[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27630]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

 

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; Ninth Regular 
Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth summaries of the United States 
negotiating positions on agenda items and resolutions for the ninth 
regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP9) to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). Comments have been solicited and public meetings to 
discuss these negotiating positions have been held.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marshall P. Jones or Susan S. 
Lieberman, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420-C, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703/358-2093; fax 703/358-2280.

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 monitor and control international 
trade in certain animal and plant species which are or may become 
threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the treaty. 
Currently, 124 countries, including the United States, are CITES 
Parties. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of the 
Parties which review its implementation, make provisions enabling the 
CITES Secretariat (in Switzerland) to carry out its functions, consider 
amending 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. The ninth regular meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP9) will be held in Fort 
Lauderdale, Florida, November 7-18, 1994.
    A series of notices and public meetings provided the public with an 
opportunity 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 the 
United States was considering submitting as 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 of 
the COP; and (4) requested information and comments from the public on 
possible COP9 agenda items and resolutions that the United States might 
submit. A Federal Register notice published on September 1, 1994 (59 FR 
45307), announced a public meeting to take place on September 14, 1994. 
A Federal Register notice published on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 46023), 
set forth summaries of proposed U.S. negotiating positions on species 
proposals that were submitted by other countries to amend the CITES 
Appendices and requested public comment on these proposals. A Federal 
Register notice published on September 7, 1994 (59 FR 46266), announced 
an additional public meeting to take place on September 16, 1994. A 
Federal Register notice published October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50609) set 
forth summaries of the proposed U.S. negotiating positions on agenda 
items and resolutions for COP9 and requested public comments on these 
positions, which were also presented at the September 14 and 16 public 
meetings. The Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) regulations 
governing this public process are found in Title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.

Negotiating Positions

    In this notice, the Service summarizes the United States positions 
on agenda items and resolutions for COP9 and a summary of written 
information and comments received in response to the Federal Register 
notice of October 4, 1994. Numerals next to each agenda item correspond 
to the numbers used in the provisional agenda [COP9 Document 9.1 
(revised)] received from the CITES Secretariat. However, documents for 
several of the agenda items have not been received from the CITES 
Secretariat. A list of documents received to date and copies are 
available to the public on request, from the Office of Management 
Authority.
    When information and comments on the agenda items were submitted in 
writing to the Service or received at the September 14 or 16, 1994 
public meetings, they are included with the proposed negotiating 
position, with a brief discussion. Each proposed position includes a 
brief rationale explaining the basis of the position. While this notice 
sets forth the negotiating positions of the United States at COP9, new 
information that becomes available during discussions at a COP can 
often lead to modifications in these positions. At COP9, the U.S. 
delegation will disclose all position changes and the rationale 
explaining them.
    Comments were received from 28 organizations, 1 government, and two 
private individuals, both in writing and at the public meetings held 
September 14 and 16, 1994. Comments were received and are summarized 
from the following governments, organizations and private individuals: 
Government of Japan, Fisheries Agency (Japan), Africa Resources Trust 
(ART), State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Alaska), the 
American Orchid Society (AOS), Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), 
California Cactus Growers Association (CCGA), Center for International 
Environmental Law (CIEL), Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), 
Commercial Orchid Growers Guild (COGG), Defenders of Wildlife (DOW), 
Earth Island Institute (EII), Endangered Species Project (ESP), 
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), Greenpeace, Grigsby Cactus 
Gardens (Grigsby), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), 
International Wildlife Coalition (IWCo), International Wildlife 
Management Consortium (IWMC), International Wood Products Association 
(IHPA), IUCN Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG), Monitor Consortium 
(Monitor), National Rifle Association (NRA), the Natural Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC), the Pleurothallid Alliance (PA), Safari Club 
International (SCI), SMT Guitars, Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), 
World Wide Fund for Nature, International (WWF), and Mr. John de Kanel 
and Mr. Gary Lyons.

Negotiating Positions: Summaries

I. Opening Ceremony by the Authorities of the United States of America

    The United States is arranging for a suitable ceremony in 
cooperation with the CITES Secretariat.

II. Welcoming Addresses

    The United States is arranging for welcoming addresses from 
appropriate officials in cooperation with the CITES Secretariat.

III. Adoption of the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 9.3)

    Negotiating position: Oppose modifications to the Rules of 
Procedure that would simplify the procedure for invoking a secret 
ballot. Support retention of the Rules of Procedure that were in place 
at COP8 in Kyoto, Japan in 1992.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from DOW, HSUS, 
MTSG, and IWCo. Comments were received from DOW and MTSG at the 
September 16, 1994 public meeting. DOW supports the U.S. position and 
feels that the role of observers would be negated by a change in the 
balloting procedure. The MTSG noted that the secret ballot has seldom 
been used, but when it was used, it had really been needed. DOW urged 
the United States not to modify its position and to work to convince 
other Parties to support the U.S. position. It argues that allowing 
secret ballots so easily would facilitate the practice of announcing 
one position publicly and vote another position in secret balloting. 
HSUS supports the U.S. position and maintains that delegates should be 
accountable to their governments and citizens, that CITES procedures 
should be conducted in a democratic fashion by majority rule, and that 
secret ballots are overly time-consuming. IWCo supports the U.S. 
position, claiming that the proposed revisions to the Rules would 
permit a regional bloc of countries to dictate to the Convention. IWCo 
suggests that if the U.S. position to retain the COP8 Rules is not 
agreed upon, then one viable alternative would be to require at least 
one Party from each CITES Region to support a secret ballot.
    Rationale: The Rules of Procedure must be adopted by the Plenary of 
the COP at the outset. Any modifications to the Rules of Procedure that 
were in place at COP8 must be approved by the Parties at the first 
Plenary session. The only difference between the Rules of Procedure for 
COP8 and the Provisional Rules of Procedure circulated by the 
Secretariat is in Rule 15, paragraph 3; that modification was approved 
by the Standing Committee (for submission to COP9) at its thirty-first 
meeting in Geneva, held March 21-25, 1994. Rule 15, paragraph 3, refers 
to secret ballots. According to the Rules of Procedure adopted at COP8, 
when a delegation proposes that a vote be taken by secret ballot, an 
open vote is required to approve this proposal; a majority of all 
Parties voting must approve a secret ballot before it is implemented. 
The Provisional Rules of Procedure recommended by the Standing 
Committee, amended at the suggestion of the observer from Zimbabwe at 
that meeting, require that only six parties (the proposer and five 
seconds) request a secret ballot for it to be implemented for a 
particular vote.
    At the Standing Committee meeting, the U.S. delegation opposed 
modifying the Rules of Procedure. The COP9 position of the United 
States remains in opposition to this modification of the Rules of 
Procedure, which operated effectively at both COP7 and COP8. In 
numerous international fora (e.g., GATT, UNCED), it has been the 
position of the United States to promote openness in the dealings of 
intergovernmental organizations. In the U.S. view, it would be highly 
unusual in terms of international treaty practice for secret balloting, 
other than for the election of officers. The United States believes 
that since a delegation at a COP is accountable to its government, it 
should not need to vote in secret. The United States is also very 
concerned that making secret ballots too easy will unnecessarily delay 
the work of the COP. The United States also believes that it is 
inappropriate for the minority (possibly only six countries) to dictate 
to the majority how votes should proceed. The United States believes 
that a rule allowing a few countries to determine the use of the secret 
ballot could lead to excessive use of this option, as well as 
unnecessary dissension and ill will among countries. Secret ballots are 
extremely slow and time consuming. Regardless of how few or many secret 
ballots are taken at the COP, however, all U.S. positions and votes on 
issues will be publicly disclosed.

IV. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair of the Meeting and of Committees I 
and II and of the Budget Committee (No Documents Will Be Received)

    Negotiating position: Support election of a Conference Chair from 
the United States, and highly qualified Committee and Vice Chairs 
representing the geographic diversity of CITES.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
supports the U.S. position.
    Rationale: The Chair of the CITES Standing Committee (New Zealand) 
will serve as temporary Chair of the Conference until a permanent 
Conference Chair is elected. It is traditional for the host country to 
provide the Conference Chair, and the United States will propose a 
person with substantial executive skills and international negotiating 
experience to be nominated as Chair. This person, if elected by the 
parties, will serve as Presiding Officer of the Conference and also of 
the Conference Bureau, the executive body which manages the business of 
the Conference; other members of the Bureau include the Committee 
Chairs (discussed below), the nine members of the Standing Committee 
(see Agenda Item IX), and the Secretariat.
    The major technical work of CITES is done in the Committees, and 
thus Committee chairs must have great technical knowledge and skill. In 
addition, CITES benefits from active participation and leadership of 
representatives of every region of the world. The United States will 
support election of Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Conference 
having requisite technical knowledge and skills and also reflecting the 
geographic and cultural diversity of CITES. The United States is now 
consulting with the Secretariat and the Standing Committee regarding 
suitable candidates.

V. Adoption of the Agenda and Working Programme (Docs. 9.1, 9.2, 9.21, 
9.2.2)

    Negotiating Position: Support adoption of an agenda and working 
program that guarantee a smoothly operating meeting that addresses all 
species and implementation issues.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
supports the U.S. position.
    Rationale: The U.S. nominee to serve as Conference Chair, if 
accepted by the Parties, will be responsible for management of the 
overall agenda, in consultation with the Bureau.

VI. Establishment of the Credentials Committee and Committees I and II 
(No Document Will Be Received From the CITES Secretariat).

    Negotiating Position: Support the establishment of the Credentials 
Committee and Committees I and II.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
support the U.S. position.
    Rationale: Establishment of the Credentials Committee is a pro 
forma matter. The Credentials Committee approves the credentials of 
delegates to the COP, by confirming that they are official 
representatives of their government, thereby affording them the right 
to vote in Committee and Plenary sessions. The United States supports 
the establishment of Committees I and II, provided most participating 
Parties have been able to send at least two delegates, or that the 
rules governing debate of the Committees ensure that most delegations 
will have an opportunity to debate recommendations before a final 
decision is made.

VII. Report of the Credentials Committee (No Document Will Be Received)

    Negotiating position: Support adoption of the report of the 
Credentials Committee if it does not recommend the exclusion of 
legitimate representatives of countries that are Parties to CITES. 
Representatives whose credentials are not in order should be afforded 
observer status as provided for under Article XI. If credentials have 
been delayed, representatives should be allowed to vote on a 
provisional basis. A liberal interpretation of the Rules of Procedure 
on credentials should be adhered to in order to permit clearly 
legitimate representatives to participate.
    Information and Comments: HSUS supports the general comments of the 
Service on this issue.
    Rationale: Adoption of the report is generally pro forma. Exclusion 
of Party representatives whose credentials are not fully in order could 
undermine essential cooperation among Parties.

VIII. Admission of Observers (No Document Will Be Received Before the 
COP)

    Negotiating Position: Support admission to the meeting of all 
technically qualified national and international non-governmental 
organizations and support their full participation at COP9.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and DOW. 
HSUS supports the Service's general comments on this issue. DOW 
supports the U.S. position to support the admission of all technically 
qualified non-governmental organizations and to oppose unreasonable 
limitations on the full participation of such groups during COP9.
    Rationale: National and international non-governmental 
organizations representing a broad range of viewpoints and perspectives 
play an important role in CITES activities and have much to offer to 
the debates and negotiations at a COP. Their participation is 
specifically provided by Article XI of the Convention. The United 
States supports the opportunity for all technically qualified observers 
to fully participate at COPs. Each Party government approves its own 
national observer organizations, while the Secretariat approves 
international organizations. The Office of Management Authority 
approved the attendance of sixty-five U.S. observer organizations.

