[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES H. TAYLOR

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 3, 1997

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record 
the following statement which I presented to the House Committee on 
Resources today:

   Statement of the Honorable Charles H. Taylor Before the Resources 
    Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on 
              Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

       Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for this 
     opportunity to provide my thoughts on the upcoming meeting of 
     the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species 
     of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). As you are aware, the 
     Clinton Administration has petitioned CITES to list the 
     commercially valuable S. maccrophylla (Big-Leaf Mahogany) as 
     potentially endangered under Appendix II of the treaty. My 
     interest and experience in this area is two-fold. As you may 
     be aware, I am the only registered forester in Congress, and 
     it is important to me that the policy of the United States on 
     timber issues be informed by sound science and proven 
     principles of forest management.
       My concern in this area also derives from the importance of 
     wood products to the economy of North Carolina and the 
     nation. Mahogany has always been prized by consumers for its 
     beauty, functionality, and weather resistance. The production 
     of furniture, decking, and decorative arts represent the 
     highest valued uses of this resource. This translates into 
     good jobs in North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, 
     Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, and many other 
     U.S. states--as well as in range states such as Brazil and 
     Bolivia where economic opportunities are not as abundant. By 
     lending economic value to the forest ecosystems in that 
     region, Mahogany production provides incentives to keep these 
     ecosystems intact. Clearly, all of us should be striving for 
     a sustainable utilization of the Mahogany resources with 
     which this hemisphere has been generously endowed.
       I have a number of concerns with the proposal to list Big-
     Leaf Mahogany under CITES Appendix II, and the leading role 
     of the U.S. delegation in that effort. Most fundamentally, 
     the weight of scientific evidence does not show the species 
     in decline. Unfortunately, for some time now the debate over 
     Mahogany has been guided more by emotion and ideology than 
     facts.
       Based on what has been presented in the media and by 
     advocacy groups, many Americans would be surprised to learn 
     that the range of Mahogany is very large, extending from 
     Mexico to Bolivia. Jack Ward Thomas, who until recently 
     headed the U.S. Forest Service, concluded after a 
     comprehensive review of the evidence that Big-Leaf Mahogany 
     is abundant, with an extensive range, and not threatened with 
     extinction.
       In all parts of the range, the tree occurs in relatively 
     small quantities in comparison to the total standing timber 
     in the forest, a growth pattern characteristic of many of the 
     species in Latin America. This creates opportunities for 
     selective harvesting in which the majority of trees in a 
     forest are left healthy and standing. ``Range states'' are 
     increasingly relying upon such practices, and many U.S. 
     importers of Mahogany insist on shipments from properly 
     managed forests. South American governments are also more 
     aggressively combating illegal clearing, tightening allowable 
     harvests, and repealing tax incentives that had contributed 
     to deforestation. Brazil recently suspended logging permits 
     for two years, and my understanding is that Peru is in the 
     process of implementing a similar restriction.
       These facts are acknowledged by the U.S. Forest Service--
     the recognized tree experts in the U.S. Government. The 
     Forest Service's leading Mahogany expert, Dr. Ariel Lugo has 
     published a detailed critique of the Appendix II listing 
     proposal, and concluded that it is a ``poor proposal and a 
     bad example of how science is used by the U.S. Government to 
     guide the management of natural resources.'' Dr. Lugo notes 
     more specifically that the
       * * * proposal does not measure up to the standards of 
     science and fairness required to solve complex and 
     contentious issues, does not reflect the current 
     understanding of the ecology and biology of Big-Leaf 
     Mahogany, it is strongly biased, contains inaccurate 
     statements, and ignores available information that would 
     provide decision-makers with a more accurate understanding of 
     the Mahogany issue. For this reason, the proposal is not a 
     useful policy-making document and should be abandoned.
       In November 20, 1996 comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
     Service (USFWS), then Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Jack 
     Ward Thomas reached the same conclusions, noting succinctly 
     that ``none of the criteria for listing a species on Appendix 
     II are met.''
       Unfortunately, it appears that the Administration has 
     neglected the informed input of its own experts in favor of a 
     more political approach. The process of formulating a U.S. 
     position has been characterized by haste and the exclusion of 
     divergent views. The USFWS participated in three different 
     gatherings of forestry, timber-trade, and plant and Mahogany 
