[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27313]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: November 4, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
Resolutions, Agenda Items, and Species Changes Proposed by the
United States for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision on U.S. submissions to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or Convention) regulates international
trade in certain animals and plants. Species for which trade is
controlled are listed in Appendices I, II, and III to CITES. The United
States as a Party to the Convention may (1) propose amendments to the
appendices for consideration by the other Parties at the biennial
meetings of the Conference of the Parties, (2) submit topics for
inclusion in the agenda of these meetings, and (3) submit resolutions
to improve the implementation of the Convention for consideration at
these meetings.
In this notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
announces the species proposals to amend Appendices I and II, agenda
items, and resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration
at the ninth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES
(COP9) scheduled for November 7-18, 1994, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
ADDRESSES: Requests for information concerning species proposals
discussed in this notice may be directed to Chief, Office of Scientific
Authority; Mail Stop: ARLSQ Room 725; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Washington, DC 20240. The fax number is 703-358-2276. Express and
messenger-delivered mail should be addressed to the Office of
Scientific Authority; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 750; Arlington,
Virginia. Information relative to agenda items and proposed resolutions
should be submitted to Chief, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 420C, Arlington,
Virginia 22203. The fax number is 703-358-2280. Any information
received is available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington, Virginia
address.
Copies of resolutions and species proposals submitted by the United
States are available on request by contacting the Office of Scientific
Authority or Office of Management Authority, as appropriate, at the
above addresses.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of
Scientific Authority, at the above address, telephone 703-358-1708, or
Marshall Jones, Chief, Office of Management Authority, telephone 703-
358-2095.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is
an international treaty designed to control and regulate international
trade in certain animal and plant species which are or may become
threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the
Convention. Currently, 122 countries, including the United States, are
CITES Parties. The Convention calls for biennial meetings of the
Conference of the Parties that review its implementation, make
provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out
its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices
I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make
recommendations for the improved effectiveness of the Convention. COP9
will be held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, November 7-18, 1994.
This is part of a series of notices that, together with public
meetings, encourage the public to participate in the development of the
U.S. positions for COP9. A Federal Register notice published on July
15, 1993 (58 FR 38112), requested information and comments from the
public on animal or plant species the United States might consider as
possible amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice
published on November 18, 1993 (58 FR 60873), requested public comments
on possible revisions to the criteria for listing species in the CITES
Appendices. A Federal Register notice published on January 27, 1994 (59
FR 3832) requested additional comments from the public on animal or
plant species that the United States was considering submitting as
proposed amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice
published on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4096): (1) Published the time and
place for COP9; (2) announced a public meeting for February 22, 1994,
to discuss the 31st meeting of the CITES Standing Committee; (3)
detailed the provisional agenda for COP9; and (4) requested information
and comments from the public on possible COP9 agenda items and
resolutions that the United States might submit. The Service's
regulations governing this public process are found in Title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.
After review of public comments and all available information, the
proposals, agenda items, and draft resolutions announced in this notice
were submitted by the Service and received by the Convention's
Secretariat on June 10, 1994, the deadline for consideration at COP9.
Any proposed amendments to the Appendices adopted by the Parties
will become effective on February 16, 1995, unless the United States
enters a reservation before that time. The Service will publish a
notice of proposed rulemaking to implement such amendments.
Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals
Decisions about suggested U.S. proposals discussed in the previous
notice of January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832) are as follows:
Species Proposals Not Submitted
1. Narwhal (Monodon monoceros). The Environmental Investigation
Agency (EIA) proposed that the narwhal be transferred from Appendix II
to Appendix I of CITES. The range of the narwhal is circumpolar in
Arctic waters, mostly north of 65 degrees North Latitude, although it
occurs in greater densities in waters north of the Atlantic than in
waters north of the Pacific Ocean. There is some north-south seasonal
movement in response to climate and ice development. Between Canada and
Greenland, narwhals summer in high densities in the eastern Canadian
Arctic and off northwest Greenland, with smaller summering groups
occurring in many other locations. Narwhals also occur in some
concentration along the east coast of Greenland. There is evidence
suggesting that the populations on the east and west coasts of
Greenland belong to separate stocks.
Three populations of narwhals were reviewed in 1992 by the Small
Cetacean Sub-Committee of the Scientific Committee of the International
Whaling Commission (IWC): (1) Hudson Bay, including northern Hudson Bay
and western Hudson Strait; (2) Baffin Bay, including the eastern
Canadian Arctic Archipelago and western Greenland; and (3) East
Greenland and the Barents Sea. The Hudson Bay stock has been
conservatively estimated at 1300 animals. The Small Cetacean Sub-
Committee estimated the Baffin Bay stock at 27,580 to 42,520. No good
estimates are available for the East Greenland/Barents Sea population,
although it is considerably smaller than the other stocks. Relatively
small numbers of narwhals are reported from other parts of the species'
range. Because of the difficulty in surveying narwhals, most abundance
estimates for the species have large variances and require careful
interpretation.
Narwhals are hunted for maktag (blubber/skin), meat, and their
tusks. Maktag is consumed by the Inuit, and meat is (or has been in the
past) used as dog food, although both commodities are also sold on a
limited basis. The tusks are utilized domestically for carving, and are
sold as souvenirs, either as carved products or as intact tusks.
(Females only occasionally develop tusks.) The majority of tusks taken
in Canadian waters apparently remain in the country, while the bulk of
narwhal ivory taken in Greenland is shipped to Denmark (perhaps as much
as 90 percent annually) where much is exported to other countries in
the European Union (EU).
In 1976, Canada imposed quotas on the take of narwhals, which it
regulates by issuing tags to be affixed to each animal taken. Tusks
from these animals that enter trade must have the tag attached to show
that the animal from which it was removed was legally taken under the
quota system. The Greenland Home Rule Government sets no quotas for
narwhals and no tracking except for those animals that enter
international trade, and, therefore, require CITES permits. Since 1985
Greenland has not been a member of the EU, therefore a no detriment
finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES export permits by the
Greenland Home Rule Government, and for import permits by EU countries
under EU regulations, even though the narwhal is an Appendix II
species. However, Greenland sets restrictions on who is allowed to hunt
and the manner in which hunts are conducted.
Eight comments were received during the comment period, five
favoring amending the listing of narwhal from Appendix II to Appendix
I, and three opposed to this change.
The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Humane Association
(AHA), the Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), and EIA all expressed
support for an Appendix I listing of the narwhal.
The HSUS indicated that Canada and Greenland continue to hunt
narwhals and export tusks in large numbers (Greenland being the largest
exporter), and that the annual net trade in tusks nearly doubled from
1985-1990. (Prior to 1985 when Greenland began issuing its own CITES
export permits, the movement of tusks from Greenland to Denmark was not
considered international trade, therefore pre- and post-1985 trade
figures cannot be compared equally). They also state that trade figures
do not reflect the total numbers of narwhals taken because for each
actual take there are three to four injured or killed animals lost.
Even though information is limited, HSUS believe that reproductive
rates among narwhals is low, and that in 1981 the world population was
estimated at approximately 20,000 animals and declining. HSUS asserted
that narwhals should be listed in Appendix I as a precautionary measure
because status information is limited, information on reproduction and
natural mortality is lacking, and information on actual numbers hunted
is unavailable.
The AHA indicated that new export markets have caused narwhal ivory
prices to increase in Canada following a price decline in the mid-
1980's, which has returned ivory prices to about the same prices as
existed in the early 1980's. This increase in the price of narwhal
ivory prices has suggested that ivory rather than maktag and meat has
become the basis of modern hunting in eastern Canada. AHA noted that
take quotas have not been imposed by Greenland, and that there are no
controls on trade in ivory. However, as previously mentioned, since
1985 a no detriment finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES
export permits by Greenland and for an import permit by Denmark.
Defenders also asserted that the prime motivation for the take of
narwhal in recent years has been the ivory, stimulated by new export
markets and a resurgence in the price of ivory since the mid-1980's,
which has biased take to the adult males. They feel that this could
jeopardize narwhal population structure by the removal of a larger
number of males. They contended that the current CITES listing of the
narwhal in Appendix II does not provide adequate monitoring of take
because there is not a substantial domestic market for narwhal tusks in
Canada, and yet export permits were issued for fewer than half the
tusks obtained in Canadian narwhal hunts between 1975 and 1990. From
this, Defenders concluded that a large number of tusks must have been
exported without CITES permits, but presented no evidence for this
conclusion. Therefore, due to the uncertainty and concern surrounding
the catch levels of narwhals for the ivory market, Defenders supported
an Appendix I listing.
The EIA submitted comments that supported their original proposal
that the narwhal be included in Appendix I. They provided an estimate
of 28,000 narwhal in the combined Canada-Greenland High Arctic
population. They discussed the utilization of maktag and meat, the
demand for narwhal ivory in Canada, and the export of Greenland ivory
to Denmark and on into the EU. The decline in ivory prices of the early
1980's has, according to EIA, now returned to about those same levels.
EIA pointed out the absence of quotas on take of narwhal in Greenland,
suggested that the application of quotas in Canada is inadequate, and
that the number of narwhal taken does not reflect actual take numbers
because of the loss of wounded or killed animals before they are
landed. They also pointed out the difficulty of assessing the
relationship between the market demand for ivory and hunting intensity.
EIA believed that additional information on life history, distribution,
abundance, and hunting loss rates was needed to assess the stocks and
the impacts of trade in the various parts derived from narwhal in order
to properly manage the stocks.
The Greenland Home Rule Government and the Fisheries Agency of
Japan (FAJ) objected to transferring the narwhal to Appendix I.
