[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18777-18793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9925]


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

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; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.


[[Page 18778]]


ACTION: Notice of information, Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth summaries of the proposed United States 
negotiating positions on agenda items and resolutions for 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). Comments or other relevant information have been 
solicited and a public meeting was held (October 3, 1996) regarding the 
submission of resolutions and species proposals for COP10 by the United 
States. This notice announces the proposed United States negotiating 
positions on all agenda items and resolutions submitted by other 
countries, and solicits comments or other relevant information from the 
public regarding these proposed positions. This notice also announces a 
public meeting to be held April 25, 1997, from 10:00 am-1:00 pm to 
receive public comments on these issues, as well as on issues 
pertaining to species proposals submitted by other countries.

DATES: Information and comments received through May 9, 1997 will be 
considered in formulating the final U.S. negotiating positions.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to the Acting Director, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, c/o Kenneth Stansell, Chief, Office of Management 
Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 430, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Stansell or Dr. Susan S. 
Lieberman, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service: telephone 703/358-2093; fax 703/358-2280; E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Meeting

    The public meeting will be held on Friday, April 25, 1997, from 
10:00 am-1:00 pm. The meeting will be held at the Department of the 
Interior: Room 7000, 18th and C Street, NW, Washington, DC. Please note 
that the room is accessible to the handicapped. Persons planning to 
attend the meeting who require interpretation for the hearing impaired 
should notify the Office of Management Authority as soon as possible. 
This meeting will provide the public an opportunity to comment on U.S. 
positions leading up to COP10. The Service will discuss U.S. positions 
on the Agenda for COP10, as well as resolutions and species listing 
proposals by other countries, and any other item of interest to the 
public in relation to CITES COP10.

Electronic Access

    Comments may also be sent via E-mail to: [email protected].

Background

    The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is 
an international treaty designed to monitor and regulate international 
trade in certain animal and plant species which are or may become 
threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the treaty. 
Currently 135 countries, including the United States, are CITES 
Parties. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of the 
Parties which review its implementation, make provisions enabling the 
CITES Secretariat (in Switzerland) to carry out its functions, consider 
amending the lists 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 
Conferences of the Parties to CITES (COP10) will be held in Harare, 
Zimbabwe, June 9-20, 1997.
    A series of Federal Register notices, a public meeting already 
held, and the public meeting scheduled April 25, 1997 provide the 
public with an opportunity to participate in the development of U.S. 
positions for COP10. A Federal Register notice concerning possible U.S. 
submissions of species amendments and resolutions for consideration at 
COP10 (with a request for public comments) was published on March 1, 
1996 (61 FR 8019). A Federal Register notice announcing a public 
meeting to discuss an international study of the effectiveness of CITES 
was published on June 14, 1996 (61 FR 30255). A Federal Register notice 
requesting information on the Service's consideration of amendments to 
the Appendices was published on August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44324). A 
Federal Register notice concerning the provisional agenda of COP10 as 
well as proposed resolutions and agenda items being considered was also 
published on August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44332). A public meeting held 
October 3, 1996 solicited comments on proposed U.S. submissions of 
species amendments, resolutions, and agenda items for consideration at 
COP10. A public meeting will be held on April 25, 1997 to discuss U.S. 
positions on species amendments and resolutions submitted by other 
CITES Parties, and agenda items leading up to COP10.

Proposed Negotiating Positions

    In this notice, the Service summarizes the proposed U.S. positions 
on agenda items and resolutions for COP10 (other than proposals to 
amend the Appendices, which are presented in this edition of the 
Federal Register as a separate notice) which have been submitted by 
other countries and the CITES Secretariat. A separate Federal Register 
notice will be published shortly announcing proposed U.S. positions on 
species listing proposals submitted by other countries. A Federal 
Register notice was published on March 27, 1997 (62 FR 14689) outlining 
rationales for resolutions and discussion documents submitted by the 
United States. Those issues will not be discussed here. Interested 
members of the public should refer to those notices for discussion of 
relevant issues. Numerals next to each agenda item or resolution 
correspond to the numbers used in the provisional agenda [COP10 Doc. 
10.1 (Rev.)] received from the CITES Secretariat. However, documents 
for a number of the agenda items and resolutions have not yet been 
received from the Secretariat: they will be available on request from 
the Office of Management Authority after they have been received from 
the Secretariat.
    Some documents may not be received until the meeting of the COP 
itself. A list of documents received by the Service to date is 
available on request from the Service's Office of Management Authority 
(see ADDRESSES, above).
    In the discussion that follows, the description of each proposed 
resolution is followed by a brief rationale explaining the basis of the 
U.S. position. The Service will endeavor to publish a Federal Register 
notice in early June 1997 that details final negotiating positions on 
all issues (resolutions, species amendments, and other agenda items) 
pertaining to COP10, with the understanding that new information that 
becomes available during discussions at COP10 can often lead to 
modifications of these positions. The U.S. delegation will fully 
disclose any and all position changes and the rationale(s) explaining 
them through daily public briefings at COP10.

Agenda (Provisional) [Doc. 10.1 (Rev.)]

I. Opening Ceremony by the Authorities of Zimbabwe

    No document will be prepared by the Secretariat on this item. It is 
traditional that the host country conduct an opening ceremony at a 
CITES COP.

[[Page 18779]]

II. Welcoming Addresses

    No document will be prepared by the Secretariat on this item. It is 
traditional that the host country make welcoming remarks at the opening 
of a CITES COP.

III. Adoption of the Rules of Procedure (this item consists of two 
subitems)

1. Voting before credentials have been accepted [Doc. 10.4]
    No document has yet been received from the Secretariat on this 
issue. The United States believes that delegations to international 
treaty conferences should be able to obtain credentials from their 
government prior to attending the meeting, and as such should not be 
entitled to vote until their credentials are approved. However, some 
flexibility is acceptable in certain circumstances. The United States 
does not believe that delegates whose credentials are pending should be 
denied access to meetings or the ability to speak, but decisions on 
such issues should go through the Credentials Committee at the COP.
2. Adoption of the Rules of Procedure [Doc. 10.3]
    A provisional version of the Rules of Procedure, which describe the 
manner in which a COP is conducted, are distributed prior to all CITES 
COPs by the Secretariat. The United States proposes to support the 
provisional version of the Rules of Procedure as received from the 
Secretariat. The United States is not aware of any changes from 
previously adopted Rules of Procedure that will be proposed. The United 
States notes that the Rules of Procedure were modified at COP9 to allow 
for a simplified procedure for approving secret ballots. The United 
States notes that the changes were handled smoothly, and does not 
believe that this provision should be altered. However, at COP9 many 
country delegates had problems with the procedure by which the 
Secretariat issued secret ballots. The United States will work through 
the Bureau at the COP to simplify this process (which would not involve 
any modification of the Rules of Procedure), in order to be prepared 
for any secret ballot vote(s).

IV. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Meeting and of 
Chairman of Committees I and II and of the Budget Committee

    No document will be prepared for this item by the Secretariat. The 
United States will support the election of a Conference Chair from 
Zimbabwe, and a highly qualified Vice-Chair of the Conference and 
Committee Chairs representing the geographic diversity of CITES.
    The Chair of the CITES Standing Committee (Japan) will serve as 
temporary Chair of the COP until a permanent Conference Chair is 
elected. It is traditional for the host country to provide the 
Conference Chair. The Conference Chair will serve as Presiding Officer 
of the Conference and also of the Conference Bureau, the executive body 
which manages the business of the Conference: other members of the 
Conference Bureau include the Committee Chairs (discussed below), the 
members of the Standing Committee, and the Secretary General.
    The major technical work of the CITES is done in the two 
contemporaneous Committees, and thus Committee Chairs must have great 
technical knowledge and skill. In addition, CITES benefits from active 
participation and leadership of representatives of every region of the 
world. The United States will support the election of Committee Chairs 
and a Vice-Chair of the Conference having requisite technical knowledge 
and skills and also reflecting the geographic and cultural diversity of 
CITES Parties.

V. Adoption of the Agenda and Working Programme [Doc. 10.1 (Rev.); Doc. 
10.2; Doc. 10.2.1; Doc. 10.2.2]

    Provisional versions of the Agenda and the Working Programme for 
COP10 have been received from the Secretariat. The United States 
supports the provisional version of both documents as received from the 
Secretariat, but continues to review whether some issues currently 
allocated to Committee I (scientific issues) should be moved to 
Committee II (management and other technical issues), due to subject 
matter, workload and time.

VI. Establishment of the Credentials Committee

    No document will be prepared by the CITES Secretariat on this 
agenda item. The United States will support the establishment of the 
Credentials Committee.
    The establishment of the Credentials Committee is a pro forma 
matter. The Credentials Committee approves the credentials of delegates 
to the COP by confirming that they are official representatives of 
their governments, thereby affording them the right to vote in 
Committee and Plenary sessions. The United States was a member of the 
Credentials Committee at COP9.

VII. Report of the Credentials Committee

    No document will be prepared by the Secretariat on this agenda 
item. The United States supports adoption of the report of the 
Credentials Committee if it does not recommend the exclusion of 
legitimate representatives of countries that are Parties to CITES. The 
United States will encourage timely production of Credentials Committee 
reports at the COP.
    Adoption of the report is generally a pro forma exercise. 
Representatives whose credentials are not in order should be afforded 
observer status as provided for under Article XI of the Convention. If 
there is evidence that credentials are forthcoming but have been 
delayed, representatives can be allowed to vote on a provisional basis. 
A liberal interpretation of the Rules of Procedure on credentials 
should be adhered to in order to permit clearly legitimate 
representatives to participate. Exclusion of Party representatives 
whose credentials are not in order could undermine essential 
cooperation among Parties. Greater vigilance is necessary however in 
cases of close votes, or decisions to be made by secret ballot.

VIII. Admission of Observers [Doc. 10.5]

    Support admission to the meeting of all technically qualified non-
governmental organizations and oppose unreasonable limitations on their 
full participation at COP10.
    Non-governmental organizations representing a broad range of 
viewpoints and perspectives play a vital and important role in CITES 
activities and have much to offer to the debates and negotiations at a 
COP. Their participation is specifically provided by Article XI of the 
Convention. The United States supports the opportunity for all 
technically qualified observers to fully participate at COPs, as is 
standard CITES practice. The United States also supports flexibility 
and openness in approval of documents produced by non-governmental 
organizations, and the dissemination of these documents to delegates; 
such information sharing is vital to decision-making and scientific and 
technical understanding at a CITES meeting.