IX. Matters Related To the Standing Committee

    This agenda item consists of three subitems:
1. Report of the Chairman (Doc 9.5)
    Negotiating Position: The United States strongly supports the 
active role which the current Standing Committee, under the leadership 
of New Zealand, has played in carrying out the many functions given to 
it by resolutions adopted by Conferences of the Parties. This includes 
the review of compliance with these resolutions by the Parties and 
making decisions for appropriate action when Parties are not in 
compliance.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
supports the U.S. position regarding the current chair of the Standing 
Committee, who it feels has opened the Committee up to NGOs. HSUS urges 
the United States to oppose any attempt to exclude NGOs from making 
presentations at future Standing Committee meetings.
2. Regional Representation on the Standing Committee (Doc. 9.7)
    Negotiating Position: Support an increase in Standing Committee 
membership if budgetary implications can be resolved.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS. HSUS 
opposes increasing the number of representatives to the Standing 
Committee because of the added expense and because it feels the 
addition of extra representatives would slow the deliberations of the 
Committee. HSUS does not believe that the representatives fully consult 
with the countries they theoretically represent.
    Rationale: The Standing Committee is currently composed of six 
Regional voting representatives of North America (Canada), Central and 
South America and the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago, the Vice Chair), 
Asia (Thailand), Oceania (New Zealand, the Chair), Africa (Senegal), 
and Europe (Sweden). There are also three ex officio, nonvoting 
members: Switzerland (depositary country), Japan (past host country), 
and the United States (current host country). Each CITES Region 
currently has one representative on the Standing Committee, regardless 
of how large or small the number of Parties (Africa has 43 CITES 
parties, for example, while North America has 3 Parties and Oceania 4). 
A proposal submitted by Malawi would increase the number of Regional 
representatives from Regions having larger numbers of Parties. The 
United States will consider support for such a proposal only after full 
consideration by the Budget Committee of any financial effects.
3. Election of New Members and Alternate Regional Members
    Negotiating Position: Encourage membership which will continue the 
active role of the Standing Committee.
    Information and Comment: Comments were received from HSUS which 
supports the general comments of the Service on the election of new 
members of the Standing Committee.
    Rationale: The Regional representatives of North America, Europe, 
and Oceania are open for review by their respective Regions at COP9. 
The United States, as host of COP9, will continue on the Standing 
Committee as past host country until COP10. A new Chair will be 
selected by the new Standing Committee during a meeting to be held at 
the close of COP9; while the United States will not have a vote, the 
U.S. position is to encourage selection of a Chair with a strong 
commitment to a proactive Standing Committee role in the management of 
CITES affairs, as New Zealand has done during the past two and one half 
years.

X. Report of the Secretariat: the Report Has Not Been Received

    Negotiating Position: When received, the Service will carefully 
review issues pertaining to: success of procedures for Parties to set 
budgetary and work priorities; setting of new short-term and long-term 
objectives for the Secretariat; evaluation of the performance of the 
Secretariat; and progress in assisting Parties to more forcefully and 
effectively implement the Convention.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS which 
supports the Service's general comments on this issue.
    Rationale: The biennial report provides the major way for the 
Secretariat, and the Secretary General, to report priorities, 
accomplishments, and problems to the Parties. These are critical 
management issues facing CITES which need to be addressed in the 
Secretariat's report.

XI. Financing and Budgeting of the Secretariat and of Meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties

1. Financial Report for 1992-1993
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no position is possible at this time. The United States 
continues to advocate fiscal responsibility and accountability.
2. Anticipated expenditures for 1994 and 1995
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no position is possible at this time. The United States 
continues to advocate fiscal responsibility and accountability.
3. Budget for 1996-1998 and Medium-Term Plan for 1996-2000 (Doc. 9.10)
    Negotiating Position: Oppose any substantial increase in the 
Secretariat's budget representing a significant increase in its work 
plan. Support budget increases requested by the Secretariat in cases 
where the growing membership is placing increasing burdens on staff, 
without any commitment to an increased U.S. contribution. Support an 
evaluation of priorities and possible reprogramming of currently funded 
budget items into underfunded or unfunded areas of higher priority. 
Review current expenditures and proposed budget items (both base and 
increases) in the context of priorities for implementation and 
enforcement of the Convention worldwide.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
supports the U.S. position of evaluating priorities and possible 
reprogramming of budget items. HSUS calls for a 75% reduction in the 
Nomenclature Committee budget and application of the savings to 
enforcement efforts. The United States agrees that the budget proposed 
for nomenclature appears somewhat excessive, and should be reviewed in 
the context of priorities for implementation of the Convention. HSUS 
calls for holding Plants and Animals Committee meetings in a 
centralized location to hold down costs. HSUS recommends that if a 
Party wishes to host a Committee meeting, it should pay the difference 
between the costs of holding the meeting at the distant location or 
holding it in the centralized location (which the United States 
presumes to mean Geneva). The United States considers this a useful 
recommendation, but believes that only travel costs of committee 
members should be covered by the host government.
    Rationale: The United States cannot at present commit to a larger 
contribution to the CITES budget. The United States is the largest 
single contributor; under the United Nations scale, the United States 
is asked to provide 25 percent of the annual operating budget. In 
fiscal year 1994, the Department of State allocated approximately $1 
million of the Congressional foreign aid appropriation to support 
CITES. However, the United States recognizes the heavier workload being 
imposed on the Secretariat, Standing Committee, and both the Animals 
and Plants Committees. The United States looks forward to a full review 
of current expenditures and proposed budget items (both base and 
increases) in the context of priorities for implementation and 
enforcement of the Convention worldwide.
4. External Funding
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no specific position is possible at this time. The United 
States continues to strongly encourage national and international non-
governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, and other 
governments, to support these projects.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: External funding refers to the financial support by 
Party governments and non-governmental organizations for projects that 
have been approved by the Standing Committee. The CITES Parties have 
established a process whereby the Standing Committee approves projects 
and approves donors, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of 
interest. The Secretariat's report on this issue is expected to 
summarize approved donors, approved projects, projects that have been 
funded, and approved projects that are awaiting funding. The Service, 
the Department of State, and the National Marine Fisheries Service have 
made substantial contributions to externally funded projects, including 
travel of delegates from developing countries to COPs, support for 
committee meetings, facilitating a meeting of the Working Group on the 
Transport of Live Specimens, biological studies of significantly traded 
species, review of national laws for the implementation of the 
Convention, numerous enforcement-related projects, and other similar 
projects.

XII. Committee Reports and Recommendations

1. Animals Committee (Doc. 9.13)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports the active role of 
the Animals Committee in scientific and management issues pertaining to 
animal species listed in the CITES Appendices. Encourage membership 
which will continue the active role of the Animals Committee, and 
selection of a Chair with a strong commitment to a proactive Animals 
Committee.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
argues that the Animals Committee spends too much time on enforcement 
issues, which HSUS believes would be better dealt with by a special 
enforcement committee. According to HSUS, the Animals Committee should 
instead focus more intently on the biological status of species.
    Rationale: The Animals Committee report may contain information or 
recommendations dealing with Appendix II species subject to significant 
trade, marking techniques, crocodilian tagging, sea turtle ranching, 
care for and reintroduction of seized live animals, and various other 
issues. The United States has actively participated in the work of the 
Animals Committee since its establishment at COP6, and will continue to 
be an active participant in Animals Committee functions. The United 
States is satisfied with the current jurisdiction and work priorities 
of the Animals Committee. The United States is supporting the 
establishment of a Law Enforcement Working Group to deal with specific 
implementation issues related to enforcement.
Regional Representation on the Animals Committee (Doc. 9.49)
    Negotiating Position: Support the draft resolution submitted by 
Kenya proposing that the regions of Africa, South and Central America 
and the Caribbean, and Asia provide two representatives each to the 
Animals Committee, if the necessary financial support is provided by 
the Secretariat through the Secretariat's Budget. The United States 
notes that Europe, with a large number of Parties as well, would also 
have two representatives.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The Animals Committee is currently composed of 
individuals representing the six CITES geographic regions: North 
America, Central and South America and the Caribbean, Asia, Oceania, 
Africa, and Europe. Each CITES Region currently has one representative 
on the Animals Committee. The Regional representatives are selected by 
the Party governments at their respective regional caucuses during the 
COP. A new Chair will be selected by the new Animals Committee, most 
likely during a meeting to be held at the close of COP9.
2. Plants Committee (Doc. 9.14)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports the continued 
activities of the Plants Committee to improve the effectiveness of 
CITES for plants, with a focus on the following: publication of 
checklists and identification guides; significant trade in orchids, 
succulents, and other species; review of the timber trade; and trade in 
artificially propagated plants. Encourage membership which will 
continue the active role of the Plants Committee, and selection of a 
Chair with a strong commitment to a proactive Plants Committee.
Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The Plants Committee is currently composed of 
individuals representing the six CITES geographic regions: North 
America, Central and South America and the Caribbean, Asia, Oceania, 
Africa, and Europe. Each CITES Region currently has one representative 
on the Plants Committee. Dr. Bruce MacBryde of the Service's Office of 
Scientific Authority serves as Vice-Chair of the Plants Committee 
(representing North America). The Regional representatives are selected 
by the Party governments at their respective regional caucuses, at the 
COP. A Chair will be selected by the new Plants Committee, most likely 
during a meeting to be held at the close of COP9.
3. Identification Manual Committee (No Document Has Been Received)
    Negotiating Position: Continue to support the work of the 
Identification Manual Committee and development of animal and plant 
identification manuals for use by port and border enforcement officers, 
in providing a standard of reference for the identification of CITES 
species. Consider the budget of the Identification Manual Committee in 
the context of available resources and priorities.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from DOW. DOW 
concurs with the U.S. support of the Identification Manual Committee 
and the development of plant and animal identification manuals for use 
by port and border enforcement officers. DOW believes it would aid the 
monitoring of imports by decreasing limitations in identifying species.
    Rationale: The enforcement officers of the Parties must be equipped 
with guides which are accurate, realistic, and helpful in the 
identification of the many CITES species and products found in trade 
throughout the world.
4. Nomenclature Committee (Doc. 9.16)
    Negotiating Position: Encourage the development and adoption of 
checklists for all taxa, within budgetary limits and priorities to be 
decided upon by the Parties. Support revisions of existing checklists 
for fauna prior to development of new ones. Consider the budget of the 
Nomenclature Committee in the context of available resources and 
priorities for the implementation and enforcement of the Convention 
worldwide. Oppose use of CITES funds for the start of a lizard 
checklist before other tasks are complete, and do not support proposed 
name changes for U.S. freshwater mussels. Ensure that the language of 
the resolution is consistent with comparable recommendations in 
whatever listing criteria resolution is adopted by the Parties.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: Because of the expense in developing checklists for 
taxa, the United States supports recognition of existing checklists for 
remaining taxa when suitable, and greater use of external funding when 
possible. Implementation of the Convention is strengthened by the use 
of uniform names of listed species.

XIII. Evolution of the Convention

1. Strategic Plan of the Secretariat
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no position is possible at this time. The earlier version 
discussed at the last Standing Committee meeting had many elements the 
United States could support.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The Secretariat submitted a provisional discussion 
document at the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee, discussing a 
long-term strategic plan for activities of the Secretariat. The United 
States considers such long-term management planning to be in the best 
interest of increasing the implementation, enforcement, and 
effectiveness of the Convention.
2. How to Improve the Effectiveness of the Convention
    Negotiating Position: An informal document has been reviewed, but 
the revised document has not been received from Canada or the 
Secretariat; no final position is possible at this time.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and SCI. 
HSUS supports the Service's general comments on this issue. SCI calls 
for a complete reevaluation of the basic concepts of CITES. It argues 
that the listing process is too vague and becomes too political. It 
further maintains that there has been the development of the 
precautionary principle which it believes is not in the treaty. It 
claims that the process as it stands has become abusive. It urges the 
United States to support an active, cooperative process to reform the 
mechanisms of CITES in the direction of cooperation between range 
states and importing states and to recognize the conservation role of 
tourist safari hunting and other forms of sustainable use.
    Rationale: This agenda item was suggested by the delegate from 
Canada at the March 1994 Standing Committee meeting; the Standing 
Committee agreed that a review of the general evolution and 
implementation of CITES should be done by an independent body, and that 
a project proposal for this review should be developed by the 
Secretariat. The main concerns of the United States are: whether or not 
funding will be available for such a project; that such a project not 
impair the ability of other functions in the Secretariat budget to 
receive necessary and possibly higher priority funding; and that 
emphasis should be placed on how to improve the effectiveness of the 
Convention, including its enforcement and implementation, rather than 
in a costly study of whether or not the Convention is effective.

