
States position in past meetings of the Conference of the Parties has
been that it is premature to even consider the resumption of
international trade in whale products until an adequate Revised
Management Scheme (RMS) is adopted by the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) which would prevent the resumption of the excessive
harvests that occurred in the past. Furthermore, current scientific
information which includes information on the distribution, stock
structure and population status of both these species, and/or
populations of them, is still under investigation in the Scientific
Committee of the IWC. We are also concerned with the lack of
transparency of the inspection scheme detailed in these proposals, as
existing stockpiles of undocumented whale products could be traded
illegally.
Whale shark, Rhincodon typus (Proposal of India, the Philippines)
This proposal is to add the species in Appendix II. The United
States is inclined to support this proposal. NOAA personnel have
gathered firsthand information on this extremely rare species,
particularly information about the increasing international trade in
the Indo-Pacific, with products destined for Taiwan. The species is
rare and local, seasonal populations have declined drastically in some
areas. Fishing effort has greatly increased due to an increase in price
for this species. Sharks are more vulnerable to exploitation than are
most other fishes because of their longevity, delayed maturation, and
relatively low fecundity. Population size is unknown, but the species
is considered to be rare. Take of whale sharks in Atlantic Ocean waters
of the United States is prohibited.
Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus (Proposal of the United Kingdom on
behalf of the European Union)
The species is currently listed in Appendix III (fins and whole
carcasses) by the United Kingdom. The European Union proposes to list
it in Appendix II. The United States supported a similar proposal at
the last CITES meeting. The main threat to basking shark populations is
from fishing operations, both targeted on basking sharks and through
incidental or bycatch in other fisheries. The biology of the species
makes it especially vulnerable to exploitation: it has a slow growth
rate, a long time to sexual maturity (ca. 12-20 years), a long
gestation period (1-3 years) and a similar interval between
pregnancies, low fecundity (the only recorded litter was of just six
very large pups), and probable small populations. Take of basking
sharks in Atlantic Ocean waters of the United States is prohibited.
Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish, Dissostichus eleginoides and D.
mawsonii (Proposal of Australia)
Australia proposes that these species, both of which are known
commercially as Chilean sea bass, be included in Appendix II. At
present, the United States is undecided on our position on this
proposal, although we acknowledge the significant contribution of
CCAMLR to control trade in these species. Toothfish have been fished
commercially for about 20 years, and management of the species is under
the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR). There are several characteristics of the life
history of D. eleginoides that make the species vulnerable to over-
exploitation. It is known that the accumulated harvesting of this
species for international trade (by illegal, unregulated, and
unreported fishing operations) has a detrimental impact, thus making
the annual harvest continually exceed the level that can be continued
sustainably. Australia also proposes that countries which use CCAMLR
documentation can do so in lieu of CITES permits. Because of the many
complex issues raised by these proposals, the United States has
developed an interagency plan to be used to determine our position.
RESOLUTIONS AND DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS
In addition to listing proposals, the following are among the
resolutions and discussion papers concerning marine species that will
be discussed at COP12:
Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II
In 1994, CITES revised its criteria for listing species on the
CITES Appendices, and also called for an evaluation of whether the
revised criteria are workable. NOAA Fisheries has been actively
involved in the review process, and for marine species, led an
interagency task force to evaluate the criteria and participated as
part of the U.S. delegation, in consultations on this issue hosted by
other organizations, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) and CITES itself. In fact, many of the
recommendations of the interagency task force to refine the listing
criteria and guidelines have been incorporated into proposals by FAO
and the CITES Criteria Working Group. Although NOAA Fisheries'' focus
has been on exploited and protected marine species, the interagency
task force attempted to develop criteria that could be adapted to all
marine species. The United States supports the review of the existing
criteria and NOAA Fisheries personnel will be actively involved in this
discussion at COP12. We are hopeful that the review of the criteria
will result in improvements to the process under which species are
evaluated for inclusion in the CITES Appendices.
Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regarding the trade
in toothfish (Proposal of Chile)
Chile proposes, among other things, that all countries engaged in
the harvest, landing, transshipment, import or export of these species
voluntarily comply with CCAMLR's Catch Documentation Scheme. The United
States is undecided as to our position because of the many complex
issues raised by these proposals. The U.S. has developed an interagency
plan to be used to determine our position.
Conservation of and trade in Dissostichus species (Proposal of
Australia)
This resolution makes recommendations concerning how to ease the
implementation of Australia's listing proposal for toothfish species.
It proposes that CCAMLR's Dissostichus Catch Document (DCD) be accepted
in lieu of CITES permits. The United States is undecided as to our
position because of the many complex issues raised by these proposals.
We have developed an interagency plan to be used to determine our
position.
Synergy and cooperation between CITES and The United Nations Food
and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (Proposal of Japan)
FAO collaboration with CITES through a Memorandum of Understanding
(Proposal of the United States)
These resolutions propose a Memorandum of Understanding between
CITES and FAO that would establish a framework for cooperation between
CITES and FAO. This MOU would facilitate the implementation of
recommendations concerning CITES regulation of international trade in
marine fish adopted at the Eighth Session of the FAO Committee on
Fisheries'' Sub-Committee on Fish Trade, held in February 2002 in
Bremen, Germany. The United States recognizes the contributions FAO has
made in evaluating the CITES listing criteria for marine fish and
supports a formal MOU between CITES and FAO to facilitate exchange of
information and technical advice regarding commercially exploited fish
species, increase the effectiveness of both organizations, and build
fisheries and CITES enforcement capacity in developing countries.
