[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31127-31151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 31128]]

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth summaries of the United States 
negotiating positions on agenda items and resolutions submitted by 
other countries 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 have been solicited 
and a public meeting has been held to discuss these negotiating 
positions.

DATES: This notice shall go into effect on June 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence concerning this notice to Chief, 
Office of Management Authority; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 430, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203. Fax number 703-358-2280.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth B. 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:

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 136 countries, including the United States, are CITES 
Parties. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of the 
Parties (COP) which review its implementation, make provisions enabling 
the CITES Secretariat (in Switzerland) to carry out its functions, 
consider 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 Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP10) will be held in Harare, 
Zimbabwe, June 9-20, 1997.
    A series of Federal Register notices and two public meetings 
already held, have provided 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 Federal Register notice 
concerning proposed U.S. negotiating positions for agenda items and 
resolutions submitted by other countries was published on April 17, 
1997 (62 FR 18777). 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, and a public 
meeting held on April 25, 1997 allowed for discussion of U.S. positions 
on species amendments and resolutions submitted by other CITES Parties, 
and agenda items leading up to COP10.

Negotiating Positions

    In this notice, the Service summarizes the United States positions 
on agenda items and resolutions for COP10 (other than proposals to 
amend the Appendices, which will be published in a separate notice), 
which have been submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat. 
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 in detail 
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.
    Some documents have not yet been received from the CITES 
Secretariat and may not be received until the meeting of the COP 
itself. Other documents were received only days before this notice was 
finalized, and therefore insufficient time was available to develop a 
U.S. negotiating position. A list of documents received by the Service 
to date is available on request (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 
United States position. The Service outlines these final negotiating 
positions on agenda items and resolutions submitted by foreign 
countries for COP10 with the understanding that new information that 
becomes available during discussions prior to and 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.

Negotiating Positions: Summaries

I. Opening Ceremony by the Authorities of Zimbabwe

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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.

II. Welcoming Addresses

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    Comments: No comments received on this subitem issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    Comments: One comment received on this issue. The commenter 
expressed support for the U.S. government's proposed negotiating 
position.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 supports the provisional version of the Rules of Procedure as 
received. The

[[Page 31129]]

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. Those changes were handled 
smoothly, and the United States 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

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Provisional versions of the Agenda and 
the Working Programme for COP10 have been received from the 
Secretariat. The United States supports those documents, 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. The 
U.S. believes that similar agenda items dealing with similar issues 
should be discussed one after the other on the agenda. For example, the 
issues of illegal trade in whale meat and the relationship between 
CITES and the International Whaling Commission should be moved on the 
agenda to be sequential.

VI. Establishment of the Credentials Committee

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Committee: No document will be prepared by the 
CITES Secretariat on this agenda item. The United States supports 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

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 has approved 49 
organizations as observers to COP10, and will fully support their 
accreditation and active participation in the meeting. 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)

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Positions:
1. Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.6]
    No document has yet been received. The United States will fully 
support 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 Committee. A U.S. negotiating position 
on the Chair's report is pending receipt of the document.

[[Page 31130]]

2. Regional Representation [Doc. 10.7]
    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). Doc. 10.7 was not received in time from the 
Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
    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 will 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)

    Comments: No comments received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Positions: The United States considers the issues 
which the documents cover essential and important matters. However, 
either documents have not yet been received for any of the three 
subitems or were not received in time from the Secretariat to be 
considered in this notice.
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.
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 
COP 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. The U.S. has received 
this document, but has not yet completed its review. There are serious 
concerns about some of the budgetary implications in the document, 
however.

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

    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue. One commenter 
referred to this issue in general terms, noting that the U.S. should 
closely scrutinize the Secretariat's rationale for increasing COP 
attendance fees, and questioned whether the Secretariat was commingling 
funds remaining from COP9 (and any future excess funds from COP10) with 
``general operating funds'' between the COPs. Another commenter stated 
that the United States ``should not shirk its obligation to provide 
promised funds so that CITES may continue to ensure that this 
[wildlife] trade does not cause a detriment to wildlife populations 
everywhere.'' This organization urged the Service to impress upon the 
Department of State the importance of CITES and suggested that CITES'' 
core budget ``be reduced if some items in the budget could become 
``projects'' subject to external funding.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The United States advocates fiscal 
responsibility and accountability on the part of the Secretariat and 
the COP. The United States plans to be an active participant in 
discussions in the Budget Committee at COP10. The United States will 
endeavor to explore whether any funds are being commingled. The United 
States has fulfilled its 1997 pledge to the CITES Trust Fund. Relevant 
documents were not received in time from the Secretariat to be 
considered in this notice.
1. Financial Report for 1994, 1995 and 1996 [Doc. 10.11]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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

[[Page 31131]]

factored into the budget. There have been cases at previous meetings of 
the COP where the Budget is already approved, and the Committees are 
taking 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]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 any UNEP overhead 
costs to be assessed on these projects.
    The United States 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 biological studies of significantly traded 
species, when funds are available.