XIV. Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention

1. Review of the Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties (Doc. 
9.19)
    Negotiating Position: Support the effort begun by the Secretariat 
immediately following COP8, at the direction of the Standing Committee, 
to review all of the resolutions of the Conference of the Parties with 
the goal of assisting Parties in the effective utilization of the 
resolutions, in order to more effectively implement the Convention, by: 
(1) Deleting resolutions that have been superseded or whose purpose has 
been accomplished; and (2) consolidating resolutions that deal with the 
same subject.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from DOW, HSUS, 
and SCI. DOW commented at the September 16, 1994 public meeting that it 
was wise to consolidate and wise to be cautious in making deletions and 
called for all previous resolutions concerning ivory to be retained 
(see discussion under agenda item 1a). The United States notes that 
those resolutions or portions of resolutions proposed for deletion that 
pertain to the ivory trade have been superseded by the inclusion of all 
African elephant populations in CITES Appendix I. However, many parts 
of the resolutions have continuing validity as to the legality of 
imports and legal status of certain specimens. Additionally, important 
policies adopted by the Parties through these resolutions should be 
revived if any African elephant populations are transferred to Appendix 
II.
    HSUS supports the deletion and consolidation of the resolutions 
that have been superseded or accomplished in general. SCI urged that 
care be taken not to change basic concepts of resolutions when 
consolidating overlapping resolutions, eliminating duplications, and 
clarifying cross-referencing. The Service agrees, and has worked 
consistently within the Standing Committee to ensure that 
consolidations do not in any way change basic concepts or the sense of 
resolutions.
    Rationale: At every Standing Committee meeting since COP8, the 
United States delegation has strongly urged (and the Committee has 
adopted this recommendation of the United States) that any 
consolidation of resolutions retain the text of the original, including 
the preamble, so as to: (1) Assist the Parties, while retaining the 
original intent of the resolution; and (2) reduce unnecessary or 
unproductive debate at COP9 on ``old'' issues. Therefore, the United 
States supports deleting only out-of-date resolutions that are truly 
non-controversial, and retaining the text of the original for any 
consolidations. The Standing Committee reiterated its support for this 
approach at its March 1994 meeting. The United States supports an 
expedited approval of these consolidations in Plenary Session at COP9, 
which will only be possible if the original text of resolutions 
(preamble and operative paragraphs) are retained, so that any 
consolidations will be structural and not substantive.
    (a) Deletion of Resolutions that are out of date (Doc. 9.19.1). 
Negotiating Position: Support the deletion of resolutions that are out 
of date, if they have been superseded by other resolutions or have been 
overtaken by events. However, they contain valuable historical 
information and should be available in some form should trade be 
reactivated for certain species. Essentially support the deletion of 
all resolutions proposed by the Secretariat and circulated to the 
Parties, with the following exceptions: Conf. 2.8, 3.13, and those 
relating to certain parts and derivatives of plants--Conf. 2.18, 4.24, 
6.18, and 8.17 (b) and (c). Those resolutions or portions thereof 
proposed for deletion that pertain to the ivory trade have been 
superseded by the inclusion of all African elephant populations in 
CITES Appendix I. However, many parts of the resolutions have 
continuing validity as to the legality of imports and legal status of 
certain specimens. Additionally, important policies adopted by the 
Parties through these resolutions should be revived if any African 
elephant populations are transferred to Appendix II.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from EIA, AWI, 
DOW, HSUS, and IWCo. EIA, at the September 14, 1994 public meeting, 
urged that the following resolutions not be consolidated or deleted: 
Conf. 1.6, ivory control resolutions, and the European Union 
resolution. At the September 16, 1994 public meeting AWI urged that 
nothing be deleted that may be useful in the future. DOW and IWCo 
expressed concerns about the deletion of paragraph 5 of Resolution 
Conf. 1.6, adopted for the purpose of limiting the pet trade in wild 
animals to those bred in captivity. They disagree with the explanation 
provided by the Secretariat that this has virtually been achieved. DOW 
urges the United States to reconsider its approval of this deletion and 
also asks it to review the deletion of Resolution Conf. 6.5 on CITES 
implementation in the EC. It disagrees with the Secretariat's 
sentiments that the recommendation in Conf. 6.5 calling for the EC to 
monitor the movement of CITES specimens between Member States is no 
longer necessary. HSUS urges the U.S. to oppose the deletion of the 
following Resolutions: Conf. 1.6, paragraph 5, on the limitation of 
keeping pets to those that can be bred in captivity; Conf. 2.8 and 
3.13, regarding the trade in whale products (this supports the U.S. 
position); Conf. 6.5 on CITES Implementation in the EC; and Conf. 5.12, 
6.11 through 6.16, and 7.8 on the ivory trade from African elephants. 
IWCo also opposes the deletion of any of the resolutions relating to 
control of the ivory trade.
    The United States agrees that no resolution that remains useful or 
operative should be deleted. The United States agrees that problems 
remain with the implementation of CITES in the European Union, but also 
agrees with the Secretariat that the recommendations of this resolution 
have been fulfilled. The United States notes that those resolutions or 
portions of resolutions proposed for deletion that pertain to the ivory 
trade have been superseded by the inclusion in Appendix I of the 
African elephant, but recognizes the merit of retaining them for future 
application to any populations that may be transferred to Appendix II.
    The United States agrees with the Secretariat that Resolution Conf. 
1.6 paragraph 5 can be repealed because: it has become outdated; for 
many species wild caught animals already have been replaced by captive-
bred specimens, while for others removal from the wild for the pet 
trade may indeed be sustainable; and it provides no direction for 
implementation by the Parties. The United States is not opposed to 
removal of animals from the wild for the pet trade, if such removal is 
part of an effective and enforced scientifically-based sustainable-use 
management plan.
    IWCo opposes the deletion of the following additional resolutions 
proposed for deletion by the Secretariat: Conf. 2.23, 3.9, 3.20, and 
6.8.
    Rationale: Certain other resolutions on plants remain pertinent 
unless they are superseded by new resolutions coming from COP9, e.g., 
Conf. 5.15 in relation to Doc. 9.30 on nursery registration. Technical 
review of Doc. 9.19.1 is continuing and the United States may offer 
further comment on the affected resolutions before or during the COP.
    The United States supports deletions of resolutions that are out of 
date or no longer relevant. However, recent discussions in the 
International Whaling Commission (IWC) highlight the fact that illegal 
trade in whale parts and products continues, in spite of the IWC's 
moratorium on commercial whaling. The United States has requested that 
this item be discussed at COP9 (see agenda item 15). The IWC has not 
yet completed an observation, inspection and enforcement program which 
would certify that the products of any commercial whaling which occurs 
in the future are taken in compliance with IWC regulations. Thus, these 
resolutions (Conf. 2.8 and 3.13) are neither out of date, nor have they 
been superseded.
    The United States opposes deletion of certain aspects pertaining to 
plants in Conf. 2.18, 4.24, 6.18, and 8.17(b) and 8.17(c). These 
portions provide an important legal basis for the exemption from CITES 
provisions of certain specified parts and derivatives of certain 
plants, e.g., the cut flowers of artificially propagated Appendix I 
hybrids and the flasked seedlings of all artificially propagated 
orchids. The United States considers these paragraphs to articulate an 
important legal rationale. The United States supports these exemptions.
    Future germane proposals on taxa for Appendix I simply can be 
directed by Conf. 8.17(b) and 8.17(c), without subsequent proposals on 
the standard exemptions. Future proposals to uplist orchid taxa thus 
would be routinely guided by Conf. 8.17(c) and their flasked seedlings 
would be exempt. A similar process has been in effect for the proposals 
on Appendix II plant taxa, where routinely certain parts or derivatives 
are standard exclusions, as specified through Conf. 4.24 (e.g., for 
tissue cultures) and Conf. 6.18 (e.g., for flasked seedling cultures).
    (b) Consolidation of valid resolutions. Negotiating Position: No 
document has been received from the CITES Secretariat. However, 
documents have been received at several Standing Committee meetings. 
The United States essentially supports those consolidations prepared 
thus far by the Secretariat.
    Information and Comments: EIA, at the September 14, 1994, public 
meeting, urged that the ivory control resolutions not be consolidated 
(see discussion above, of resolutions to be deleted or repealed).
    Rationale: Proposed consolidations have been discussed at Standing 
Committee meetings and approved for transmission to the Parties on the 
following issues (final text has not been received from the 
Secretariat, however): Transport of live specimens (consolidate Conf. 
3.16, 4.20, 5.18, 7.13, and 8.12); Disposal of illegally traded 
specimens (consolidate Conf. 2.15, 3.9, 3.14, 4.17, 4.18, 5.14, and 
7.6); Trade in elephant ivory (consolidate Conf. 3.12, 6.12, 6.14, 
6.15, 6.16, and 7.8); Annual reports and trade monitoring (consolidate 
Conf. 2.16, 3.10, 5.5, 5.6, 5.14, and 8.7); Trade in readily 
recognizable parts and derivatives (consolidate Conf. 4.8, 5.9, 5.22, 
and 6.22); Permits and certificates (consolidate Conf. 3.6, 3.7, 4.9, 
4.16, 5.7, 5.8, 5.15, 6.6, 8.5); Trade in plants (12 prior resolutions: 
consolidate Conf. 2.13, 5.14, 5.15, 8.17, propose to repeal all or part 
of Conf. 2.18, 4.24, 5.14, 6.18, and 6.20, and deal with Conf. 2.14, 
4.16, and parts of 5.14, 8.18, 8.19 in a separate consolidation); Trade 
with non-Parties and reserving Parties (consolidate Conf. 3.8, 8.8); 
and Transit and transhipment (consolidate Conf. 4.10, 7.4). The United 
States finds these proposals to be a diligent consolidation of a 
complex array of resolutions dealing with the same topic, subject to 
final review of the Secretariat's submission to the Conference of the 
Parties.
2. Establishment of a List of the Other Decisions of the Conference of 
the Parties
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat. Support ongoing Standing Committee and Secretariat efforts 
to differentiate between Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties 
which provide guidance and interpretation of the Convention, or call 
for continuing activities of indefinite duration, and decisions of the 
COP that direct the Secretariat or permanent committees to perform 
certain specific activities of limited duration.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
supports the Service's general comments on this issue.
    Rationale: The Standing Committee has recommended that decisions of 
the Parties at the COP be distributed in a manner similar to that for 
resolutions. The United States supports this procedure, utilizing 
guidelines to be adopted by the COP, that have been approved by the 
Standing Committee. Often, recommendations to the Secretariat or 
permanent committees are included in resolutions, when these 
recommendations are relevant for a particular committee only, or for a 
short time period between two COPs only. The United States supports 
separating these specific and/or short-term decisions from resolutions, 
wherein resolutions should refer to recommendations for implementation 
of the Convention, and interpretations of the Convention.
3. Report on National Reports Under Article VIII, Paragraph 7, of the 
Convention
    Negotiating Positions: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat. Support efforts to encourage all Parties to submit annual 
reports for all species of flora and fauna, as required by the treaty. 
Support efforts whereby proposals for transfer of certain species from 
Appendix I to II with an export quota or pursuant to ranching only be 
considered for Parties that are current with their annual report 
submissions.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS. HSUS 
urges that proposals to transfer species from Appendix I to II with an 
export quota or pursuant to ranching, should be considered only when 
submitted by Parties that are current with their annual report 
submissions. It also supports measures to encourage Parties to submit 
their annual report on time.
    Rationale: Each Party is required by the Convention to submit an 
annual report containing a summary of the permits it has granted, and 
the types and numbers of specimens of species in the CITES Appendices 
that it has imported and exported. Accurate report data are essential 
to measure the impact of international trade on species, and can be a 
useful enforcement tool.
4. Review of Alleged Infractions and Other Problems of Implementation 
of the Convention (Doc. 9.22)
    Negotiating Position: Support the Secretariat's review of alleged 
infractions by the Parties, and necessary and appropriate 
recommendations to obtain wider compliance with the terms of the 
Convention. Support an open discussion at COP9 of major infractions, 
and a greater emphasis by the Parties on the enforcement of the laws 
and regulations implementing the Convention.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from DOW, HSUS, 
MTSG, and Monitor. At the September 14, 1994 public meeting Monitor 
commented that the United States should make the Infractions Report a 
high priority issue. DOW commented at the same public meeting that the 
Infractions Report should be linked to a follow-up process and that a 
Law Enforcement Network should review the report and assist countries 
with problems on a regular basis. MTSG commented that infractions are 
not receiving the attention they warrant and are being discussed less 
now than in the past. DOW supports expansion of the Infractions Report. 
It recommends that the Secretariat be directed, along with the Standing 
Committee, to undertake a more extensive review process and identify 
species, countries, or areas in which infractions and/or lack of 
legislation are so great they create a presumption of non-compliance. 
The Service considers this to be a useful suggestion that it will 
pursue. HSUS supports the expanded report and urges that it be a sign 
of a new emphasis on the importance of proper implementation and 
enforcement of the Convention. The United States always gives a high 
degree of attention and priority to the discussions of the Infractions 
Report at COP's, and will continue to do so. The United States agrees 
that a Law Enforcement Network (see agenda item 7, below) could assist 
Parties with dealing with these infractions, preventing their 
occurrence in the future, and in improving compliance with requirements 
of the Convention.
    Rationale: Article XIII of the Convention provides for COP review 
of alleged infractions. The Secretariat prepares an Infractions Report 
for each COP, which details instances that the Convention is not being 
effectively implemented, or where trade is adversely affecting a 
species. The Infractions Report contains only infractions which were 
reported to the Secretariat. The first draft of the Infractions Report 
contained numerous such alleged infractions. The United States 
commented on the draft Infractions Report. A review of the alleged 
infractions indicates a great difference in the depth of the reporting 
on infractions over previous reports. The United States considers this 
to be an excellent, well- researched and well-prepared Secretariat 
document. A large number of infractions are caused by lack of training, 
lack of personnel, or lack of knowledge on the workings of CITES. The 
majority of the alleged infractions should be a major cause of concern 
to the Parties.
5. Implementation of the Convention in the European Community
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no position is possible at this time.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
6. National Laws for Implementation of the Convention (Doc. 9.24)
    Negotiating Positions: Support adoption of the report on this 
topic, submitted by the Secretariat, including the recommendations 
contained therein. The United States supports the draft Decision of the 
Conference of the Parties submitted by the Secretariat in Doc. 9.24 
concerning recommendations to the Parties on this issue.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
strongly supports the document's recommendation that strong action be 
taken against Parties in category 4 in the document, including trade 
restrictions if necessary to encourage CITES implementation.
    Rationale: The United States was strongly supportive at COP8 of a 
review of national laws for the implementation of the Convention; such 
laws are required by Article VIII of the Convention. The United States 
believes that the Convention's effectiveness is undermined when Party 
states either do not have national laws implementing the Convention, or 
have inadequate legislation; this includes laws and regulations that 
authorize seizure and/or forfeiture of specimens imported or exported 
in contravention of the Convention, and laws and regulations that 
provide appropriate penalties for such violations.
    The Secretariat contracted (with funding from the United States), 
as called for in Resolution Conf. 8.4, for analyses of national 
legislation to implement CITES. The first phase of that project 
involved analyses of legislation in 81 Parties, that had been selected 
based on high levels of trade in CITES-listed species. The Secretariat 
has developed a document that categorizes CITES-implementing 
legislation in those 81 Parties, based on the extent to which their 
national legislation provides for the implementation of the Convention. 
The United States supports recommendations in the document for 
assistance to the Parties in developing national legislation. The 
United States also supports the draft Decision of the Conference of the 
Parties (a new format for COP9), submitted by the Secretariat in Doc. 
9.24 concerning recommendations to the Parties on this issue.
7. Enforcement of the Convention (Doc. 9.25 and 9.25.1)