Cooperation and synergy with the Inter-American Convention for the
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (Proposal of
Ecuador)
This proposal, which the United States is inclined to support,
among other things, calls upon the Parties to the Inter-American
Convention and the Parties and Secretariat of CITES to coordinate their
activities and research with regard to sea turtles and their habitats
and to promote synergy to reduce unnecessary duplication of activities.
The Inter-American Convention, which entered into force on May 2, 2001,
is the first agreement in the world dedicated solely to the
conservation of endangered sea turtles. The United States strongly
supports this agreement and believes it will become a successful
mechanism to protect sea turtles throughout their range in the Western
Hemisphere. The National Marine Fisheries Service, together with the
Department of State, played an active role in the negotiation of the
Convention and the first meeting of the Conference of Parties (held in
August 2002). NMFS and the Department of State will continue to closely
cooperate in order to successfully implement this important Agreement.
The United States also supports cooperation between CITES and other
entities, such as the United Nations Environment Programme's Caribbean
Environment Programme, which has been active in turtle conservation in
the Wider Caribbean for more than 20 years.
Cooperation between CITES and the International Whaling Commission
(Proposal of Mexico)
Mexico's resolution urges retaining whale species listed in the
CITES Appendices in which they are currently listed (Appendix I)
because it is premature to downlist these species while work is
continuing to develop a Revised Management Scheme (RMS). The United
States has supported similar resolutions at past COPs. We plan to
submit an information document at COP12 detailing the status of efforts
by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to adopt an RMS to manage
commercial whaling, should it be resumed. This information paper will
also include a summary of actions taken at the October 14-17 meeting of
the IWC which will be convened in Cambridge, United Kingdom, to make
further progress on the RMS.
Controlled trade in specimens of abundant cetacean stocks (Proposal of
Japan)
If adopted, this resolution would repeal Resolution Conf. 11.4
(which outlines a cooperative relationship between the IWC and CITES)
and would establish that any trade in whale species downlisted to
Appendix II should be limited to trade among IWC members.
The position of the United States at previous COPs has been that
CITES should continue to honor the request for assistance in enforcing
the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling, which was communicated by
the IWC to CITES in 1978. This request was answered by the CITES
Parties in Resolution Conf. 2.9, now in consolidated Resolution Conf.
11.4, which recommends that Parties ``agree not to issue any import or
export permit or certificate'' for introduction from the sea under
CITES for primarily commercial purposes ``for any specimen of a species
or stock protected from commercial whaling by the International
Convention for the Regulations of Whaling.'' While the scientific
committee of the IWC has developed the Revised Management Procedure for
setting quotas if commercial whaling were to resume, the IWC has not
completed the development of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for
monitoring the catch of whales. The United States has taken the
position in the IWC that completion of an adequate RMS is a necessary
prerequisite before consideration can be given to lifting the
commercial whaling moratorium.
Furthermore, the distribution, stock structure, trends and
population of many of the great whales still remain under investigation
within the Scientific Committee of the IWC. Therefore, the United
States has taken the position that we do not view the scientific
information as sufficient to support the resumption of trade in whale
species listed in CITES Appendix II and that Resolution Conf. 11.4 must
stand.
Conservation and management of sharks (Proposal of Australia)
Conservation of and trade in sharks (Proposal of Ecuador)
These resolutions have much in common. The Australian document
suggests that the CITES Animals Committee could, among other things,
regularly review the conservation status of various shark populations
and recommend listing priorities to the Parties. The Ecuadorean
document recommends tighter cooperation between CITES and FAO to ensure
that national management plans are developed and implemented. Both
documents recommend an ongoing review of shark conservation by CITES
bodies beyond COP12.
A series of Decisions and Resolutions since COP9 has prompted
international discussion on sharks in both CITES and FAO fora. The net
result of this activity has been FAO's adoption in 1999 of an
International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), and ongoing
monitoring by the CITES Parties of FAO success in this endeavor.
Although the IPOA lays out specific elements for National Plans of
Action (NPOAs) to conserve sharks (data collection, monitoring, stock
assessment, etc.), it is purely a voluntary measure that has met with
limited success in FAO member nations. Out of 87 shark-fishing nations,
only two (the United States and Japan) have adopted NPOAs. Fifteen
other member nations have committed to developing NPOAs, but often have
made this contingent on external assistance and funding.
The United States has been a leader in both CITES and FAO in the
development of shark conservation and management measures, and we will
continue to look for ways to promote sustainable use of these species.
We agree with the authors that national implementation of the IPOA for
sharks has been thus far disappointing. We also agree that the CITES
Parties should seriously discuss how to promote better national and
regional shark management that could prevent the need for future shark
listings under CITES. We believe that sharks are a set of species that
will benefit from the increased cooperation between CITES and FAO
called for in the United States discussion paper (see above).
Trade in sea cucumbers in the families Holothuridae and Stichopodidae
(Proposal of the United States)
This is not a listing proposal, but rather a document to encourage
discussion of the status of these species and the effects of
international trade on their conservation.