Greenland did not agree that narwhals should be placed in Appendix I
due to unsustainable hunting pressures caused by the international
trade in narwhal ivory. They argued that recent population estimates
did not adequately take into account submerged whales, which would give
corrected estimates sufficient to sustain hunting pressures greater
than current harvest levels. They also maintained that low levels of
ivory export reported for Greenland before 1985 are partially an
artifact of the change in their political designation at that time,
prior to which the shipment of ivory to Denmark was not considered as
an export. They noted that, even though there are no catch quotas for
Greenland, there are strict regulations on catch reporting, vessel
sizes, etc., and that there are two reserve areas in Greenland waters
where narwhal are protected. Generally, the FAJ felt that a listing in
Appendix I should be based only on scientific evidence that there is a
threat to extinction and that trade control is necessary for the
protection of the species. Furthermore, the FAJ noted that the narwhal
is already in Appendix II, providing some control of trade and a
mechanism for collecting trade data, and that in the absence of new
information indicating a deterioration in the status of the species
there is no need for consideration of a change to Appendix I.
The Government of Canada also does not agree with an Appendix I
proposal for the narwhal. They feel that recent estimates of the
Canadian High Arctic stocks are low by as much as 50 percent due to an
underestimation of the time narwhals spend under water (as indicated in
the 1992 Report of the Sub- Committee on Small Cetaceans of the
International Whaling Commission), and that this larger population size
can sustain current catch levels. They also feel that their catch
quotas are adequate.
The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) does not support an
Appendix I listing for the narwhal at this time, but noted that Canada
and Greenland should be encouraged to obtain additional and better
information on the status and trends of narwhal stocks, and on harvest
levels (particularly regarding animals that are struck and lost during
hunting).
In developing its position, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) took note of the continuing question about the sustainability of
the take of narwhal, particularly noting the difficulties in obtaining
data, such as population levels, catch levels and loss rates, and in
obtaining trade data for narwhals. Because of this uncertainty, NMFS
decided not to recommend that the United States propose this species
for Appendix I. The Service assessed all information available and
concluded that there was no sufficient information to support listing
this species in Appendix I. The United States will continue to monitor
information on this species as it becomes available in order to better
assess possible recommendations at a later date.
2. Musk deer (Moschus species). The EIA requested that the Service
propose including all species in the genus Moschus in Appendix I. There
are at least four species in the genus, which is widely distributed
across eastern and central Asia. Currently all Moschus species are
included in Appendix II except those populations in Afghanistan,
Bhutan, Burma, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, which are included in
Appendix I. Musk deer were listed in the Appendices due to the trade in
musk, a substance taken from the musk gland of the male and used in
traditional medicines in Asia and in the manufacture of perfumes.
Five comments were received in response to the January 27, 1994,
Federal Register notice. Four commenters (including SAPL) favored the
transfer of all Appendix II populations of musk deer to Appendix I.
TRAFFIC USA, while neither supporting nor opposing an Appendix I
listing, relayed information from TRAFFIC France that the French
perfume industry is using a synthetic musk in some cases, but that
France continues to import 5 to 15 kilograms of musk per year,
primarily from the Russian Federation. The AHA suggested that musk deer
``farming'' operations in China are inadequate to satisfy demands for
musk, and that the existence of a legal musk trade creates a loophole
for illegal trade. Defenders and HSUS reiterated this claim. The AHA
stated that current levels of exploitation of musk deer in Russia,
China and the Himalayas are reported to be unsustainable. Defenders
reported that the price of musk in Hong Kong can be as high as
US$84,000 to US$119,000 per kilogram. They also indicated that there is
not much information available on population numbers of musk deer, but
that it is known that illegal and undocumented trade in musk is
occurring. They state that, ``Estimates indicate that some populations
have been halved during the past five years due to uncontrolled
hunting,'' but no specific information or documented reports were
provided. The HSUS noted the high cost of musk, and stated that this
has led to wide-scale poaching of musk deer. They also reported that an
80 percent decline has occurred in one population of musk deer in
Russia. The HSUS claimed that in China musk deer populations are
declining rapidly due to over-exploitation.
Comments received provided little additional or substantive
information on the distribution and status of musk deer, or on
international trade in musk, aside from anecdotal reports of increased
poaching and the high cost of musk. The People's Republic of China
claims that there are 500,000 to 1 million musk deer in China, and
plans a comprehensive survey. Russia indicated there are about 150,000
musk deer in Russia, and harvests are not allowed in areas where
populations are decreasing. In Russia, musk deer are protected in 18
reserves and other federal and local preserves, and the Sakhalin musk
deer is listed in the Red Data Book. Based on these protective
measures, the Russian Management Authority felt that it is premature to
amend the listing of the musk deer to Appendix I. Mongolia provided
conflicting remarks; they indicated support for an Appendix I listing
of the musk deer in their cover letter, but in their attached
discussion of the species they stated that the Mongolian musk deer
should be kept in Appendix II.
The Service does not believe that population or trend data are
sufficient to support a proposal to transfer the Appendix II
populations of musk deer to Appendix I, and did not submit such a
proposal.
3. Copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster). The Service has
proposed to list the northern subspecies of the copperbelly water
snake, N. e. neglecta, as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act, 58 FR 43860 (August 18, 1993). The species is restricted
to the lower Ohio River Valley and the lower Wabash River Valley in
Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky, and in southern Michigan, Indiana, and
Ohio. There have been recent population declines and it now exists in
isolated pockets of suitable habitat.
Only the HSUS provided comments, and supported the listing of the
species in Appendix II. Although the proposed rule suggested that
removal from the wild by amateur collectors posed some threat to this
species, no additional information on trade in the species was
received, and existing reports of international trade are several years
old. Therefore, on the basis of this record the Service is not
persuaded that the available information on trade would warrant a
proposal to include this species in Appendix II.
4. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). The Service received a draft
proposal from ICCAT Watch, a coalition consisting of the National
Audubon Society (NAS), the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), and
the World Wildlife Fund- US (WWF-US), to list the bluefin tuna
throughout the Atlantic Ocean on Appendix II and additionally, the
western Atlantic population on Appendix I. Later, ICCAT Watch withdrew
its request to list the western Atlantic population in Appendix I.
The January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice gave current
information about the Atlantic bluefin tuna including management by the
International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT),
recent stock assessments for the western and eastern stocks, recent
estimates of fishing mortality rates, reductions in harvest quotas
recommended at the 1993 Regular Meeting of ICCAT for the years 1994 and
1995, and plans for the implementation of a Bluefin Statistical
Document to be required for the import of bluefin tuna by ICCAT
countries. The next Regular Meeting of ICCAT will be held in December
1994.
It was noted in the FR notice that according to the Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (SCRS) and NMFS
scientists there is uncertainty about an appropriate boundary between
the western and eastern populations of bluefin tuna. At the request of
the Department of Commerce, the National Academy of Sciences has
conducted an independent review on the ``Scientific Basis of Management
of the Fisheries for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna,'' which evaluated
information on stock structure as well as recent population
assessments. The report was presented to the Department of Commerce on
August 31, 1994. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) has named a team of experts to evaluate the findings and make
recommendations about policy and management issues.
Within the comment period, the Service received a total of 83
comments on the possible CITES listing of this species from the general
public, commercial and recreational fishers and fishing organizations,
conservation organizations, and foreign governments. Of these, 73
supported a listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix II, 8
opposed any listing under CITES, and 2 did not specifically oppose or
support a listing. (Comments from the Russian Government were received
after the comment period closed.)
The Executive Secretary of ICCAT conveyed the comments of the
Chairman of ICCAT. While not commenting on the appropriateness of a
CITES listing, the Chairman drew attention to steps that ICCAT had
recently taken to improve the conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna,
including:
1. Drastically reducing the allowable catch for western Atlantic
bluefin tuna;
2. Introducing an effective measure for monitoring international
trade through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program;
3. Undertaking or developing other methods to improve data
collection;
4. Encouraging expansion of research and analysis with a goal of
having the basis to develop a program at the Commission meeting in 1995
aimed at achieving a 50 percent increase from current levels in the
spawning stock biomass of the western stock by the year 2008; and
5. Adopting an amendment to ICCAT that would allow the European
Union to be a Contracting Party to ICCAT and hence expand the number of
countries adhering to the ICCAT recommendations.
Commenters opposed to an Appendix II listing for Atlantic bluefin
tuna (including the Global Guardian Trust, the National Fisheries
Institute, Inc., and the International Coalition of Fisheries
Associations) generally believed that measures recommended by ICCAT are
being implemented according to schedule, and that the steps taken by
ICCAT represent significant progress in improving reporting
requirements and management measures. Therefore, they felt that it is
not necessary or appropriate to consider a CITES listing until the
effectiveness of these steps can be evaluated.
The Japan Fisheries Association contended that international
organizations for the management of living resources, such as ICCAT,
are designed to conserve and manage resources that are at higher stock
levels than are resources that would be listed under CITES, and that
species listed under CITES are being protected from possible
``extinction.'' Therefore, they believe that listing species such as
the Atlantic bluefin tuna under CITES would require a digression from
the objectives of CITES, and would also go against ``the principle of
sustainable development.''
The Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations
felt that a CITES listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would not ensure its
conservation because CITES does not have authority to limit harvest.
They suggested that no conclusions should be drawn concerning the
status of the species until a peer review of information about the
existence of two stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna is completed. The
Federation also contends that the species is not currently threatened
with extinction, nor is it likely to become so, therefore it does not
meet criteria for listing under CITES.
The East Coast Tuna Association maintained that recent assessments
and future projections concerning the western stock of Atlantic bluefin
tuna are ``extraordinarily controversial,'' to the extent that the NMFS
has requested the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a peer review
of data and information supporting these assessments as well as the
two-stock hypothesis. They believed that a CITES listing would be
redundant and would likely penalize only those fishermen who now
participate in the ICCAT program.
