[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