Sea cucumbers are sedentary animals that are especially susceptible
to over-exploitation because they are large, easily collected, and do
not require sophisticated fishing techniques. They are important
components of the food chain in coral reefs and associated ecosystems
at various trophic levels, and they play an important role as deposit
feeders and suspension feeders. Rapid declines in sea cucumber
populations may have serious consequences for the survival of other
species that are part of the same complex food web because the eggs,
larvae, and juveniles constitute an important food source for other
marine species, including crustaceans, fish, and mollusks. Sea
cucumbers ingest large amounts of sediment, turning over the top layers
of sediment in lagoons, reefs, and other habitats, and allowing
oxygenation of sediment layers, much like earthworms do on land. This
process prevents the build-up of decaying organic matter and may help
control populations of pest and pathogenic organisms, including certain
bacteria and cyanobacterial mats. Over-exploitation has caused a
hardening of the sea floor, eliminating habitat for other organisms.
Sea cucumbers have been harvested commercially for at least 1,000
years, but the demand in Asian markets worldwide has led to a dramatic
increase in international trade for food beginning in the late 1980s
and early 1990s, reaching a global annual volume of about 12,000 metric
tons of dried sea cucumber (120,000 tons live). Since the mid-1990s,
additional markets emerged for natural health products research and
home aquaria.
Establishment of a working group to analyze relevant aspects of the
application of CITES to marine species (Chile)
The resolution proposes the establishment of a working group within
the CITES Animals Committee to discuss various issues concerning marine
species. The United States supports the goal of Chile's resolution,
although we have not developed clear positions on all of the specifics
and implications of such a group. The United States believes that if
such a working group were to be established, its subject matter should
be limited to marine fish and invertebrate species only. The United
States is concerned about the workload and budgetary implications of
such a Working Group and sees the broader issue of implementation of
many species listings, including many non-marine species, as needing to
be addressed. We will also need to study this proposal in light of
increasing cooperation between CITES and FAO on marine fisheries
issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Once again, thank you
for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to answering any
questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Judge, you mentioned in your testimony about
bigleaf mahogany being proposed to be listed or put on Appendix
2. What is the status of that and why was there a problem with
listing it or putting it in Appendix 2? Was it with Brazil?
Mr. Manson. It is currently listed in Appendix 3 by many of
the range states, Brazil among them. Costa Rica, Mexico,
Bolivia, Peru are some of the others.
The proposal that is submitted to the COP is by Guatemala
and Nicaragua to include those populations in Appendix 2. Of
course, you know in Appendix 2, those are species which may not
yet be threatened, that are not threatened but may become so
without trade controls, whereas Appendix 3 are listings by
range countries that are essentially asking for cooperation of
the international community to better control trade.
We are currently evaluating the Nicaraguan and Guatemalan
proposal to uplist it to Appendix 2. We have not finalized a
position about that. I think one of the key issues is whether
or not there are advantages to putting it in Appendix 2, both
for conservation and trade purposes. For example, it might be,
and we have not reached a conclusion about this, that an
Appendix 2 listing may provide the tools necessary to stabilize
the trade in bigleaf mahogany. But these are considerations
that are still under discussion.
Mr. Gilchrest. This proposal came from Nicaragua and
Guatemala?
Mr. Manson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do they have problems with their bigleaf
mahogany tree population? Is that why they proposed this? Do
they foresee a problem with that tree species in Brazil?
Mr. Manson. I cannot answer specifically today the status
in Guatemala and Nicaragua with the degree of certainty that
you would expect. I can get you some information on that.
The problem, Brazil has been the focal point of bigleaf
mahogany issues over the last year or so, and there is a great
deal of confusion about the situation in Brazil. A number of
shipments have come from Brazil. It is not clear whether they
were legal or not. That is kind of on the management side.
Mr. Gilchrest. A number of shipments have come from Brazil
to the United States?
Mr. Manson. To the United States, right.
Mr. Gilchrest. And we are not sure whether those shipments
were from licensed loggers or unlicensed loggers?
Mr. Manson. We have had some question about the status of
some of those shipments that have come from Brazil, and we have
gotten contradictory answers from the Brazilians, quite
frankly, about that. We are about to send a mission to Brazil
to clarify that situation.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, how did we know that those shipments of
mahogany were potentially illegal? Is that caught at the port
by Customs?
Mr. Manson. That is typically where they are caught. We
received from the Brazilians, as I said earlier, contradictory
information about that. We received, for example, information
that there were legal export permits issued for some of these
shipments, and then within days or hours, in some cases, we
received information that suggested--from the Brazilian
government--that suggested that perhaps there had not been the
proper export permits issued.
Mr. Gilchrest. What happens? Are they barged here? Are they
put on a ship? Are they quarantined for a while? Are they
allowed to be distributed in this country, or are they still
sitting at the dock?
Mr. Manson. There are a number of shipments that have been
released because we have been able to ascertain the status.
There are a smaller number of shipments that are still
warehoused. The matter was the subject of litigation. There are
some, as I said, that are still warehoused. When we send our
mission to Brazil shortly, we will be able to ascertain,
hopefully, the status of those shipments.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. Do these come up with the raw logs or
are they cut up into boards or how does mahogany get here?
Mr. Manson. I need to consult with one of my experts on
that issue about those particular shipments. I am told it is a
mixture of things.
Mr. Gilchrest. You also mentioned, Judge, the international
trade in certain whale species and that countries like Japan
would like to open up trade in these whale species. What is the
status of that and what other countries support Japan on this
issue?
Mr. Manson. Presently, as you may know, there is a
moratorium on commercial whaling activities under the
International Whaling Commission's convention. Japan's several
proposals would change that and open that up.
I am not sure, and maybe Dr. Hogarth knows, but I am not
sure which other countries are presently likely to support the
Japanese proposals.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth?