IX. Matters Related to the Standing Committee (This Item Consists of 
Three Subitems)

1. Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.6]
    No document has yet been received. The United States fully supports 
the presentation of a report by the Chairman of the Standing Committee 
(Japan) regarding the execution of the Committee's responsibilities and 
its activities that accurately reflects the discussions and decisions 
of the

[[Page 18780]]

Committee. A position on that report is pending receipt of the 
document.
2. Regional Representation [Doc. 10.7]
    No document has yet been received. At COP9 membership in the 
Standing Committee was increased for those CITES regions with a large 
number of Parties. Current membership on the Standing Committee is as 
follows: Chair (Japan), two representatives for Asia (Japan and 
Thailand), three representatives for Africa (Namibia, Senegal, and 
Sudan), two representatives for Europe (Russian Federation and United 
Kingdom), one representative for North America (Mexico), one 
representative for Oceania (Papua New Guinea), two representatives for 
Central, South America, and the Caribbean (Argentina and Trinidad and 
Tobago), Depositary Government (Switzerland), Previous Host Country 
(United States), and Next Host Country (Zimbabwe).
    There have been further discussions in the Standing Committee since 
COP9 on the division of responsibilities among regional 
representatives. Discussions focused on the question of which 
subregions and topical areas each Regional representative would speak 
on and officially represent. The issue of clarifying the 
responsibilities of the Regional representatives has also been 
discussed at meetings of the Animals and Plants Committees. The United 
States proposes to support a division of responsibilities as decided 
independently by each Region.
3. Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members
    The United States encourages membership which will continue the 
active role of the Standing Committee. The Regional Representative for 
North America from COP9 until the present has been Mexico. Discussions 
will take place at the beginning of COP10 among the three North 
American CITES Parties (United States, Mexico, and Canada) on which 
country should be the regional representative between COP10 and COP11.

X. Reports of the Secretariat (This Item Consists of Three Subitems)

    The United States considers the issues which the documents cover 
essential and important matters. However, no documents have yet been 
received. Positions on these matters are pending receipt of documents.
1. Secretariat Report [Doc. 10.8]
2. Strategic Plan [Doc. 10.9]
    The United States notes that the strategic plan of the Secretariat 
adopted at COP9 was a beginning, but was in need of much improvement. 
In order to improve the effectiveness of strategic planning for CITES, 
the United States supports the recommendation of the ``Study of the 
Effectiveness of the Convention'' (see item , XIII.1., below) that the 
Secretariat should develop a strategic plan to guide its work. As 
stated in the Study of the Effectiveness of the Convention, produced by 
Environmental Resources Management (ERM), the ``...plan should include 
programme and policy requirements with a priority set of actions to be 
undertaken by the Parties, Standing Committee and Secretariat.'' The 
United States believes that a strategic plan must be developed in 
consultation with the Standing Committee and the Parties, and as such 
anything submitted by the Secretariat for consideration at COP10 will 
need close scrutiny by the Parties. The United States has no objection 
in principle to the Secretariat seeking or contracting with outside 
organizations or persons for assistance in drafting this plan, but any 
action by the Secretariat, including candidates and the final selection 
should be openly and completely discussed in the Standing Committee, 
and final approval of any outside entities to perform work in this 
regard should rest with the Standing Committee in consultation with the 
Secretariat.
3. Working Plan [Doc. 10.10]
    The United States looks forward to a detailed analysis of the 
working plan of the Secretariat. The Secretariat must be guided by the 
Conference of the Parties in its work plan for the period between COP10 
and COP11, and as such it is up to the COP to review the draft working 
plan and decide on the work and structure of the Secretariat that it 
deems most appropriate, in line with the priorities of the Parties. The 
United States believes that discussion of the working plan and 
strategic plan must be in concert with discussions in the Budget 
Committee, and in full recognition of any budgetary implications.

XI. Financing and Budgeting of the Secretariat and of Meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties (This Item Consists of Four Subitems)

    No document has yet been received. The United States advocates 
fiscal responsibility and accountability on the part of the Secretariat 
and the Conference of the Parties. The United States plans to be an 
active participant in discussions in the Budget Committee at COP10.
1. Financial Report for 1994, 1995 and 1996 [Doc. 10.11]
    No document has yet been received. Issues associated with the 
financial report of the Secretariat will be fully discussed at COP10 
and the United States will closely scrutinize and analyze the relevant 
documents.
2. Anticipated Expenditures for 1997 [Doc. 10.12]
    No document has yet been received. Issues associated with 
anticipated 1997 expenditures of the Secretariat will be fully 
discussed at COP10 and the United States will closely scrutinize and 
analyze the relevant documents.
3. Budget for 1998-2000 and Medium-term Plan for 1998-2002 [Doc. 10.13]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will closely 
scrutinize and analyze the document(s) when received. The United States 
believes that it is important to coordinate Budget Committee 
discussions with discussions in Committees I and II that may have 
budgetary implications. For example, when a resolution with budgetary 
implications is approved by Committee I or II (and then sent to Plenary 
for adoption), it should be conveyed to the Budget Committee in time 
for it to be factored into the budget. There have been cases at 
previous meetings of the COP where the Budget is already approved, and 
the Committees are making decisions that may have financial 
implications. The United States will work through the Bureau at the COP 
to deal with this issue.
4. External Funding [Doc. 10.14]
    External funding refers to the financial support by Party 
governments and non-governmental organizations for projects that have 
been approved as priorities for CITES by the Standing Committee under a 
previously established procedure. This procedure is designed to avoid 
any conflicts of interest or even the appearance of a conflict when 
approving projects and channeling funds between the provider and 
recipient. These externally funded projects are outside of the CITES 
Trust Fund. It has been decided by the Standing Committee that under no 
circumstances are the UNEP overhead costs to be assessed on these 
projects.
    The United States, through the Department of the Interior, and the 
Department of State, continues to contribute external funding to 
Standing Committee-approved projects including delegate travel to the 
COP, support for committee meetings, CITES enforcement and 
implementation training, and

[[Page 18781]]

biological studies of significantly traded species.

XII. Committee Reports and Recommendations (This Item Consists of Four 
Subitems)

1. Animals Committee
(a) Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.15]
    No document has yet been received. The United States fully supports 
the presentation of a report by the Chairman of the Animals Committee 
regarding the execution of the Committee's responsibilities and its 
activities that accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of the 
Committee. A position on that report is pending receipt of the 
document.
(b) Regional Representation [Doc. 10.17]
    The United States supports the active role of the Animals Committee 
in scientific and management issues pertaining to animal species listed 
in the CITES Appendices. We encourage membership which will continue 
the active role of the Animals Committee, and selection of a Chair with 
a strong commitment to a proactive Animals Committee committed to 
conservation. The United States has always participated actively in the 
work of the Animals Committee, and will continue to be an active 
participant in all Committee functions.
    At COP9 membership on the Animals Committee was increased for those 
regions with a larger number of Parties. Current membership includes: 
Africa (two representatives), Asia (two representatives), Europe (one 
representative), North America (one representative), Oceania (one 
representative), Central, South America, and the Caribbean (two 
representatives). The Regional representatives are selected by their 
respective regional caucuses at the COP. The Chair and Vice-Chair will 
be selected by the new Animals Committee, during a meeting to be held 
at the close of COP10.
    During recent discussions in the Animals Committee the issue of 
increased representation for the European Region was discussed, since 
the Region now has 31 countries and was not given additional 
representation at COP9. Consequently, at COP10, there may be a 
recommendation to increase the number of representatives for the 
European Region to two. The United States proposes to support an 
increase of one additional representative for the European Region.
    The United States has submitted a resolution ``Establishment of 
Committees'' (Doc. 10.27) for the purpose of amending Res. Conf. 9.1, 
Annexes 2 and 3. This resolution discusses the designation of members 
of the Animals and Plants Committees. It recommends that membership 
should be for Parties only, and cannot be awarded to individuals. The 
United States strongly believes that Party countries, not individuals, 
are members of CITES, and therefore proposed this change to be 
consistent with standard international practices, and to avoid 
potential, perceived, or real conflicts of interest.
(c) Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members
    Currently, Dr. Charles Dauphine of Canada is the North American 
regional representative on the Animals Committee. The United States 
anticipates adoption of our proposed resolution that will change the 
regional representative to a country rather than an individual (as 
discussed above). At COP10, the United States, Canada, and Mexico will 
meet to decide which country should be the regional Animals Committee 
representative between COP10 and COP11. At that time, the country will 
nominate an individual to serve as contact point. If that individual 
cannot continue serving for any reason, the country selected will 
nominate another individual.
    The other CITES geographic regions will also meet and decide on 
their Animals Committee representatives. Those decisions are made by 
the individual regions. The United States position will be to encourage 
regions to nominate countries that are committed to full participation 
in the work of the committees.
2. Plants Committee
(a) Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.16]
    No document has yet been received. The United States welcomes the 
presentation of a report by the Chair of the Plants Committee regarding 
the execution of the Committee's responsibilities and its activities, 
that accurately reflects the discussions and decisions of the 
Committee. A position on that report is pending receipt of the 
document.
(b) Regional Representation [Doc. 10.7]
    At COP9, as with the Animals Committee, membership on the Plants 
Committee was increased for those regions with a larger number of 
Parties. Current membership includes: Africa (two representatives), 
Asia (two representatives), Europe (one representative), North America 
(one representative), Oceania (one representative), and Central, South 
America, and the Caribbean (two representatives). The Regional 
representatives are selected by their respective Regional caucuses at 
COP10, and a Chair and Vice-Chair will be selected by the new Plants 
Committee, during a meeting to be held at the close of COP10.
(c) Election of New Regional and Alternate Members
    Currently, Dr. Bruce MacBryde of the Service's Office of Scientific 
Authority is the North American Regional representative to the Plants 
Committee. The United States anticipates adoption of our proposed 
resolution that will change the regional representative to a country 
rather than an individual (as discussed above under Animals Committee). 
At COP10, the United States, Canada, and Mexico will meet to decide 
which country should be the regional Plants Committee representative 
between COP10 and COP11. At that time, the selected country will 
nominate an individual to serve as its contact point. If that 
individual cannot continue serving for any reason, the country selected 
will nominate another individual.
    The other CITES geographic regions will also meet and decide on 
their Plants Committee representatives. Those decisions are made by the 
individual regions. The United States position will be to encourage 
regions to nominate countries that are committed to full participation 
in the work of the committees.
3. Identification Manual Committee [Doc. 10.17]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will continue 
to support the continuing development of animal and plant 
identification manuals for use by port and border enforcement 
authorities, in providing a standard of reference for the 
identification of CITES species, within available resources and 
priorities. The United States particularly applauds the United 
Kingdom's efforts in developing the general CITES guide to plants in 
trade. The United States plans to assess all alternatives presented by 
the Secretariat for updating animal sections of the Identification 
Manual, and encourages and will consider all comments from other 
Parties as to the value of the Identification Manual. The United States 
also believes that the posting of the Identification Manual on the 
Internet to facilitate access by all CITES Parties should be explored 
and discussed, considering all the costs and benefits of so doing.
    The United States believes that enforcement officers of the Parties 
must be equipped with guides which are

[[Page 18782]]

accurate, realistic, and helpful in the identification of the many 
CITES species and products found in trade throughout the world. Toward 
this end, the United States supported the efforts of the Canadian 
government in producing a series of extremely useful and highly 
professional identification manuals for CITES species in international 
trade.
4. Nomenclature Committee
    No document has yet been received. The United States will examine 
any documents received from the Secretariat on this agenda item, and 
formulate any further necessary position(s) at that time.
(a) Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.18]
b) Recommendations of the Committee [Doc. 10.19]