The FAJ felt that it is essential that any CITES listing be based
on scientific evidence that there is a threat of extinction to a
species and that trade control is necessary for the protection of the
species. They contended that a species should not be listed only for
the purpose of collecting trade data, especially if an international
organization is already collecting such data. They believed that an
Appendix II listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would impose undue burdens
on the enforcement capabilities of many countries. They also state that
protection of wildlife cannot be accomplished through regulation of
trade alone, but harvesting should be regulated, and that CITES is not
capable of harvest regulation. Also, they believed that the interests
of range states should be considered based on consultations, and range
states have not been contacted. The First Secretary (Fisheries),
Embassy of Japan, essentially supported these contentions.
As an ICCAT member, the Russian Ministry of Protection of the
Environment and Natural Resources felt that ICCAT's regulation of take
by annual quota and the Statistical Documentation Program provide
strict controls for use of the Atlantic bluefin tuna. They also did not
think that the species is threatened with extinction and therefore was
not eligible for a CITES listing.
TRAFFIC USA submitted a detailed analysis of international trade in
all species of bluefin tuna, including species not recommended in the
proposal for listing. The data indicated that a large quantity of
bluefin tuna is traded by countries that are not parties to ICCAT,
although not all the bluefin tuna analyzed by the document are caught
in the Atlantic. However, the basis for this analysis was import data
from three countries that report customs data in a uniform way, Japan,
New Zealand, and the United States. Although Japan is identified in the
report as importing the majority of bluefin tuna (perhaps two-thirds),
statistics for other major consuming nations, including some non-ICCAT
countries, are not available.
The NAS felt that adding Atlantic bluefin tuna to Appendix II would
help provide information needed for population assessment models and
effective management, but would not alter or reduce current traffic in
tuna. Although they were encouraged by ICCAT's catch-quota
recommendations, they were discouraged by the lack of data from non-
ICCAT countries, such as Italy and Mexico. They believe that a CITES
listing would elicit data from non-ICCAT countries, which would
facilitate assessment of fishing by non-ICCAT countries, particularly
in spawning areas. The Wisconsin Audubon Council, the Audubon Council
of New York State, the Napa-Solano Audubon Society, the Cape Arago
Audubon Society, the New York Sportfishing Federation, ICCAT Watch, the
New York Zoological Society, Environment Liaison Centre International,
the Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association, the HSUS, Defenders,
the CMC, and the EIA all reiterated these sentiments. The Animal
Protection Institute indicated a lack of faith in ICCAT's ability to
manage the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and felt that a CITES listing would
provide a better opportunity to monitor the effects of trade,
especially because it would include all non-ICCAT countries.
NMFS does not believe that Atlantic bluefin tuna should be proposed
for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES at this time, and has concluded
that ICCAT members should be given adequate time to implement
appropriate fishery controls, to implement fully the Bluefin
Statistical Document Program, and to develop procedures for the use of
enforcement-enhancing trade measures with respect to ICCAT's
conservation program. After that time the incremental benefits of a
CITES listing could be assessed. NMFS feels that preliminary analysis
of data collected through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document will
allow evaluation of the effectiveness of this program in calculating
and monitoring trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Given the possibility of ecological extinction, and/or the
vulnerability to significant population losses due to trade or
overexploitation, the Atlantic bluefin tuna would qualify biologically
for listing in Appendix II of CITES. However, based on available
information on management measures to conserve the species, the Service
believes that a listing should not be proposed at this time.
Significant quota reductions have occurred in 1994 and additional
reductions are planned for 1995. The eastern Atlantic population of
bluefin tuna appears to be more productive than its western
counterpart. Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna mature at about age 5 while
western Atlantic bluefin tuna reach maturity at about age 8, and
recruitment is relatively much higher in the eastern Atlantic. However,
fishing mortality rates on immature fish in the eastern Atlantic are
exceedingly high, with 30-60 percent of the landings in recent years
comprising fish less than the minimum size of 6.4 kg. recommended by
ICCAT in 1975. The most recent estimate of a overall fishing mortality
is 4-6 times the levels that would be expected to produce the maximum
sustainable yield. An assessment of the eastern Atlantic and
Mediterranean stocks is scheduled by the SCRS in preparation for
discussions at the 1994 Regular Meeting of ICCAT.
Implementation of the Statistical Document Program now required for
all imports into ICCAT countries will provide more information on
Atlantic bluefin tuna harvests than would CITES certificates or export
permits, although ICCAT has not yet required the collection of such
information for imports/landings in non-ICCAT countries. Harvest
information would be further enhanced if non-ICCAT countries, and the
European Union, became members.
The decision of the Service to forgo proposing a CITES listing is
significantly influenced by the Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation
measures adopted at the 1993 annual ICCAT meeting in Madrid. In
opposing the listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna at the 1992 CITES
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) in Kyoto, Japan,
representatives for ICCAT argued that ICCAT, not CITES, was the
appropriate international vehicle for implementing necessary
conservation measures for Atlantic bluefin tuna. In response to this
approach, the United States delegation to the 1993 ICCAT meeting
proposed and secured significant quota reductions for the western
population of Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Another factor supporting the decision of the Service is the
progress made by the Permanent Working Group of ICCAT in April 1994 in
fashioning a proposal (to be discussed further at the ICCAT plenary
meeting in late 1994) for trade measures to be used as an ICCAT
enforcement tool.
From the point of view of NMFS, the adoption of quota reductions
for 1994 and 1995 demonstrated ICCAT's resolve to maintain the
leadership role in the conservation of the bluefin tuna. However, in
the event that appropriate conservation measures are not adopted by
ICCAT or prove to be inadequate, the Service will reconsider proposing
this species for listing in a CITES Appendix, through a postal
procedure if listing is thought to be necessary prior to the next
Conference of the Parties.
5. Requiem (Carcharhinidae) and hammerhead (Sphyrnidae) sharks.
Requiem and hammerhead shark species occur in pelagic and/or coastal
waters worldwide, mostly in tropical to temperate regions. Sizes range
from the white, mako, and great hammerhead at over 3 m, to smaller
coastal species as the sandbar and scalloped hammerhead sharks. They
are predators of various types. Fertilization and development of young
is, in most species, internal, and young are born as active, fully
developed, and relatively large individuals. The number of young in a
brood is usually small (about 2 to 25), but the relative maturity at
birth usually results in high survival rates. Often gestation periods
are long (up to 1 year). There are no population size estimates over
large areas for sharks.
Eight responses concerning these sharks were received within the
comment period; four favored their listing in Appendix II, and four
were opposed to a listing.
The CMC, NAS, and HSUS, along with other commenters, stated that
because large sharks are slow to reach sexual maturity and reproduce at
long intervals, they must be managed more conservatively than other
commercial fisheries. They cite the demand for shark fins as probably
the largest factor in the presumed global decline of sharks, although
meat is also in demand, and a new market for shark cartilage as a
cancer treatment has developed. The NAS pointed out that most shark
experts question whether sustainable exploitation of sharks is even
possible and that over 90 percent of the shark fisheries in this
century have failed.
TRAFFIC USA submitted an unpublished paper from the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre on shark fin trade, entitled,
``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The study was undertaken to
quantify the volume and value of shark fins in international trade, and
to identify the main producer and consumer nations. However, due to the
limited availability of trade data, statistics from only nine countries
were analyzed. The paper calls for closer attention to studies of
trends in shark populations, in order to protect sharks from
overexploitation.
In opposition to a CITES listing, the International Coalition of
Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries Institute commented
that the lack of available information on population structure,
distribution, abundance, and population trends for these species limit
the presentation of scientific evidence to support a proposal for
listing. They expressed concern that an Appendix II listing might
encourage unilateral actions, such as the U.S. Atlantic coast shark
fishery management plan, that could provide a basis for CITES nations
to determine that their shark production was non-detrimental, rather
than participating in regional cooperative management programs.
The Japan Fisheries Association and the FAJ indicated that
available scientific information does not support listing these shark
species, and that a listing would impose an excessive burden on the
management and scientific authorities of concerned parties to CITES.
NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many comments
received, and based on this limitation, combined with the lack of
research cross-referencing trade statistics with population trends,
NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing any shark species
for listing in the CITES Appendices. The Service agrees with this view,
and also feels that the data available on the status of shark species
worldwide are not sufficient to support the listing of all species in
these two families at this time.
6. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus). The whale shark is the only
species in the genus Rhincodon, and occurs worldwide mainly in tropical
and subtropical waters (except in the Mediterranean). It is a large (8-
10 m, and up to 4.5 metric tons), slow, mainly surface dwelling,
plankton-feeder. Historically it appears to have been infrequent in
occurrence; no reliable population estimates seem to exist, and they
are nowhere abundant. The meat is eaten, but it is soft and apparently
brings a low price in most markets. Whale sharks are taken commercially
in a few places around the world (mostly in Asia), especially during
seasons when other more valuable fish species are not available.
Although fins are removed for the shark fin soup trade, some are
considered second grade.
The EIA proposed to the Service that the whale shark be considered
for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES. The Service received nine
comments on the whale shark within the comment period; five supported a
listing and four were opposed. (Most comments were directed to all
sharks, not specifically to the whale shark.)
TRAFFIC USA indicated that TRAFFIC Oceania has undertaken the
collection and analysis of shark species in trade globally, and
enclosed a TRAFFIC USA Newsletter on sharks as well as an unpublished
report entitled, ``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The CMC noted
that commercial shark fishing is increasing worldwide as the demand for
shark meat and fins continues to expand, and invoked the slow growth
rates, late maturation, and small number of young produced as being
characteristics of sharks in general that also apply to whale sharks
and increase their vulnerability. They indicated that there are
commercial fisheries for whale sharks in waters off India, Pakistan,
China, Senegal, and the Philippines that appear to be expanding, and
noted that the generally coastal habitat of whale sharks and their slow
movements make them vulnerable to boat collisions and harpooning. The
AHA and the NAS reiterated these comments, adding that, as a
precautionary principle, the species should be listed rather than
waiting until additional data and information is accumulated. The HSUS
noted that shark populations in general are considered overexploited,
at least in parts of their range, and, although data are lacking, they
believed that trade in whale shark fins is probably increasing. They
supported a listing in order that data on trade and exploitation might
be collected for the species.