     experts this fall, but engaged in no substantial discussions 
     of the Mahogany proposal. During these meetings, USFWS had an 
     excellent opportunity to inform the groups that an Appendix 
     II listing proposal for Mahogany was being considered, and to 
     solicit their expertise. This was not done, resulting in a 
     foregone opportunity for informed input and discussion.
       Even the scheduling of CITES action on Mahogany appears to 
     reflect political dynamics more than sound fact gathering. 
     Acting on the proposal in June would moot the efforts of the 
     specially-formed CITES Timber Working Group (TWG) which has 
     completed its work and has submitted its report and 
     recommendations to the CITES Standing Committee. It is 
     premature to forward a listing proposal until this group's 
     report and recommendations are received and considered by the 
     Conference of Parties in Zimbabwe in June.
       The listing proposal is also premature with respect to the 
     report of an internal study on the Convention's effectiveness 
     which was commissioned by the CITES Standing Committee. The 
     results of this study also will be presented in June. The 
     consultants found (among other things) that certain 
     governments and advocacy groups are disproportionately 
     represented in the work of CITES, and that CITES pays a 
     disproportionate amount of time and effort dealing with the 
     issues surrounding a relatively small number of popular 
     species, such as mahogany.
       I am also concerned with the characteristic positions of 
     the range states on restricting trade in mahogany. USFWS 
     claims that the majority of the range states support the 
     listing of S. macrophylla. It is notable that only one nation 
     (Costa Rica) has placed unilateral restrictions on mahogany 
     exports. This is explicitly allowed under Appendix III of 
     CITES. Additionally, it has been reported that only Ecuador 
     expressed support for the Appendix II proposal during the 
     USFWS consultation process, and that Peru and Brazil have 
     registered their strong opposition. The whole CITES proves on 
     mahogany reflects an all too familiar pattern of northern 
     hemisphere advocacy groups dictating resource policy to their 
     southern neighbors.
       The handling of the listing petition for Big-Leaf Mahogany 
     could set an unfortunate precedent. The recently revised 
     listing criteria for CITES are being interpreted by advocacy 
     groups very broadly and in a fashion which would allow almost 
     any commercial tree species to have a CITES Appendix I or II 
     listing. There is a widely-held belief that CITES is not a 
     suitable forum for the regulation of widely traded tree 
     species. CITES was never intended for this purpose. If S. 
     macrophylla is listed on Appendix II, we expect that many 
     additional species will soon be proposed for listing as well.
       Many other species are prime candidates for listing 
     proposals at subsequent CITES meetings. We call attention to 
     the report of the first phase of a study commissioned by the 
     Netherlands CITES Authorities and conducted by the World 
     Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) that evaluated numerous 
     timber species vis-a-vis the new listing criteria adopted in 
     Fort Lauderdale. Phase one of the study examined 58 species, 
     primarily from Africa and Asia. Of the 58, 41 species overall 
     (29 from Africa alone) were found to qualify for listing in 
     either Appendix I (a complete BAN on trade) or Appendix II 
     (trade allowed but heavily regulated).
       Proponents of listing have argued that Appendix II listing 
     is not equivalent to an export ban. However, Appendix II 
     listing would require certification of Mahogany exports as 
     obtained from sustainable forests, and require routing of 
     shipments through CITES-approved ports. This could create 
     additional bureaucratic and logistical burdens, as well as 
     opportunities for corruption in the allocation of permits.
       Finally, it is highly questionable that trade restrictions 
     will improve the protection of Mahogany forests, and in fact, 
     they could have the opposite effect. History has shown that 
     people in developing nations will not resign themselves to 
     economic stagnation, but will choose between competing 
     development options. In fact, it is generally recognized that 
     the greatest threat to tropical ecosystems is clearing and 
     burning related to housing, ranching and agriculture. By 
     providing an economic incentive to maintain hardwood forests, 
     responsible timber production forestalls less attractive 
     development options. As Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian 
     Institution has said, ``the key component in preserving and 
     maintaining the tropical forests is to ensure these resources 
     maintain their economic value.''
       It is for these reasons that I draw the Committee's 
     attention to the Mahogany listing proposal. Appendix II 
     listing by CITES would directly impact the future of the U. 
     S. furniture workers and other American industries that rely 
     on this resource to meet consumers' preferences. Also at 
     stake are the emerging economies of South American nations, 
     with whom the United States hopes to build stronger trading 
     relations in coming years.
       I encourage the Administration to reconsider their support 
     for this proposal and to withdraw it from consideration at 
     the upcoming CITES Conference of Parties in Zimbabwe.