[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14689-14697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7725]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; Tenth Regular
Meeting
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces resolutions and documents submitted by
the United States for consideration at the tenth regular meeting of the
Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). A separate
Federal Register notice announces U.S. proposals to amend the CITES
Appendices, also submitted for consideration at COP10.
ADDRESSES: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Operations Branch, Office of
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Room 430-C, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Operations Branch, Office of Management
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone 703-358-2095;
electronic mail; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, TIAS 8249, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the
Convention, is an international treaty designed to control and regulate
international trade in certain animal and plant species that are or may
become threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the
Convention. Currently, 134 countries, including the United States, are
CITES Parties. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of
the Parties (COP), which review its implementation, make provisions
enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out its
functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I
and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make
recommendations for the improved effectiveness of the Convention. The
tenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP10)
will be held in Harare, Zimbabwe, June 9-20, 1997.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) hereby publishes the list
of resolutions and documents submitted to the CITES Secretariat by the
United States for consideration at COP10. At this time, the Service has
not been provided with all of the resolutions or species listing
proposals submitted by the other CITES Parties. Once this information
has been received from the CITES Secretariat, the Service will publish
it in another notice, and call for public comments on proposed U.S.
negotiating positions.
This is part of a series of notices that, together with public
meetings, allow the public to participate in the development of the
U.S. positions for COP10. A Federal Register notice published on March
1, 1996 (61 FR 8019): (1) Announced the time and place for COP10; (2)
solicited recommendations for amending CITES Appendices I and II; and
(3) solicited suggestions for resolutions and agenda items for
discussion at COP10. A Federal Register notice published on June 14,
1996 (61 FR 30255) announced a public meeting on July 19, 1996, to
discuss an international study of the effectiveness of CITES, and the
availability for public comment of a questionnaire as part of the
study. A Federal Register notice published on August 28, 1996 (61 FR
44332): (1) contained the provisional agenda for COP10; (2) listed
potential proposed resolutions and agenda items that the United States
was considering submitting for discussion at COP10; (3) invited
comments and information from
[[Page 14690]]
the public on these potential proposals; (4) announced a public meeting
to discuss species proposals and proposed resolutions and agenda items
that the United States was considering submitting for discussion at
COP10; and (5) provided information on how non-governmental
organizations based in the United States can attend COP10 as observers.
A separate, concurrent Federal Register notice published on August 28,
1996 (61 FR 44324), invited comments and information from the public on
possible U.S. proposals to amend the CITES Appendices at COP10. The
Service's regulations governing this public process are found in Title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.
What follows is a discussion of resolutions and documents submitted
by the United States for consideration at COP10 and a summary of
written information and comments received in response to the Federal
Register notice of August 28, 1996. Copies of resolutions and species
proposals submitted by the United States are available on request,
electronically or in paper form, by contacting the Office of Management
Authority at the address above. A separate, concurrent Federal Register
notice describes the species proposals that the United States submitted
for consideration at COP10.
Comments on the possible COP10 agenda items and resolutions that
the Service considered submitting were received from 16 organizations:
Nine wildlife conservation organizations, three commercial animal
exhibitors, one zoological association, one sport-hunting organization,
one pet industry association, and a bird hobbyist group. A summary of
public comment for each resolution or agenda item is presented below.
Those who would like to know in detail what was submitted on a given
question may consult the individual submissions, available from the
Office of Management Authority upon request at the above address. All
resolutions and documents submitted by the Service also took into
consideration the views and comments of other affected Federal
agencies.
Resolutions Submitted by the United States
1. Permits and Certificates
The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties adopted
Resolution Conf. 9.3, a consolidation of nine prior resolutions
pertaining to the standardization of permits and certificates.
Resolution Conf. 9.3 has turned out to be lengthy, difficult to use,
and unclear in parts. The differences in interpretation that have
resulted are creating problems with consistent implementation of the
Convention among Parties. To address this, the United States has
submitted a resolution that clarifies and reorganizes Resolution Conf.
9.3 using annexes. The U.S. draft resolution clarifies that most
provisions of the resolution apply to all permits and certificates
(other than certificates of origin), not just export permits and
reexport certificates. It also proposes a change in the text of the
current resolution to emphasize the need for the data on CITES permits
and certificates to be in the same format as used in CITES annual
reports. It redefines source code ``F'' to include animals born in
captivity (F1 or greater) that do not fulfill the definition of ``bred
in captivity'' in Resolution Conf. 2.12. The resolution also adds new
purpose and source codes to elicit additional information and to
conform with annual report data (``L'' for Law Enforcement and ``O''
for pre-Convention specimens); allows for the use of multiple source
and purpose codes when appropriate; and allows for the issuance of
permits and certificates for more than one type of activity, provided
the accompanying CITES document clearly indicates the type of activity
for each specimen. The August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice
referenced the recommendation of one organization that the Service
clarify the relationship of CITES permitting provisions with those of
other conventions relating to marine species, as regards paragraphs 4
and 5 of Article XIV. The Service agrees that the relationship of CITES
permitting provisions with those of other conventions relating to
marine species, as set forth in Article XIV of the CITES treaty, needs
further discussion. For this and many other reasons, the United States
also submitted a resolution recommending the establishment of a Marine
Fishes Working Group. (For a discussion of the Marine Fishes Working
Group, see item number 13 below.) During the comment period, one
wildlife conservation organization concurred in the need to reorganize
and clarify Resolution Conf. 9.3, and supported redefining source code
``F'' to distinguish ``born in captivity'' from ``bred in captivity.''