In opposition to the listing of the whale shark, the International
Coalition of Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries
Institute, Inc. suggested that an Appendix II listing would probably
not affect the limited subsistence fisheries in parts of Asia, but that
it might limit or undermine a more coordinated international approach
that could effectively control mortality. They repeated the comments
from others that there is little or no information on the whale shark's
population structure, distribution, abundance, population trends, or
trade. The Japan Fisheries Association stated that available scientific
information on sharks does not warrant listing these species in any
CITES Appendix. The FAJ essentially agreed with this assessment, adding
that a listing would add an excessive burden to the Management and
Scientific Authorities of the CITES Parties concerned.
NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many of the
comments received, and, based on this limitation, combined with the
lack of research cross-referencing trade statistics with population
trends, NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing the whale
shark for listing in a CITES Appendix. NMFS will continue to monitor
work being done in this area in order to better assess possible
recommendations at a later date.
At this time the Service feels that there is insufficient
information on status and international trade to support a proposal to
list the whale shark in Appendix II of CITES. A better understanding of
the possible threats to this species is needed before such a proposal
could be considered. There does not appear to be firm evidence
suggesting that the whale shark has ever been other than infrequent in
occurrence, or that there has been a significant increase in the catch
of this species by the traditional fisheries in Asia.
In lieu of proposals to list the whale shark, requiem sharks, and
hammerhead sharks in the Appendices of CITES, the United States has
submitted an agenda item on trade in shark products for COP9, which is
discussed later in this notice.
7. Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla). American mahogany is
the genus Swietenia, which is native to the neotropics. Two of the
three species are in CITES Appendix II: Swietenia humilis (Pacific
Coast mahogany) including its parts and derivatives, which occurs in
Mexico and Central America; and Swietenia mahagoni (Caribbean mahogany)
including only its logs, sawn wood and veneer, which occurs on some
Caribbean islands and extends to southern Florida. The unlisted
species, Swietenia macrophylla (bigleaf mahogany), occurs from South
America to Mexico; in Costa Rica it evidently forms hybrids naturally
with S. humilis. The United States has become the main importer of wood
from bigleaf mahogany.
During the comment period the Service received 22 responses
relating to the January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice; 17
organizations or individuals favored the United States submitting a
proposal to include Swietenia macrophylla, including only logs, sawn
wood, veneer sheets, and plywood, in Appendix II, and 2 organizations
were opposed.
The favorable responses, sometimes in detail or with substantial
enclosures, were from the company A & M Wood Specialty (Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada); on behalf of the architects of the American Institute
of Architects (AIA) from the Rainforest and Natural Resources Task
Group of the AIA Committee on the Environment; the Fauna and Flora
Preservation Society (London, U.K.); Greenpeace USA; the Natural
Resources Defense Council of Washington, D.C. (NRDC); the Woodworkers
Alliance for Rainforest Protection; some students and staff of Los
Altos High School (Los Altos, California); and the general public (six
letters). In addition, the following persons with particular research
or conservation experience with the species individually supported the
submission of a proposal: Mr. J. Beavers (Schaghticoke, New York); Sr.
L. Quevedo-H. (Santa Cruz, Bolivia); Dr. L.K. Snook (Westport,
Connecticut); and Sr. A. Szwagrzak (La Paz, Bolivia). Moreover, Dr.
J.O. Browder, an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban Affairs
and Planning of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
provided a copy of his recent study on the feasibility of small-holder
mahogany-planting in Rondonia, Brazil; and TRAFFIC USA advised the
Service that it was collaborating with a graduate student of public
policy at Harvard University who was studying the relative importance
of illegal trade in the total trade in the species and the potential
effectiveness of a CITES listing in achieving sustainable harvest and
trade. Subsequently, TRAFFIC USA advised the Service that instead the
study had evolved into hypothetical policy ramifications, and
consequently they did not have such new data and information to
provide.
The responses opposed to the submission of a proposal were from the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Wood Products
Association (IHPA). At the Service's public meeting held on February
22, 1994, the IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities and process
used by the CITES Plants Committee (CPC) in recommending that proposals
be considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to
circulating potential proposals to the range States for comments, and
whether those comments would be reflected in final positions of the
United States on the species. The Service representatives responded
that the CPC had advisory and technical roles, that the Service
intended to communicate with the range States, and that the views of
range States would be seriously considered. In comments submitted March
14, 1994, IHPA stated that they share a belief that the species does
not qualify for Appendix II. They provided a broad and detailed
commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which covered the three
potential proposals for the several mahoganies. The Service has noted
the particular comments on the genera of African mahoganies in the
section on those genera below.
At COP8, during an informal meeting on whether to include Swietenia
macrophylla in Appendix II, most range States favored the Costa Rica or
U.S. proposals--except Bolivia, Peru, and Honduras. Ultimately the
preferred U.S. proposal was withdrawn because of continuing
disagreement. In keeping with Resolution Conf. 8.21, the Service
provided a draft of the new proposal to the range States in mid-April
1994 and solicited their comments. Prior to the June 10, 1994, deadline
for submission of proposals for COP9, Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru
expressed opposition to the potential proposal, whereas Colombia and El
Salvador expressed support.
The Service has been discussing this topic with the USFS,
particularly regarding concerns about ecological extinction of the
species, and with the U.S. Department of State, regarding the positions
of range States and the effective role of CITES. The Service recognizes
that some have argued that the purchase of CITES-approved mahogany wood
could support sustainable use of this species, since listing requires
the countries where a species is native to find that its export would
not be detrimental to the survival of the species before they issue
export permits.
On June 9, 1994, the Service became aware that The Netherlands had
submitted a proposal for inclusion of this species in Appendix II. The
United States decided not to submit another proposal and to address
unresolved issues, in an effort to reach a consensus on the proposal
that The Netherlands had already submitted for this species. The
Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the September 6,
1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023).
8. African mahoganies (Entandrophragma and Khaya). The genera
Entandrophragma (about 11 species) and Khaya (about 6 species) are
native to the tropics of Africa, with Khaya extending to the Comoros
Islands and Madagascar. All the species have been declining from
habitat conversion and selectively varied commercial exploitation, and
nearly all have been reported to be threatened in various countries and
significant portions of their ranges. The majority of the 17 species
have some legal protection in one or more countries, generally with
respect to their export. Within the comment period the Service received
six comments, with three in favor of submitting proposals for the
species and two against.
The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) supported
the inclusion of all species of both genera in Appendix II. They stated
that ``Due to the nature of the mahogany trade, it is important to
appreciate that equal and parallel attention and protection must be
afforded to Khaya spp. and Entandrophragma spp. as to Swietenia
macrophylla * * *. There are only a few areas of Africa where * * *
African mahoganies have [not] already suffered massive decline * * *.''
The NRDC also expressed support for including both genera in Appendix
II and concern about the inter-relationships of trade in wood of the
three genera. The AIA chair of its Rainforest and Natural Resources
Task Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA
Committee on the Environment, wrote, on behalf of the architects of the
AIA, in favor of the inclusion of the genera. He stated that he
understood Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and
that inclusion of the species would help architects and designers to
make responsible and objective decisions concerning their use [since
they could purchase from the CITES-approved exports].
At the Service's public meeting held on February 22, 1994, an
individual representing IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities
and process used by the CPC in recommending that proposals be
considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to circulating
potential proposals to the range States for comments, and whether those
comments would be reflected in final positions of the United States on
the species. Service representatives responded that the CPC had
advisory and technical roles, that Germany had the lead with African
mahoganies and was communicating with the range States, and that the
views of range States would be seriously considered.
In early May 1994, the Service received copies of the replies
Germany had received by April 26, from 13 of the 31 range States; 6
supported inclusion of the genera in Appendix II, 3 were against
proposals, and 4 were neutral.
In its comments submitted March 14, 1994, IHPA stated that they do
not believe that these genera qualify for Appendix II. They provided a
broad and detailed commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which
covered the three potential proposals for the several mahoganies.
Regarding in particular the African mahoganies, the IHPA stated that
the volumes of traded wood listed in the proposals are not clearly
linked to total reductions in standing volumes of the species across
their ranges. They also stated that much is in protected areas and gave
as an example that 20 percent of rainforest in Ghana is in totally
protected reserves. In addition, IHPA enclosed a letter of February 18,
1994, to them from the Planning Branch of the Ghana Forestry
Department, which stated that listing under CITES is not necessary for
the protection of these species in Ghana, and provided details on Ghana
forest management and these species; see the similar statement below,
from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board.
The Trade and Investment Office of the Embassy of Ghana in the
United States expressed opposition to including Entandrophragma and
Khaya in Appendix II. However the basic differences in controls between
Appendix II and Appendix I may not have been fully understood by them
or the Ghana Forestry Department, as the Embassy included a statement
from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board (Takoradi, Ghana),
similar to the letter of the Forestry Department, both of which
expressed the view that ``A ban [sic] on exploitation of these species
in the case of Ghana is rather likely to undermine current efforts to
protect them * * *'' The Embassy stated that the timber industry is a
very important contributor to foreign-exchange earnings, those two
genera constitute about 50 percent of their production and exports, and
the country has made great strides (giving details) towards sustainable
management of Ghana forests. They stated that forest management in
Ghana now is recognized as being the best in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Embassy included a detailed statement from the Timber Export
Development Board which stated that Ghana has made forest-management
reforms and has conservative forest-exploitation controls and
protective strategies that provide adequate regulatory measures to
ensure sustainable utilization, which are being enforced. The Board
provided details about the four Entandrophragma species and three Khaya
species that are native, indicating that four of the seven species are
quite widely distributed and some of the species occur nationally at
very low densities, and giving thorough estimated inventories of the
seven species (for the high-forest region of southern Ghana). The Board
noted that there are few remaining large trees for exploitation, but
that ``* * * this implies commercial extinction of the species only, as
there is plenty of regeneration and the present management system has
been designed to protect the species.''