    Negotiating Position: Support establishment of a Law Enforcement 
Network.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from DOW, EII, 
ESP, HSUS, IWCo, SCI, and SMT Guitars. ESP commented at the September 
14, 1994 public meeting in support of the U.S. position. EII supports 
the establishment of a Law Enforcement Network, and advocates 
supporting the proposals submitted by the United Kingdom and Ghana and 
working to achieve the strongest enforcement provisions possible to 
ensure that this issue receives top priority at the COP. IWCo supports 
the U.S. position, and prefers the Ghana to the United Kingdom 
resolution. DOW also strongly supports the establishment of a Law 
Enforcement Network and the proposals submitted by the United Kingdom 
and Ghana. It argued that the proposal from Ghana could be strengthened 
by additional amendments that would (1) establish a permanent 
consultative group or committee on law enforcement; (2) establish an 
international law enforcement network and a series of regional law 
enforcement agreements and networks; (3) extend enforcement efforts by 
CITES to other international government and nongovernment entities for 
assistance; and (4) provide for expanded law enforcement initiatives in 
the budget adopted at the each COP. EII further requests that the 
United States seek internal and external financial support for 
enforcement activities both within the United States and in countries 
which lack the technical and financial means to fully implement the 
Convention. HSUS considers enforcement to be one of the most important 
issues to be discussed at COP9, and recommends that the United States 
support the Ghana resolution. The United States does indeed consider 
effective enforcement of the provisions of the Convention to be a 
critical issue, and supports establishment of a Law Enforcement 
Network. The Service continues to review strengthening amendments to 
the draft Ghana resolution submitted by HSUS, which appear 
constructive. DOW called for CITES to study the impact of trade 
agreements such as NAFTA on enforcement. SMT Guitars said that there 
should be ways to get education about CITES out to the people. SCI 
argues that while it supports strong enforcement of CITES, care must be 
taken not to institutionalize a blanket negative attitude about 
wildlife trade.
    Rationale: The Secretariat's Notification to the Parties number 776 
asked the Parties for their comments on a proposal for establishment of 
a Law Enforcement Network. The United States supported establishment of 
such a network at that time. The United States will continue its strong 
support for the provision of law enforcement training to assist Parties 
in implementing and enforcing the Convention.
    Although the Law Enforcement Network was not adopted by the 
Standing Committee, it was agreed that the Parties should discuss the 
issue at the COP. The United States considers effective enforcement of 
the Convention to be a critical element that is lacking for many 
countries, for a number of reasons, including: Lack of training, 
inadequate legislation or regulations, lack of funding, lack of 
infrastructure, and inadequate communications and networking with other 
countries and entities. The United States believes that establishment 
of a Law Enforcement Network, comparable to other committees or working 
groups established by the Parties, will begin the process of 
alleviating these deficiencies.
8. Trade in Hunting Trophies of Species Listed in Appendix I (Doc. 
9.50)
    Negotiating Position: The United States continues to support 
implementation of Resolution Conf. 2.11 by all Parties, coupled with 
recognition of the need for close consultation with other interested 
States and of any Party's right under Article XIV of the treaty to 
implement stricter domestic measures. The United States believes that 
its Scientific Authority finding, as it relates to importation of 
sport-hunted trophies, should be made after close consultation with the 
range State and with other importing States, and should take into 
consideration any assessment of national conservation programs for the 
species conducted by the Conference of the Parties or the Animals 
Committee.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from ART, HSUS, 
IAFWA, IWMC, SCI, and the NRA. ART, IAFWA, SCI, and the NRA support the 
draft resolution submitted by Namibia to amend Resolution Conf. 2.11, 
arguing that it has been used by some Parties to support duplicative 
findings by the importing country based on standards beyond those 
required by CITES and have been used to create barriers to wildlife 
use. IWMC supports the draft resolution and amendments to Conf. 2.11, 
claiming that Conf. 2.11 undermines basic principles of the Convention. 
ART advocates the sustainable use of wildlife as an important incentive 
for the conservation of wildlife. The United States agrees that the 
sustainable utilization of wildlife can be an incentive for wildlife 
conservation, whether that utilization is consumptive or non-
consumptive. HSUS stated that it opposes any action which might promote 
or simplify the requirements for the trade in hunting trophies of 
species listed in Appendix I.
    Rationale: This draft resolution, submitted by Namibia, seeks to 
amend Resolution Conf. 2.11, dealing with the international trade in 
sport-hunted trophies of species listed in Appendix I. Conf. 2.11 
established the procedure whereby the Scientific Authority of the 
importing country should have the opportunity to conduct a 
comprehensive examination concerning the question of whether the 
importation of a trophy is serving a purpose which is not detrimental 
to the survival of the species. According to Conf. 2.11, this 
examination should, if possible, also cover the question of whether the 
killing of the animals whose trophies are intended for import would 
enhance the survival of the species. Conf. 2.11 recommends that the 
scientific examination by the importing country be carried out 
independently of the result of the scientific assessment by the 
exporting country, and vice versa. Doc. 9.50 takes issue with the 
scientific examination by the importing country, as regards both non-
detriment to the species, and enhancement of its survival. It maintains 
that some countries have used this recommendation in Conf. 2.11 to 
refuse to allow imports of hunting trophies that are already approved 
by the range State. Doc. 9.50 would amend Conf. 2.11 so that the 
``Scientific Authority of the importing country accept the finding of 
the Scientific Authority of the exporting country as to whether or not 
the exportation of the hunting trophy is detrimental to the survival of 
the species, and limit its examination to the purpose to which the 
specimen will be put, and whether it is lawfully taken. The Service 
notes that Article III of the treaty requires separate findings by the 
exporting and importing countries. The Service also notes that Conf. 
2.11 was discussed and adopted in 1976 at COP2 in Costa Rica (after 
having been introduced by Germany), because many parties felt that 
Appendix I hunting trophy imports should be prohibited altogether, 
considering that all such trade is detrimental to the species, while 
others allowed them. The United States, Germany, Botswana, South 
Africa, Zambia, and the IUCN maintained that culling of Appendix I 
species might sometimes be necessary and so trade in trophies could be 
allowed if it was shown that ``such culling could enhance the survival 
of the species.'' COP2 agreed to adopt the enhancement requirement. The 
United States acknowledges that the enhancement question was discussed 
at the Plenipotentiary meeting, and COP3 and COP8, but expressly 
disagrees that the issue was rejected by the Parties at any of these 
meetings.
    The Service continues to support Conf. 2.11, but looks forward to 
working with exporting countries and other importing countries 
interested in facilitating sport hunting of species listed in Appendix 
I, to share management and scientific information in such a way as to 
expedite issuance of permits that meet the necessary requirements, 
based on national plans which address conservation of species and their 
habitats. The Service also continues to reserve the right, as does any 
Party, to impose stricter domestic measures, particularly for species 
listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
9. Exports of Leopard Hunting Trophies and Skins (Doc. 9.26)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports adoption of this 
Secretariat document, and the recommendations contained therein, 
including a draft amendment to Resolution Conf. 8.10 regarding 
compliance with reporting requirements.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from SCI and HSUS. 
SCI argues that reasonable quotas should be continued, and all Parties 
should be encouraged to accept trade that is within the quotas and not 
use stricter domestic measures. It maintains that this sustainable use 
of wildlife generates significant conservation benefits. HSUS opposes 
any actions which might promote or simplify the requirements for the 
trade in leopard trophies or skins. It supports remedial measures being 
taken against Parties that have exceeded leopard trophy export quotas 
approved by the Parties.
    Rationale: The Service has supported previous resolutions providing 
for the importation of leopard skins (Panthera pardus), including 
hunting trophies, under a quota system approved by the COP. However, 
although the United States supports the concept of such quotas, the 
listing of some populations as endangered under the U.S. Endangered 
Species Act and concerns about management capabilities in countries 
involved in civil wars, has precluded the issuance of permits to some 
countries with CITES-adopted quotas. Trade in leopard skins for 
noncommercial purposes is allowed under CITES Resolution Conf. 8.10, 
which recognizes killing in defense of life and property and to enhance 
the survival of the species. The United States notes that the 
Secretariat's paper on this topic provides a very good presentation of 
the issue. The Secretariat's report discusses the use of export quotas 
for leopards involving 11 African countries; some countries have not 
complied with the reporting requirements of Conf. 8.10. The Secretariat 
has submitted a draft amendment to Conf. 8.10 regarding compliance with 
these reporting requirements, which the Service supports.
10. Interpretation and Application of Quotas (Doc. 9.51)
    Negotiating Position: The United States believes that properly 
managed harvest programs, including sport-hunting programs of non-
endangered species that provide for the sustainable management of the 
utilized species and long-term preservation of its habitat benefit the 
wildlife species and the people protecting the resource. The United 
States also recognizes that CITES provides for Parties to establish 
stricter domestic measures, such as provided in the U.S. Endangered 
Species Act, and that in-country changes affecting the management of 
the hunted species may alter previous assessments of the Parties. In 
addition the United States is concerned about the reporting omissions 
discussed in other documents submitted by the CITES Secretariat and 
supports corrective steps. Nevertheless, the United States will 
endeavor to recognize quotas adopted by the Parties after an 
appropriate review process. The United States envisions that this 
process should involve review of national conservation programs for the 
affected species in those countries requesting specific export quotas. 
These reviews should include an assessment by the CITES Animals 
Committee not only of the population status of the hunted species, 
management regimes, and enforcement capabilities, but also habitat 
protection efforts. Based on this assessment, the Committee would 
recommend to the Parties appropriate biologically-based quotas.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from ART, IAFWA, 
IWMC, SCI and the NRA which support the draft resolution submitted by 
Namibia. ART, IAFWA, SCI, and the NRA maintain that this draft 
resolution is a confirmation of the majority practices of CITES Parties 
that once quotas are set they should be honored by the importing 
countries as well as the exporting countries. They maintain that this 
resolution deals with critical aspects of sustainable use and the 
conservation and development benefits for Third World communities. IWMC 
recommends adoption of the draft resolution, and recommends that 
Parties not wishing to accept the quotas set up by the COP express 
their position at the COP to be recorded in the Proceedings.
    Rationale: This draft resolution, submitted by Namibia, refers to 
export quotas that have been adopted by the meeting of the Conference 
of the Parties (COP), for Appendix I species. The draft resolution 
proposes that the Scientific Authority of the importing country accept 
the quota approved by the COP as satisfying the requirement that the 
import will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. The 
draft resolution therefore proposes that the quotas adopted by the COP 
serve in lieu of an independent importing country non-detriment 
finding. No resolution can remove the obligation of the Parties to make 
independent Scientific Authority findings under the plain language of 
Article III, Paragraph 3(a) of CITES. Certainly the adoption of quotas 
by the COP would be considered as persuasive information for the U.S. 
Scientific Authority as it determines whether the import of an Appendix 
I trophy would be for purposes that are detrimental to the survival of 
the species, provided such quotas were based on national conservation 
programs clearly showing benefit to the species. However, if the United 
States encounters a situation where hunting pursuant to a previously 
acceptable quota has in its judgement become detrimental to the 
species, it will enter into consultations with the affected range 
State, other importing countries, and the CITES Animals or Standing 
Committees (as appropriate), to communicate its concerns and seek 
resolution of the problems.
11. Trade in Specimens of Species Transferred to Appendix II Subject to 
Annual Export Quotas (Doc.9.27)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports adoption of this 
Secretariat document, and the recommendations and observations 
contained therein.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: This agenda item involves a Secretariat report 
discussing compliance with provisions of quota systems approved by the 
Conference of the Parties pursuant to Resolution Conf. 7.14, for 
crocodilians and Scleropages formosus. Under export quotas approved by 
the COP, Parties are required to submit special reports to the 
Secretariat; the document discusses these special reports and 
compliance with the export quotas for 10 countries (Ethiopia, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Congo, and 
Indonesia).
12. Trade in Rhinoceros Specimens (Doc. 9.28)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports decisions of the 
Standing Committee that illegal trade in rhinoceros specimens 
undermines the effectiveness of CITES. The United States continues to 
support decisions of previous meetings of the Conference of the Parties 
and the Standing Committee regarding rhinoceros conservation and trade 
in rhinoceros horn.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and SCI. 
HSUS strongly supports the Service's general comments on this issue and 
agrees that the illegal trade in rhino parts is undermining the 
effectiveness of CITES. It urges the United States to oppose any 
attempts to weaken previously passed resolutions condemning the rhino 
horn trade, such as Conf. 6.10, and urges the United States to oppose 
proposals that would encourage rhinoceros trade. SCI argues that while 
trade in rhinoceros specimens is a serious problem, too much emphasis 
is being placed on trade bans as solutions to this problem; it urges 
Parties to seek more innovative solutions. The United States is 
supportive of innovative solutions and partnerships designed to 
eliminate illegal trade in rhinoceros specimens and benefit the 
conservation of rhinoceros populations in the wild, as long as those 
solutions are consistent with the requirements of the treaty.
    Rationale: This document is a report of the Secretariat discussing 
the status of rhinoceros populations, and the threat to their 
populations from poaching pressure for their horn to supply the 
international illegal trade in traditional medicines and dagger 
handles. The report reviews measures taken by the Standing Committee 
and activities of the Animals Committee between COP8 and COP9 regarding 
trade in rhinoceros horn, including decisions of the 29th, 30th, and 
31st meetings of the Standing Committee. The report summarizes 
activities of technical assistance and high-level delegations regarding 
efforts to eliminate the illegal trade in rhinoceros horn. The report 
also discusses activities of the United Nations Environment Programme 
(UNEP), including the Lusaka Agreement on Cooperative Enforcement 
Operations Directed at International Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and 
Flora, and the UNEP Elephant and Rhinoceros Conservation Facility. The 
report also discusses measures taken by China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, 
Zambia (as relates to the Lusaka Agreement), and the United States (as 
relates to the Pelly Amendment). The United States continues to be an 
advocate for strong enforcement of the Convention, and use of all 
possible measures to encourage countries to effectively implement the 
Convention. The United States continues to support decisions of the 
Standing Committee that illegal trade in rhinoceros specimens 
undermines the effectiveness of CITES.
13. Conservation of Rhinoceros in Asia and Africa (Doc. 9.35)
    Negotiating Position: The United States continues to be supportive 
of efforts to benefit the conservation of rhinoceros species in Asia 
and Africa, especially those that address trade in rhinoceros specimens 
in contravention of the Convention. Oppose any resolution that 
contradicts the requirements of the Convention. Oppose any text 
advocating commercialization of rhinoceros horn stockpiles.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS. It 
urges the United States to oppose Doc. 9.35, which they believe would 
greatly weaken CITES' resolve to eliminate the rhinoceros horn trade. 
It opposes the repeal of Resolutions Conf. 3.11 and 6.10 called for in 
Doc. 9.35.
    Rationale: The United States continues to be supportive of efforts 
to benefit the conservation of rhinoceros species in Asia and Africa, 
while opposing any measures that contradict the requirements of the 
Convention or might lead to the commercialization of rhinoceros parts 
or products. The United States is highly supportive of efforts by major 
consumer states to ban the importation and sale of rhinoceros parts and 