No further comments were received. After reviewing the U.S. draft and
suggesting changes, the Secretariat indicated that, although they
support the U.S. recommendations, they would not have sufficient time
to incorporate the Permits and Certificates text into their
recommendations to the Parties; thus necessitating a U.S. resolution.
2. Implementation of Article VII, Paragraph 2: Pre-Convention
Article VII, paragraph 2 of the Convention provides an exemption
from Articles III, IV, and V for any specimen acquired before the
provisions of the Convention applied to that specimen. The resolution
currently in effect on this issue (Resolution Conf. 5.11) allows
Parties to consider accession dates and reservations in determining
whether a specimen was acquired before the Convention applied to that
specimen, with the result that sometimes the same specimen is
considered ``pre-Convention'' by one country, but subject to the
provisions of Articles II, IV, or V of the Convention by another. This
situation has increased the risk of infractions, created opportunities
for the laundering of specimens, particularly of Appendix-I species,
and placed an additional administrative burden on Management
Authorities when the exporting, re-exporting, and importing Parties
disagree over a particular specimen. To remedy this, the United States
submitted a draft resolution eliminating accession dates and
reservations as factors for consideration in the issuance of pre-
Convention certificates and establishing the date the species was first
included in the CITES Appendices as the pre-Convention date. Three
wildlife conservation organizations provided comments in favor of
standardizing the pre-Convention date for a species; however, one noted
their concern that this be done in a way that does not encourage
acceding countries to enter large numbers of reservations. The Service
consulted the Secretariat on a draft of this resolution, and
incorporated useful comments received from them prior to submission of
the proposed resolution.
3. Sale of Appendix-I Tourist Items at International Airports,
Seaports, and Border Crossings
Merchants in places of international departure such as airports and
seaports continue to sell tourist souvenirs of Appendix-I species,
despite the fact that these items cannot be legally exported or
imported by the traveler purchasing them. In addition, some of these
items are offered in ``duty-free'' areas beyond customs control points.
The resultant enforcement problem, either intentionally or
unintentionally, promotes trade in species listed on Appendix I. In an
earlier Federal Register notice, the Service stated that it had
originally believed that this issue could be addressed directly by the
Secretariat through its ongoing educational efforts. However, public
[[Page 14691]]
comment following the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice was
unanimous in the view that the United States should raise this issue at
COP10. Four wildlife conservation organizations submitted comment--
three urged the United States to reconsider submitting a resolution,
and one of those characterized the Service approach as ``a bit naive.''
The fourth organization felt the issue would be appropriately addressed
in a decision document. The Service agrees that this issue should be
brought to the attention of the Parties; based on further discussion
and the foregoing comments, the United States submitted a draft
resolution urging Parties to take all necessary steps to prohibit the
sale of tourist souvenirs of Appendix-I species in places of
international departure and in ``duty-free'' areas beyond customs
control points, including prominent displays of information in places
of international departure and inspection, and provision of information
to merchants.
4. Establishment of Committees
This proposed resolution was not mentioned in earlier Federal
Register notices because the question of committee membership did not
arise as an issue until very recently, with the result that public
comment was neither solicited nor received. However, after discussions
with other governments, the CITES Secretariat, and consultations with
the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, the Service submitted a
draft resolution to amend the resolution that established the Animals
and Plants Committees (Resolution Conf. 9.1.). As currently written,
Resolution Conf. 9.1 establishes that the membership of the Animals and
Plants Committees shall consist of persons chosen by the major
geographic regions. In the view of the United States, it is more
appropriate that Committee members be Party governments because: (1)
States are members of the Convention, not individuals; (2) it is not
standard practice for non-governmental organizations to serve as a
members of official working committees of international treaties
(although, in some cases, regions have selected individuals who are
employed by or are representatives of non-governmental organizations);
(3) the work of the Committees has become more policy oriented,
requiring participation by representatives authorized to speak for an
accountable to Party States on critical issues; and (4) it is difficult
to replace an individual member without consulting an entire region or
waiting until the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The
U.S. draft resolution recommends that membership on the Animals and
Plants Committees be restricted to Parties to the Convention, as is
standard practice for the Standing Committee. These governments would
then select individuals as contact points for the routine work of the
Animals Committee or Plants Committee. The Service consulted the
Secretariat and some other Party governments on the draft test of this
proposed resolution prior to its submission, and incorporated their
useful comments.
5. Illegal Trade Working Group
In response to the March 1, 1996, Federal Register notice, five
organizations recommended that the United States submit a resolution on
enforcement. Four organizations submitted comments in response to the
August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice: One wildlife conservation
organization asked the Service to reconsider introducing a resolution;
three wildlife conservation organizations encouraged the Service to
submit a discussion paper. One wildlife conservation organization,
citing discussions held during the March 1995 Standing Committee
meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, offered detailed recommendations on
practical measures to improve enforcement. Although the Service had
originally thought a new resolution unnecessary, based on extensive
further discussions, the results of the CITES effectiveness study, and
persistent concerns reflected in the most recent public comments, the
United States submitted a resolution that would establish an Illegal
Trade Working Group to: (1) Assist the Secretariat in providing advice
and training on enforcement to Parties; (2) assist the Identification
Manual Committee in the development of training materials for
enforcement officers; and (3) facilitate international exchange of
illegal wildlife trade information through formal links with ICPO-
Interpol and the World Customs Organization. Representatives of the
Working Group would attend meetings of the Animals, Plants, and
Standing Committees to provide advice and technical assistance. At
COP9, a law enforcement working group was discussed, but not adopted,
for a number of reasons. The draft resolution submitted by the United
States addresses those concerns by limiting Working Group membership to
CITES Secretariat enforcement personnel and Party government
representatives, and by spelling out specific terms of reference that
clarify the Working Group's role.