The Service was advised that Germany would submit proposals to
include the two genera in Appendix II, and decided that the United
States would evaluate the German proposal objectively without being a
co-proponent.
9. Non-native Aloes (Aloe spp.). All species of Aloe are in the
CITES appendices, with nearly all in Appendix II, including Aloe vera
(synonym Aloe barbadensis). The genus is essentially African. Plants
regarded as Aloe vera have been used by people for millennia and the
yellow-flowered species may be extinct in its native range--it may have
been native to the southern Arabian Peninsula or northeastern Africa
(e.g., Ethiopia) where similar species occur (but perhaps instead was
native to the Canary Islands).
The parts and derivatives of artificially propagated Aloe vera are
unregulated. The whole plants commonly in trade as aloe vera are of
artificially propagated (or also naturalized) origin, and they have
become an enforcement burden. On January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832), the
Service announced that it was considering submission of a proposal to
remove the non-native population of Aloe that is geographically
distinct from the general African area. All species of Aloe where they
may be native thus would have continued to be regulated by CITES,
including those on the Arabian Peninsula and the islands neighboring
Africa, such as the Canary Islands, Socotra, and Madagascar.
Although no written comments were received during the comment
period, Mr. Gary W. Lyons (of Gary Lyons Garden & Horticultural
Consultant & Design), a member of the IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent
Specialist Group and past chair of the Conservation Committee of the
Cactus and Succulent Society of America, renewed (by telephone within
the comment period) the concerns in his written commentary provided to
the Service for the September 1993 CPC Meeting, and in August 1994
provided a copy of his analysis written for consideration during the
23rd Congress of the International Organization for Succulent Plant
Study. On April 12, 1994, the United States discussed the subject at
the 17th CITES North American Region Meeting near Ottawa, Canada. That
group recommended that a proposal not be submitted, because of the risk
it would create for illegal import of rare Aloe taxa, possibly
including native wild Aloe vera.
The Service considered whether exclusion of the plants from the
non- native (non-African) population of Aloe would significantly
increase risk to the survival in its native range of any Aloe (i.e.,
species, subspecies, botanical variety, or significant population). The
United States decided not to submit a proposal. The subject was
discussed at the CPC meeting in May 1994; Switzerland has since
submitted a proposal for the removal of Aloe barbadensis [sic] [i.e.,
Aloe vera] from Appendix II.
The Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the
September 6, 1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023). The Service
is considering whether the artificially propagated whole plants of Aloe
vera can be dealt with in a different way, without putting wild Aloe
taxa at increased risk.
10. Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). Port-Orford-cedar
(POC) is endemic to southwestern Oregon as well as northwestern
California, in an area that is generally coastal, mostly from about
Coos Bay to Arcata. The species has been significantly reduced in
natural standing volume, and is now logged almost entirely for export
(primarily to Japan). An introduced pathogen (Phytophthora lateralis)
has been spreading particularly as a side effect of soil transport by
vehicles and logging equipment. Within the comment period the Service
received 28 comments, 17 in favor of submitting a proposal to include
this species in CITES Appendix II, and 11 against.
Dr. D.B. Zobel, a plant ecologist and professor at Oregon State
University, who has studied and/or observed the species and its
situation since 1972 and is senior author of the monograph Ecology,
Pathology, and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar (1985), considered that
an attempt to control POC harvest through CITES would not be
appropriate or effective, and could be counterproductive. He provided a
detailed review that sometimes questioned whether assertions of threat,
management, or protection were unproven belief or fact.
Dr. T.T. Lawson, a forest pathologist of Lawson-Rasor Associates,
who has spent several years monitoring research and control efforts on
the POC disease, submitted a detailed evaluation and concluded that
listing POC in Appendix II is appropriate and needed to reduce spread
of the root pathogen. Dr. E.M. Hansen, Professor of Forest Pathology at
Oregon State University, has worked with POC and Phytophthora lateralis
for 22 years. He submitted detailed information and data about research
on the root-rot disease and assessments of its present status and
potential effects. While continuing to be seriously concerned about the
impact of the disease on POC, he opposed listing because he believed
that [even] halting log exports would not slow the spread of the
disease, and might indirectly lead to a reduction in the management
efforts to protect POC.
The Oregon Natural Resources Council provided additional
information on POC and its situation, including the report (In press)
by T.T. Lawson, Port-Orford-Cedar: A Species Under Siege.
The Siskiyou Regional Education Project and Siskiyou Audubon
Society supported proposed inclusion of the species in Appendix II,
providing a detailed analytical report. They stated that POC has been
found to be a keystone species in riparian forests, enhancing their
biodiversity (including fisheries), and that this species also is
sometimes a critical riparian colonizer. They questioned various
relatively recent regional and local USFS administrative plans,
decisions, and activities. They detailed concerns and evidence about
spread of the disease, even into areas designated as wilderness, wild-
and-scenic rivers, and botanical areas, consequent to salvage-logging
and new logging operations as well as travel on back-country roads
inadequately restricted or not closed. They included and endorsed a
statement also sent separately by Mr. J. Rogers, a professional
forester of Rogers & Associates who since 1968 has been familiar with
the species and consequences of the root-rot disease from logging. He
stated that unless export is halted, most of what remains of the
species will be logged and/or infected, including the largest known
individual of the species.
The NRDC expressed support for inclusion of this species in
Appendix II, and supplied detailed additional information and data on
its situation. They stated that this species is the only Pacific
Northwest conifer that can still be exported from Federal lands in log
form legally since it had been designated a surplus commodity, and
because of high foreign demand for logs--almost exclusively from old-
growth trees. They noted concerns about genetic erosion, and provided
details regarding the water mold and its potential and likelihood of
spreading. The NRDC believes that a halt to logging has become
necessary.
Greenpeace USA supported the proposal to include the species in
Appendix II, stating among other concerns that continued logging of the
best POC stocks could further reduce the genetic reserves of the
species and the possibility of finding potential genotypes that could
resist or overcome the disease.
The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) indicated
that the export appeared to clearly warrant inclusion of the species in
Appendix II. The chair of the AIA Rainforest and Natural Resources Task
Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA Committee
on the Environment, wrote on behalf of the architects of the AIA, in
favor of inclusion of this species. He stated that he understood CITES
Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and that
inclusion of the species could help architects and designers to make
more responsible and objective decisions concerning its use [since they
could purchase from the CITES-approved supplies]. During the comment
period eight letters from the general public supported submission of a
proposal to include POC in Appendix II.
Fletchcraft Mfg. and Stahl's Traditional Archery supported
restriction or stopping of export of the species. Both companies
advocate an ecologically sustainable supply of POC wood for arrow
manufacturing.
Other letters of opposition to the potential CITES proposal were
received within the comment period from Arcata Redwood Company, Douglas
Timber Operators, Reservation Ranch, Weyerhaeuser Company, Woodland
Management Professional Foresters, and the Association of Consulting
Foresters of America. Also, Mr. D. Brattain of Reservation Ranch
coordinated and led a POC Alliance mostly comprised of about 20 timber,
lumber, and/or exporting companies and also the Oregon International
Port of Coos Bay, Coos Chapter of the Society of American Foresters,
and Coos County Forestry Department, which submitted an extensive
document including a detailed response against the potential proposal
to list the POC in Appendix II, with supplementary materials on POC and
its situation, including additional usually detailed letters of
opposition from the Coos County Forestry Department, the Coos-Curry
Electric Cooperative, the [Coos] Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, a
private POC landowner who also is a State Director for the Oregon Small
Woodlands Association, The Agnew Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Moore Mill & Lumber Company, Rough & Ready Lumber Company, South Coast
Lumber Company, Spalding & Son Lumber Manufacturers and Wholesalers,
Westbrook Land and Timber, Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry, a USFS
silviculturist--acting in a private capacity--with 15 years of
responsibility for POC management to minimize spread and impact of the
root-rot disease in a major National Forest Ranger District, the Oregon
Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, the
Oregon Society of American Foresters, and the Natural Resource Group
(Birmingham, Alabama).
The Oregon Department of Forestry expressed opposition to inclusion
of this species in Appendix II. They stated that virtually all of the
commercially valuable timber of the species is on Federal lands, that
there is ample protection due to the extensive acreage of land set
aside for various conservation purposes, and that there is a program in
place that will limit damage caused by the root disease on Federal
lands and it is adequate to protect the species. They also found that
the ecosystem-based direction of management taken by Federal land-
management agencies under the President's ``Option 9'' plan is
sufficient to protect this species in its ecosystems, and they expect
that the volume of the type of material demanded in the export market
will be reduced because of implementation of this plan.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection stated
that they advise private landowners on precautions to be taken to
prevent spread of the root rot, and that they generally have as a
mitigation requirement of timber harvesting that the landowner follow
the USFS policies and procedures. They asked that the decision for or
against a proposal to list under CITES be made to protect or prolong
the biological and ecological viability of the species in its natural
range.
The USFS recommended that the species not be added to Appendix II.
The USFS provided detailed information (with detailed maps) about the
species, its utilization, the water mold that infects POC and causes a
virulent root disease, and the interagency program for Port-Orford-
cedar conservation and management [through the Interregional POC
Coordinating Committee], which the USFS chairs. The USFS stated that
over 40 percent of the tree species' range is in reserves protected
from harvesting, that harvests have substantially declined and growth
now exceeds harvest and mortality, and that they have an active range-
wide interagency effort underway [and the Interregional Port-Orford
Cedar Action Plan] to manage the species and the infectious fungus.