products, and to cooperate in enforcement efforts.
14. Trade in Tiger Specimens (Doc. 9.29)
    Negotiating Position: Support all possible measures to encourage 
countries to effectively implement the Convention with regard to trade 
in Tiger Specimens. Encourage discussion of cooperative efforts to 
benefit tiger conservation.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and SCI. 
HSUS supports the U.S. position. SCI supports control of the illegal 
trade in tiger specimens, but feels that too much emphasis is being 
placed on trade bans as a solution to conservation problems. It calls 
on the Parties to seek other, more innovative solutions. The United 
States is supportive of innovative solutions and partnerships designed 
to eliminate illegal trade in tiger specimens and benefit the 
conservation of tigers in the wild, as long as those solutions are 
consistent with the requirements of the treaty.
    Rationale: The United States continues to be an advocate for strong 
enforcement of the Convention, and use of all possible measures to 
encourage countries to effectively implement the Convention. The United 
States continues to support decisions of the Standing Committee that 
illegal trade in tiger specimens undermines the effectiveness of CITES.
    The tiger (Panthera tigris) has been included in CITES Appendix I 
since CITES entered into force in 1975. Nevertheless, its numbers have 
continued to decline due to persistent poaching and smuggling to supply 
the illegal markets, mainly for traditional medicines. The first 
meeting of tiger range States on the conservation of the tiger was held 
March 3-4, 1994 in New Delhi, India. The meeting established an 
international framework for the conservation of tiger, the ``Global 
Tiger Forum''. The Global Tiger Forum produced a mission statement (see 
Annex, Doc. 9.29) calling for worldwide attention to and cooperation 
for the conservation of the species.
    The United States is facilitating the presentation at COP9 of a 
special program by the Government of India at COP9, dealing with the 
conservation crisis facing the tiger.
15. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat
    Negotiating Position: Trade for primarily commercial purposes in 
specimens of species listed in Appendix I by a non-reserving Party is 
in Contravention of the requirements of the Convention. Any commercial 
trade in parts and products of Appendix I species undermines the 
effectiveness of the Convention.
    The United States supports a discussion at the COP of illegal trade 
in species of whales listed in Appendix I of CITES. The United States 
recommends discussion of the following recommendations at COP9, and 
their possible adoption as Decisions of the Conference of Parties: (1) 
Encourage IWC to continue to cooperate with CITES Parties and the CITES 
Secretariat; (2) Reaffirmation by the CITES Parties of their support 
for the IWC moratoria on commercial whaling; and (3) Urge IWC to 
continue to explore the issue of illegal trade in whale meat, and ask 
it to report to both the CITES Standing Committee in one year and the 
tenth meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (COP10) on any 
developments regarding this issue.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from Japan, CMC, 
ESP, HSUS, and Monitor. Monitor stated (at the public meeting) that 
there is a huge market for whale meat in Japan. ESP (at the public 
meeting) supported this agenda item for discussion at COP9 and stated 
that it is crucial to develop some sort of monitoring scheme. CMC and 
HSUS supports the U.S. position, particularly in the recommendation 
that IWC and CITES cooperate and share information about this trade, 
and that IWC explore the issue and report back to CITES on any 
developments. CMC states that Japan has not address its obligations on 
whales, due to its reservations and lack of compliance with Conf. 4.25; 
CMC urges IWC to develop a certificate or origin for all whales taken 
at sea.
    Japan considers that IWC has all relevant information pertaining to 
this topic, and that it is more appropriate for IWC to discuss this 
issue than for CITES. Japan objects to the inclusion of this item on 
the COP9 agenda; the United States disagrees. The United States notes 
that IWC adopted a resolution (IWC/46/61) entitled ``Resolution on 
International Trade in Whale Meat and Products'', which: (1) Recognized 
that IWC has called upon CITES to take all possible measures to support 
the IWC ban on commercial whaling for certain species of whales; (2) 
discussed other past decisions of the CITES Conference of the Parties; 
(3) noted that all stocks of whales for which IWC has zero catch limits 
are listed in CITES Appendix I; and (4) called upon IWC members to 
strictly enforce their existing international obligations under both 
IWC and CITES. CITES is the international treaty dealing with trade in 
wild fauna and flora, and therefore, the United States considers it 
appropriate to discuss trade in whale meat during a meeting of the 
CITES Conference of the Parties.
    Rationale: The United States requested that this item be included 
on the agenda for COP9. There was extensive discussion at the May, 1994 
meeting in Mexico 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 was adopted by IWC (introduced by the United 
States and other Parties) on this topic, and 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 United States is concerned that illegal trade in 
whale meat undermines the effectiveness of CITES for whale species, and 
submitted a paper on this topic for discussion at COP9. Several IWC 
member countries raised concerns at the IWC meeting that it was 
inappropriate to discuss trade in whale specimens outside of CITES. The 
United States believes that a CITES COP is the appropriate venue for 
such discussions, while reaffirming the current efforts of IWC 
regarding illegal trade of whale meat.
16. Trade in Shark Products
    Negotiating Position: Encourage discussion of how best to collect 
data on international trade in shark parts and products, particularly 
how to document catches by species; and (2) to collect data that will 
provide the best information about the possible impact of international 
trade (including introduction from the sea) in shark parts and products 
on both shark populations and the ecosystems of which they are a part.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from Japan, CMC, 
HSUS, and MTSG. HSUS supports the U.S. position and its recommendation 
that the Animals Committee review the trade in sharks and shark 
products between COP9 and COP10 and assess the biological and trade 
status of shark species traded internationally. CMC encourages the COP 
to provide an opportunity for leadership in international shark 
management and urges the United States to encourage comprehensive 
global data collection on sharks. CMC urges the Parties to ask IUCN, 
rather than the Animals Committee, to review the international trade in 
shark parts and products, between COP9 and COP10. MTSG inquired at the 
public meeting whether there has been consideration of developing a 
resolution on sharks. The United States prefers to have a discussion of 
the issue that will lead to a possible Decision of the Conference of 
the Parties, and direction being given to the Animals Committee to 
explore options to collect data on trade in shark parts and products. 
Japan agrees that there is need for more data regarding trade in 
sharks, but objects to inclusion of this item on the agenda because: 
(1) Sharks are not listed in the CITES Appendices, claiming that there 
is no precedent for such a discussion; (2) shark management should be 
promoted through regional and international fishery management 
organizations which have competence; (3) funds are not available for 
this issue; and (4) CITES Parties already face excessive workloads, and 
the Parties cannot require data collection through a Decision of the 
COP. Japan prefers that this issue be discussed by ICCAT or FAO. The 
United States does not wish to have a discussion of shark management, 
but rather wishes to facilitate a discussion at the COP of ways to 
collect data on trade in shark parts and products. The United States 
notes that there are, at this time, no regional or international 
organizations with competence for shark management. CITES is the treaty 
dealing with international trade in wildlife parts and products, and is 
therefore an appropriate venue for such a discussion. Furthermore, the 
United States believes that precedent does exist for discussion of non-
CITES species, and that authority for such discussion is to be found 
both in the Convention and in Resolutions of the Conference of the 
Parties.
    Rationale: The United States requested that this item be included 
on the agenda for COP9, and submitted a paper to the CITES Secretariat 
for discussion. The United States requests in the paper it submitted on 
this topic that this agenda item be renamed ``Trade in Shark Parts and 
Products'', in order to more accurately frame the debate. It is not the 
intent of that document to discuss shark management regimes, including 
catch quotas, minimum sizes, time and area closures, or gear 
restrictions.
    As was discussed in the January 27, 1994 Federal Register notice, 
the United States considered whether or not to submit a proposal to 
COP9 to include several taxa (families or genera) of sharks in Appendix 
II. There is limited information about a recent increase in 
international trade in shark parts and products, particularly in fins 
for the food market. The United States considered there to be 
insufficient biological and trade data on which to base a listing 
proposal. The United States believes that this is an important issue 
for the Parties to discuss.
    The intent of the United States in asking that this issue be 
discussed by the Conference of the Parties is twofold: (1) To encourage 
discussion of how best to collect data on international trade in shark 
parts and products, particularly how to document catches by species; 
and (2) to promote the collection of data that will provide the best 
information about the possible impact of international trade (including 
introduction from the sea) in shark parts and products on both shark 
populations and the ecosystems on which they depend.
17. Trade in Plant Secimens
    (a) Nursery registration for artificially propagated Appendix I 
species (Doc. 9.30). Negotiating Position: Oppose establishment of a 
registration system, as proposed in the draft resolution, within the 
CITES Secretariat for plant nurseries artificially propagating 
specimens of species included in Appendix I. The United States supports 
a system that would improve the credibility of the existing system for 
determining which plant specimens are artificially propagated.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from COGG, 
Grigsby, PA, AOS, CCGA, Mr. John de Kanel and Mr. Gary Lyons. All these 
commenters opposed the draft CITES resolution and support the U.S. 
position. The commenters feel that the proposal is unworkable, 
burdensome, and illegal in its content. The commenters felt that most 
CITES Parties, particularly developing countries, do not have the 
resources to implement a nursery registration program. They also 
maintain that CITES should not attempt to regulate trade in 
``domestic'' or artificially propagated plants or the domestic 
activities of individuals or businesses. They further argued that 
nursery registration will not impact the illegal trade in Appendix I 
plants and that there are no recognizable benefits to plant 
conservation or trade control from nursery registration. They also 
argue that annual inspections and inventory requirements under a 
nursery registration program are impossible for growers to meet. COGG 
and CCGA argued that all artificially propagated specimens of Appendix 
I species should be traded as Appendix II plants, either with Appendix 
II permits or with a phytosanitary certificate being considered as an 
Appendix II permit as long as a statement of artificial propagation 
accompanies the phytosanitary certificate.
    Rationale: The registration system proposed in this draft 
resolution is complex and would be costly to implement by many Parties. 
Furthermore, it may place too much of a burden with nurseries 
themselves in determining what constitutes artificially propagated 
specimens, and thereby be counterproductive. The current draft of this 
resolution is an improvement over previous versions.
    (b) Revision of the consolidated Resolution (Doc. 9.31). 
Negotiating Position: Support Doc. 9.31 Annex 1, on salvage, if 
amended, to exclude direct import to registered nurseries. Support 
Annex 2, on education, with some modifications. Only support Annex 3 on 
nursery registration if amended to separately indicate those nurseries 
trading in both wild-collected and artificially propagated plants and 
those dealing only in the latter. Oppose deletion of Conf. 5.15(b) 
(licensing).
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: Doc. 9.31 Annex, No. 1 would allow the import of 
salvaged specimens for commercial propagation directly to registered 
nurseries. The key issue is whether salvaged wild specimens can be 
imported for propagation purposes, with only the artificially 
propagated offspring to be used for commercial purposes. Registering 
nurseries as in Doc. 9.30 (see above) does not appear to be a 
practicable solution. Instead, allowing such propagation by 
collaboration of the commercial nursery with an importing botanical 
garden or scientific institution would provide a feasible system. 
Regarding nursery registration and licensing, the United States opposes 
the deletion of Conf. 5.15(a). The United States agrees with the need 
not to penalize nurseries trading appropriately in wild specimens, but 
for enforcement purposes, it is necessary to distinguish between those 
nurseries that deal in wild-collected and artificially propagated 
specimens and those that deal only in the latter.
    (c) Standard reference for Orchidaceae. Negotiating Position: No 
document has been received from the CITES Secretariat. The United 
States supports continued work toward a standard reference for traded 
orchid species, but believes that the financial commitment for such a 
compendium should be considered from external funding.
    (d) Implementation of the Convention for timber species (Doc. 
9.52). Negotiating Position: The United States supports the 
establishment of a Timber Species Working Group of the CITES Plants 
Committee. This Working Group would review the need and scope for 
modification of current administrative practices specific to the 
implementation of listings for timber species.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The United States notes that the provisions of CITES 
apply to all species of wild fauna and flora, including tree species 
used as timber; some timber species are already listed in the CITES 
Appendices. CITES' purview is in addition to the fact that the trade in 
timber species may also come under the competence of another 
international treaty, convention, or agreement. Approximately 18 timber 
species are listed in CITES Appendices I, II, and III. There has been 
some listing activity with such species at nearly every COP, from 1973-
1992. At COP8, four species were included in the Appendices for the 
first time: one species was added to Appendix I (Brazilian rosewood), 
and three were added to Appendix II. There is increasing attention 
being paid by the CITES Parties to commercially significant timbers.
    Some complexities and the scale of the timber trade provide unique 
concerns to the CITES Parties in terms of the following: (1) 
Identification of products in trade; (2) pre-Convention concerns for 
species included in Appendix I (e.g. with heavily traded guitars); and 
(3) debate on what parts and derivatives should be excluded for 
Appendix II. Doc. 9.52 recommends the establishment of a small Working 
Group with both timber-trade and CITES expertise represented and a 
clear mandate to: (1) Review progress; and (2) consider what further 
action may be required to facilitate the Convention's future 
contribution to timber-species conservation. This document recommends 
that the Working Group be under the direction of the Standing 
Committee. The United States agrees with the CITES Secretariat in 
supporting the establishment of such a Working Group under the auspices 
of the Plants Committee.
    (e) Ramin (Gonystylus bancanus) (Doc. 9.53). Negotiating Position: 
The United States supports cooperation in examining the issue of ramin 
(Gonystylus spp.) trade by interested Parties and Non-governmental 
Organizations (NGO'S) through a working group under the leadership of 
the Asian Regional Representative of the CITES Plants Committee. The 
United States opposes the recommendation as worded in Doc. 9.53, p.2.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The recommendation is appropriate in calling for 
cooperative work by the range States and the importing States on 
whether and/or how ramin should be listed. The United States feels the 
recommendation is inappropriate, however, in asking the Parties to 
decide that the species needs conservation attention, and that it will 
qualify for either Appendix II or for Appendix III; the latter is a 
national judgment.
18. Significant Trade in Appendix II Species (Doc. 9.34)
    Negotiating Position: The United States continues its long-standing 
support for the continued focus of the Parties on Appendix II species 
identified as subject to significant trade and the proper 
implementation of Article IV, as critical to the implementation of the 
treaty and species conservation. Support the provision of funding for 
the coordination and implementation of significant trade study 
projects, with oversight by the Animals, Plants, and Standing 
Committees. The United States supports extension of the significant 
trade process to species of plants listed in Appendix II.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and DOW. 
HSUS supports the Service's general comments and strongly supports the 
continuation of the Resolution Conf. 8.9 process. DOW concurs with the 
U.S. support for the continued review of Appendix II species identified 
as subject to significant trade and the proper implementation of 
Article IV.
    Rationale: This topic refers to the trade in those Appendix II 
species identified as subject to significant trade, for which a review 
is necessary to determine if there exists sufficient biological 
information to warrant trade at current levels. Many of these species 
may have been traded at levels detrimental to their survival. The CITES 
Parties have provided funds to the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and 
the Conservation Monitoring Centre to assess priorities in studying 
these species. The United States has provided funds for field projects 
involving several of these species.
    This process has worked effectively since COP8, with the 