6. Inspection of Wildlife Shipments
The inspection of wildlife shipments was not mentioned in earlier
Federal Register notices as a prospective subject for a resolution
because it did not arise as an issue until late in October 1996, when
the World Conservation Congress (IUCN) adopted Resolution CGR1.90-rev1
at its First Session, in Montreal, Canada. As a result of this timing,
the Service neither solicited nor received comment on this issue. The
IUCN resolution calls upon all governmental members of IUCN ``to take
whatever steps are necessary, including physical inspection of entering
and departing wildlife shipments, to curtail the illegal trade of
wildlife and wildlife products, and to dedicate the resources needed to
accomplish these goals.'' The United States submitted a resolution
virtually identical to that adopted by the IUCN, for consideration at
COP10, which basically supports and implements the IUCN recommendation
to increase the focus and attention on the need for inspection of
wildlife shipments.
7. Trade with Parties that Have Not Identified a Scientific Authority
The Service was originally considering submitting a resolution that
would recommend against allowing any wildlife trade with any Party that
has not provided the name and address of its Scientific Authority to
the Secretariat. Public comment from four wildlife conservation
organizations supported this general approach, although one wildlife
conservation organization thought Parties should accept imports from a
country not having a Scientific Authority, as long as that country was
able to demonstrate positive scientific evidence of non-detriment. One
sport-hunting organization opposed it. The United States submitted a
draft resolution: (1) Recommending that Parties not accept CITES export
permits from countries that have not identified their Scientific
Authorities to the Secretariat for more than one interval between
biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties; (2) encouraging
countries to designate Scientific Authorities separate from Management
Authorities; (3) directing the Secretariat to continue efforts to
identify the Scientific Authority(s) in each country; and (4)
recommending that neighboring Parties consider sharing their resources
by supporting common scientific institutions to provide the scientific
findings required under the Convention.
[[Page 14692]]
8. Regulation of CITES Shipments Traveling on a Customs Carnet
Many CITES Parties have acceded to the Customs Convention on the
A.T.A. (Admission Temporaire-Temporary Admission) Carnet for the
Temporary Admission of Goods, and to the Customs Convention on the
International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR (Transport
International Routier) Carnets. Both of these conventions created the
ability to temporarily enter certain goods without being subject to the
normal duty rates. Because of the temporary nature of these
transactions, Customs globally views these imports as different from
non-carnet imports. Infractions of the CITES Convention routinely
include shipments of CITES species traveling on a Customs Carnet which
have been allowed entry without meeting the applicable CITES
requirements. As a result, many shipments of CITES species traveling on
a Customs Carnet without CITES documentation have been refused entry
into either the importing country or the country of origin upon return.
To remedy this problem, the United States submitted a draft resolution
recommending that all Parties ensure that their Management Authority
issue appropriate documents for shipments traveling on a Customs
Carnet, and strongly urging all Parties to communicate with their
Customs and CITES enforcement officials to ensure all CITES shipments
traveling on a Customs Carnet comply with applicable CITES
requirements. Two wildlife conservation organizations commented in
support of such a resolution.
9. Coral Reporting and Identification
Due to the method in which coral is transported and difficulties in
species identification, coral reporting and identification for CITES
purposes have been problematic. There is both a need for the Parties to
agree on the use of standardized units for reporting coral trade
information in the annual report and a concern that species
identification of readily recognizable coral gravel or ``living rock''
cannot be accomplished at ports of entry. This issue was addressed by
the CITES Animals Committee, which requested that the United States
submit a draft resolution: (1) Amending the Guidelines for the
Preparation and Submission of Annual Reports (CITES Notification No.
788); and (2) amending Resolutions Conf. 9.3, 9.4, and 9.6. The draft
resolution would amend CITES Notification No. 788 to indicate that
trade in specimens of coral transported in water should be reported in
number of pieces, that trade in those coral specimens not transported
in water should be reported in kilograms, and that trade in specimens
of readily recognizable coral gravel or ``living rock'' should be
reported at the Order level (Scleractinia). The draft resolution would
also amend Resolutions Conf. 9.3, 9.4, and 9.6 to conform with the
proposed amendments to Notification No. 788, and would stipulate that
coral sand, its species being not readily recognizable, is not covered
by the provisions of the Convention. Five wildlife conservation
organizations submitted comment in support of the Service position. One
pet industry association supported the proposed changes in coral trade
reporting. One wildlife conservation organization urged the Service to
continue discussing with the Secretariat the possibility of including
in the CITES identification manual the U.S.-produced coral
identification manual.
10. Transport of Live Animals
In adopting Resolution Conf. 9.23, the ninth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties transferred to the Animals Committee issues
pertaining to the transport of live specimens, and recommended that all
live animals be shipped in accordance with the International Air
Transport Association (IATA) Live Animals Regulations, and that all
permits for live animals be conditioned upon compliance with those
regulations. These recommendations were a consolidation of
recommendations of earlier meetings of the Conference of the Parties.