Mr. Hogarth. There are quite a few, I think, like Norway,
Iceland, in particular, that would be supportive of this
effort. I think there are about probably 18 or 20 countries
that would support such an activity.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are all those countries on the Commission?
Mr. Hogarth. Norway is. Iceland is not at the present time.
There are other members that would be supportive of this
effort.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there going to be a vote soon? Will there
be a vote in November on that issue?
Mr. Hogarth. No. We do not think so, no.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So the status of CITES dealing with
that issue of trading internationally in whales that is now
supported by Japan, Norway, Iceland, and other countries, what
is the status of that issue? Is it not going to be dealt with
any time soon? Will it be dealt with? Is it an issue that will
be voted on any time soon?
Mr. Hogarth. The Japanese proposal--let me just get it
straight, CITES versus IWC. You are talking about CITES now,
right?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes.
Mr. Hogarth. It will be voted on--
Mr. Gilchrest. Does CITES have anything to do with the IWC
decisions?
Mr. Hogarth. No. The IWC went to CITES and asked for the
protection. The IWC has not changed its request of CITES for
protection.
Mr. Gilchrest. So IWC makes the decision whether or not to
have trade in certain international whale species?
Mr. Hogarth. That is true. They asked CITES to assist them
in helping with international trade for the countries.
Mr. Gilchrest. So IWC wrote a letter to CITES asking them
to keep the whale population on Appendix 1.
Mr. Hogarth. See, IWC was the one that put in the
moratorium.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. Then after they put in the moratorium on
commercial harvest, then they went to CITES and asked for help
or protection through international trade.
Mr. Gilchrest. So are these whale species on Appendix 1
or--
Mr. Hogarth. Appendix 1.
Mr. Gilchrest. Appendix 1?
Mr. Hogarth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. And they are not under discussion to come
off Appendix 1 any time soon?
Mr. Hogarth. The Japanese proposal is to change it from
Appendix 1 to Appendix 2.
Mr. Gilchrest. Which species?
Mr. Hogarth. Minke is one of them--
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. --and Byrde's.
Mr. Gilchrest. There are a couple of whale species that
they have suggested. All right.
I have a few more questions, but I think I will get myself
organized for the next round and yield to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Mr. Manson, it is my understanding
there are a number of positions that are still in draft form
that the administration is working on. My question is, do we
intend on having those positions finalized prior to the arrival
in Santiago, and if so, who is involved in finalizing those
positions that the administration or the delegation will take
when they get to Chile?
Mr. Manson. I expect that most, if not all, will be
finalized at some point before we get to Santiago. There are
interagency working groups developing proposals. Those will
come up through the policy apparatus of the Departments
involved and any disagreements will be resolved at a policy
level involving assistant secretaries or higher, if necessary.
Mr. Pombo. Are you currently working with the range states
when developing these positions that the U.S. is going to take,
particularly if it is a species outside of the jurisdiction of
the United States?
Mr. Manson. Yes. There are range state dialogs, as you may
know, that go on among the range states. We have been attending
those range dialogs and monitoring the range dialogs, and so
what happens at those range state dialogs is very important to
the development of positions on behalf of the United States.
Mr. Pombo. If the range states oppose the proposal that has
been put forth, how does that impact the U.S. position, and you
can take anything from the mahogany issue to elephants or what
have you. How does that affect your thinking or the positions
that the U.S. takes?
Mr. Manson. Well, I think it depends. For example, with
respect to certain Appendix 3 species, I think we--well, we
always listen very carefully to what the range states have to
say. With respect to Appendix 3 species, we would be, I think,
remiss if we did not give great deference to the range states.
I think that on the whole, with respect to all species, there
is sometimes not a unanimity among the range states about what
ought to be done, in which case the range state dialog informs
us but does not control our positions in any sense.
Mr. Pombo. In the past, the United States has been able to
play an important role at CITES when there are differences
between the range states in changing what the proposal would
be. In particular, at the last meeting, I felt the U.S.
delegation was able to play a very important role in
negotiating, I think, a position that all of the range states
could live with. Do you envision at this particular meeting
that we would go into it with keeping our options open on some
of these more controversial issues so that we can play that
role?
Mr. Manson. I think that that is a very appropriate role
for the United States to play, particularly on the most
controversial issues. I do expect that we would continue to
play that sort of role. I think with respect to a couple of the
issues, we will keep our options open for exactly that reason.
Mr. Pombo. Obviously, science plays a very important role
in determining what should or should not be put on the list. I
felt at times in the past that the science was pushed aside in
terms of reaching a political decision. I would like you and
Dr. Hogarth to comment on that, because it is something that is
extremely important to me. If we are going to reach sustainable
levels in terms of recovery on these species or the
conservation of these species, that the U.S. position rely
heavily on what the science is and what information has been
gathered.
When you talk about the differences between range states,
many times, those differences that exist are the result of
management within those individual countries that have resulted
in a better position in some countries versus other countries.
I think that is where we can play an important role in
negotiating that. But I would like you to comment on the role
science plays in determining what position the U.S. is going to
take.
Mr. Manson. Well, as I have testified in this room before,
science is paramount to the decisions the administration makes
on natural resources issues. That remains the case with respect
to CITES as well as our domestic threatened and endangered
species issues. We have, of course, as CITES requires, the
scientific authority and we rely, of course, very heavily on
science in developing our positions. We recognize, as I have
testified with respect to our domestic Endangered Species Act,
that we do not necessarily have a monopoly on good science and
will seek that good science wherever it exists to help inform
our positions.