implementation of Conf. 8.9. The Animals and Standing Committees have 
taken a very active role in this process, with net benefit for the 
conservation of some species and for improvements in the implementation 
of the Convention. The United States supports continuation of this 
process, for both animals and plants, with a high priority being placed 
on implementation of studies by Parties, scientific assessments, 
development of management plans, implementation of scientifically-based 
quotas when appropriate, and effective implementation of CITES Article 
IV. The United States also looks forward to working with the Animals 
Committee, at COP9 and in the future, to include coral species subject 
to high levels of international trade, in the significant trade review 
process. Resolution Conf. 8.9 referred to animal species only, but 
extension of this useful process to plant species listed in Appendix II 
will facilitate effective implementation of CITES Article IV.
19. Standardization of CITES Permits and Certificates (Doc. 9.38, Annex 
1 and 2)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports some of the 
provisions of the current proposal, but considers others to be 
impractical, burdensome, or unenforceable.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: The United States strongly supports a standardized CITES 
form for permits and certificates. However, the new proposed form has 
several provisions that are of concern. The United States would like to 
see the form simplified while still providing information and security 
measures necessary to ensure the legal movement of wildlife and plants.
20. Non-commercial Samples of Skins (Doc. 9.37)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports exploration of 
ways to facilitate legitimate trade in CITES-listed species that are in 
compliance with the provisions of the treaty, while noting that 
international trade in skin samples is commercial.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS. It 
urges the United States to oppose any attempt to weaken the treaty by 
simplifying the international trade in non-commercial samples of skins.
    Rationale: CITES monitors trade in listed species to ensure that it 
is in compliance with the provisions of the treaty. The Parties have 
encouraged the ranching and farming of a number of species, 
particularly crocodilians; this has resulted in significant progress in 
protecting certain species and in species' recovery. The United States 
supports efforts to monitor and facilitate trade in ranched specimens. 
The United States supports setting up a system to allow skin samples to 
be transported to or through any CITES Party with a minimum of delay, 
and looks forward to discussing this with the Parties at COP9.
21. Marking of Crocodilian Specimens (Doc. 9.36)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports a tagging 
requirement for all Crocodilian species before being allowed to be 
traded by CITES Parties, if it is enforceable and practicable, 
regardless of any reservations by any CITES Party.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS and 
IWMC. HSUS commented that it supports improvements in the marking of 
crocodile skins as an aid to enforcement. IWMC supports the draft 
resolution of the Animals Committee.
    Rationale: At COP8, the United States and Australia jointly 
submitted a resolution to require the skins of all crocodilian species 
to be tagged before being allowed to be traded by CITES Parties 
(whether or not a reservation has been entered by a Party). The 
resolution that was adopted, Conf. 8.14, established the framework for 
a system of universal marking for all crocodilian skins in trade, as a 
response to serious problems of illegal trade in crocodilian skins, 
parts, and products. The Animals Committee was charged with setting up 
the system for the Parties. Due to problems with implementation of 
portions of Conf. 8.14, the Animals Committee has prepared a draft 
revision of Conf. 8.14.
22. Transport of Live Specimens (9.39)
    Negotiating Position: Support the adoption by the COP of the report 
of the Chair of the Working Group on the Transport of Live Specimens 
(TWG). The United States will support the provision of time near the 
beginning of the first week of COP9 for those interested in the TWG to 
meet and discuss transport issues, prior to full discussion in 
Committee II. The United States will remain an active participant in 
the TWG, and with all aspects of the transport of live wild animals. 
The Service agrees with the Chair of the TWG that unless the Parties 
take these matters seriously, and put resources into the TWG, the TWG 
should not be continued. The United States supports continuation of the 
Transport Working Group in some form, with a key emphasis on training.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from EIA and HSUS. 
EIA commented at the public meeting that little progress had been made 
by the CITES Parties in improving the transport of live animals, and 
urged that the United States seek greater implementation of transport 
requirements by CITES Parties, and greater enforcement of CITES 
transport requirements. HSUS commended the Service for its work to 
improve the conditions for the transport of live specimens and 
recognized the strong leadership of the Chair of the Working Group, Dr. 
Susan Lieberman. It urged the United States to support the elevation of 
the Transport Working Group to Committee level so that it can receive 
proper funding.
    Rationale: Dr. Susan Lieberman of the Service's Office of 
Management Authority has served as Chair of the TWG since COP8. Copies 
of all reports of the Chair of the TWG to the Standing Committee are 
available on request, including the Terms of Reference of the TWG. The 
Chair submitted a report to the Standing Committee Chair and to the 
Secretariat, for transmission to the Parties and discussion at COP9. 
That report makes recommendations for the future of the TWG. The 
Service fully supports the report, and recommends its adoption, while 
looking forward to an active discussion among the Parties at COP9 of 
budgetary and other recommendations in the report. Those budgetary 
recommendations would facilitate increased training efforts and greater 
involvement of exporting Parties in TWG activities and deliberations, 
which the Service supports. The Service supports the provision of time 
near the beginning of the first week of COP9 for those interested in 
the TWG to meet and discuss transport issues, prior to full discussion 
in Committee II. Several past participants in TWG activities have 
inquired as to whether such a meeting of the TWG would be possible; the 
Service believes that it would be in the best interest of CITES 
implementation and of the transport of live animals.
    The humane transport of live wild animals remains a significant 
concern of the United States. The TWG's Terms of Reference with the 
Standing Committee include working to improve implementation of the 
Convention and relevant resolutions, training, improvement of 
international standards, coordination with the International Air 
Transport Association Live Animals Board, and the transport of live 
wild birds. The Service believes that improvements have been made in 
the conditions under which live CITES-listed species are transported, 
while recognizing that there remains much room for improvement. The 
report notes that in order to become a truly functioning Working Group, 
the TWG must have: (1) Regional Representation; (2) Decision-making by 
Parties; (3) Rules of Procedure as for the other committees; and (4) 
funding from the core budget. The Service does not recommend an 
increase in the Secretariat's Budget to support activities of the TWG; 
rather, the Service agrees that the Parties should discuss the three 
options identified in the Chair's report for the future of the TWG: (1) 
Establish a new permanent committee dealing with live animals issues; 
this would require re-programming from the Budget, possibly from the 
Nomenclature and Identification Manual Committee; or (2) Dissolve the 
Transport Working Group, and retain only a Transport Representative to 
the Standing Committee; or (3) retain the current arrangement, 
depending upon volunteers and external funding.
23. Implementation of Article XIV, Paragraphs 4 and 5 (Doc. 9.40)
    Negotiating Position: Support adoption of the resolution submitted 
by the United States, which deals with the implementation of Article 
XIV, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Convention.
    Information and Comments: Japan, CMC and HSUS commented on this 
issue. Japan supports the U.S. resolution in principle, but recommends 
several revisions. Japan believes that the draft resolution runs 
counter to the movement within CITES to pursue stricter enforcement of 
permit issuance. The United States is concerned with this 
interpretation of the draft resolution, and looks forward to discussing 
these concerns with Japan and other Parties at the COP. HSUS supports 
the U.S. position. CMC is concerned that the U.S. draft resolution is 
being discussed without a proposal to include a marine species in 
Appendix II being discussed at the same Conference, and that given the 
time that is to be focussed on other issues at COP9, Parties will not 
be able to give it sufficient attention; CMC thus urges the United 
States to withdraw this resolution.
    Rationale: The U.S. goal in submitting this resolution is to 
clarify how an Appendix II listing could be implemented expeditiously 
for a marine species whose management is under the competency of a pre-
existing treaty.
    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, if it is 
listed in any CITES Appendix, international trade and introduction from 
the sea in the species is regulated by CITES.
    CITES anticipated such situations when the treaty was written. 
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.
    This relief from CITES obligations does not apply to specimens of 
species included in Appendix I. For example, several whale species are 
managed under the competence of the International Convention for the 
Regulation of Whaling, but all those species are listed in Appendix I.
    Currently no marine species whose management is under the 
competence of another treaty, convention, or agreement is listed in 
Appendix II (with the exception of the West Greenland stock of 
Balaenoptera acutorostrata). The United States does not believe that 
this provision of the Convention in Article XIV has been used, and 
standards for its implementation have not been developed. The United 
States 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 resolution provides 
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 are only an option for CITES 
Parties that are also parties to the other treaty, convention, or 
agreement.
24. Disposal of Confiscated Live Animals (Doc. 9.55)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports the intent to 
establish uniform guidelines for the Parties on how to deal with 
confiscated live animals that will benefit both the welfare of the 
individual animals and the conservation of the species in the wild, 
while working to make minor modifications to the proposed guidelines.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from HSUS, which 
urges the United States to support the resolution. It is especially 
supportive of the resolution's call for Parties to have a plan of 
action for the short- and long-term care of confiscated live animals. 
It urges the United States to support changes to the resolution 
including: (1) A recognition that animals should be returned to the 
wild when its beneficial to conservation efforts and is in the best 
interest of the welfare of the animal; and (2) confiscated Appendix II 
specimens should not be sold to research facilities.
    Rationale: This issue was discussed at the Animals Committee, and 
the Animals Committee prepared a draft resolution on this issue. The 
Service is supportive of uniform guidelines for the Parties on how to 
deal with confiscated live animals, that will benefit both the welfare 
of the individual animals and the conservation of their species in the 
wild. The Service is supportive of such guidelines, to the extent they 
are consistent with U.S. law. The Service is concerned about the risk 
of introduction of disease to wild populations from confiscated live 
animals being considered for reintroduction programs. The Service 
believes that transport and handling concerns for live animals should 
be coordinated with the Working Group on the Transport of Live Animals.
    Interest in what Parties should do with confiscated specimens, 
particularly live animals, goes back to the drafting of the Convention. 
The re-export of Appendix II specimens does not require a Scientific 
Authority finding. The Parties have spoken quite clearly on the issue 
of return of confiscated specimens to the country of origin, when 
feasible.
25. Disposal of Skins of Illegal Origin
    Negotiating Position: No document has been received from the CITES 
Secretariat; no position is possible at this time.
26. New Criteria for Amendment of Appendices I and II (Doc. 9.41, Annex 
4, 9.41.1, 9.41.2)
    Negotiating Position: Support adoption of the alternative Annexes 
submitted by the United States on this issue, rather than those 
prepared by the Standing Committee (as pertain to Annexes 1 and 2 of 
the draft resolution). The United States basically supports the other 
annexes of the Standing Committee resolution.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from Japan, 
Alaska, CIEL, CMC, DOW, EIA, HSUS, IWMC, IWCo, NRA, NRDC, SCI, WMI, and 
WWF. Japan supports adoption of the Standing Committee draft 
resolution, and supports inclusion of numerical criteria. IWMC, NRA, 
WMI and SCI oppose the alternative Annexes submitted by the United 
States, call for their withdrawal, and urge support of those prepared 
by the Standing Committee. SCI and WMI argue that the criteria proposed 
by the United States are not actual criteria, and claims that the U.S. 
proposal uses undefined scientific terms with a subjective and ill-
defined process. NRA claims that the U.S. proposal does not provide 
objectivity, and are too arbitrary. NRA also objects to the inclusion 
of ecological extinction in the definition of ``threatened with 
extinction'' in the U.S. proposal. WMI supports the criteria prepared 
by the Standing Committee and recommends that they be adopted on a 
four-year provisional basis and used as the criteria for evaluating new 
listing proposals. WMI argues that listing determinations should be 
provisional until these criteria can be further validated. SCI 
recommends that the Standing Committee paper be used as a basis for 
further negotiations in which: (1) Appendix I should become a list of 
those species in danger of extinction in the near future; (2) Appendix 
II is a list of species in trade and threatened with extinction in the 
foreseeable future; (3) quotas should be employed as a mechanism to 
allow trade and to recognize the benefits of use; and (4) the use of 
``look-alike'' listings should be severely limited. The United States 
supports the utilization of quotas in the transfer of species from 
Appendix I to II, on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, Appendix I 
includes not only species that are endangered, but also species that 
are threatened with extinction. Appendix II includes species that may 
become threatened if trade is not regulated, and cannot be limited to 
species that will be threatened in the foreseeable future.
    Alaska opposes the alternative Annexes submitted by the United 
States, urges their withdrawal, and support for the draft criteria 
prepared by IUCN and amended by the Standing Committee. It argues 
against the U.S. proposal as not providing any additional ``criteria'' 
or biological precision that will assist the listing process. While it 
recognizes the importance of providing adequate flexibility for those 
taxa which do not fit a process involving numerical guidelines, it 
calls for a compromise that separates the appropriate flora or fauna 
into applicable categories.
    The United States, in response to the above commenters, notes that 
the alternative Annexes 1 and 2 that it submitted are indeed criteria, 
although they are not numerical thresholds. The United States notes 
that a criterion, as defined in Webster's Dictionary, is a ``standard 
by which a judgment is based.'' The United States considers its 
alternative Annexes 1 and 2 to be legitimate, scientifically-based, 
useful standards by which to make a judgment as to whether or not to 
include a species in Appendix I. The United States considers the 
arbitrary numerical cut-offs in the Standing Committee document to be 
unfounded scientifically, and not found in the peer-reviewed scientific 
literature. IWMC recommends that the U.S. proposal be rejected, and 
criticizes the United States for preparing the document outside of the 
framework established for development of the criteria. The United 
States notes that the final document prepared by the Standing Committee 
was not available to it or the other Parties until after the June 10, 
1994 deadline for submission of draft resolutions for consideration at 
COP9, and preparation of such a draft resolution is within the U.S. 
rights as a Party to the Convention. IWMC recommends adoption of the 
Standing Committee version, with modifications.
    CMC supports the proposal submitted by the United States, while 
also noting that although the Standing Committee proposal is an 
improvement, it continues to reflect significant weaknesses. CMC 
particularly opposes the inclusion of hard numerical criteria to 
categorize all species and life history strategies, and supports the 
inclusion of ecological extinction in addition to biological 
extinction. While supporting the U.S. proposal, CMC urges the U.S. 
Delegation to ask that the issue be set aside and that no resolution be 
adopted on this issue at COP9.
    CIEL, on behalf of the ``New Listing Criteria Working Group'' of 
the Species Survival Network supports the U.S. position in opposition 
to the numerical requirements of the Standing Committee proposal. CIEL 
considers Doc. 9.41 to be contrary to the text and spirit of CITES. 
CIEL considers the U.S proposal to be superior to the Standing 
Committee criteria, in large measure due to the removal of all 
numerical requirements. CIEL also supports the inclusion by the United 
States of factors relating to the ecological role of species, and the 
importance of genetic diversity. CIEL provided comments that suggested 
rewording of the background document submitted by the United States. 
While CIEL's suggestions are useful, the background document will not 
be part of an adopted resolution, but rather is meant to explain the 
rationale for the U.S. proposal. CIEL also included recommendations, 
submitted October 19, 1994, regarding Annexes 1 and 2, that are still 
under review, and will be given full consideration by the United States 