During the first comment period (beginning March 1, 1996), five
organizations had recommended that the Service submit a draft
resolution to amend Resolution Conf. 9.23, providing draft text. At
their September 1996 meeting, the Animals Committee adopted a decision
document and a draft resolution to amend Resolution Conf. 9.23, both
prepared by the Working Group on the Transport of Live Specimens.
During the second comment period (beginning August 28, 1996), four
organizations generally supported the Animals Committee proposed
resolution; however, two expressed concern over the elimination of
language that would have enabled CITES to enact trade bans on species
that continue to be transported in an inhumane way, and one of those
organizations objected to the species-by-species approach, advocating
that ``species'' be changed to ``taxa.'' As Chair of the Working Group
and at the request of the Animals Committee, the United States
submitted this revised draft resolution for consideration at COP10. The
draft resolution directs the Animals Committee to conduct a systematic
review of the scope, causes, and means of reducing the mortality and
morbidity of animals during transport, and directs the Secretariat to
convey recommendations for improvement to the Parties concerned and to
monitor the implementation of those recommendations, reporting its
findings at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The
mortality information already required by Resolution Conf. 9.23 would
be submitted as part of a Party's annual report; failure to submit
these data would be noted in the Secretariat's Report to the Standing
Committee on Parties' Annual Reports. The Animals Committee requested
that the United States consult the Secretariat on its proposed text and
then circulate the draft resolution to members of the Animals Committee
before submitting it to the COP. Due to workload factors, the
Secretariat was unable to forward its comments to the United States
before the January 10 deadline. The Service accordingly proceeded to
submit its proposed resolution, subject to modification before COP10,
based on consultations with the Secretariat and members of the Animals
Committee.
11. Bred-in Captivity (revision of Conf. 2.12)
The question of whether and how to revise the criteria for
certifying specimens as bred-in-captivity for the exemptions provided
for in Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5 has been the subject to
considerable extensive discussion and debate for the Parties, non-
governmental organizations, commercial concerns, and technical experts.
The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties adopted Decision No.
22, which directs the CITES Secretariat, in consultation with the
Animals Committee, to prepare a draft resolution that will resolve
problems regarding the exemptions under Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5
for specimens bred in captivity, including: (1) Different
interpretations by Parties of the term ``for commercial purposes'' when
referring to the breeding of specimens of Appendix-I species in
captivity, in particular regarding the sale of specimens that often
results in income that, although perhaps not essential to the breeder's
livelihood, may be significant, and (2) different interpretations by
Parties of the criteria in Resolution Conf. 2.12 (Rev.) to determine
whether a captive-breeding operation is ``managed in a manner which has
been demonstrated to be capable of reliability producing second-
[[Page 14693]]
generation offspring in a controlled environment.''
Consultations were initiated at the 12th meeting of the Animals
Committee, which established a working group on specimens bred in
captivity, chaired by Canada, as well as a sub-group to discuss the
definition of ``commercial purposes,'' chaired by Indonesia. The
Secretariat then undertook the preparation of a resolution for
consideration by the working group. In December 1995, the Secretariat's
first draft resolution was sent to the chairman of the working group,
who undertook wide consultations. The chairman of the working group
provided the final results of his consultations to the Secretariat in
July 1996. The United States and the chairman of the sub-group, among
others, also provided comments to the Secretariat. The Secretariat's
second draft, a consolidation of three already existing resolutions (or
portions thereof), was provided for consideration at the 13th meeting
of the Animals Committee, in September 1996, where the draft was
discussed and revised.
The United States was not satisfied with the version that emerged
from the Animals Committee meeting, for the following reasons. First,
the Service believes that it may be reasonable to have a different
standard for what constitutes bred in captivity for Appendix-I versus
Appendix-II species, but that the criteria should minimally include
those in Conf. 2.12(Rev.), and sustainable production of F2 offspring
must be clearly demonstrated for Appendix-I species. Particularly
disconcerting to the United States was omission of the criterion
requiring that F2 offspring must be reliably produced (i.e., more than
a single offspring). Second, the Secretariat's draft resolution would
allow for the augmentation of breeding stock with nuisance animals,
with no definition of the term ``nuisance.'' The United States is
concerned that this would constitute a potential loophole for the
laundering of wild-caught animals through a captive-breeding operation.
The United States is also concerned that the Secretariat's draft
resolution would allow for the continued augmentation of breeding stock
from the wild rather than limiting augmentation to occasional additions
of wild-caught specimens only for the purposes of preventing
deleterious inbreeding, as specified in Conf. 2.12(Rev.).
The Service also did not support the establishment of a list of
species, as suggested in the Secretariat's draft, which would include
species whether or not they had reliably produced F2 offspring in
captivity. The addition of species to the list, to be accomplished
through a vote of the Conference of the Parties, would be based on
proposals developed by the Animals Committee in consultation with
appropriate experts. The Service believes that few animals--and no
Appendix-I species--are likely to qualify, that this provision would
allow specimens of such species to be designated as bred in captivity
when they do not otherwise meet the criteria, and that this provision
burdens the Animals Committee with additional responsibilities of
questionable value.