XIII. Evolution of the Convention (This Item Consists of Two Subitems)

1. How to Improve the Effectiveness of the Convention
(a) Comments from the Parties and Organizations on the Study [Doc. 
10.20]
    At the Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES in 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, November 1994 (COP9), the Conference of the 
Parties decided to assign the CITES Standing Committee the task of 
conducting a review of the effectiveness of the provisions and 
implementation of the Convention, and to report its findings to the 
next meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The terms of reference 
are found in COP9 document number Com. 9.10 which is a draft decision 
of the COP, later directed to the Standing Committee as a final 
decision of the COP.
    The CITES Standing Committee appointed a team to undertake the 
review including an independent consultant and two individuals chosen 
by the Committee for the information gathering portion of the project. 
On December 21, 1994, the CITES Secretariat published Notification to 
the Parties No. 831, which contained a call for proposals from 
prospective consultants to conduct the study on the effectiveness and 
implementation of the Convention. The firm of Environmental Resources 
Management (ERM), based in London, United Kingdom, was ultimately 
selected for the task. That selection was made by a Monitoring 
Committee of CITES Parties, including several representatives to the 
CITES Standing Committee. The Monitoring Committee, which was selected 
by the Standing Committee, was made up of representatives of the 
following governments: Argentina, Canada, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, 
and the United Kingdom. The study itself and the report that was 
produced were reviewed by the same Monitoring Committee, and the report 
was presented to the December 1996 meeting of the CITES Standing 
Committee. The CITES Standing Committee selected Jaques Berney (retired 
Deputy Secretary General of CITES) and Marshall Jones (Assistant 
Director for International Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) or 
Dr. Susan Lieberman (Chief, CITES Operations Branch, Office of 
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), as the technical 
advisors on the project.
    The initial phase of this review was designed to collate 
information including but not necessarily limited to the following: the 
stated and implied objectives of the Convention and their continued 
relevance to the conservation of wild fauna and flora; the degree of 
effectiveness of conservation for representative species listed in the 
three Appendices of CITES and the extent of this degree of conservation 
that can be attributed to the implementation of the Convention; the 
relationship of the Convention to other global or regional conservation 
treaties or agreements and how the objectives of the Convention may be 
enhanced or hindered by the existence and implementation of these 
treaties or agreements; the ease and effectiveness of implementation, 
including enforcement, of the Convention in Party states; and the 
anticipated and actual roles of various participants in the 
implementation of the Convention, including Party states, non-Party 
states, national and international conservation organizations, and 
national and international trade and development organizations.
    ERM, the contractor on the study, transmitted a questionnaire to 
all CITES Parties (132 countries at the time), as well as international 
non-governmental organizations. In addition, representatives of ERM met 
in person with several governments, in order to obtain more detailed 
responses to the questionnaire and in order to assist ERM in preparing 
its report on the effectiveness of the Convention. ERM was not able to 
meet with all Parties to the Convention while preparing their report, 
due primarily to time constraints inherent in the project. Therefore, 
ERM invited other countries in the region of the Party it was visiting 
to attend the meetings in question for group as well as private 
consultations (discussed in greater detail, below).
    Each country that was visited was asked by ERM to independently 
decide how to consult with neighboring countries, as well as with non-
governmental organizations; the questionnaire sent to the Parties 
recommends broad consultation. The United States supported an 
exceedingly broad, transparent, and consultative process, with active 
input from all non-governmental organizations interested in the 
effectiveness of CITES and the conservation of species subject to 
international trade. ERM stated that it was limited in the countries it 
planed to visit, based on time and funding constraints.
    The Monitoring Committee mentioned above worked with ERM to plan 
the country visits. As outlined in the ERM Study, national 
consultations, headed by either ``core team members'' of the ERM Study 
or ERM regional office staff, were held in the following regions and 
countries (the consultations in question were variable in levels of 
contact and depth as indicated in the ERM Study): Africa (Egypt, Kenya, 
Namibia, Senegal, South Africa and Zimbabwe); Asia (India, Japan and 
Thailand); Europe (separate consultations with members of the European 
CITES Committee and the Russian Federation); North America (Canada, 
Mexico and the United States); Oceania (Australia); and South America, 
Central America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago).
    In addition to these consultations, ERM held meetings with CITES 
Secretariat staff and international non-governmental organizations (the 
World Conservation Union-IUCN, the World Wide Fund For Nature/World 
Wildlife Fund-WWF, Trade Records Analysis of Fauna and Flora In 
Commerce-TRAFFIC, and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre-WCMC). 
ERM also indicated that they consulted with the Secretariats of the 
International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA), Convention on 
Biological Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 
International Importance, Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 
International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (IWC), and the 
Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).
    The United States appreciates that ERM produced a final report 
within the allotted time constraints, and met and consulted with many 
governments, non-governmental organizations, and other bodies during 
preparation of the study. Although the views of countries were obtained 
from questionnaire responses and the in-country meetings arranged by

[[Page 18783]]

ERM, the United States regrets that the time constraints placed on ERM 
in conducting this study precluded substantive, detailed discussions 
with the majority of the Parties. In addition, the United States is 
concerned that the ERM questionnaire did not specifically pose 
questions which directly addressed issues related to enforcement issues 
of the Convention. Nevertheless, ERM has produced a highly professional 
report despite these problems.
(b) Consideration of the Recommendations Arising From the Study [Doc. 
10.21]
    The United States believes that the ERM study has produced a great 
quantity of meaningful recommendations and findings, but concurrently 
believes that some of these could prove controversial. Nevertheless, 
some of the recommendations of the ERM study could be implemented 
either directly by the Secretariat or Standing Committee, or adopted by 
the Conference of the Parties with little controversy. Therefore, we 
believe that the Parties must take direct but cautious steps to 
properly review the recommendations and findings of the report, and act 
deliberately to advance the interests of the Convention.
    The United States recommends that the Parties adopt the report and 
use it as a valuable reference in future decision-making. The ERM 
report provides a useful perspective on the views of the Parties on a 
number of issues. The report is to be commended for focusing on 
majority versus minority viewpoints, which should be used by the 
Parties in assessing priorities for action that could result from the 
study.
    The United States notes that the findings of the ERM report 
demonstrated quite conclusively that the majority of the Parties of the 
Convention believe that the text of the Convention should not be 
amended. This perspective is complemented by ERM highlighting the high 
monetary costs and logistical requirements which would be incurred in 
attempting to conduct any such textural amendments. The United States 
strongly concurs with this view, and hopes that this will discourage 
efforts to amend the treaty or alter its fundamental objectives.
    The United States notes that according to the report, the majority 
of the Parties (including the United States) and international 
organizations believe there is no reason why the application of CITES 
should exclude any taxonomic group. The study goes on to say that a 
minority of the Parties oppose inclusion of commercial fish in the 
CITES Appendices on the grounds that it is premature to consider such 
listing until consultations have been held with the relevant inter-
governmental bodies charged with managing these species and that there 
is often insufficient information available to allow adequate listing 
proposals to be developed.
    While the United States supports many of the ERM recommendations, 
the United States disagrees with others and find some unclear for a 
variety of reasons. Other recommendations could be acted on by the 
Secretariat, Standing Committee, or the meeting of the Conference of 
the Parties. Many of the recommendations in the ERM report could be 
acted on without the introduction of resolutions. In response to a 
request from the CITES Standing Committee and a Notification to the 
Parties, the United States submitted detailed comments on the ERM 
report on March 14, 1997, including comments on all recommendations in 
the report; those comments are available by contacting the Service's 
Office of Management Authority (see ADDRESSES, above).
(c) Co-operation/Synergy With Other Conservation Conventions and 
Agencies
    The United States intends to support the concept and practice of 
cooperation between CITES and other conservation entities, and to 
support cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 
as being potentially useful and relevant to CITES. Representatives of 
other conservation conventions and agencies should be invited to attend 
CITES COPs as observers, including; the CBD, Convention on Migratory 
Species, Ramsar, World Heritage Convention, Convention on 
Desertification and Drought, Convention on the Law of the Sea and 
regional agreements as appropriate.
    The United States agrees that cooperation with the CBD is 
potentially useful and relevant to the purposes of CITES. It is not 
clear that it is necessary to negotiate a comprehensive agreement 
between the Secretariats. Cooperation between Conventions will be most 
effective if it evolves out of recognition of the contribution each can 
make to the other. It may be best to let the relationship between the 
two conventions evolve as the CBD matures, rather than to mandate 
cooperation. Mandated cooperation without a clear sense of how each 
Convention will benefit may result in more work for each Secretariat 
and less focus on the goals central to the interests of the Parties to 
each Convention. It is up to governments to consider the integration of 
their obligations under respective Conventions.
2. Relationship Between CITES and UNEP [Doc. 10.23]
    The United States believes that the current state of the 
relationship between UNEP and CITES is not only unclear, but 
potentially quite damaging to the Convention. The United States 
strongly supports the examination of this relationship, and the 
renegotiation of the 1992 Agreement between the CITES Standing 
Committee and UNEP. The United States is actively involved with the 
Working Group of the Standing Committee that is charged with examining 
this Agreement. A report of the Working Group will be presented to the 
Parties at COP10.

XIV. Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention (This Item 
Consists of Forty-eight Subitems)

1. Review of the Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties
(a) Consolidation of Valid Resolutions [Doc. 10.24]
    No document has yet been received. The United States has been 
supportive of the process of consolidation of valid resolutions, since 
its inception after COP8 as a Standing Committee project. At the 36th 
meeting of the Standing Committee the United States provided comments 
on proposed consolidations of resolutions regarding cetaceans. At the 
37th meeting of the Standing Committee the United States supported the 
Secretariat's efforts to consolidate the resolutions pertaining to 
cetaceans. The United States recognizes these extant resolutions as 
current and valid. The Standing Committee agreed to this consolidation. 
The Committee was presented a draft consolidation on ranching 
resolutions by the Secretariat. The United States supported the 
consolidation, with the exception of the Secretariat's proposal to 
include marine turtle ranching (Resolution Conf. 9.20) in the 
consolidation. The Standing Committee agreed with the United States, 
and it is the U.S. position for COP10 that the consolidated ranching 
resolution should not include the marine turtle ranching resolution 
from COP9 (Conf. 9.20).
    At the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee the Secretariat noted 
that it would produce additional draft resolutions consolidating 
previous resolutions for COP10. These drafts have not yet been received 
from the Secretariat. The United States expressed support for the 
consolidation process, and continues to do so. These consolidations are 
procedural, and do