Mr. Pombo. Dr. Hogarth?
Mr. Hogarth. We try to look at everything from the
scientific standpoint, and that is what we try to base the
decisions on. Also, we like to make sure that, if possible,
that the regional management structures can manage these
species before it gets to CITES. But if CITES is necessary from
a trade standpoint to help the process, we do support that. But
it should be based on, the decisions on what appendix they go
on and this type of thing, should be based on the science, and
then we have to look at how the management and trade helps the
sustainability.
Mr. Pombo. Just to, I guess, follow up on some of the
comments that were made by the Chairman, in particular with the
entire issue over whales and the sustainability of those
populations, there is a huge difference between different
species of whales and what the science is telling us, and at
times, it appears that the U.S. has just lumped the entire
species into one basket and taken a position versus what the
science is telling us on individual subspecies.
That is something that raises a concern that I have, that
we do not look at the science in individual range states, we do
not look at the science on individual species, and it is much
simpler to lump everything together and take an overall
position than it is to actually look at the science that is out
there on these different species and what our position should
be individually on those species.
Mr. Hogarth. I think one of the concerns right now, I
think, with the whale management is that IWC has not done a
revised management scheme, and so, therefore, our concern is
that we do not know--there is no mechanism to make sure that we
do not have excess harvesting and get back to the same--
Mr. Pombo. I am not going to let you get off that easy,
because it is not IWC. The U.S. has not taken an active role in
coming up with a revised management scheme and producing that
and working with the other nations and coming up with that
revised management scheme and releasing that. We have gone
through years of promises that that revised management scheme
was going to be developed, and I do not believe that we have
taken the active role in that. It is easy to point to the IWC
or to CITES and say it is those guys over there, but it is us.
We are part of that and--
Mr. Hogarth. We are part of the process.
Mr. Pombo. --we have to take an active role.
Mr. Hogarth. That is correct.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Manson, you mention in your testimony that
the monitoring system for elephants have not yet provided
significant data on the effects of the ivory trade. What is the
current status of that monitoring system and when do you expect
there to be a system that you feel comfortable or that the
administration feels comfortable relying on?
Mr. Manson. The monitoring system exists and is in place.
There has recently been a meeting of range states on MIKE,
which is the monitoring system, as well as on ETIS, which is
the Elephant Trade Information System. There has been at least
one range state dialog concerning those issues, as well, and
there will be another one just before the COP.
As I indicated earlier, the United States is represented at
all of those range state dialogs. It may well be that as a
result of what we learn at the range state dialog, and as we
analyze the meetings on MIKE and ETIS, that we come to a
conclusion about the adequacy of the monitoring system. I think
it is somewhat premature right now to say that we are entirely
comfortable with it until we complete those rounds of what are
essentially consultations with the range states.
Mr. Pombo. Is the position of the U.S. that it would not
approve an amendment to or a change to the status on the
African elephant until you are comfortable with that monitoring
system?
Mr. Manson. I would say that I do not think we have come to
that hard a conclusion at this point. I think that, again, it
is very important to understand where the range states are and
to hear that range state dialog before we reach any conclusion
about that. There are, as I indicated earlier, the various
proposals of a number of the range states to change the trade
annotations and we will have to evaluate those based upon what
we learn in the range state dialog.
There is a proposal from India and Kenya to uplist
everything that is in Appendix 2 to Appendix 1. We most likely
would oppose that proposal.
Mr. Pombo. Just a comment on that. There is a big
difference between the Asian elephant and the African elephant
in terms of what its sustainability is, just as there is a huge
difference between the sustainability within the individual
range states. Kenya has some particular problems there that
they do not have in some of the other countries. Unfortunately,
some political instability has been devastating to some of the
populations in southern Africa, particularly Zimbabwe, that
previously had been one of the huge success stories
internationally.
I believe that every one of those countries needs to be
treated differently and a legitimate analysis done on what they
are doing in those particular countries. I think you would be
doing a disservice to the countries that have done a fantastic
job of managing their wildlife if they were all lumped
together.
Mr. Manson. That is a point well taken. In my oral
testimony and in my written testimony, we try to draw a
distinction and recognize those states which have done a very
good job as opposed to the states where African elephants in
particular remain in decline. I would agree that it would not
be prudent to undertake a sweeping, broad approach to any of
these issues, and that is one of the concerns that I personally
have about the Kenyan and Indian proposals on elephants.
Mr. Pombo. I appreciate that. I am going to yield back to
the Chairman at this point. If there is another round of
questions, I have additional questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.
Dr. Hogarth, Australia is proposing listing or putting
Patagonian toothfish on Appendix 2. Your agency is developing
an interagency plan to be used to determine the U.S. position.
Can you tell us what NOAA's plan is and who the interagency
team is? What information will be used to finalize the U.S.
position?
Mr. Hogarth. Thank you. We know and we acknowledge that
CCAMLR has done a lot to control the trade of this species, so
we are concerned with the position of CCAMLR. So we put
together a team which includes our people and the Fish and
Wildlife and we are looking at the fact of how the harvest is
taking place, illegal harvest is taking place, unregulated,
unreported fishing activities which are having a detrimental
impact.
But Australia also as part of their proposal wants to look
at changing criteria of the appendices and all that is sort of
tied together--
Mr. Gilchrest. Where is the Patagonian toothfish now? I
mean, is it Appendix 3? Is it anywhere at all?