While the Service appreciated the Secretariat's efforts to try to
define ``commercial'' based on the number of specimens or the number of
shipments exported by a given operation, we do not agree with this
approach at this time due to the variability in breeding
characteristics and value among specimens of different species. The
Service also objected to provisions of the Secretariat's draft that
would make stock legal after two generations, even if the parental
stock was originally illegally acquired. Finally, the Service objected
to the omission of some of the requirements for registration contained
in Conf. 8.15, particularly descriptions of how stock is managed and
strategies for avoiding deleterious inbreeding. The Service believes
that this information is critical for determining whether an
operation's stock managed sustainably and without reliance on continued
augmentation from the wild at levels considered to be more than
``occasional'' (discussed below).
Rather than accepting the Animals Committee-passed draft, the
United States elected instead to prepare a draft resolution that would
revise Resolutions Conf. 2.12 and 8.15 simultaneously, while retaining
them as separate and distinct documents. Based upon discussions in the
Animals Committee, and taking into account extensive public comment
received on this issue, the United States submitted a draft captive-
breeding resolution that retains basic elements of Resolution Conf.
2.12 (Rev.), with the following enhancements: (1) It clarifies certain
relevant terms previously left undefined; (2) it elaborates on the
conditions necessary for a specimen to be considered ``bred in
captivity,'' and (3) it provides an annex containing illustrative
examples of specimens that do or do not qualify. Discussions continue
between the CITES Secretariat and the United States regarding how best
to address bred-in-captivity issues. Once the Secretariat has decided
on its final draft resolution, should that resolution address U.S.
concerns, the United States would consider withdrawing its own
resolutions related to captive-bred wildlife.
The volume of public comment addressing captive-breeding issues far
outstripped that for any other subject mentioned in the August 28,
1996, Federal Register notice. Thirteen organizations submitted
comments on the captive-breeding agenda item and/or the two resolutions
the Service was considering. A breakdown of the 13 organizations
follows: Six wildlife conservation organizations, one industry group,
three commercial animal exhibitors, a zoo association, one sport-
hunting organization, and a bird hobbyist group. The Service
appreciates the effort expended to produce these comments, which were
typically carefully thought-out and lengthy. While it is not possible
to summarize them here, some representative examples follow. The sport-
hunting organization recommended the United States define aspects of
captive breeding that foster a self-contained breeding population, and
use those factors as the criteria for issuance of Appendix-II export
permits (specimens of Appendix-I species bred in captivity for
commercial purposes) or captive-bred certificates (for species from any
appendix bred in captivity not for commercial purposes). One commercial
animal exhibitor suggested creation of an interim list of ``special
circumstance'' species that, while not yet capable of achieving F2
status as currently interpreted, are being managed in a way reliably
demonstrated to achieve a viable second-generation population, and
whose captive breeding has no detrimental effect on wild populations.
One wildlife conservation organization urged the United States to
advocate retention of Resolutions Conf. 2.12(Rev.) and 8.15, with minor
revisions, and develop a new resolution that would incorporate the
interpretation of Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5 (exemption for
captive-bred Appendix-I specimens) as set out in Notification 913.
Another wildlife conservation organization urged the United States to
oppose efforts to weaken resolutions on trade in captive-bred
specimens, and to introduce a resolution similar to the one the U.S.
submitted to the Animals Committee. Readers desiring more detail are
encouraged to consult the individual submissions, available from the
Office of Management Authority upon request.
12. Appendix-I Species Bred in Captivity for Commercial Purposes
(revision of Conf. 8.15)
Recent discussions by the Parties of captive-breeding issues also
[[Page 14694]]
encompassed the subject matter covered in Resolution Conf. 8.15, with
the result that the public comment received on proposed revisions to
Resolutions Conf. 2.12 and 8.15 tended to be intertwined. For an
account of the development of the U.S. captive-breeding resolutions and
a general characterization of organizations that submitted comments,
please consult the preceding item (#11). To address Appendix-I Species
Bred in Captivity for Commercial Purposes, the United States submitted
a draft resolution which revises Conf. 8.15 in the following ways.
Parts of the original preamble and resolution that encouraged the
captive breeding and commercial exploitation of Appendix-I species,
particularly in range States, were deleted, since the Service does not
believe that such activities are always appropriate and should be
discouraged in some cases. Instead, Annex 3 of the draft resolution
recommends that the Secretariat encourage the establishment of captive-
breeding operations for Appendix-I species where appropriate. The draft
resolution would require notification of all Parties in cases where the
Party in which the operation is located has not previously registered a
captive-breeding operation for the species involved, even if other
Parties have registered breeding operations for that species. In Conf.
8.15, for a given species, only the first operation registered with the
Secretariat for any Party requires notification of the Parties. The
U.S. opinion is that the potential for using captive-breeding
operations for laundering wild-caught specimens as well as the
methodology for breeding a species in captivity can vary from country
to country due to differences in enforcement capability, climate, and
availability of technology, and therefore Parties should be evaluated
individually on their ability to control trade in captive-bred
specimens and of their operations' capabilities to actually breed the
species under consideration. Parts of the original resolution requiring
findings that the operation must have been established without
detriment to the survival of the species were deleted, since this is
already required by Resolution Conf. 2.12, which provides the basis for
Conf. 8.15. Otherwise, the resolution has not been substantially
modified from Conf. 8.15, since it is the United States' opinion that
the existing resolution is workable, has been in place for only a short
while and thus has not been widely used, and thus does not require
extensive modification. However, a significant change suggested by the
U.S. draft resolution would be to provide for a Party that has concerns
about aspects of an application to register a captive-breeding
operation to discuss those concerns with the Party in which the
operation is located, and perhaps seek a resolution to the concerns so
an objection to the registration and a full vote by the Conference of
the Parties can be avoided. A representative sample of the public
comment regarding proposed revisions to Resolution Conf. 8.15 follows.