The Service carefully evaluated whether Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
qualified for CITES Appendix II, and could benefit from export
regulation by means of an Appendix II listing, which included a
discussion of its situation at the CITES Plants Committee meeting held
in Mexico in May 1994. The Service recognized that a significant
portion of POC is in reserves that for various reasons are protected
from harvesting (in some cases except for thinning and salvage
cutting), that most of the species is on public lands under Federal
management, and that there are meaningful efforts to harvest
sustainably and to curtail the Phytophthora disease. The Service
concluded that Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, governmental
and private conservation actions, and endeavors particularly through
the U.S. Forest Service to understand and to control the introduced
disease now affecting some populations, were able to cope with this
endemic species' present circumstances without the need for additional
regulatory authority through use of this international treaty.
Species Proposals Submitted
1. Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica). The EIA sent the Service a
proposal to list both subspecies of the saiga antelope in Appendix I.
The horns of the saiga antelope have been used in Asian traditional
medicines. Saiga have also been utilized as a food source at varying
levels of intensity depending on location and availability. The
Mongolian Ministry of Nature and Environment provided a rather detailed
account of the status and biology of S. t. mongolica, which now exists
in two small disjunct populations in Mongolia, one estimated at about
1400 individuals in 1993 and the other estimated at 125 animals in
1983. They recommended that this subspecies be listed in Appendix I.
Saiga tatarica tatarica occurs in two major populations, one in
Kazakhstan and a second south of the Volga River and northwest of the
Caspian Sea in the Kalmykian Republic, Russian Federation. By the end
of World War I this subspecies was near extinction, but began to
recover in the 1920's so that by the late 1950's the population in
Kazakhstan was reported to have reached nearly 2,000,000, and in
Kalmykia saiga had reportedly increased to about 800,000. In the last
two decades these numbers have been reduced again, fluctuating around
150,000 in Kalmykia and down to about 450,000 in Kazakhstan in the last
few years. These reductions are reportedly the result of a combination
of factors including weather, land-use changes, and poaching for horns.
Four comments were received within the comment period. Three
comments favored listing saiga antelope in Appendix I, while the fourth
supported only an Appendix II listing.
The AHA was in favor of an Appendix I listing ``until trade in the
species can be shown to be non-detrimental to the survival of the
species.'' They stated that researchers indicate that saiga hunting in
Russia has been nearly out of control over the last 3-4 years, implying
that this increase is due to poaching for horns.
Defenders supported an Appendix I listing, suggesting that saiga,
like the rhino, are being threatened by poaching and overhunting for
the horn trade, and that saiga horn is the most expensive fever-
reducing substance used in traditional medicines after rhino horn. They
stated that saiga are also hunted for their meat, fat, and hides. They
admitted that status and trade data are extremely limited, but that
recent aerial surveys indicated a rapid rate of decline of saiga
populations. They also pointed out the dramatic population reductions
that can occur among saiga due to extreme weather conditions or food
shortages.
The HSUS favored an Appendix I listing for the saiga, also
indicating the similarity between the use and demand for rhino and
saiga horn. From an estimated 2 million animals in the 1960's, S. t.
tatarica has plummeted to about 800,000 individuals according to HSUS,
due apparently to uncontrolled hunting in Russia and Kazakhstan for the
horns. The HSUS noted that the use of saiga horn as a substitute for
rhino horn in traditional Chinese medicine has been and is likely to
increase as pressures to control the trade in rhino horn intensify.
The World Conservation Union's (IUCN) Sustainable Use of Wildlife
Programme questioned the long-term benefits to saiga to be derived from
an Appendix I listing. Such a listing for the Russian subspecies would
technically prohibit commercial trade in the species, thus eliminating
its value. Local and regional authorities currently would find it
nearly impossible to implement the controls necessary to sustain saiga
populations in the absence of obvious and immediate value to the local
economy. They suggested that the local rural population would probably
increase livestock numbers in saiga habitat to supplement and replace
the value lost from saiga as a result of an Appendix I listing,
eventually resulting in extirpation of the saiga. An Appendix II
listing would require the Governments of Russia (for the Kalmykia
population), Kazakhstan, and Mongolia to implement administrative and
management procedures that, if adequate, could be beneficial to the
species. The IUCN group was concerned about the demand for saiga horn
and possible illegal trade.
Comments received from the Russian Ministry of Protection of the
Environment and Natural Resources described the existence of the two
major populations of S. t. tatarica, one in Kalmykia of about 150,000
animals and one in Kazakhstan consisting of ``several tens of
thousands.'' Hunting of saiga has been increasingly reduced since about
1984, with only limited sport-hunting now allowed in Kalmykia, and
protected reserves have been established. The diminished status of the
saiga is due to habitat modifications, changes in land use, and illegal
hunting. The Ministry favored a listing of saiga antelope in Appendix
II of CITES. Also, by personal communication, the Chinese Ministry of
Forestry indicated that they could support an Appendix II listing.
In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded a visit in
the Spring of 1994 to Moscow and Kalmykia by Dr. James Teer, Welder
Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, Texas, and Dr. Fred Lindzey, Wyoming
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, Wyoming, to report on the status of the saiga. Teer and
Lindzey opined that the Kalmykian saiga population can no longer
sustain itself when harvests for horns, meat, and hides are permitted
for export, but that it can sustain a small offtake from hunting. Even
so, they were concerned about poaching and the ease of movement of
saiga parts across borders. They also felt that the Kalmykian
population might rebound due to the great fecundity of saiga, along
with a reduction in livestock, habitat improvement, and the control of
poaching, all factors the Kalmykian authorities claim they are
implementing. While realizing that an Appendix II listing would not
prohibit exports, Teer and Lindzey suggested that the United States
might delay proposing a CITES listing to allow time for current
management measures and the population status in Kalmykia to be
evaluated, and to give Kazakhstan time to become a Party to CITES.
As a result of comments and information received concerning the
amount of poaching of saiga antelope and the illegal trade in saiga
horns, the use of saiga horns in combination with or as a substitute
for rhinoceros horns in traditional medicines in conjunction with
intensified pressures to stop the trade in rhinoceros horn, and the
evidence of considerable declines in populations of S. t. tatarica over
the last two decades for various reasons, the Service has proposed that
populations of S. t. tatarica be included in Appendix II of CITES. The
numbers of S. t. mongolica are so low in the wild that the full
protective potential of CITES seems warranted, therefore the Service
has proposed that the Mongolian population be included in Appendix I of
CITES.
2. Urial (Ovis vignei). The Service requested information and
comments to help clarify which populations of the urial should be
included in Appendix I as a result of the 1973 listing of Ovis vignei
by India. Confusion regarding the intended inclusiveness of the
original listing of 1973 arose as a result of (1) actions considered at
COP2 in 1979; (2) range information presented in the CITES-adopted
check list for mammals, Mammal Species of the World, 1982, edited by
Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl; and, (3) distribution and synonymy given
in Mammal Species of the World, 2nd Edition, 1993, edited by Wilson and
Reeder. The issue was whether the original listing implies a
conservative application of the name, thereby restricting the listing
to only populations in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir, or there
was a broader intent, as presented in Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl,
1982?
Five comments were received within the comment period on this
problem. TRAFFIC USA passed on information from TRAFFIC India attesting
to the endangered status of the urial sheep in India, and from TRAFFIC
France indicating that urial hunting trips in central Asia are being
organized by French companies. Dr. Steve Edwards, IUCN, supported the
submission of a proposal to clarify which populations of O. vignei are
to be included in Appendix I.
The three remaining comments were from Safari Club International,
Dr. Richard Mitchell, and Mr. Ron Young of Expeditions by Ron. The
first two commenters argued that the intent of the original listing was
to include only the population in the Ladakh region of Jammu and
Kashmir, while the latter noted that, according to his observation, the
Transcaspian urial, the Afghan urial, the Blandford urial, and the
Punjab urial are all abundant in the wild.
The Government of Pakistan indicated that the shapu (O. orientalis
vignei (= O. v. vignei)), the gad (O. o. blanfordi (= O. v.
blanfordi)), and the Punjab urial (O. o. punjabiensis (= O. v.
punjabiensis)) are in fair numbers in Pakistan and that there is no
need to list them under CITES.
Also, Mr. Earl Baysinger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who
attended the Convention's Plenipotentiary Meeting and COP2, provided a
detailed account of the discussions that took place at that meeting of
the Parties concerning the proposal and ultimate listing of the urial,
and claimed that the Parties intended to include only O. vignei vignei
in Appendix I.
The Service is, therefore, proposing that only O. vignei vignei of
the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir be retained in Appendix I, and
that all other populations of O. vignei be included in Appendix II for
biological and similarity of appearance purposes.
3. Box turtles (Terrapene spp.). Prior to COP8, the New York
Zoological Society recommended listing box turtles in Appendix II.
However, the Service did not have sufficient information on trade in
these species, and did not submit a proposal for consideration at COP8.
Since then the Service has accumulated data in its Law Enforcement
Management Information System (LEMIS) on exports and imports of box
turtles in an effort to obtain appropriate trade information.
The genus Terrapene includes the four species (T. carolina, T.
coahuila, T. nelsoni, and T. ornata), with 11 subspecies recognized
among them. Terrapene coahuila is currently listed in Appendix I of
CITES. Terrapene nelsoni occurs in a small fragmented range on the west
coast of Mexico, while T. ornata is found over a large area of the
midwestern United States. Terrapene carolina has the largest range,
occurring from Canada to Mexico as far as Yucatan, and from the
Atlantic coast west into approximately the eastern edge of the prairie
in the Midwest.
Box turtles are long-lived, sexual maturity is late, and annual
reproduction is low. They exhibit high site fidelity, which tends to
amplify the impacts of habitat fragmentation. The removal of adult
turtles from the wild can have a significant impact on the status of
populations.
A large number of comments were received in response to the January
27, 1994, notice. Twenty-two States responded, in 16 of which box
turtles are protected by State law. None of these responses objected to
a proposal to list the box turtle in Appendix II. Comments from the
States noted the continued loss of habitat, illegal collecting,
negative impacts of the pet trade in box turtles, some indications of
international trade, and suggestions of declines in some populations.