[[Page 18784]]

not involve renegotiation of any previously adopted text.
    The tentative position of the United States is to fully support the 
continuing effort to consolidate existing Resolutions of the Conference 
of the Parties provided that the consolidation process provides a more 
``user-friendly'' product and does not create consolidated resolutions 
which impinge on the validity of resolutions which are still sound.
(b) Index of Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties [Doc. 10.25]
    This resolution, submitted by Australia, recommends and proposes an 
alphabetical index of resolutions of the Conference of the Parties from 
Res. Conf. 1.1 to Res. Conf. 9.26 (all resolutions adopted from the 
first CITES COP, through COP9 held in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida).
    The United States considers the Index of Resolutions to be a very 
good idea that could be an effective tool to assist Parties in 
administrating their responsibilities under the Convention. The index 
could serve as a guide to all Resolutions and a historical record of 
Resolutions in force, repealed, and amended. However, the United States 
proposes not to support the document as drafted. Considerable work 
needs to be done on the index and input from the Parties gained during 
its development. The index needs to be revised to reference all 
resolutions that pertain to a subject and reviewed to ensure that the 
information is accurate. In addition, the index would be more useful 
with some format changes, such as alphabetizing categories under each 
major heading and converting lengthy phrases to key words. The United 
States is contacting Australia to discuss our proposed position and 
suggest we would work with them and other interested Parties between 
this Conference of the Parties and the next to complete the document. 
If the Parties agree to this approach at COP10, the document once 
completed could be forwarded to the Standing Committee for review and, 
if accepted, to the Secretariat for distribution to the Parties and 
interested non-governmental organizations (prior to COP11).
2. Report on National Reports Under Article VIII, Paragraph 7, of the 
Convention [Doc. 10.26]
    No document has yet been received. The United States proposes to 
support efforts to encourage all Parties to submit annual reports, for 
all species of fauna and flora, consistent with their domestic 
legislation. Each Party is required by the Convention to submit an 
annual report containing a summary of the permits it has granted, and 
the types and numbers of specimens of species in the CITES Appendices 
that it has imported and exported. Accurate report data are essential 
to measure the impact of international trade on species, and can be a 
useful enforcement tool, particularly when comparing imports into a 
given country, contrasted with export quotas from other countries. The 
United States is current in its Annual Report obligations.
3. Amendment to Resolution Conf. 9.1 on Establishment of Committees 
[Doc. 10.27]
    This is a U.S.-sponsored resolution. See Federal Register notice of 
March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this 
resolution.
4. Enforcement
(a) Review of Alleged Infractions and Other Problems of Implementation 
of the Convention [Doc. 10.28]
    Article XIII of the Convention provides for COP review of alleged 
infractions. The Secretariat prepares an Infractions Report for each 
COP, which details instances that the Convention is not being 
effectively implemented, or where trade is adversely affecting a 
species. The United States proposes to support the Secretariat's 
biennial review of alleged infractions by the Parties, and necessary 
and appropriate recommendations to obtain wider compliance with the 
terms of the Convention. The United States also proposes to support an 
open discussion at COP10 of major infractions, and the enforcement of 
the laws and regulations implementing the Convention.
    The United States received a draft copy of the Infractions Report 
to be presented at COP10 from the Secretariat and made comments on all 
matters concerning the United States. A final version of the report has 
not been received. When it is received from the Secretariat, it will be 
closely scrutinized by the United States, and comments provided to the 
Secretariat if necessary.
    The United States supports the hard work of the Secretariat in 
assembling the Infractions Report. However, the United States is 
concerned that the draft report did not demonstrate a special focus on 
high priority infractions and violations of the Convention. For 
example, some cases of technical errors or document irregularities 
received more attention than major criminal cases involving smuggling 
of Appendix I species and cooperation among the enforcement agencies of 
several governments. For example, one case in the draft report refers 
to the sentencing of a major parrot smuggler in the United States to 
almost 7 years in prison and a significant fine; this case involved 
excellent cooperation with several other governments, and the crimes 
involved caused serious potential harm to macaw populations in South 
America. Many other countries have also prosecuted significant 
violators since COP9, and the United States has urged the Secretariat 
to highlight such cases in the final Infractions Report.
    The first draft of the Infractions Report contained numerous such 
alleged infractions, including some related to U.S. implementation of 
the Convention. As with previous Infraction Reports prepared by the 
Secretariat, there is a great difference in the depth of reporting of 
different alleged infractions, due to what appear to be a variety of 
reasons, but primarily because Parties to the Convention have not 
communicated sufficient information to the Secretariat regarding these 
matters. It appears that, as with previous infraction reports, a large 
number of alleged infractions may be caused by a lack of training, 
personnel or knowledge on the workings of CITES. These are matters that 
can be addressed and significantly improved. The majority of the 
alleged infractions highlighted in the draft Infractions Report for 
COP10 should be issues of major concern to the Parties as they have 
serious consequences for the effectiveness of the Convention, and for 
conservation.
(b) Working Group on Illegal Trade in CITES Specimens [Doc. 10.29]
    This is a U.S.-sponsored resolution. See Federal Register notice of 
March 27, 1997 for a rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this 
resolution.
(c) Inspection of Wildlife Shipments [Doc. 10.30]
    This is a U.S.-sponsored resolution. See Federal Register notice of 
March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this 
resolution.
5. National Laws for Implementation of the Convention [Doc. 10.31]
(a) Analysis of the National Legislation of Parties
(b) Measures Taken by Parties to Improve Their Legislation
(c) Measures to be Taken With Regard to Parties Without National 
Legislation
(d) Technical Assistance Provided to Parties
    No documentation has been received on any of the listed topics 
under this sub-item. The United States will

[[Page 18785]]

examine any documents received from the Secretariat on these topics, 
and then formulate any further necessary position(s).
    Generally, the U.S. is strongly supportive of the COP8-initiated 
review of national laws for the implementation of the Convention; such 
laws are required of Parties under Article VIII of CITES. The Service 
has in the past provided funding for this Secretariat-sponsored 
activity, and has received reviews of national legislation for several 
countries. The U.S. strongly believes that the Convention's 
effectiveness is undermined when Party states do not have national laws 
and regulations in place for implementing CITES, including laws and 
regulations which authorize the seizure and/or forfeiture of specimens 
imported or exported in contravention of the Convention, as well as 
penalties for such violations.
    The project, which was approved by the Parties at COP8, will 
identify deficiencies and highlight those Parties in need of 
improvements in their national CITES implementing legislation. Parties 
which are identified as not having adequate legislation are required 
under a decision reached at COP9 to have initiated efforts to enact 
such laws. At the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee Doc. SC.37.10 
on this topic was discussed, as the current project has categorized the 
adequacy of Parties' national CITES legislation with numerical 
assignments of 1, 2, and 3 (3 representing the most inadequate 
legislation). The U.S. noted at this meeting that action is needed at 
COP10 to address those countries that have made no progress enacting 
relevant laws, and have not even communicated with the Secretariat or 
initiated any efforts towards that end.
6. Training [Doc. 10.32]
    No document has yet been received. The United States has provided 
training on CITES enforcement and/or implementation since COP9 in: 
Bangladesh, China, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nepal, the 
Philippines, Russia, and Taiwan. The United States is currently 
planning several more training programs for the coming years, and 
considers this a very high priority activity.
    The United States supports all efforts by the Secretariat and other 
Parties to the Convention to provide training in CITES implementation 
and enforcement to other Parties who are in need of such. The Parties 
concur that training is of the highest priority, as evidenced in the 
ERM Report on the Effectiveness of the Convention. United States will 
endeavor to ensure that this high priority on training will be 
reflected in the CITES Budget adopted at COP10.
7. Implementation of the Convention in Small Island Developing Nations 
[Doc. 10.33]
    No document has yet been received. Some small island developing 
nations, particularly those in Oceania, have been unable to accede to 
CITES because of the substantial resources which they feel are needed 
to fully implement and enforce the Convention. Of particular concern is 
the need to name Management and Scientific Authorities. Therefore, 
under a plan supported by the government of New Zealand, those 
countries would be permitted to share the services of a multi-national 
Management and/or Scientific Authority. The United States supports full 
international membership in CITES and proposes to continue supporting 
the plan advanced by New Zealand, and believes it is an excellent 
avenue towards helping small island developing nations accede to the 
Convention.
 8. Relationship with the International Whaling Commission [Doc. 10.34]
    This resolution, submitted by Japan, calls for the repeal of Res. 
Conf. 2.9; that resolution recommends that ``the Parties agree not to 
issue any import or export permit or certificate'' for introduction 
from the sea under CITES for primarily commercial purposes ``for any 
specimen of a species or stock protected from commercial whaling by the 
International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.'' In 1978 the 
International Whaling Commission [IWC] passed a resolution requesting 
that CITES ``take all possible measures to support the International 
Whaling Commission ban on commercial whaling for certain species and 
stocks of whales as provided in the Schedule to the International 
Convention on the Regulation of Whaling .''
    At the time the 1978 IWC Resolution was passed, some populations of 
whales were listed in Appendix I and some in Appendix II. From 1979 to 
1983, as zero catch limits were set in the ICRW Schedule for additional 
populations of whales, the CITES Conference of Parties added those 
populations of whales to Appendix I. Most importantly, at the Fourth 
Conference of the Parties in 1983, CITES decided that ``All cetaceans 
for which the catches are regulated by the IWC and for which the 
Commission has set catch limits for commercial whaling (except for the 
West Greenland population of minke whales) and not already on Appendix 
I would be transferred to that Appendix in 1986, when the IWC decision 
to implement a pause in commercial whaling comes into effect.'' This 
action by CITES COP4 established a strong relationship between the two 
organizations whereby CITES has agreed to reflect IWC decisions in its 
Appendices.
    At the most recent meeting (37th) of the CITES Standing Committee, 
Res. Conf. 2.9 was incorporated into a proposed consolidated resolution 
for consideration by COP10, although one Party in attendance at the 
Standing Committee meeting objected to this.
    The IWC has not lifted the moratorium, although some nations, such 
as Japan and Norway, call for the lifting of the IWC moratorium. The 
IWC continues to work on activities that the United States believes 
must be completed before any consideration can be given to a resumption 
of commercial whaling. These elements include development of a 
scientific scheme for setting quotas and division of an observation and 
monitoring program to ensure that quotas are not exceeded. Japan 
continues to circumvent the letter of the Treaty by allowing increasing 
high catches of whales for ``research'' purposes in the Antarctic, and 
more recently, in the North Pacific. Norway, has since 1993, openly 
defied the moratorium, by setting its own quota for the take of whales 
in the North Atlantic.
    In consideration of the process related to this issue to date, the 
United States opposes this resolution.
9. Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.3 on Permits and Certificates [Doc. 
10.35]
    This is a U.S. sponsored resolution. See Federal Register notice of 
March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this 
resolution.
10. Interpretation of Article II, Paragraph 2(b), and Article IV, 
Paragraph 3 [Doc. 10.36]
    This resolution, submitted by France, recommends (a) that Parties 
be exempt from the requirements in Article IV, paragraph 3 of the 
Convention, to monitor exports of species listed in Appendix II for 
reasons of similarity of appearance, in order to control the trade in 
other listed species, and (b) to mark such specimens in trade with a 
special identification tag.
    The United States proposes to oppose this resolution for several 
reasons. Listing under Article II.2.b. of the CITES treaty is a very 
important tool to provide the necessary protection to other species 
listed in Appendices I and II. The listing in Appendix II for 
similarity-of-appearance purposes allows for the detection of shifts in 
the market toward