One wildlife conservation organization recommended expanding the
definition of ``commercial purposes,'' generating a list of problem
species with long generational intervals (in the F2 context) requiring
CITES interpretation and assistance, and making the purpose for which
the animal is being exported the determining factor for deciding
``commercial purposes,'' rather than the nature of the breeding
facility. The three commercial animal exhibitors expressed concerns
that the Secretariat-drafted resolution then under consideration in the
Animals Committee would result in further restriction on acquisition of
new breeding stock, and cited conflicts with the interpretations of
``commercial purposes'' found in Resolution Conf. 5.10 and Article VII,
paragraph 4, and with domestic law. The sport-hunting organization felt
the United States should seek to streamline the system for registering
facilities breeding Appendix-I species for commercial purposes or
should advocate doing away with it because ``it is not serving its
purpose.'' Another wildlife conservation organization wanted to
maintain high standards for the production of Appendix-I specimens, and
believes the Secretariat should bear major responsibility for
registration of Appendix-I species breeding facilities.
13. Establishment of a Working Group for Marine Fish Species
The decision to propose establishing a Working Group for Marine
Fish Species was made late in the process, arising out of extensive
discussions between the Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. agency with
jurisdiction over marine fish species. These interagency discussions
have concerned the implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17--which calls
for the Animals Committee to report to the tenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties on the biological and trade status of
sharks--an effort which has involved the active participation of the
United States, many other CITES Parties, the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other international fisheries
organizations. A discussion paper has been submitted for consideration
at COP10. This implements the first part of Resolution Conf. 9.17. The
second part requests that FAO and other international fisheries
management organizations establish programs to collect and assemble
additional biological and trade data on shark species, and that such
information be submitted to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of
the Parties. This remains to be accomplished. Further, many questions
have been raised regarding technical and practical implementation
concerns associated with inclusion on the CITES Appendices of marine
fish species subject to large-scale commercial harvesting and
international trade. A Marine Fish Species Working Group would provide
a framework for this and other activities to implement Resolution Conf.
9.17. Therefore, after extensive review of the available information on
the biological and trade status of shark species, both as part of the
Animals Committee process implementing Resolution Conf. 9.17 and in
evaluating the conservation status of numerous commercially harvested
shark species, the United States concluded that: (1) Several
internationally traded shark species qualify for inclusion in Appendix
II of CITES; (2) many serious implementation and enforcement challenges
would result from the inclusion in Appendix II of these and other
commercially traded marine fish species, although they qualify for such
inclusion; (3) the Parties and conservation of marine fish species
would benefit from a thorough evaluation of all aspects of
implementation of the Convention for marine fish species, including a
clarification of the relationship of CITES with other conventions
relating to marine fish species; and (4) the successful Timber Species
Working Group is a useful model for evaluating implementation issues
pertaining to marine fish species. The draft resolution submitted by
the United States directs the Standing Committee to: (1) Establish a
temporary working group for marine fish species subject to large-scale
commercial harvesting and international trade, which would coordinate
preparation of an analysis of technical and practical implementation
concerns associated with the inclusion of such species on the CITES
Appendices; (2) develop recommendations on approaches to address
identified issues; (3) begin to coordinate and advise regional fishery
treaty organizations on necessary marine fish species data
[[Page 14695]]
collection and consistency in reporting; and (4) report back to the
eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The United States
believes that such a working group should focus on technical and
practical implementation issues, rather than on whether or not
individual taxa of marine fish qualify for inclusion in Appendix II.
However, the United States does believe that there are commercially
harvested marine fish species traded internationally that qualify for
inclusion in CITES Appendix II, and that in such cases CITES is an
appropriate vehicle to regulate and monitor trade in those species, to
preclude their becoming threatened with extinction in the future. The
United States looks forward to discussion of this draft resolution at
COP10, to its adoption, and to the work of the Working Group between
COP10 and COP11.
Documents Submitted By The United States
14. Trade in Alien (Invasive) Species
The United States submitted a document for discussion at COP10,
dealing with the important conservation issue of the international
trade in invasive alien species. The document discusses the background
on this conservation issue, and the role that the CITES Parties can
play. The document defines an alien [nonindigenous] species as a
species, subspecies, or lower taxon, occurring as a result of human
activity in an areas or ecosystem in which it is not native. Alien
species that colonize natural or semi-natural ecosystems, cause change,
and threaten biodiversity are categorized as ``invasive.'' They have
been identified in the scientific literature as the second-largest
threat to biological diversity globally after habitat loss and
degradation. International conservation bodies have recently addressed
the issue of alien species and the problems associated with them. The
document submitted by the United States discusses recent progress on
this issue at: (1) The July 1996 Conference on Alien Species in Norway,
sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Secretariat
for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), UNESCO, and the
Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the
International Council of Scientific Unions; (2) the World Conservation
Congress in October 1996; (3) the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist
Group; and (4) the Third Conference of the Parties of the CBD in
November 1996, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
The document submitted by the United States recommends discussion
of these issues at COP10 and that Parties: (1) Recognize that
nonindigenous species can pose significant threats to biodiversity,
that living specimens of flora and fauna species in commercial trade
are likely to be introduced to new habitat as a result of international
trade, and that awareness of these problems is needed in the business
and public sectors; (2) recognize that CITES can play a significant
positive role in this issue; (3) pay particular attention to these
issues when developing national legislation and regulations, when
issuing export or import permits for live animals or plants of
potentially invasive species, or when otherwise approving exports or
imports of live specimens of potentially invasive species; (4)
encourage management Authorities of exporting countries to consult with
the Management Authority of a planned importing country, if possible
and applicable, when considering exports of potentially invasive
species, to determine whether the importing country has established
domestic measures regulating imports, or whether the importing country
has concerns regarding importation of the species in question; (5)
consider the threats of introduction of alien species and the risks to
native biodiversity in the context of implementation of CITES and other
Conventions, including CBD; and (6) consider requesting that the
Animals and Plants Committee establish a formal liaison with the IUCN/
SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group to review species in
international trade, collaborate in the development of a global
database of invasive species, identify species that may pose problems
if they are introduced, and cooperate on this issue to recommend means
to ensure that unintentional introductions do not occur.
15. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat
Despite the adoption of Resolution Conf. 9.12, which calls for
further cooperation and information exchange by CITES and the
International Whaling Convention (IWC), illegal trade in specimens of
Appendix-I whale species remains a significant problem for some CITES
Parties. While the United States originally considered submitting
another resolution urging continued cooperation between CITES and the
IWC for consideration at COP10, after further deliberation the United
States decided to submit a document recounting the recent history of
efforts to control illegal trade in whale specimens and products and
asking that the issue be included on the agenda for COP10. Although
five organizations submitted public comment in favor of a U.S.
resolution, and one wildlife conservation organization urged the
Service to ensure that smuggling incidents are fully investigated by
Japanese and Norwegian authorities and the information forwarded to the
CITES Secretariat, it was felt that submitting a document for the
Parties' consideration presented a more effective strategy leading to a
more open discussion of the problem. The United States looks forward to
a useful discussion of problems of illegal trade in whale meat, and
implementation of previous resolutions of the Conference of the
Parties, to be considered in the evaluation of both this issue and of
any possible proposals to transfer any whale populations to Appendix
II.
16. Flora, Fauna, and the Traditional Medicine Community: Working with
People to Conserve Wildlife
Pursuant to the COP10 agenda item dealing with the use of wildlife
in traditional medicines, the United States submitted this document,
which follows up on two separate reports to the Standing Committee on
U.S. efforts in support of CITES Resolutions Conf. 9.13 and 9.14. Those
resolutions charge consumer states to work with traditional medicine
communities and industries to develop strategies for elimination of
tiger and rhino use and consumption. The document describes national
and international activities undertaken by the United States in the
areas of law enforcement, legislation, and education, highlighting
cooperative efforts to educate the U.S. traditional medicine community
in conservation strategies, and the development of cooperative ties
with the Ministry of Forestry in the People's Republic of China. A
detailed discussion of accomplishments offers insight into the outreach
education process. The document ends with three recommendations that
could be useful to consumer states. The United States strongly supports
such cooperative educational efforts, working with consumer communities
to increase understanding of the impacts of the wildlife trade and
wildlife conservation, and facilitating the use of substitutes and
alternatives to endangered species products, while respecting the value
of traditional medicines and the cultures and communities that use
them.
Resolutions Not Submitted By The United States
The following were discussed in the August 28, 1996 Federal
Register notice as possible topics for U.S. resolutions. A
[[Page 14696]]
discussion of the decision to not submit these resolutions follows:
Trade in Appendix-I Specimens
In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service
indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution
clarifying the treatment of Appendix-I specimens. Specifically, the
United States considered the issue of when Article III should be used
for export or import permits for Appendix-I specimens, and when the
Article VII (paragraphs 4 and 5) exemptions for specimens bred in
captivity for commercial and non-commercial purposes, respectively,
should be used. Subsequently, the Secretariat circulated an official
Notification (number 913) on this issue. Five organizations--ranging
from a commercial animal exhibitor to a wildlife conservation
organization--submitted comments, all in favor of the United States
submitting a resolution and/or in opposition to the draft resolution
presented at the Animals Committee meeting. However, based on
discussions with the Secretariat and other Parties, discussions at the
September 1996 meeting of the Animals Committee, and an evaluation of
comments received, the United States decided not to submit a draft
resolution on this issue. Instead, the United States believes that its
views on clarifying the use of Articles III and VII have been
sufficiently expressed, and that continued dialogue on a case-by-case
basis will be more productive. Furthermore, one source of confusion by
other countries has been the fact that the United States itself has
never registered a commercial facility (under Resolution Conf. 8.15)
that breeds Appendix-I specimens in captivity for commercial purposes.
The Service notes that few qualified facilities have applied, but the
Service is more than eager to register qualified facilities; to that
end, a future notice in the Federal Register is being drafter to
explain the process and encourage submission of applications for
registration.