during deliberations at COP9.
    NRDC, EIA and HSUS support the U.S. revisions to Annexes 1 and 2. 
NRDC called on the United States to remain steadfast in its opposition 
to the Standing Committee proposal. It argues that the drafting process 
has been secretive, inconsistent, and confused and believes that there 
will be considerable confusion about the proposals at COP9. NRDC argues 
that it is inappropriate to attempt to apply the same quantitative 
standards to all taxa. NRDC suggested that the United States re-think 
its acceptance of Annex 4 on precautionary principles; CIEL, HSUS and 
IWCo also strongly disagree with the U.S. support for this Annex. CIEL 
and IWCo prefer the precautionary language of the Berne Criteria, 
particularly in requiring a higher standard of proof for downlisting or 
deletion than for the reverse. IWCo also opposes the quota provisions 
of Annex 4 to the Standing Committee resolution, as both impractical 
and unenforceable. The United States will review the precautionary 
measures annex, and discuss it fully with the Parties at COP9, but at 
this time disagrees with these commenters, and supports the Annex; the 
United States believes that such quotas are enforceable.
    HSUS noted that it was likely that the final version of listing 
criteria will be assigned to a Working Group of the COP, and urged the 
United States to insist that such a Working Group have a balanced 
membership and that NGOs be allowed to participate. The United States 
has always supported representation of non-governmental organizations 
in Working Groups of Committee I and II and meetings of the Conference 
of the Parties, as their expertise is helpful to the Parties. DOW 
prefers the U.S. proposal to the current Standing Committee draft 
because it does not rely on rigid numerical criteria. It urges the 
United States to oppose the proposed Standing Committee listing 
criteria. IWCo supports the approach in the U.S. proposal, and 
disagrees strongly with the view that numerical values should be 
retained in Appendix I criteria.
    WWF urges the United States to support amendments to the Standing 
Committee draft resolution that have been jointly proposed by the WWF, 
the Traffic Network, and IUCN for the draft listing criteria. The 
Service received a 63-page document on October 18, 1994 from WWF, 
analyzing the Standing Committee document and proposing further 
revisions to it. Although the Service has not completed its review of 
that document, it does contain many useful suggestions. The United 
States may be able to support elements of the WWF document, and looks 
forward to detailed discussions at the COP. Many specific comments on 
the U.S. proposed alternatives are included in the WWF document, which 
the United States will address at the COP.
    NRDC submitted a 25-page document to the Service, also on October 
18, 1994, which analyzes the Standing Committee document, and proposes 
an alternative listing criteria resolution that incorporates elements 
of the Standing Committee and U.S. submissions. NRDC contends that the 
drafting process of the Standing Committee submission has been 
secretive, hurried, inconsistent, and confused; they claim that the 
numerical criteria have been changed repeatedly. They also note that 
Doc. 9.41 Annex 4 from the Animals Committee is presented as a third 
alternative, without any clarification as to whether it is to be 
considered an amendment to the Standing Committee draft resolution. 
They also strongly criticize the validation process that has taken 
place. NRDC also opposes the quota systems in Annex 4 of the Standing 
Committee proposal, and urges the United States to change its position 
on this annex. As with the WWF paper, the Service has not completed its 
review of the NRDC proposed alternative resolution. However, it 
contains many useful suggestions, and is an excellent attempt to 
synthesize the existing proposals, which the United States will take 
seriously into consideration during the deliberations at COP9.
    Rationale: The existing CITES listing criteria, known as the 
``Berne Criteria'' (Resolutions Conf. 1.1 and 1.2) were developed at 
the first CITES Conference in 1976 in Berne, Switzerland. The United 
States agrees that the Convention will be strengthened by reevaluating 
the Berne Criteria for listing species in the Appendices, and that the 
Berne Criteria need to be reviewed and adapted to address a broader 
array of taxa and to be more descriptive and definitive, to the extent 
possible. At the same time, the United States notes that an inherent 
strength of CITES, which must be safeguarded, is its ability to seek 
balanced conservation-based solutions for a broad range of species and 
populations being considered. Thus, if any revision of the Berne 
Criteria is to be adopted at COP9, the United States is supportive of 
retaining maximal flexibility while firmly maintaining scientific 
credibility.
    The move to revise the Berne Criteria originated at the 1992 CITES 
Conference, in Japan (COP8). At COP8 the Parties agreed to start a 
process, coordinated by the Standing Committee, to develop a 
scientifically sound revision for consideration at COP9 in 1994. The 
World Conservation Union (IUCN) was asked to do a first draft, which 
would first be reviewed at a joint meeting of the Standing, Animals and 
Plants Committees, and put into CITES resolution form. The United 
States participated in a joint meeting of the Standing, Animals, and 
Plants Committees in Brussels in August-September 1993, which reviewed 
the IUCN draft and produced a draft resolution that was circulated to 
the Parties.
    The Service submitted comments to the Standing Committee, after 
consultation with other Federal agencies and reviewing extensive public 
comments received. The U.S. comments maintained that much of the draft 
resolution was not valid scientifically, and was not acceptable from 
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 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 to 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 major 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 
on which Appendix a species should be included in. After detailed 
review of the scientific literature and consultation with other Federal 
agencies, the Service has submitted alternatives to those Annexes to 
the Secretariat, along with some additional material for inclusion in 
the resolution. The United States intent is to urge the CITES Parties 
to substitute the Annexes 1 and 2 it submitted for those prepared by 
the Standing Committee.
    The biological criteria submitted by the United States for 
inclusion of species in Appendix I (Annex 1) are grounded in the 
scientific literature, and are based on the concept that determination 
of whether a species is threatened with extinction should be risk 
averse, utilizing the best available scientific and trade information, 
and assessment of a series of biological factors and criteria. 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)) of the Convention involve a determination of whether a 
species may become threatened with extinction, in order to avoid 
utilization incompatible with its survival.
    The Service received numerous comments recommending that the United 
States submit an alternative to the Standing Committee draft 
resolution. Several comments provided detailed analyses of the IUCN 
submission to the Secretariat, and of the resolution submitted to the 
Parties prior to the 31st meeting of the Standing Committee. These 
comments were taken into consideration by the Service and other Federal 
agencies.
    The United States stresses that a large number of versions of 
listing criteria will be available to the Parties at the outset of COP9 
(submitted by the Standing Committee, United States, Animals and Plants 
Committee, IUCN/WWF, NRDC, and possibly others) and looks forward to 
discussing this complex yet important topic with the other CITES 
Parties. The United States regrets that its proposed criteria for 
Annexes 1 and 2, submitted on June 10, 1994, were not able to be 
circulated by the Secretariat to the Parties until October 12, 1994, 
and is concerned that Parties that have not been involved with this 
process through the Standing, Animals, or Plants Committees may be 
disadvantaged.
27. Inclusion of Species in Appendix III (Doc. 9.59)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports most of the 
provisions of the resolution drafted by the Animals Committee that: 
repeals older resolutions regarding Appendix III listings; proposes 
newer criteria and guidelines; and recommends that Parties withdraw 
from Appendix III any listed species that do not meet these criteria. 
However, the United States disagrees with some aspects of the draft 
resolution, shares concerns raised by the Secretariat, and encourages 
further discussion of this issue at the COP.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received by DOW and HSUS. 
DOW agrees with the U.S. position that Appendix III listings should be 
made more judiciously, but believes that the resolution contained in 
Doc. 9.59 goes too far in restricting the Parties' existing rights 
under the treaty. It maintains that the proposed language would in 
effect bar a listing that is intended to prevent illegal trade before 
it has occurred. It argues that the proposed resolution would undermine 
the precautionary approach and protective goals of the treaty and would 
unduly limit the Parties' current rights under the treaty to use 
Appendix III simply as a vehicle for monitoring trade thought to be 
potentially problematic. It urges the United States to modify its 
position either by opposing proposed Doc. 9.59 in its current form or 
by actively seeking amendments that would address problems with the 
document. HSUS strongly disagrees with the U.S. position and does not 
believe that implementation or enforcement of the Convention will be 
enhanced by greater restrictions on the use of Appendix III. It 
maintains that the requirements in the resolution are stricter than 
those in the text of the treaty and places a burden of proof on Parties 
to demonstrate that illegal trade is taking place before they can place 
species on Appendix III. It argues that this provision is unnecessarily 
restrictive, not precautionary, and will hinder rather than enhance the 
objectives of the Convention. The United States agrees that Article II 
paragraph 3 of the treaty does not allow for limiting inclusion in 
Appendix III to species for which illegal trade is a problem. Parties 
can include species in Appendix III for the purpose of preventing or 
restricting exploitation and requiring the cooperation of other 
countries, even if illegal trade is not currently a factor. The 
Secretariat has noted that it cannot implement the draft resolution as 
written, since it limits the rights of Parties and the Secretariat's 
obligations under the treaty. The United States agrees, and will work 
with the Parties at COP9 to seek modifications to the document.
    Rationale: The United States supports the intent of this resolution 
as a means of allowing more effective cooperation by importing CITES 
Parties, reducing administrative burdens, and improving the credibility 
of Appendix III listings. The United States is supportive of urging a 
more judicious use of Appendix III, and recommending direct 
consultation with the Animals or Plants Committee and a review of 
existing Appendix III listings. The CITES Secretariat has been working 
to screen Appendix III proposals and consult with the submitting Party.
28. Guidelines for Evaluating Marine Turtle Ranching Proposals (Doc. 
9.42)
    Negotiating Position: Portions of the draft guidelines in the 
Animals Committee proposal are unacceptable to the United States, 
although others are acceptable.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from Greenpeace, 
CMC, MTSG, IWMC, and HSUS. Greenpeace recommended at the public meeting 
on September 14, 1994 that the United States oppose the guidelines as 
written. The CMC commented at the September 16, 1994 public meeting and 
expressed its opposition to the draft guidelines, and called for strong 
regional management plans along with good trade controls. In their 
written comments, CMC urged the United States to oppose the draft 
resolution unless it is revised to address regional management plans 
and trade controls. They contend that the draft guidelines do not meet 
the requirements of Conf. 3.15 for benefits to the conservation of 
local populations. CMC faults the Standing Committee for not addressing 
these issues; the Service notes that it was the Animals Committee and 
not the Standing Committee that prepared these draft guidelines. In 
their detailed comments, CMC makes several recommendations, including 
suggesting that: (1) Ranching criteria should require that the 
proponents' domestic trade be regulated and controlled before approval 
by the COP for export; (2) criteria should require establishment of 
management programs in states throughout the population's range prior 
to submission to the COP, in recognition that all sea turtle 
conservation necessitates international cooperative management.
    MTSG and HSUS support the need for regional management of sea 
turtle populations on the basis of genetically defined populations as a 
precondition for marine turtle ranching. MTSG strongly urges the United 
States to oppose the resolution in Doc. 9.42 because it does not 
contain a requirement for regional management, and because the 
resolution has been weakened from the consensus document produced at 
the 9th meeting of the Animals Committee. IWMC supports adoption of the 
proposed marine turtle ranching guidelines, in that they meet the 
requirements for effective sustainable utilization, but recommends less 
stringent criteria for proposals involving ``doomed'' eggs or 
hatchlings.
    Rationale: At COP6 the Parties authorized formation of a Working 
Group to prepare guidelines for evaluation of marine turtle ranching 
proposals, although no document was produced for submission to the 
Parties by that process. The Animals Committee began developing such 
guidelines after COP8. The United States supports adoption of 
guidelines that adhere strictly to the requirements of Conf. 3.15, 
recognize the unique population biology and migratory behavior of 
marine turtles, and deal effectively with enforcement and 
implementation concerns. The United States cannot support adoption of 
the draft guidelines as proposed because they do not recognize that 
marine turtle populations are migratory, thus necessitating regional 
cooperation and/or management, and because they substitute mere 
suggestions of coordination among Parties for solid requirements, 
including enforcement, regarding most elements of the criteria. The 
United States participated in a Working Group at the ninth meeting of 
the Animals Committee in Brussels in September, 1993 which developed 
draft guidelines for recommendation to the Animals Committee on this 
issue. The ninth meeting of the Animals Committee adopted a requirement 
for ``regional management on the basis of genetically defined 
populations'', and that trade should be on the basis of fixed quotas 
between specifically identified countries. The United States strongly 
supported these elements, which were removed by a subsequent meeting of 
the Animals Committee, and which the United States believes should be 
included in some form. The United States remains supportive of regional 
cooperation in the management of such widely migratory endangered 
species as marine turtles.
29. Proposals to Register the First Commercial Captive-breeding 
Operation for an Appendix I Animal Species (Doc. 9.43)
    Negotiating Position: The United States supports the registration 
of the captive-breeding operation for the Asian bonytongue fish 
(Scleropages formosus) on the basis of the species as a whole rather 
than its three or four recognized color varieties for the first 
breeding operation, unless there is reason to believe that such a 
policy could be detrimental to any of the varieties in the wild.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: This popular aquarium fish was listed on Appendix I in 
1975, and the Indonesian population was downlisted to Appendix II in 
1989 with export quotas under Res. Conf. 5.21. In 1992 the export quota 
for wild fish was reduced to zero and a quota established for captive-
reared fish. The species has at least three color varieties, of which 
the red form is rarest and commands the highest market price. The first 
captive-breeding operation for this species, in Malaysia, was approved 
in part by the Secretariat in 1994, but not for the red variety which 
does not occur there.
    The Secretariat has asked the COP to decide whether captive-
breeding operations for the Asian bonytongue fish should be registered 
on the basis of the species as a whole or its three or four recognized 
color varieties. Given the likelihood that registering operations on 
the basis of the whole species will not threaten any of the varieties, 
and that the techniques to successfully rear or cultivate one variety 
can be transferred to another variety of the same species, the United 
States can support this rather than constraining the operators of such 
facilities by requiring registration by variety. However, the United 
States recognizes that varieties, especially endemic ones, may have 
been acquired illegally and thus possibly to the detriment of the 
species. Therefore, the United States urges the Parties to submit 
information on a varietal basis and the Secretariat to consider the 
source of the parental stock in deciding whether the specimens meet 
Conf. 2.12 standards.
30. Standard Nomenclature (Doc. 9.56)
    Negotiating Position: Support adoption of the resolution submitted 
by the United States, which was submitted at the request of the 
Nomenclature Committee.
    Information and Comments: Comments were received from IHPA at the 
September 14, 1994 public meeting. IHPA supports the timber 
nomenclature the United States provided in the resolution and called 
for standardized terms for different types of specimens of timber.
    Rationale: 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 names of the genera and species of several families are in 
need of standardization and the current lack of a standard reference 
with adequate information creates an implementation problem for some 
species. The United States also recognizes that the taxonomy used in 
the Appendices to the Convention will be more useful to the Parties if 
standardized and correlated by nomenclatorial references.
    This resolution makes several recommendations dealing with the 
inclusion of subspecies in the Appendices, use of references in 
proposals, synonyms, and the role of the Scientific Authorities in 
nomenclature issues. The resolution also recommends several standard 
references for species listed in the CITES Appendices, for mammals, 
birds, amphibians, cacti, cycads, tree ferns, and other plants.