[[Page 18786]]

species listed for reasons of similarity of appearance (which could put 
those species at risk as well). In the case of species listed for 
reasons of similarity of appearance, it is important to sufficiently 
monitor their international trade to obtain data which could indicate 
increased levels of trade in them.
11. Interpretation of Article XIV, Paragraph 1 [Doc. 10.37]
    This resolution, submitted by France, recommends that Parties to 
the Convention not adopt stricter domestic measures for non-native 
species, and only institute such steps for indigenous taxa when illegal 
trade is present. The resolution also recommends that Parties increase 
their consultation with other range states if enacting stricter 
domestic measures for non-native species.
    The United States intends to strongly oppose adoption of this 
resolution on the grounds that it is contrary to the text of the 
Convention and represents an infringement on state sovereignty. As 
Article XIV, paragraph 1 of CITES states: ``The provisions of the 
present Convention shall in no way affect the right of parties to 
adopt: (a) stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for 
trade, taking possession or transport of specimens of species included 
in Appendices I, II and III, or the complete prohibition thereof; or 
(b) domestic measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking 
possession, or transport of species not included in Appendices I, II or 
III.''
    The resolution submitted by France ignores the series of 
resolutions adopted at previous COPs, as well as numerous decisions of 
the Standing Committee, calling for CITES Parties to adopt stricter 
domestic measures to improve the effective implementation of the 
Convention for the conservation of species of global concern, 
regardless of whether the taxa in question were native or non-native to 
any particular country.
    It should also be noted that consultations with range states do 
occur when Parties are considering listing non-native species in the 
CITES Appendices. Therefore, range states are consulted and their views 
and data considered prior to any listing of species in the Appendices.
    Many countries have adopted a large number of laws and regulations 
which are stricter domestic measures with regard to imports and exports 
of CITES-listed species and non-CITES species. Such laws in the United 
States include the Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), 
the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.), the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 73 et seq.), and the Endangered Species Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). The United States has also adopted stricter 
domestic measures under authority of the Pelly Amendment to the 
Fisherman's Protective Act (22 U.S.C. 1978).
12. Revision of the Definition of ``Primarily Commercial Purposes'' 
[Doc. 10.38]
    This resolution, submitted by Namibia, would amend portions of 
Conf. 5.10, thus revising the Parties' interpretation of the term 
``primarily commercial purposes'' in CITES. Conf. 5.10 was developed to 
help countries apply the terms ``primarily commercial purposes'', 
``commercial purposes'', and ``non-commercial''. The Parties recognized 
that interpretation of the provisions of Article III, paragraphs 3(c) 
and 5(c) varied significantly between Parties. Several examples were 
provided in order to help the Parties address situations that could 
arise when evaluating whether an import could be considered ``primarily 
commercial'' or not. The key to understanding both the treaty and Conf. 
5.10 however is the fact that the decision on whether or not an import 
permit is contingent upon the finding of the importing country that the 
import is for non-commercial purposes.
    Under this proposed resolution, the ``primarily commercial 
purposes'' decision would be based on activities in the exporting 
country, rather than the importing country (as specified in the treaty 
and Conf. 5.10), such that transactions with Appendix I specimens or 
derivatives would not be interpreted as being for ``primarily 
commercial purposes'' despite commercial components if the following 
conditions are met: (1) the specimens and derivatives result from 
routine conservation and management programs, including the recovery of 
natural populations, which are owned and controlled by a government of 
a Party and (2) the transaction is (a) conducted under the direct and 
full control of both the importing and exporting governments and is 
open to inspection by the CITES Secretariat or any body agreed to by 
both governments and the CITES Secretariat; (b) the exporting country 
allocates all net income from the transaction to conservation and 
management programs for the species concerned, its habitat, education 
and awareness programs, and to the development of communities directly 
involved in the management and conservation programs; (c) the importing 
country certifies that the imported specimens will be used in a 
cultural and traditional manner and will not be re-exported; (d) the 
exporting government certifies that the export will not be prejudicial 
to the species, but will enhance the status of the species; and (e) the 
transaction receives prior approval by the Standing Committee.
    The United States proposes to oppose this resolution as written, 
conditions notwithstanding, as it potentially could create loopholes 
for trade in specimens of Appendix I species, resulting in 
commercialization that could lead to the extirpation or extinction of a 
species. It would also weaken the intent of CITES, which was to 
strictly regulate trade in specimens of Appendix I species (Article II, 
paragraph 1). The resolution as drafted is not in accordance with the 
treaty.
    The United States is sympathetic to the concerns of the proponent 
country and its conservation efforts; however, the resolution, as 
written, is inconsistent with the intent of the Convention and could 
open up loopholes for trade in Appendix I species, that are at a higher 
risk of exploitation. The draft resolution inappropriately focuses on 
the purpose of the take of the animal, versus the ultimate use of the 
animal or specimen.
13. Criteria for Granting Export Permits in Accordance with Article V, 
Paragraph 2 [Doc. 10.39]
    No document has yet been received. This agenda item refers to the 
decision of COP9 directing the Standing Committee to prepare a draft 
resolution containing criteria for granting export permits in 
accordance with Article V, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The United 
States has previously held the position, in agreement with the 
Secretariat, that such criteria are not necessary, particularly in 
light of the adoption of Resolutions Conf. 9.3 and 9.25. This position 
advocated and advanced by the United States was adopted by the Standing 
Committee at its 37th meeting.
    The United States will examine any documents received from the 
Secretariat on this agenda item, and formulate any further necessary 
position(s) at that time.
14. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat [Doc. 10.40]
    This is a United States sponsored discussion paper. See Federal 
Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the U.S. 
submission of this resolution.

[[Page 18787]]

15. Illegal Trade in Bear Specimens [Doc. 10.41]
    No document has yet been received. Discussions at COP10 of the 
illegal trade in bear specimens will most likely follow from previous 
discussions held at the last meetings for the Animals and Standing 
Committees. In response to the serious problems of conservation of bear 
populations throughout the world caused by the illegal trade in bear 
parts and products of Appendix I species, the United States placed this 
issue on the agenda of the Animals and Standing Committees.
    One important decision of the Animals Committee recognizes that 
``bears are native to Asia, Europe, North America, and South America, 
and as such the problem of conservation of bears caused by illegal 
trade in their parts and products is a global one.'' The United States 
believes that this decision is important in that it reflects an 
awareness that problems of illegal trade are not limited to one region 
of the world, but affect all populations and all geographic regions. 
Again, this points to the need for both domestic and multilateral 
solutions to these problems.
    Under a request from the Animals Committee, the CITES Secretariat 
issued Notification to the Parties #946 which stressed the serious 
problems of bear conservation and illegal trade, and requested that 
Parties submit for discussion at COP10 information on wild bear 
populations, trade, threats, legislative and/or regulatory controls on 
bear harvesting, enforcement, interdiction, and prosecution efforts 
related to illegal trade, the kinds of bear derivatives and products 
available on the open market, efforts to promote the use of substitutes 
in traditional medicines, and information on public education and 
outreach efforts. The purpose for this notification, and the 
compilation of information, was to ascertain what the real problems 
are, what efforts have been made by countries, and what solutions could 
benefit bear conservation. The United States has responded to this 
notification and provided information on its bear populations, and 
trade and enforcement activities. (Copies of this response are 
available from the Service's Office of Management Authority.)
    The Secretariat will be compiling and reviewing the responses 
received from the Parties in response to this notification, and 
preparing a report for discussion at COP10. Upon receiving this report, 
the United States will review it closely and develop a policy position. 
The United States intends to stay deeply engaged with CITES efforts to 
protect bear populations.
16. Exports of Leopard Hunting Trophies and Skins [Doc. 10.42]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documentation is 
received from the Secretariat, the United States will evaluate it and 
formulate a policy position.
17. Trade in Tiger Specimens [Doc. 10.43]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documentation is 
received from the Secretariat, the United States will evaluate it and 
formulate a policy position.
    At the 36th meeting of the Standing Committee, all Parties were 
asked to provide information at the Committee's 37th meeting on their 
efforts to end trade in tiger parts and products, reduce poaching of 
wild tigers, and implement Conf. 9.13 (Conservation of and Trade in 
Tigers) passed at COP9. The United States provided such documents to 
the Secretariat for the 36th and 37th meetings of the Standing 
Committee.
    At the 37th meeting of the Committee the United States reported on 
the following issues: efforts to interdict illegal shipments coming 
into the United States; training in Asia on CITES enforcement and 
implementation; progress made by the Service's National Fish and 
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (Division of Law Enforcement, Ashland, 
Oregon), including analysis of levels of arsenic, mercury, and other 
chemicals found in patented traditional Asian medicinal products; the 
Service's education and outreach program with the United States Asian 
community and a similar outreach program with the United States 
traditional Asian medicine practitioner community; the Rhinoceros and 
Tiger Conservation Act passed by the United States Congress and the 
Service's review of grant proposals under the Act; and funding through 
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for such grants. (Copies of 
this document are available through the Service's Office of Management 
Authority.)
    On March 13, 1997, the Service announced the awarding of the first-
ever grants issued under authority of the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
Conservation Act of 1994. The Act provides monies to fund projects that 
will enhance sustainable development programs to ensure effective long-
term rhino and tiger conservation. Congress had authorized $200,000 in 
funding for fiscal year 1996 and $400,000 for fiscal year 1997. Ten 
projects receiving funding were announced, including three specifically 
targeted on tiger conservation efforts in India, Indonesia, and Nepal, 
while two additional projects benefiting both tigers and Asian rhinos 
were funded in India and Indonesia. Combined awards for these projects 
total $96,300. Additional monies were allocated to grants for rhino 
conservation projects (see discussion under item 19). The National Fish 
& Wildlife Foundation also administers the Save The Tiger Fund, a 
program funded by Exxon to assist with the conservation of tigers by 
providing grants to a wide variety of applicants.
18. Trade in African Elephant Specimens
(a) Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.16 [Doc. 10.44]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documents are 
received from the Secretariat the United States will review them and 
develop a policy position.
(b) Revision of Resolution Conf. 7.9 [Doc. 10.45]
    At the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee discussions were held 
pertaining to the implementation of Conf. 7.9, which establishes the 
Panel of Experts process for review of proposals to transfer African 
elephant populations from Appendix I to II. At that meeting the 
Secretariat recommended repeal of Conf. 7.9 for several reasons, 
including the view that the new CITES listing criteria (Conf. 9.24) are 
sufficient. The United States continues to believe that the Panel of 
Experts review is important and provides an independent assessment that 
should be retained. The United States recalls that several African 
elephant range states at the last meeting of the Standing Committee 
supported continuation of the Panel of Experts process. The United 
States continues to advocate that the panel review should be expanded 
to include review of specific ivory importing countries, if so 
identified in a proposal. The United States believes that the Standing 
Committee should not make a recommendation to the COP on repeal of 
Conf. 7.9, but rather should leave that discussion and decision up to 
the COP. The United States fully intends to evaluate the analyses in 
the most recent Panel of Experts report, and to take those analyses 
into consideration in the development of its positions on proposed 
transfers of certain African elephant populations to Appendix II.
(c) Stockpiles of Ivory [Doc. 10.46]
    No document has yet been received. At COP9, the Conference of the 
Parties asked the Standing Committee to