Mr. Hogarth. No.
Mr. Gilchrest. It is not listed anywhere?
Mr. Hogarth. It is not listed anywhere.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the Australians want to jump it to
Appendix 2?
Mr. Hogarth. Appendix 2. But one of the proposals, the
Chileans also have a proposal that if it went to Appendix 2,
that we would use the CCAMLR documentation, permit would be
used for the CITES permit. So that would help in the process.
So we were trying to evaluate and look at all these proposals
and make sure that CCAMLR's role in this stays solid and that
we do the best job of regulating the toothfish. It is being
evaluated from both the scientific and the two agencies.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are saying it is being evaluated now?
Mr. Hogarth. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you take a guess what the U.S. position
will be? Is it likely to be similar to CCAMLR's? We predict all
kinds of things--
Mr. Hogarth. I think probably more--
Mr. Gilchrest. Is it likely to be similar to CCAMLR's
position?
Mr. Hogarth. CCAMLR's, I think, yes. I would think so.
Mr. Gilchrest. And then it is likely to be put in Appendix
2?
Mr. Hogarth. I think it needs protection, yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there anybody that would disagree that it
needs protection?
Mr. Hogarth. No, I think part of the disagreement is that
you do not lose the role of CCAMLR in this and that you do not
set up duplicate permits and things like that, that we have got
a system in place and we need to utilize that, but to look
further at the excessive harvest that is taking place. There is
excessive harvest. We have got to control that.
Mr. Gilchrest. If this is put in Appendix 2, what
enforcement mechanisms are going to be put in place to limit
the trade with the Patagonian toothfish?
Mr. Hogarth. Well, I think that is part of the discussion,
is what you would put into place and what permits would you
use, what would be the documentation scheme that you would
utilize for the exportation and import to the U.S. You would
have to look at the--we want to make sure that there is a
transparent process that looks at the harvest and landing and
the transshipment, and then you would have to have a process in
place.
The U.S. requires the CCAMLR permit for all imports right
now. So we do require that through Customs.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there is no confusion between what CITES
does and what CCAMLR does?
Mr. Hogarth. As far as the U.S. is concerned right now, we
abide by CCAMLR and you have to have the permit, and we have
made several cases through Customs on the importation of
toothfish already, the U.S. has.
Mr. Pombo. Would the gentleman yield for a minute? There
has been a debate for years. When they establish a regional
monitoring body and they have the responsibility of managing
fish stocks within that particular region, there are always
NGO's and others that try to get species that are within that
particular regional management body issued as a CITES Appendix
2 or Appendix 1. There is always a huge debate over taking what
is being done regionally and putting it into the international
body. It is similar to the fight that we go through when they
take a State issue and we try to Federalize it.
So there is always opposition to taking some of these
issues from a regional management body and putting them in
CITES. Over the years that I have been involved with CITES, we
have seen this happen a number of times with a huge debate that
goes on between the countries, and it does not align itself the
way that a lot of other issues do, because there are some that
truly believe that if you have a regional management body that
is trying to manage fish stocks in that area, that we should
leave it that way and we should not make it an international
CITES issue.
Mr. Hogarth. CCAMLR has a catch documentation scheme. We
utilize it. Some other countries utilize it. Countries that are
not part of CCAMLR, CITES would be an additional step, but we
would hope that they would not put a more cumbersome regulation
process in place and utilize what is place and CITES would be
an additional step for those who do not have the catch
documentation scheme of CCAMLR. You would have that permit, but
you would not--
Mr. Gilchrest. What countries are in CCAMLR, other than
Australia and Chile? New Zealand?
Mr. Hogarth. New Zealand, U.S., Canada--
Mr. Gilchrest. Canada?
Mr. Hogarth. Let me get you back those answers, because it
seems like we are not--
Mr. Gilchrest. There are 20-some countries in CCAMLR.
CCAMLR has not listed Patagonian toothfish--have they done
anything with the problem with Patagonian toothfish that
Australia seems to think that the stock is depleted?
Mr. Hogarth. Australia proposes that you use the catch
documentation scheme of CCAMLR, but they think that they need
additional restrictions that CITES would bring for those
countries that are not part of CCAMLR, and that would be
additional permits through CITES.
Mr. Gilchrest. What would those additional protections be
if CITES--
Mr. Hogarth. Well, it would be for countries. If you are
not using the catch documentation scheme of CCAMLR for your
imports, for the countries like--we use it.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. But if you were not utilizing it, if you are
not a country that is part of CCAMLR and you are part of CITES,
that gives you additional protection for those countries. So
you would get additional coverage for the toothfish.
Mr. Gilchrest. What is the range of the Patagonian
toothfish? The South Pacific? South Atlantic?
Mr. Hogarth. It is all of the countries, really. It is all
around the world. It has got a large range.
Mr. Gilchrest. And so those countries that fish in a
commercial way, I would assume they have some input into the
decisions that CCAMLR and Australia. Is there any other country
that agrees, that we know of now, with Australia asking that
this be put in Appendix 2, if that is where they want it put?
Mr. Hogarth. At the present time, we do not know. There has
not been any discussion that we have had with others yet.
Mr. Gilchrest. So CCAMLR--
Mr. Hogarth. We do not have the whole position straight
yet.
Mr. Gilchrest. Will CITES make a decision after CCAMLR
makes their decision?
Mr. Hogarth. No, this is a separate--CITES will make its
decision based on the Australia proposal. Like I say, Chile has
a proposal that wants protection but says that you should use
the CCAMLR permit also.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, Chile does not want it put in CITES?