XV. Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II

    The Federal Register notice published on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 
46023) set forth summaries of the proposed U.S. negotiating positions 
on the proposals for amendment of the CITES Appendices for COP9 and 
requested information and comments from the public on these proposed 
U.S. positions. The Service intends to publish the U.S. negotiating 
positions on the proposals in a separate Federal Register notice before 
the start of COP9.

XVI. Conclusion of the Meeting

1. Determination of the Time and Venue of the Next Regular Meeting of 
the Conference of the Parties
    Negotiating Position: No documents have been received indicating 
requests from possible host governments. Favor holding COP10 in a 
country where all Parties will be admitted without political 
difficulties. Support the holding of COPs on a biennial basis, or, as 
in the case of COP9, after an interval of two and one half years.
    Information and Comments: No comments were received.
    Rationale: COP meetings energize governmental and nongovernmental 
organizations concerned with CITES issues to examine its 
implementation, and the conservation of affected species. The United 
States recognizes that the financial burdens of hosting a COP may serve 
to discourage developing countries from offering to serve as host, 
unless innovative ways can be found to provide financial assistance.
    General comments: HSUS noted that transmission of documents by the 
CITES Secretariat has been ``unjustifiably slow'', which will not 
provide Parties or NGOs with ample time to study the documents. HSUS 
requests the right to comment on those documents at a later time. HSUS 
also noted that an international NGO, the World Conservation Union 
(IUCN) received copies of all proposals and resolutions long before 
even the Parties did. The United States agrees that this is a concern, 
which it will discuss with the Secretariat and the Standing Committee. 
HSUS recommends additional funding be made available to the Secretariat 
from translators and document copying services, prior to COP10.

    Author: This notice was prepared by Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, 
Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703/
358-2095).

    Dated: November 3, 1994.
Mollie Beattie,
Director.
[FR Doc. 94-27630 Filed 11-3-94; 2:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P