[[Page 18788]]

evaluate issues pertaining to ivory stockpiles, and make 
recommendations to the Parties. At the 37th meeting of the Standing 
Committee, representatives of Africa reported on a meeting held in 
Dakar, Senegal of African elephant range states (the United States 
provided financial assistance for the meeting). At that meeting, 
several options were presented and agreed upon by the range states. The 
United States position at the Standing Committee meeting was that no 
single option should be endorsed by the Standing Committee, as long as 
the options are fully in accordance with the provisions of the CITES 
treaty, since countries should be able to evaluate all options. The 
United States continues to support that position. The United States 
will evaluate the document being prepared by the Secretariat, and 
develop its position on it subsequently.
19. Trade in and Conservation of Rhinoceroses
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documents are 
received from the Secretariat the United States will review them and 
develop a policy position. At the 37th meeting of the Standing 
Committee, the Committee agreed to support the continued efforts of the 
IUCN/SSC African Rhino Specialist Group (AfRSG) (Doc. SC.37.17), and 
agreed to endorse efforts by that group to develop indicators to 
measure the impact(s) of the CITES listing of the species. While 
endorsing the efforts, the document prepared by the AfRSG was not 
adopted by the Committee. The United States agreed with the Standing 
Committee's endorsement of the efforts of the AfRSG, but supported the 
position of the Committee in not adopting the document.
    As discussed above, on March 13, 1997, the Service announced the 
awarding of the first-ever grants issued under authority of the 
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. The Act provides monies 
to fund projects that will enhance sustainable development programs to 
ensure effective long-term rhino and tiger conservation. Congress had 
authorized $200,000 in funding for fiscal year 1996 and $400,000 for 
fiscal year 1997. Four projects were funded, which directly benefit 
African rhino conservation, two in Kenya, and one each in South Africa 
and Zaire. An additional five projects were funded, which directly 
benefit Asian rhinos: two projects are in India and three in Indonesia. 
Two projects were funded which will benefit both tiger and Asian rhino 
conservation. Combined awards for these projects totaled $154,221.
(a) Implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.14 [Doc. 10.47]
(b) Trade in Live Rhinoceroses from South Africa [Doc. 10.48]
    No document has been received on this issue. At COP9, South 
Africa's population of the white rhinoceros was transferred to Appendix 
II, with an annotation to allow only trade in live rhinoceroses and 
sport-hunted trophies. South Africa is expected to submit a report to 
COP10 on its implementation of this down listing. The United States 
interpretation of the proceedings at COP9 was that there would be a 
proposal from the Depositary Government (Switzerland) to transfer the 
population back to Appendix I, submitted to COP10, as well as a 
proposal from South Africa to retain the population back to Appendix II 
(if it wanted to do so). The Secretariat's interpretation differed, and 
the Secretariat has informed the United States that no such procedure 
is necessary. The United States notes that South Africa has submitted a 
proposal to ``amend'' its annotation for this species. The United 
States believes that this proposal constitutes a new species proposal, 
one which would transfer the population to Appendix II, and as such 
must be evaluated in the context of the CITES listing criteria in 
Resolution Conf. 9.24. The United States believes that these 
annotations bring up important issues that will be addressed once a 
document is received on this agenda item.
20. Exports of Vicuna Cloth [Doc. 10.49]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will develop 
its position after the document is received.
21. Conservation of Edible-Nest Swiftlets of the Genus Collocalia [Doc. 
10.50]
    This document has not yet been received from the Secretariat. At 
COP9, in response to submission of a proposal to include these species 
in CITES Appendix II, a decision was adopted to convene an 
international scientific and management workshop on the conservation of 
edible-nest swiftlets in the genus Collocalia. This agenda item will 
discuss the results of that workshop, held in Indonesia in 1996. The 
United States did not attend the workshop, and will develop its 
position after the document is received.
22. Biological and Trade Status of Sharks [Doc. 10.51]
    No document has yet been received. The United States has actively 
participated in the implementation of Conf. 9.17 which directs the 
Animals Committee to report to COP10 on the biological and trade status 
of sharks. The Animals Committee prepared a discussion paper in this 
regard. Conf. 9.17 also requested that the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) and international 
fisheries management organizations establish programs to collect and 
assemble the necessary biological and trade data on sharks species, and 
that such information be distributed to the Parties at COP10. The 
recommendations contained in the Animals Committee discussion paper 
call for continued cooperation between the FAO, international fisheries 
organizations, and CITES. In addition, many questions were raised 
concerning technical and practical aspects of implementation concerns 
associated with inclusion of marine fish species which are subject to 
large-scale commercial harvesting and international trade, and also 
listed on the CITES Appendices.
    In order to provide a framework for this and other activities that 
CITES will undertake to implement Conf. 9.17, the United States has 
introduced a resolution for consideration at COP10 concerning the 
formation of a Marine Fishes Working Group. See the Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
23. Trade in Plant Specimens
    No document has yet been received. The United States will develop 
its position after the document is received.
(a) Implementation of the Convention for Timber Species [Doc. 10.52]
    At the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee, the Deputy Secretary 
General of CITES, acting as Chair of the Timber Working Group (TWG), 
introduced document Doc. SC.37.13, which sought the direction of the 
Committee on recommendations to be made to the Parties at COP10. (As 
noted at this meeting, the Secretariat planned to re-introduce this 
document, unchanged, to COP10 for consideration by the Parties.) At the 
Standing Committee meeting, the United States noted the positive, 
productive, and cooperative tone which characterized the TWG meetings. 
The United States also noted that the document submitted by the TWG 
(Doc. SC.37.13) was assembled by the technical experts who attended the 
Group's meetings.
    The United States agreed that the resolutions drafted by the TWG 
should be submitted to COP10, except the one entitled Regarding 
Appendix III Listings (TWG.02.Concl.04 (Rev.)). The United

[[Page 18789]]

States strongly opposed this recommended amendment of Conf. 9.25, and 
proposes to continue to do so at COP10. That draft resolution concludes 
that limiting an Appendix III listing to geographically separate 
populations would not necessarily result in enforcement difficulties 
for Parties; the U.S. disagrees. The draft does not take into account 
implementation and enforcement concerns, especially for species other 
than timber tree species. The United States believes that the draft 
resolution is a misinterpretation of Appendix III.
    The topic of extending the term of the TWG was also discussed by 
the Group itself and reported at the Standing Committee meeting. The 
TWG recommended that extending the term of the working group be 
considered, if technical issues need to be addressed, with the same 
membership, but be convened only at the request of the Standing 
Committee, to discuss specific issues. The United States supported that 
recommendation, with the caveat that the Terms of Reference of the TWG 
remain the same.
    With regards to United States financial support for future TWG 
meetings, the United States position is that any such funding is 
dependent on Federal agency budgets, about which information is not 
currently available. However, continued financial support from the 
United States for future TWG meetings should not be considered likely 
given expected budgetary pressures.
(b) Amendment to the Definition of ``Artificially Propagated'' [Doc. 
10.53]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will develop 
its position after the document is received.
(c) Disposal of Confiscated Live Plants [Doc. 10.54]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will develop 
its position after the document is received. The United States has 
established a system of Plant Rescue Centers (PRC) for the placement of 
confiscated live plants. The Service's Office of Management Authority 
and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) work together closely on the 
implementation of this rescue center program.
24. Significant Trade in Appendix II Species
(a) Animals [Doc. 10.55]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documents are 
received from the Secretariat the United States will review them and 
develop further policy positions as warranted.
    At the 12th meeting of the Animals Committee, the review of species 
slated for examination in 1995 under the Significant Trade Review 
process (Conf. 8.9) was discussed at length and recommendations to the 
Secretariat from each of the CITES Regions were made through the 
Committee Chair. Prior to the 13th meeting of the Committee it was not 
clear whether the Secretariat had fully followed through with primary 
and secondary recommendations made to range States which are developed 
in this process. In reviewing the species slated for examination in 
1996, the United States recommended that an assessment of the progress 
made to date by IUCN on developing a target list be conducted, and the 
United States advocated a rapid completion of the task if it were not 
yet complete. In addition, the United States delegation stressed the 
need for field projects to study significantly traded species in the 
wild, rather than extensive revision of lists in the Significant Trade 
Review process.
    There was considerable discussion about the Significant Trade 
Review process, particularly regarding concerns that recommendations 
made to the Secretariat for transmission to the range states are 
neither specific enough or sufficiently ``action-oriented.'' (The 
United States endorsed this point.) Concerns were also discussed 
regarding consultation with range states in lieu of forwarding specific 
primary or secondary recommendations to the Secretariat, as this was 
believed to be a misuse of the Significant Trade Review process. Except 
for corals and queen conch (both species under review in this process), 
the Secretariat has transmitted primary and secondary recommendations 
on the 1995 species significant trade review to range States.
    During discussion at the 13th meeting of the Animals Committee of 
the 1996 review of taxa in the Significant Trade Review process, there 
was confusion about the timing of the review cycles used in this 
process. It was clarified that each cycle should correspond to an 
interval between meetings of the CITES Conference of the Parties. The 
United States supported an agreement not to initiate another round of 
reviews (the 1996 reviews), but to complete the 1995 cycle between that 
meeting and COP10, and then devote efforts to evaluating the outcomes 
of previously reviewed species, especially involving Parties receiving 
primary recommendations from the review process. It was also agreed, 
and the United States supported the concern, that insufficient 
resources were being applied to field studies and that this aspect of 
the Significant Trade Review process suffers if new species are 
reviewed before adequate follow-up, such as field studies, have been 
implemented for previously reviewed species.
    The United States introduced a draft resolution on reporting and 
identification of corals in trade, at the request of the 12th meeting 
of the Animals Committee. As this is a United States sponsored 
resolution, see Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the United States submission of this resolution.
(b) Plants [Doc. 10.56]
    The United States proposes to support the recommendations of the 
working group on significant trade of the Plants Committee. The 
recommendations are non-controversial, and accomplish a fine-tuning of 
the process for plants that is already underway for animals. Such an 
adjustment is needed to accommodate the greater number of higher-taxon 
listings of plants in Appendix II of the Convention. The United States 
believes that this process is a generally effective approach, as has 
been demonstrated for example, with tree ferns, where entire families 
are listed.
25. Sale of Tourist Items of Appendix I Species at International 
Airports, Seaports, and Border Crossings [Doc. 10.57]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
26. Trade in Specimens of Species Transferred to Appendix II Subject to 
Annual Export Quotas [Doc. 10.58]
    No document has yet been received from the Secretariat. The United 
States will develop its position after the document is received.
27. Trade in Alien Species [Doc. 10.59]
    This topic is addressed in an issue document co-sponsored by the 
United States and New Zealand. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 
1997, for a rationale explaining the United States submission of this 
document.
28. Establishment of a Working Group for Marine Fish Species [Doc. 
10.60]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.