Mr. Hogarth. That is correct. They want to use the CCAMLR
process.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. I think Chile's permit, just to make it clear,
is that they want everybody to voluntarily go with CCAMLR. So
if you are part of CCAMLR or not, you would adopt that,
voluntarily adopt the catch documentation scheme rather than
have another permit through CITES, that everybody would just
voluntarily adopt the catch documentation scheme of CCAMLR.
Mr. Gilchrest. But Australia does not want that?
Mr. Hogarth. No, Australia feels like you need to have the
additional protection of CITES, due to the excessive harvest
and the amount that is being shipped.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there any species that looks like
Patagonian toothfish out there?
Mr. Hogarth. That is a good question. I am not sure. That
is another question I will get an answer for you.
Mr. Gilchrest. As CITES works with all these regional, for
lack of a better term, fisheries management councils, there is
an early discussion in the U.S., particularly with the Magnuson
Act and to a limited extent with the Atlantic State Marine
Fisheries Commission, to discuss issues of the broad ecosystem
management of species, and there is an ongoing pilot project
now in the Chesapeake Bay with NOAA working to some extent with
the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission, but especially
with the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and to some extent,
Delaware, to look at an ecosystem fisheries plan for the
Chesapeake Bay. It brings in a whole range of discussion of the
ecological needs of the marine ecosystem and its impact in a
broad way by human beings, either through pollution,
fragmentation, degradation, et cetera, et cetera.
Does CITES ever have any discussion on an ecosystem view of
the world's oceans, either with IWC, CCAMLR, or anybody? I
guess, Mr. Manson and Dr. Hogarth, you could--and I suppose
that would also include the range of African elephants and
other species.
Mr. Manson. Well, I would say that we have certainly always
looked at ecosystems in our approach to all threatened and
endangered species issues. Having said that, because there are
different schemes of national regulation, there are different
national economies within ecosystems, that is what makes the
ecosystem approach a little bit different under CITES than it
might be under, say, the domestic Endangered Species Act,
because the artificial political and economic considerations
which overlay ecosystems in international terms change the
calculus a little bit, and in some cases not a little bit but
quite a lot, in terms of ecosystem management. So it is not
always possible to apply an ecosystem view with respect to
CITES.
The other thing that I think has to be remembered is that
CITES is not a generalized endangered species act for the
international arena. CITES is concerned largely with the impact
of trade on threatened and endangered species, and so ecosystem
considerations, while important, have a different cast than
they would, again, with the domestic Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth?
Mr. Hogarth. I think to a certain extent, and I agree with
the Judge, to a certain extent, though, when determining
sustainability of a species, they sort of look at the role of
that species in the ecosystem and how the two fit together
before they issue a permit. So while it is not an ecosystem
management approach, they sort of look at sustainability and
the role of the ecosystem and of that species as they develop
the permit or decide what to do with the permitting. But it is
not an ecosystem plan as you and I would probably envision,
managing into the future.
Mr. Gilchrest. I guess in a fairly simplistic way, though,
my question is, do people who deal in these issues, whether it
is dealing with which appendix to put African elephants in what
part of the country or what to do with specific whale species
or Patagonian toothfish, the people who deal specifically with
the international legal regime of trade to enforce U.S. law and
international law, especially if CITES is dealing with CCAMLR
or CITES is dealing with the IWC, you come in contact with the
full range of people in the international community and why,
while ecosystem management may not be a direct part of the
conversation, are there people that periodically understand and
have exchanges of information with ecologists that are honed to
understand the specifics of that type of mechanism, who have
studied for years to understand the physics of the system upon
which these species have survived and evolved over millions of
years? Is that any kind of consideration, at least in a
peripheral sense?
Mr. Manson. The simple answer to that is yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is good.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. I had an opportunity a few months ago to
talk with some other Members of Congress to the Prime Minister
of Ethiopia, and Ethiopia is racked by poverty, disease, war,
and drought, and that is basically the cycle upon which they
witnessed and experienced over decades. But in that
conversation, since we flew over much of Ethiopia in Russian
helicopters--something that I do not recommend--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. --I probably will not ever do it again--I
noticed how degraded the landscape was, denuded of forests,
erosion, and that if a simple, basic plan was put into place
that followed the hydrologic cycle and there were buffers in
place, much of which we do here in the United States as a
matter of course, to protect their watersheds, life would come
back and the health of the region, I think, would have
dramatically improved.
So when we had a somewhat brief but interesting discussion
on the conservation corridor, on following the hydrologic
cycle, and an understanding of what Ethiopia might have looked
like thousands of years ago, with lush forests and pure water,
how much better the country would be. There was stunning
interest in that conversation, which was thrown into the
conversation about children with AIDS and a number of other
things.
So I think some interesting steps can be taken in that
arena as sometimes seemingly side conversations that can get at
the heart of the problem.
I will yield again to the gentleman from California.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just had a couple more questions that I wanted to ask,
and then I have a series of questions that I would like to
submit in writing and have those answered. Some of them are
somewhat technical in nature and I think it would just be
easier if I submitted those and gave you the opportunity to
answer them in writing for the Committee hearing.