Of the 298 comments received from individuals, only one did not support
the proposal to list box turtles under CITES, and this one negative
comment was made pending the collection of more data. Many of these
comments included anecdotal accounts and observations of population
declines, and the occurrence of box turtles for sale in pet stores in
the United States and abroad. Supporting comments were also received on
behalf of 23 non-governmental organizations, although 2 of these
supported the listing of box turtles conditioned on proper treatment of
pet-trade turtles, and more rapid processing of permit applications.
Most of these responses focused on the impacts of the pet trade and
poor shipping conditions.
Based on (1) the large number of box turtles exported from the
United States since 1988; (2) an apparent increase in the demand for
box turtles in the international pet trade, particularly since 1984
when the EU banned trade in Mediterranean land tortoises (Testudo
spp.); (3) the reported decline in numbers throughout the range of T.
ornata and T. carolina; (4) an increase in fragmentation of box turtle
habitat; (5) the difficulties of implementing State protective laws,
especially when similar protection is not provided in other States; and
(6) the increased negative impact of these factors on species
exhibiting low reproductive rates and high site fidelity; the Service
has proposed to include all the populations of box turtles in the genus
Terrapene in Appendix II of CITES, except T. coahuila, which will
remain in Appendix I.
4. Tarantulas (Brachypelma species). The Service received a
proposal from Dr. Robert Wolff of Trinity Christian College, Palos
Heights, Illinois to list all the species in the genus Brachypelma
(also known as Euathlus) in Appendix II. There are about nine species
in the genus, and one, B. smithi the red-kneed tarantula, is presently
included in Appendix II. Members of this genus are usually colorful and
among the most sought after tarantulas for the pet trade. The taxonomy
of the genus is not well known and identification of species is often
difficult.
Four responses to the possible listing of Brachypelma species were
received. Although one commenter only supported the inclusion of the
genus in Appendix II by implication, the other three commenters
specifically supported this action. The HSUS noted the popularity of
Brachypelma species in the pet trade and the enhanced support of
enforcement efforts that this action would provide. TRAFFIC USA claimed
that there is increasing evidence for widespread trade in several
species of the genus. TRAFFIC France reported to TRAFFIC USA increased
trade in tarantula species throughout western Europe involving at least
four other species in addition to B. smithi. The Mexican Government
supported the addition of all species of Brachypelma in Appendix II.
The Service has therefore proposed the inclusion of all taxa in the
genus Brachypelma in Appendix II, including but not limited to the
following species: B. albopilosum, B. angustum, B. auratum, B. boehmei,
B. emilia, B. fossorium, B. pallidum, B. sabulosum, B. vagans. Any taxa
discovered subsequent to this listing and included in the genus
Brachypelma would also be automatically included in Appendix II under
this proposed listing action.
5. Freshwater mussels (family Unionidae). Members of this family
occur in their greatest variety throughout the Southeast and the
Midwest of the United States in major river drainage systems including
the upper Mississippi River.
Many species in the family have become extinct or reduced to very
low numbers largely as a result of habitat destruction and/or
degradation. A few species have been collected commercially, initially
as a source of raw material for the button industry, but, since the
advent of synthetic button materials and the artificial pearl industry
in Japan, as a source of spherical blanks around which nacre is
deposited by living bivalves during the production of pearls. These
species, which are sought commercially, are generally characterized by
their thick, white shells, and they occur most often in large rivers
and reservoirs. Most states where they are harvested regulate their
collection, usually with prohibitions on collection in waters known to
contain populations of endangered or threatened unionid species.
Although endangered and threatened unionids may occasionally be taken
incidentally along with the commercial forms, there does not appear to
be compelling evidence indicating any significant export of endangered
mussels with commercial shipments for the pearl industry.
Other species are harvested, although in smaller numbers, for the
natural freshwater pearls used in jewelry. Still others, those with
colorful nacre, are utilized directly in the production of jewelry.
Shell collecting alone is believed to be a threat to some species,
especially those that are rare or unique. Trade in these products and/
or shells may constitute a threat to many species, especially those
most endangered.
Three comments were received during the comment period concerning a
possible proposal to list unionids in the Appendices of CITES; one from
the Fisheries Agency of Japan, one from the State of Missouri, and one
from the Tennessee Shell Company, Inc.
The FAJ voiced a general concern about listing species in the
absence of sufficient scientific evidence to show that there is a
threat to extinction for an Appendix I listing, or that they may become
threatened with extinction unless such species are subject to strict
regulation for an Appendix II listing. Specifically, they felt that no
scientific data have been presented demonstrating the degree of
extinction and the presence of threats from trading for each of the
more than 200 species of freshwater mussels. Furthermore, they stated
that listing all the species of this taxon because some are potentially
threatened by collectors could also be similarly applied to all other
groups of species, which would pose a serious obstacle to the effective
use of living resources. They indicated that it would be inappropriate
to enforce such regulations without justifiable reasons.
The Tennessee Shell Company, Inc. expressed concern for the plight
of freshwater mussels in general, citing such threats as water
pollution, cold or hot water discharges into mussel habitat, sediment
deposition, dredging, bridge construction, natural die-offs, etc. They
offered support of efforts directed at the protection and conservation
of freshwater mussels from habitat destruction resulting from these
kinds of hazards.
The Missouri Department of Conservation generally supported the
listing of Unionid mussels in CITES Appendices, with the exception of
four species that are of commercial value.
After considering comments received, and the level of trade
information available, along with the difficulties of species
identification and the separation of look-alikes, the Service has
proposed that the Appendices to CITES be revised by:
1. Transferring Epioblasma sulcata (=obliquata) perobliqua, and
Lampsilis satura from Appendix I to Appendix II;
2. Labeling Epioblasma sampsoni (now in Appendix I) as pe (probably
extinct);
3. Deleting all the species now included in Appendix II, since they
will be included in the following broader listing; and
4. Including all other North American populations of mussels in the
family Unionidae in Appendix II, with the exception of the shells and
the artificial pearls presumed to contain blanks from the taxa listed
below.
Amblema plicata, Ellipsaria lineolata, Fusconaia ebena, F. flava,
Ligumia recta, Megalonaias nervosa, Obliquaria reflexa, Pleurobema
cordatum, Quadrula apiculata, Q. metanevra, Q. nodulata, Q. pustulosa,
Q. quadrula, and Tritogonia verrucosa.
The Service believes that these species are easily distinguishable from
the species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered
Species Act.
Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Resolutions
In response to the November 18, 1993, and the January 28, 1994,
Federal Register notices (58 FR 60973 and 56 FR 4096) comments were
received from numerous organizations regarding a resolution to amend
the criteria for listing species in the CITES Appendices (see
discussion of listing criteria resolution below).
In addition, several non-governmental organizations, in writing and
at the public meeting on February 22, 1994, requested that the Service
submit a resolution for consideration at COP9 establishing a Law
Enforcement Network. The Service supported the establishment of a Law
Enforcement Network, both at the Standing Committee meeting of March,
1994, and in writing to the CITES Secretariat. The Service remains
strongly supportive of increasing the role of law enforcement in the
CITES context, both through networks among the Parties and through
increased training of appropriate enforcement officials. It is the
Service's understanding that the item is already on the agenda for
COP9, and that one or more Parties may have already submitted
resolutions on the subject.
Comments on the possible resolutions that the Service may consider
submitting were also received from the Center for International
Environmental Law (CIEL), the Hawthorn Corporation, and one private
individual. The CIEL requested that the United States submit a
resolution that clarifies the relationship between CITES and other
international agreements related to the management of species. The
CIEL's suggestions can be considered to be incorporated into the
resolution discussed below, regarding the implementation of Article XIV
of the Convention, which deals with the relationship between CITES and
treaties regulating the management of marine species. The Hawthorn
Corporation provided comments on the issue of trade in tiger parts and
products, and requested that trade in captive-bred tigers for circuses
and other live animal exhibitions be differentiated from concerns about
trade in tiger parts and products and related poaching of wild tigers.
The Service agrees that tigers that are part of a U.S. traveling circus
are not part of the trade problem related to the poaching of wild
specimens. Circus tigers, born in the United States, are certified as
captive-bred under CITES by the Service and are eligible for a
certificate from the Service's Office of Management Authority. The
private individual provided comments on various issues related to trade
in artificially propagated plants, which the Service will take into
consideration when reviewing resolutions pertaining to that trade, upon
their receipt from the CITES Secretariat. In addition, the Service's
Office of Scientific Authority has been working with the CITES
Nomenclature Committee to consolidate and update the previous
resolutions dealing with nomenclatural issues.
The following presents the background and sense of the three
resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration at COP9.
(The Service's tentative positions on resolutions and agenda items,
including those discussed in this notice as well as on the
establishment of a Law Enforcement Network, were presented in a Federal
Register notice of October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50609)).
Resolutions Submitted
1. Article XIV Implementation. The provisions of CITES apply to all
species of wild fauna and flora, including marine species. The
management of many marine species comes under the jurisdiction or
competence of another international treaty, convention, or agreement.
International trade in any species of marine fauna or flora is also
within the purview and competence of CITES. Therefore, even if a marine
species is subject to management under another international treaty,
convention, or agreement, and if it is listed in any CITES Appendix,
then international trade and introduction from the sea in the species
is also regulated by CITES. CITES made special provisions for Appendix
II marine species that are regulated under another treaty extant when
CITES came into force.
Article XIV, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that a State
party to CITES, which is also a party to any other treaty, convention,
or international agreement which was in force at the time of the coming
into force of CITES, and under the provisions of which protection is
afforded to marine species included in Appendix II, is relieved of the
obligations imposed on it under CITES with respect to trade in
specimens included in Appendix II that are taken by ships registered in
that State and in accordance with the provisions of such other treaty,
convention, or international agreement.