[[Page 18790]]

29. Scientific Justification for National Export Quotas [Doc. 10.61]
    This resolution, submitted by Israel, discusses the publication and 
distribution of CITES export quotas by the Secretariat and recommends 
the provision of relevant scientific evidence and non-detriment 
findings by Parties when transmitting their own national export quotas 
for Appendix II species to the Secretariat.
    The resolution raises many concerns which the United States shares 
and provides for interesting points in need of additional consideration 
and study by the Parties. It brings forth a valid point with respect to 
the need for non-detriment findings in support of export quotas 
submitted by many Parties. Since the CITES Convention requires Parties 
to make a non-detriment finding when issuing an export permit, 
providing that finding or the documentation of such finding to the 
CITES Secretariat should not be burdensome to Parties that are 
effectively implementing the Convention. There have been problems with 
the quota system where quotas were established and implemented without 
a scientific justification.
    The United States supports the preparation of scientific non-
detriment findings and justifications by all Parties for the export of 
indigenous Appendix II species before authorizing or otherwise issuing 
export permits, as required by the Convention. Quotas submitted to the 
Secretariat should be supported by scientific documentation in the 
exporting country, and the Secretariat and Parties should be active in 
utilizing the Significant Trade Process of review by the Animals 
Committee to make determinations as to whether Parties are 
appropriately addressing the scientific needs inherent in issuing 
realistic and appropriate non-detriment findings. However, this 
resolution however refers to those quotas that are determined by 
individual exporting countries, and not those quotas that are approved 
by the Conference of the Parties. At present, the United States is 
studying the issue of whether the draft resolution submitted by Israel 
is needed in order to interpret the Convention.
30. Disposal of Stocks of Dead Specimens of Appendix I Species [Doc. 
10.62]
    The draft resolution would modify Conf. 9.10 in that it recommends 
that confiscated dead specimens of Appendix I species not be destroyed, 
but utilized for all useful purposes in accordance with the Convention, 
in particular for educational, research or scientific activities, but 
also for ``the cultural and artistic heritage'' (translation provided 
by the Embassy of France). The resolution makes no reference to the 
enforcement obligation of Parties to CITES as enumerated in Article 
VIII, but instead CITES economic and social development provisions of 
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
    The United States intends to oppose this resolution and believes 
that Conf. 9.10 as adopted by the Parties is effective as written. The 
United States believes that this draft resolution, if adopted, would 
create a number of enforcement problems, not the least of which would 
involve the large stockpiles of African elephant ivory currently 
maintained in a number of range states. By opening the door to the 
cultural and artistic utilization of stockpiles of Appendix I species, 
there would be a serious problem of distinguishing between illegal 
trade and ``cultural'' trade. The United States is concerned that the 
use of these specimens for cultural or artistic purposes could result 
in increased consumer demand for other such specimens.
    In addition, the United States believes that this resolution, if 
adopted, would detrimentally impact controls on seized Appendix I 
plants and plant materials. The United States recognizes that there may 
exist many appropriate cultural or artistic uses of accumulated dead 
specimens of Appendix I animals and plants. However, the United States 
also recognizes that establishing appropriate mechanisms to ensure that 
these specimens are only used in the proper context will be very 
difficult to achieve. In addition, Conf. 9.10 makes a specific 
reference to the disposition of accumulated dead specimens of Appendix 
I plant species. The proposed resolution addresses the disposition of 
specimens of Appendix I species, making no distinction between animal 
and plant species. This element of the proposed resolution increases 
the United States' concern regarding the establishment of appropriate 
mechanisms to ensure that these specimens are only used in the proper 
context, and fully in accordance with the Convention.
31. Marking of CITES Specimens [Doc. 10.63]
    This document was submitted by the CITES Secretariat on behalf of 
the Animals Committee. The Animals Committee held discussion related to 
problems of implementation of Conf. 5.16 which lays out the 
requirements for trade in ranched specimens listed in the Appendices to 
the Convention. The proposed resolution submitted by the Secretariat 
seeks to amend the marking requirements to reflect uniform marking only 
of items of primary economic importance. The resolution also recommends 
that any ranching proposal include details of the marking system, a 
list of all specimens of primary economic importance and a current 
inventory of such stocks.
    The resolution was submitted due to the general belief that the 
previously designed marking requirements were overly burdensome to 
commercial traders, unenforceable by national authorities, and 
otherwise impractical. The United States proposes to support this 
resolution to create a marking regime which is not only practical and 
enforceable, but institutes necessary marking controls to implement the 
ranching requirements that are implemented under the authority of the 
Convention.
32. Universal Tagging System for the Identification of Crocodilian 
Skins [Doc. 10.64]
    No document has yet been received. The United States believes this 
document will discuss implementation of the resolution on the universal 
tagging of crocodilian skins, which the United States generally 
supports. However, the United States will not formulate a final policy 
position on this issue until the documents are received from the 
Secretariat.
33. Identification of Corals and Reporting of Coral Trade [Doc. 10.65]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
34. Implementation of Article VII, Paragraph 2: Pre-Convention 
Specimens [Doc. 10.66]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997 for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
35. Captive Breeding
(a) Implementation of Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5 [Doc. 10.67; Doc. 
10.68; Doc. 10.69]
    The United States submitted documents on captive breeding, and 
these documents are discussed in the March 27, 1997, Federal Register 
notice.
    No additional documents have yet been received. At COP9, the 
Parties directed the Secretariat, working with the Animals Committee, 
to prepare a

[[Page 18791]]

new resolution consolidating the various extant resolutions dealing 
with the determination of whether a specimen is bred-in-captivity, and 
captive breeding of Appendix I animals for commercial purposes. When 
relevant documents are received from the Secretariat, the United States 
will review them and develop further policy positions as warranted.
(b) Proposals to Register the First Commercial Captive-Breeding 
Operation for an Appendix I Animal Species
    No document has yet been received. Under Conf. 8.15, Parties must 
submit proposals for inclusion of operations breeding Appendix I 
species in captivity for commercial purposes. The Secretariat maintains 
a register of those facilities. Proposals are submitted to the 
Secretariat, which circulates them to the Parties. When a Party objects 
to inclusion of a facility in the Secretariat's register, and the 
objection cannot be resolved by the interested Parties, the proposal is 
discussed and voted upon by the COP (if the proponent country so 
wishes). This agenda item will include discussion of pending proposals.
36. Hybrids
(a) Amendment to Resolution Conf. 2.13 [Doc. 10.70]
    This resolution was submitted by Australia and seeks to clarify the 
position of animal hybrids. In accordance with Conf. 2.13, some hybrids 
may be subject to CITES provisions, even though they may not be 
specifically included in the Appendices to the Convention, if one or 
more of the parent's taxa are listed. Accordingly, if the parents are 
included on different Appendices, then the requirements of the more 
restrictive appendix apply. The proposed resolution would modify this 
system substantially, by noting that a hybridized specimen would only 
be considered as an Appendix I species if it was the progeny of one or 
more wild-caught Appendix I specimens. Hybridized specimens which do 
not meet the criteria would be treated as Appendix II species, and 
progeny from hybridized parental stock would be treated as if they were 
not included on any Appendix to the Convention.
    The United States proposes to oppose this resolution. The United 
States believes that Conf. 2.13 is effective as written, well balanced 
in scope, effect, and intent, and needs no revision. By modifying Conf. 
2.13 in the manner outlined in this resolution, additional layers of 
complexity and confusion would be added to the issue of trade in hybrid 
animal species. In addition, some other important conservation concerns 
arise from modifying Conf. 2.13 pursuant to the proposed resolution. 
First, full species in trade could erroneously be declared as hybrids 
by traders, in which case, effective law enforcement could be 
difficult. This could be especially significant regarding the trade in 
birds because of plumage that is highly variable, which may not 
accurately reflect the parentage of a particular specimen. Second, it 
is apparent that a hybrid captive-breeding facility may require 
supplementation of wild-caught parental stock in order to maintain a 
given level of hybrid specimen productivity. Third, the demand for pure 
Appendix I specimens will still require the acquisition of wild-caught 
stock, which may promote the laundering of wild-caught specimens under 
the guise of being captive-born or captive-bred hybrids. Lastly, if 
hybrids are not protected by the more restrictive Appendix, deliberate 
hybridization could increase and serve to dilute available blood lines, 
thereby increasing pressure on wild populations to provide additional 
genetic material. Australia, the author of the pending resolution 
proposal, has concerns over specific species in that country and feels 
this issue could be satisfactorily addressed with a modification to 
Conf. 2.13. The United States believes that such concerns could be 
addressed in a specific listing proposal.
b) Regulation of Trade in Animal Hybrids [Doc. 10.71]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documentation is 
received from the Secretariat, the United States will evaluate it and 
formulate a policy position.
37. Shipments Covered by Customs Carnets [Doc. 10.72]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
38. Frequent Transborder Movements of Personally Owned Live Animals 
[Doc. 10.73]
    This resolution, jointly submitted by Switzerland and Germany, 
calls for the creation of a certificate of ownership to accompany 
CITES-listed animals frequently crossing international borders. The 
United States interprets the term personal or household effects in 
Article VII, paragraph 3, to include personally owned live animals that 
were acquired in the owner's state of usual residence. Other countries 
have not included live animals in their interpretation of this 
exemption, and the Secretariat maintains that position based on Conf. 
4.12. The issuance of separate permits to people with personally owned 
live animals that cross international borders frequently (i.e., 
falconry practitioners, pet owners who travel, etc.) poses technical 
and administrative burdens. In addition, the Service is concerned with 
the number of retroactive permits we have had to issue since the United 
States recognizes the exemption while other countries do not.
    The United States intends to support the provisions of this 
resolution. Adoption of this resolution will reduce the administrative 
burdens to the animal owner and the countries to which the owner enters 
and exits, while ensuring marking and monitoring of movement to prevent 
illegal activities. However, despite general support for the provisions 
of this resolution, the United States believes that there remains a 
need to clarify the following elements in the resolution: (a) the 
animals must be accompanied by the owner; (b) the certificate of 
ownership must be validated by a Party's Customs or other appropriate 
authorities on import and re-export, and (c) the information on the 
transit of the animals in question must be recorded in each Party's 
annual report. In addition, the United States supports adoption of this 
resolution only if paragraph n) is adopted. This provision is to ensure 
that the owner not sell or transfer a live animal while outside the 
owner's usual state of residence under the certificate of ownership.
39. Live Animals in Traveling Circuses [Doc. 10.74]
    Under CITES Article VII, paragraph 7, a Management Authority may 
waive the permit requirements for the movement of live animals that are 
part of a traveling live animal exhibition if the exporter or importer 
is registered, the animals qualify as pre-Convention or captive-bred, 
and the animals are humanely transported and maintained. At the Eighth 
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Kyoto, the Parties adopted 
Conf. 8.16 to correct technical problems and prevent fraud in the 
movement of animals that are part of traveling exhibitions. This 
resolution recommends that Parties issue a pre-Convention or captive-
bred certificate for each animal as proof that the animal was 
registered. The certificates could be issued for three years and would 
not be collected at the border to allow for multiple shipments. Parties 
need to mark or identify each specimen.