Personal Effects/Live Animals
In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service
indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution
clarifying aspects of the personal effects exemption in Article VII of
the CITES treaty. Travelers experience some problems because the United
States recognizes the personal effects exemption under Article VII,
paragraph 3 of the treaty, whereas other countries either do not
recognize it or implement it differently. This also causes problems for
implementation of CITES at ports of entry. The four organizations
submitting comment in response to the August 28, 1996 Federal Register
notice either supported a U.S. resolution and/or made specific
recommendations concerning content. One wildlife conservation
organization recommended that the U.S. draft clarify whether live
animals are included in the personal effects exemption under Article
IV; another noted that not every country interprets properly Article
VII paragraph 3(a), which pertains to specimens acquired outside a
person's State of usual residence. The United States decided not to
submit a resolution, for the following reasons: (1) The Animals
Committee agreed to submit a resolution dealing with frequent
transborder movement of personally owned live animals; (2) the United
States agrees with the text of this proposed resolution, and views it
as dealing effectively with a major aspect of the broader personal
effects issues, for live animals; (3) the United States submitted a
resolution dealing with one aspect of this issue, specifically the sale
of Appendix-I tourist items at international airports, seaports, and
border crossings (discussed earlier in this notice); and 94) the United
States will ask the Parties to direct the Secretariat to survey the
Parties and prepare a document clarifying how each country implements
the personal effects exemption; such a request does not require a
resolution.
Circuses
In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service
indicated that it was considering submitting a discussion paper or
draft resolution to address several technical issues in Resolution
Conf. 8.16 (Traveling Live Animal Exhibitions), such as the requirement
of a separate certificate for each specimen. Six organizations--two
commercial animal exhibitors and four wildlife conservation
organization--submitted comments on circuses. One foreign commercial
animal exhibitor, communicating through counsel, endorsed the
``passport'' approach considered by the Animals Committee in the
context of frequent movement of personally owned live animals. One
wildlife conservation organization said Conf. 8.16 should continue to
require separate certificates--which should be valid for one year, not
three--and felt specimens that do not qualify as captive-bred under
Resolution Conf. 2.12 should not be eligible for coverage by a captive-
bred certificate. One wildlife conservation organization cautioned
against raising the issue at COP10, given the highly controversial
nature of any proposal concerning elephants in a meeting held in
Zimbabwe, and recommended instead that the United States work out this
problem within the North American region. At its September 1996
meeting, the Animals Committee decided that ``frequent transborder
movement of personally owned live animals'' should not apply to
circuses. Based on the comments received, discussions with other
countries, and the outcome of the Animals Committee meeting, the United
States decided to submit nothing to COP10, but rather to take up the
technical issues directly with the Secretariat and with the individual
countries involved.
Crocodile Tagging
In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service
indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution to
clarify some points in Resolution Conf. 9.22 (Universal Tagging System
for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins) by providing a description
of the parts tag and a method for the marking of product containers.
During the public comment period, one wildlife conservation
organization voiced its support of a U.S. resolution, noting that any
marking system must be standardized and that specifications for the
design of the tag must be fundamental and generally applied. No further
comments were received. At their meeting in September 1996, the Animals
Committee agreed upon the text of a Notification to the Parties,
resolving these points and obviating the need for a draft resolution.
Observers
Article XI, paragraph 7 of the Convention states:
Any body or agency technically qualified in protection,
conservation, or management of wild fauna and flora, in the following
categories, which has informed the Secretariat of its desire to be
represented at meetings of the Conference by observers, shall be
admitted unless at least one-third of the parties present object:
(a) International agencies or bodies, either governmental or non-
governmental, and national governmental agencies and bodies; and
(b) National nongovernmental agencies or bodies which have been
approved for these purposes by the State in which they were located.
Once admitted, these observers shall have the right to participate
but not to vote.
Persons wishing to be observers representing U.S. national non-
governmental organizations must receive prior approval of the Service.
[[Page 14697]]
International organizations (which must have offices in more than one
country) may request approval directly from the Secretariat. After
granting of that approval, a national non-governmental organization is
eligible to register with the CITES Secretariat and must register with
the Secretariat prior to the COP in order to participate in the COP as
an observer. All registrations must be received by the Secretariat no
later than 30 days prior to the meeting of the COP, and preferably much
sooner. Individuals that are not affiliated with an approved
organization may not register as observers. Requests for such approval
should include evidence of technical qualification in protection,
conservation, or management of wild fauna and/or flora, on the part of
both the organization and the individual representative(s).
Organizations previously approved by the Service (for prior meetings of
the COP) must submit a request but do not need to provide as detailed
information concerning their qualifications as those seeking approval
for the first time. Organizations seeking approval for the first time
should detail their experience in the protection, conservation, or
management of wild fauna and/or flora, as well as their purposes for
wishing to participate in the COP as an observer. Such requests should
be sent to the Office of Management Authority (OMA: see ADDRESSES,
above) or submitted to OMA electronically via E-mail to:
[email protected], prior to the close of business on April 1,
1997. That deadline will assure approval in time to submit registration
materials to the Secretariat in time. Organizations are encouraged to
submit requests for approval as soon as possible, however. Upon
approval by OMA, an organization will receive instructions for
registration with the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland, including
relevant travel and hotel information. Any organization requesting
approval for observer status at COP10 will be added to the Service's
CITES Mailing List if it is not already included, and will receive
copies of all future Federal Register notices and other information
pertaining to COP10. A list of organizations approved for observer
status at COP10 will be available from OMA just prior to the start of
COP10.
Future Actions
COP10 is scheduled for June 9-20, 1997, in Harare, Zimbabwe.
Through a series of additional notices in advance of COP10, the Service
will inform the public about preliminary and final negotiating
positions on resolutions and amendments to the Appendices proposed by
other Parties for consideration at COP10. The Service will also publish
an announcement of a public meeting to be held in April 1997 to receive
public input on its proposed negotiating positions for COP10.
AUTHORS: This notice was prepared by Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief,
Operations Branch, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (703-358-2095).
Dated: March 19, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 97-7725 Filed 3-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M