However, Article XIV, paragraph 5 requires that Parties exempted
from the usual CITES obligations under Article XIV, paragraph 4, must
nevertheless issue certificates stipulating that the specimen was taken
in accordance with the provisions of the other treaty, convention, or
international agreement in question. This provision of the Convention
has never been used, and standards for its implementation have not been
developed. Currently no marine species whose management is under the
competence of another treaty, convention, or agreement is listed in
Appendix II (this relief from CITES obligations does not apply to
specimens of species included in Appendix I).
The Service has determined that it would be wise to plan for the
need to implement Article XIV, by specifying requirements for
certificates issued pursuant to Article XIV, paragraph 5, of the
Convention, even if its use is not necessary at this time. The Service
notes that Appendix II allows for international commercial trade. The
draft resolution was written in consultation with NMFS. The Service's
goal in submitting this resolution is to clarify how an Appendix II
listing could be implemented expeditiously for a marine species whose
management was under the competency of a pre-CITES treaty. The draft
resolution would provide for the utilization, as a valid certificate
under Article XIV, paragraph 5, of a certificate of origin or
statistical document issued on the authority of the other treaty,
convention, or international agreement, with certain stipulations of
minimum information and validation as required by CITES. Such
certificates would only be an option for CITES Parties that are also
parties to the other treaty, convention, or agreement, and if the
specimens are taken by ships registered by the Party country. Export
permits or introduction from the sea certificates are required in all
other situations.
2. Criteria for Amendments of Appendix I and II. The existing CITES
listing criteria, known as the ``Berne Criteria,'' were developed at
the first CITES Conference in 1976 in Berne, Switzerland. The move to
revise them originated at COP8 in Japan. At COP8 the Parties agreed to
start a process, coordinated by the Standing Committee, to develop a
scientifically sound revision for consideration at COP9. The World
Conservation Union (IUCN) was asked to do a first draft, which would be
revised at a joint meeting of the CITES Standing, Animals, and Plants
Committees, and put into CITES resolution form. The United States
participated in the joint meeting in Brussels in September 1993, which
reviewed the IUCN draft and produced a draft resolution that was
circulated to the Parties.
Prior to the September 1993 joint committee meeting, the Service
received comments from 46 organizations and private individuals
regarding the proposed revised listing criteria. After the September
1993 Standing Committee meeting, in response to the Federal Register
notice of November 18, 1993, the Service received comments from 18
organizations. The Service carefully reviewed and analyzed all comments
received. Five organizations basically supported the new criteria. The
Service received comments from 13 organizations that either opposed the
new criteria, opposed parts of the new criteria, or recommended that
the United States submit an alternative to the joint committee draft
resolution. All comments were taken into consideration by the Service
in formulating comments to the draft resolution.
The Service submitted comments for the United States to the
Standing Committee, after consultation with other Federal agencies and
after reviewing the extensive public comments received. Comments
received by the CITES Secretariat from other governments were also
reviewed. The U.S. comments maintained that much of the draft
resolution was not valid scientifically, and was not acceptable from
conservation, management or practical perspectives. The United States
believed that the criteria as proposed met neither the CITES treaty's
requirements for the conservation of species in their ecosystems, nor
the diverse needs of the CITES Parties. The U.S. comments and those of
other Parties were discussed at the 31st meeting of the Standing
Committee, in Geneva in March 1994. Some of the U.S. comments were
taken into consideration in developing the final Standing Committee
draft resolution. The final Standing Committee resolution was not
available to the United States or other CITES Parties until after the
June 10, 1994, deadline for submission of resolutions and proposals to
the CITES Secretariat.
The Standing Committee resolution contains six annexes, several of
which the United States looks forward to discussing further with the
CITES Parties at COP9. In particular, the United States believes the
Standing Committee draft is an improvement on the Berne Criteria as
regards precautionary measures. However, the United States believes
that Annex 1 (Biological criteria for Appendix I) and Annex 2 (Criteria
for inclusion of species in Appendix II) are in need of revision,
particularly from a scientific perspective. The United States is
particularly concerned about the utility and scientific validity of
arbitrary numerical cutoffs for decision-making regarding the appendix
within which a species should be included. After detailed review of the
scientific literature and consultations with NMFS and other Federal
agencies, the Service has submitted alternatives to these Annexes to
the Secretariat, along with some additional material for inclusion in
the resolution. With regard to the five comments referred to previously
as supporting the joint committee's draft resolution, there was nothing
in these comments that was inconsistent with the revised Annexes 1 and
2 submitted by the Service.
The United States could have waited to present these alternative
Annexes 1 and 2 at COP9. However, the United States preferred to
provide ample time for this review by the CITES Parties.
The proposed Annex 1 lists a series of interdependent factors to be
included in an assessment of the status of a species, and thereby the
determination that it is threatened with extinction. The criteria for
inclusion of species in Annex 2 (in accordance with Article II
paragraph 2(a)), involve a determination of whether a species may
become threatened with extinction, and in order to avoid utilization
incompatible with its survival.
3. Standard nomenclature. This resolution was submitted at the
request of the CITES Nomenclature Committee, and deals with
nomenclature and taxonomy of CITES species. The resolution submitted
was discussed and agreed upon by the Nomenclature Committee at its May
1994 meeting in Beijing, China. The Service is aware that the names of
genera and species in several families are in need of standardization,
and that the current lack of standard references with adequate
information decreases the effectiveness of the implementation of CITES
in conserving the many species that are listed in the Appendices. The
Service also recognizes that the taxonomy used in the appendices to the
Convention will be most useful to the Parties if standardized by
nomenclatural references.
This resolution consolidates recommendations from several previous
resolutions and clarifies or updates previous recommendations. The
resolution discusses inclusion of subspecies in the Appendices, use of
references in proposals, synonyms, other naming conventions, and the
role of the Scientific Authorities in nomenclatural issues. The
resolution also recommends several standard references for species
listed in the CITES Appendices, i.e., for mammals, birds, amphibians,
cacti, cycads, ferns, and other plants.
Agenda Items Submitted by the United States
The Service submitted the following two items for inclusion in the
COP9 agenda, but did not submit a resolution or discussion paper. The
Service intends to submit a discussion paper on both items to the
Secretariat, for transmission to the Parties, prior to the COP.
Items Submitted
1. Shark trade. There is information about a recent increase in
international trade in shark parts and products, particularly in fins
for the food market. However, there are insufficient biological and
trade data on which to base a listing proposal at this time. Data on
these species are difficult to obtain and will require the cooperation
of all Parties and organizations interested in conserving these
species. The Service believes that this is an important issue for the
Parties to discuss. The Service is considering requesting that the
Animals Committee assess methods for obtaining information on the
biological and trade status of shark species in international trade,
and providing advice to the Parties on possible approaches toward
conservation efforts for these taxa. No international body is currently
responsible for the management of shark species, including
recommendations of catch quotas, minimum sizes, time and area closures,
gear restriction, etc. By placing this item on the agenda for COP9, it
is not the intent of the United States to propose that CITES take on
this responsibility. However, because CITES is the international treaty
responsible for trade in wildlife, it provides an ideal forum for the
discussion of collection of data on this trade. The Service, in
consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this agenda
item for submission before COP9.
2. Illegal trade in whale meat. There was extensive discussion at
the May, 1994 meeting of the IWC regarding illegal international trade
in whale meat, including involvement by CITES Parties. All whales
subject to the IWC moratorium on commercial harvest are listed in CITES
Appendix I. A resolution on this topic was introduced by the United
States and other Parties, and was adopted by IWC at its 1994 meeting.
The issue is discussed in the IWC Infractions Report. The Service
submitted the information in the IWC Infractions Report on
international trade in whale meat to the CITES Secretariat. The Service
in consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this
agenda item for submission to the Parties before COP9.
Continuing Actions
In mid July, the Service received proposals made by other CITES
Parties to amend the appendices. Resolutions and a list of other agenda
items that were submitted by other Parties are expected to be received
at intervals in September and October. The Service's tentative
negotiating position on the species proposals was announced in the
Federal Register on September 6, 1994, (59 FR 46023) and a comment
period initiated. The Service also held two public meetings on
September 14 and 16, 1994, as announced in September 1 and 7, 1994
Federal Register (59 FR 45307 and 59 FR 46023). These meetings provided
an opportunity for the public to comment on the species proposals
submitted by other countries and on any resolution or agenda item. In
the October 4, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 50609), the Service
presented information and tentative negotiating positions on
resolutions and agenda items, especially those for which official
documents have been received.
The Service will consider all information presented at the public
meetings and in writing during the comment period, as well as all other
available information, in developing a negotiating position on each
species proposal, resolution, and agenda item. These positions will be
announced in the Federal Register(s) in late October or early November
just prior to COP9. Also in this pre-COP notice the Service plans to
request comments on any reservations that should be taken on any
species amendments, i.e., species changes to the CITES Appendices,
should any of the proposed amendments be adopted by the Parties.
Immediately after COP9, the Service will announce the species
amendments to the appendices adopted by the Parties; under CITES, these
changes will become effective on February 16, 1995.
Reservations
Article XV of CITES enables any party to exempt itself from
implementing CITES for any particular species if it enters a
reservation with respect to that species in accordance with the terms
and limitations of the treaty. In the case of a country that is a Party
at the time an amendment is adopted, a reservation may be entered only
during the period of 90 days following the meeting at which the Parties
voted to place the species in Appendix I or II. Just before COP9, the
Service will solicit comments with regard to entering reservations. If
the United States enters any reservation, such action would be
announced in the same Federal Register notice that incorporates the
listing decisions of the Parties into the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 23).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.
This document is issued under authority of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884, as amended). It was
prepared by Drs. Charles W. Dane, Wayne L. Milstead, and Bruce
MacBryde, Office of Scientific Authority, and Dr. Susan Lieberman,
Office of Management Authority.
Dated: September 27, 1994.
Bruce Blanchard,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 94-27313 Filed 11-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P