[[Page 18792]]

    This proposed resolution, submitted by the Russian Federation, 
considers a circus a part of a nation's culture which does not use its 
animals for primarily commercial purposes. The resolution would grant 
circuses which are owned or funded by governments a ``Certificate of 
Circus Animal.'' This certificate could not be issued to private or 
commercial circuses. The Certificate of Circus Animal would be proof 
that the circus is registered; that its specimens had been acquired in 
accordance with CITES; and that an Appendix I specimen that is born to 
the circus or for an animal acquired by the circus before transfer from 
Appendix II to Appendix I are of legal origin. This Certificate would 
be valid for all legal specimens, not just for pre-Convention or 
captive-bred specimens.
    The resolution is an attempt to resolve a number of technical 
problems encountered by circuses. Currently, circuses can obtain 
certificates for three years under Conf 8.16 for pre-Convention or 
captive-bred animals. But they need to obtain other permits and 
certificates under Articles IV and V for Appendix II and III wildlife 
when pre-Convention or captive-bred requirements are not met. These 
documents are valid only for six months and cannot be used for multiple 
shipments, requiring a circus to obtain new re-export documents upon 
exit from each country. The second problem concerns progeny born to 
circuses that strictly do not meet Conf. 2.12. This is of particular 
concern for traditional circus species, such as the Asian elephant, 
that are long-lived and slow-maturing which have not had time to 
achieve many F2 specimens. The third problem is the continued use of 
animals that were owned by circuses when a species is listed in 
Appendix II and then the species is transferred to Appendix I as 
happened with the African elephant. These animals that are in the 
possession of a circus do not qualify as pre-Convention under Conf. 
5.11 and so may no longer be used by circuses when traveling to other 
countries.
    The United States proposes to oppose the basic premises of this 
resolution. The United States does not believe that the CITES Parties 
should treat circuses owned or funded by a country's government 
differently from circuses that are privately owned. Although the United 
States recognizes that animals being moved by circuses are to stay in 
their possession and are not to be sold while the circus is outside its 
state of usual residence, the United States considers circuses to be 
conducting activities that are primarily commercial. The United States 
also does not agree that circuses should be exempted from the 
requirements of CITES as long as the Management Authority finds that 
the animals were legally acquired. This broad general exemption from 
the provisions of CITES could have serious implications for the 
conservation of some species.
    On the other hand, the United States supports the use of a 
passport-type certificate similar to the Annex presented in the 
proposed resolution. The United States also recognizes (61 FR 44332) 
that there are additional technical issues in Conf. 8.16 that could be 
clarified and looks forward to opportunities to explore these various 
issues.
40. Transport of Live Specimens [Doc. 10.75]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution on behalf of the 
Animals Committee. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the United States submission of this resolution.
41. Designation of Scientific Authorities [Doc. 10.76]
    This is a United States sponsored resolution. See Federal Register 
notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the United States 
submission of this resolution.
42. Standard Nomenclature [Doc. 10.77]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documents are 
received from the Secretariat, the United States will review them and 
develop a policy position.
43. Information on the Population Status and Threats to Ovis vignei 
[Doc. 10.78]
    This is an information document submitted by the Government of 
Germany discussing the population status and threats to Ovis vignei. 
The United States proposes to support the effort to resolve the listing 
status of Ovis vignei and thanks the Government of Germany for 
presenting this document.
44. Traditional Medicines and CITES [Doc. 10.79 and Doc. 10.80]
    One of the two documents in this item is a United States submitted 
discussion paper, ``Flora, Fauna and the Traditional Medicine 
Community: Working With People To Conserve Wildlife.'' See Federal 
Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining the 
United States submission of this document. The other discussion paper, 
``Traditional Medicine and CITES: A Discussion of Traditional East 
Asian Medicine,'' was submitted by the United Kingdom.
    The United States supports the United Kingdom's discussion points 
as adjuncts to its own. It is uncertain, however, that a resolution on 
trade in traditional medicines containing wild species is necessary at 
this time. The United States agrees with the recommendation advocating 
traditional medicine community participation in CITES both nationally 
and internationally. The United States specifically endorses the 
involvement of traditional medicine communities at the national level 
in discussions pertinent to traditional practices. The United States 
also endorses the items which support effective enforcement, research 
and use of substitutes and alternatives, development of authentication 
tools for semi-processed and processed medicines, conservation 
awareness programs, and international commitment to conservation, 
regulatory and ethical issues. Likewise, the United States supports the 
United Kingdom's positions on (1) encouraging more effective 
implementation of Conf. 9.13 and 9.14, (2) encouraging donor support 
for these issues, and (3) including under Conf. 8.4 the review of 
measures taken by Parties in their national legislation to control the 
import, export, possession, sale and use of medicinal products 
containing animal and plant species.
    The United States, however, does not intend to support the 
recommendation of this resolution calling for the convening of a 
technical workshop to establish priority actions for addressing CITES-
species use within the context of traditional medicine. The United 
States believes that priorities should first be identified at a 
national level between representatives of traditional medicine 
communities and animal and plant enforcement and CITES authorities. 
After the identification of national priorities, identified concerns 
could then be elevated for discussion within the context of the 
Conference of the Parties.
45. Financing of the Conservation of Biodiversity and Development of 
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources [Doc. 10.81]
    In order to ensure the sustainable use of wildlife resources and to 
conserve biodiversity, this draft resolution would mandate that the 
Standing Committee, in liaison with the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the World 
Conservation Union (IUCN), and each Party, study the terms and 
conditions under which the establishment of a tax on wildlife specimens 
could be

[[Page 18793]]

implemented and the allocation of such taxes. It recommends that the 
issuance of labels on wildlife and its products be subjected to the 
payment of such a tax.
    While being supportive of biodiversity conservation and the 
sustainable use of wildlife, the United States intends to oppose 
adoption of this resolution. The United States opposes the 
establishment of an international tax on wildlife use. The text of 
CITES neither obligates or authorizes Parties to levy any tax, whether 
direct or indirect, on the trade in animal or plant species that are 
included in the Appendices to the Convention. Nor is there a mechanism 
provided in CITES that would administer any funds generated from a tax 
on trade in a manner that would ensure sustainable trade and habitat 
conservation.
    Because the text of the Convention does not address the issue of 
taxation, the United States must oppose the draft resolution on 
Constitutional grounds. The Congress of the United States, which has 
exclusive jurisdiction over the passage of any legislation that would 
levy taxes on United States entities engaged in international trade, 
has not authorized such taxes to be imposed as part of the 
implementation of CITES.
46. Development of an Information Management Strategy [Doc. 10.82]
    The development of an information management strategy by the 
Secretariat was an item of discussion at the 37th meeting of the 
Standing Committee. The Secretariat presented a document for 
consideration by the Committee and described its proposal which 
involved the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC). The United 
States supported the Secretariat's efforts to develop a better 
communication system between its offices and the Parties to facilitate 
the distribution of Notifications to the Parties and other pertinent 
information. At the Standing Committee meeting, the United States 
requested that the Secretariat prepare a list of Parties and their 
computer needs to assist developing countries in obtaining the 
necessary computer equipment for an information management system to be 
put in place.
    No documents have yet been received from the Secretariat. However, 
the Secretariat has indicated that it will be preparing a document for 
COP10 which will include the financial implications of putting this 
system into place.
47. Inclusion of Higher Taxa [Doc. 10.83]
    This resolution, submitted by Namibia, recommends that the listing 
of higher taxa on the Appendices to the Convention not be made without 
considering negative consequences to geographically distinct 
populations. It also recommends the use of annotations on the 
Appendices to the Convention so that generalized indicators would be 
presented according to the conservation status and most appropriate 
management program for each listed species.
    The United States proposes to oppose this resolution, but hopes 
that some of the issues raised can be addressed in the Nomenclature 
Committee. The United States believes that this resolution presents a 
system which would lead to a proliferation of confusing split-listings, 
a provision which is only occasionally appropriate for CITES species. 
There is already adequate flexibility in the Convention for Parties to 
make decisions as to how they manage populations of native species 
listed on the Appendices. In addition Conf. 9.24, Annex 3 (the new 
listing criteria) already adequately addresses the issues associated 
with split-listings, and in general, discourages their use. This 
subject was addressed at COP9 through this resolution, and the 
submission of this newer resolution does not allow for a fair amount of 
time for the Parties to implement the terms of 9.24. The subject should 
not be reconsidered so soon, as the Parties agreed at COP9 that 
reconsideration of the listing criteria should not occur until COP12, 
so that there is adequate experience gained with the use of the new 
listing criteria in 9.24.
48. Proposals Concerning Export Quotas for Specimens of Appendix I or 
II Species [Doc. 10.84]
    No document has yet been received. When relevant documentation is 
received from the Secretariat, the United States will evaluate it and 
formulate a policy position.

XV. Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II 
(This Item Consists of Four Subitems)

1. Proposals Submitted Pursuant to Resolution on Ranching [Doc. 10.85]
2. Proposals Resulting from Reviews by the Animals and Plants 
Committees [Doc. 10.86]
3. Proposals Concerning Export Quotas for Specimens of Appendix I or II 
Species [Doc. 10.87]
4. Other Proposals [Doc. 10.88]
    Proposal to amend the appendices have been received, and tentative 
U.S. negotiating positions on these proposals are presented in a 
separate Federal Register notice.

XVI. Conclusion of the Meeting

    1. Determination of the Time and Venue of the Next Regular Meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties [Doc. 10.89]
    No documents have been received from the Secretariat regarding 
candidates as host government for COP11. The United States favors 
holding COP11 in a country where all Parties and observers will be 
admitted without political difficulties. The United States proposes to 
support the holding of COPs on a biennial basis, or, as in the case of 
COP10, after an interval of approximately two and one half years.
    2. Closing remarks
    Request for Information and Comments
    With this notice, the Service invites information and comments on 
the proposed negotiating position on COP10 agenda items. (Comments on 
amendments to the Appendices of the Convention should be based on the 
Federal Register notice of the same date as this notice). Information 
and comments on this present notice should be submitted to the Service 
no later than May 9, 1997. Interested Parties can also make verbal or 
submit written comments to the Service at the Public Meeting of April 
25, 1997 (See Public Meeting, above).
    Authors: This notice was prepared by Bruce J. Weissgold and Dr. 
Susan S. Lieberman, Office of Management Authority, United States Fish 
and Wildlife Service.

    Dated: April 11, 1997.
Jay L. Gerst,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-9925 Filed 4-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P