One issue that has come up repeatedly, and Secretary
Manson, I have talked to you about this in the past, was the
whole issue of the passport issue on traveling exhibits. There
are a number of different proposals that are coming up. The
U.S. is developing one. Russia is developing one. I understand
that the Secretariat is also developing one. Do you believe
that this will all be put together for one international
passport on traveling exhibits, or are we going to have three
separate systems that are being developed? Do you at this point
have an idea where we are headed with that, and is there a
possibility that this issue could be resolved at the upcoming
COP12?
Mr. Manson. Well, we have always supported the passport
system. It makes sense to alleviate the burden on individuals
and governments, as well, quite frankly. There are several
proposals, as you point out. The Russian proposal, we do not
support. I think that it is possible that we can reach some
sort of consensus at COP12 on a single system. We certainly
would work toward that end.
Mr. Pombo. I think with some of the problems we have had
recently, it would be to everybody's benefit if we resolved
that issue. I think it would be, for the sake of the animals
involved, I think it would be a lot better if we got that
resolved and we had a system that we could depend on. I think
it would make it a lot easier.
The final question I would ask, Mr. Manson, and you
discussed this briefly earlier, we list under the domestic ESA
many species that are listed under CITES. What is the purpose
of doing that, and do you believe that it offers a different
level of protection for the species that are listed under both?
I believe that the domestic Endangered Species Act has a
different purpose than CITES.
Mr. Manson. Well, I agree with that. I think that there are
different considerations when we talk about species under our
domestic Endangered Species Act. There is a different scheme of
regulation. There are different mechanisms to give relief to
individuals who may be affected by the regulatory scheme under
the domestic Endangered Species Act.
I think CITES, as I said earlier, has a different focus. It
is not designed as an international endangered species act on
the model that we have in the United States. So the dual
listing of species under the domestic Endangered Species Act,
as well as under CITES, does serve to offer different types of
benefits to the species that are involved.
Mr. Pombo. I look forward to discussing that issue further
with you, because in many ways, I think it complicates the
issue. It is at cross purposes many times, and I feel that
under the domestic Endangered Species Act, that we would be
better served spending the time and energy and resources, the
very limited resources that we have, protecting domestic
species instead of listing international species under that Act
unless there is a specific reason to list that species, which
may be the case in certain migratory issues. But I look forward
to talking to you further about that in the future.
I want to thank the Chairman for agreeing to hold this
hearing. As I said at the opening, this is an very important
issue for the United States. Many times, I think that in the
past, Congress did not give it the attention that it deserves.
But over the past several years, we have had a number of
hearings on CITES. I have had the opportunity to attend the
last two. It is my intention to attend the upcoming conference
and I look forward to working with you gentlemen in the future.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I thank the gentleman from California. I
guess he has to fill out an absentee ballot to attend this next
hearing.
I know Dr. Hogarth has to leave here shortly, but I just
had a question, Dr. Hogarth. I guess in the past, there have
been a number of times when there has been a proposal to list
certain species of sharks and they have always been rejected.
Can you give us some idea of why that has happened, why listing
especially whale shark and basking shark proposed to CITES has
not been accepted and what the status of those listings are
now?
Mr. Hogarth. I think this brings to a head the whole
discussion about the role of CITES in marine species, marine
fish species, particularly the fish species, and the
conservation of the marine fish species here versus the
regional management through the other mechanisms. I think that
has been one of the things that for years has been discussed
and has not been resolved. I think the Australian proposal on
toothfish is probably trying to bring that to a head, as to
really what the role of CITES is in the conservation of a
marine fish species.
I think the two sharks, I mean, whales that are listed, you
know, I think, the reasons there. The sharks, it is sort of
hard to say why they have not been. We have not really had, I
think, our position fully established on what we think marine
fish species belong. We are trying to work with FAO through
their program and CITES and trying to coordinate the two
programs.
That is not a real good answer to your question because I
just do not think we have gotten all the information and
decided what is the best way. Do we need another process for
sustainability of marine fish species where we have some of the
other schemes in place to manage this?
Mr. Gilchrest. When these proposals were made to CITES
about certain species of sharks to be listed, who made those
proposals?
Mr. Hogarth. I think--
Mr. Gilchrest. Was it the U.S.? Was it some other country?
Was it an NGO?
Mr. Hogarth. The one we will be finding this year will be
one that is coming from the European Union to list basking
sharks as Appendix 2. Both the whale and basking sharks are
already prohibited in U.S. waters. India is proposing, and the
Philippines, that the whale sharks be listed in Appendix 2, and
they are extremely rare and are facing increased international
trade in the Indopacific. We will probably support those two
proposals because of the conditions of those stocks and what is
around them.
There will be a conservation management proposal that is
being offered by Australia, suggests that the CITES animal
committee regularly review the conservation of the various
shark populations and recommend listing priorities. So there is
another mechanism that Australia is recommending.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
Mr. Hogarth. Ecuador is also going to come forward with a
conservation and trade of sharks being offered. And then these
will be talked about, closer coordination between CITES and
FAO. They are being reviewed right now and are going to come up
at COP12. Whether a decision will be made at that point, it is
somewhat difficult to say. But I think the whale and basking
shark proposals, we will support those, and I think the long-
term sharks will be a discussion of how is the best way to do
it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Does CITES deal with white marlin?
Mr. Hogarth. Not yet.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. OK.
Mr. Hogarth. That is next week, is it not? That is the
topic of next week's discussion.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that next week?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Where is that going to be held, in Ocean
City? ICCAT is not meeting in Ocean City?
Mr. Hogarth. No, Spain.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, Judge Manson, gentlemen, thank
you very much for your testimony. We look forward to working
with you in the months ahead.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]