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

    Comments: One comment was received on sub-item No. 3; see below.
1. Animals Committee
(a) Report of the Chairman [Doc. 10.15]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The United States supports the active 
role of the Animals Committee in scientific and management issues 
pertaining to animal species listed in the CITES Appendices. 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 supports 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 the official 
members should be Party governments, not 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. Individual countries would be asked to name 
qualified individuals as contact points for committee matters, but the 
members themselves would be the governments.
(c) Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members
    U.S. Negotiating Position: No document will be prepared by the 
Secretariat on this issue. 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. Doc. 10.15 was not received in time to 
be considered for this notice.
2. Plants Committee
(a) Report of the Chair [Doc. 10.16]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 evaluation of the 
document. Doc. 10.16 was not received in time to be considered for this 
notice.
(b) Regional Representation [Doc. 10.7]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. Doc. 10.7 was not received in time from the 
Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
(c) Election of New Regional and Alternate Members
    U.S. Negotiating Position: No document will be prepared by the 
Secretariat on this issue. 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

[[Page 31132]]

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]
    Comments: One comment received on this issue expressed strong 
support for the ``continuing development of animal and plant 
identification manuals for use by port and border enforcement 
authorities.'' This commenter encouraged the Service ``to sponsor, or 
seek private funding for, the production of identification manuals for 
CITES-listed herptiles in trade...''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 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 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 
certain CITES species in international trade.
4. Nomenclature Committee
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.18 and Doc. 10.19 was not 
received in time from the Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
(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
    Comments: Comments were received from four organizations on this 
general issue, some of which were directly related to the points raised 
in the ERM Study, while others were not. One commenter agreed with the 
draft U.S. position that the ERM study demonstrated that the majority 
of CITES Parties believe that the actual text of the Convention should 
not be changed. This commenter also called for greater cooperation 
between CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity, as discussed 
in the ERM findings, and stated that such cooperation or 
``consultation'' include other ``relevant organizations such as the SSN 
[Species Survival Network].'' This commenter also urged the U.S. to 
approach ERM recommendation 5C on stricter domestic measures ``with 
trepidation,'' and urged the U.S. to ``promote steadfastly the primacy 
of CITES over other international trade regimes.'' Another commenter, 
in discussing findings in the ERM study, stated that the U.S. should 
promote ``meaningful discussion'' of CITES'' ``failure to accommodate 
sustainable use, and the abuse of stricter domestic measures to prevent 
trade,'' and called on the U.S. to advocate that stricter domestic 
measures only be applied by Parties in consultation with range states 
when such measures affect ``a species beyond the borders of the country 
imposing the measures.'' This commenter also stated that the U.S. 
``should support a continued self-evaluation of the functions and 
effectiveness of CITES.'' Another commenter stated that the ERM Study 
should ``continue in the appropriate form,'' but added that the Parties 
should defer development of a resolution on sustainable use. One 
commenter supported the ``continuation and expansion of the review 
process'' subject ``to the condition that the contractor be afforded 
adequate time and funds to complete the process in a systematic and 
orderly fashion.''
(a) Comments From the Parties and Organizations on the Study [Doc. 
10.20]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: At the Ninth Meeting of the COP to CITES 
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, November 1994 (COP9), the COP 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 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

[[Page 31133]]

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 
planned 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 Organization, Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International 
Importance, Convention on the Law of the Sea, International Convention 
on the Regulation of Whaling (IWC), and the Convention on Migratory 
Species of Wild Animals.
    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 
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]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 COP 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 textual 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, 
we disagree with others and find some unclear for a variety of reasons. 
For example, the United States supports the consolidation of 
resolutions, provided their original text and preamble are maintained 
to preserve their original intent. The Secretariat has submitted a 
document evaluating some of the recommendations. The U.S. supports most 
of the Secretariat's suggestions, including the development of a 
financial and strategic plan. The U.S. opposes the Secretariat's 
suggestion to simplify resolutions; the U.S. strongly opposes the 
suggestion that the Secretariat should play a role in determining 
resolution language. This is a responsibility given to the Parties by 
the Convention. The Secretariat's role should be advisory only, and not 
unilateral for action. The U.S. supports the drafting of explanatory 
memorandums by the Parties and a simple guide to implementation of the 
Convention however. The U.S. does not support the linkage of the 
simplification of CITES resolutions with the

[[Page 31134]]

consolidation of resolutions. In its document, the Secretariat suggests 
a role for it in editing documents submitted by Parties; while 
recognizing the need for minor editing by the Secretariat for 
uniformity, the U.S. is concerned that political pressures could impact 
the editing of working documents.
    Other recommendations could be acted on by the Secretariat, 
Standing Committee, or the meeting of the COP. 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
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The United States supports the concept 
and practice of cooperation between CITES and other conservation 
entities, and supports 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 however 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]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: No document has yet been received. The 
United States believes that the current state of the relationship 
between the United Nations Environment Programme (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 thirty-sixth meeting of the CITES Standing 
Committee established a Working Group to evaluate the relationship 
between CITES and UNEP. The United States is actively involved as a 
member of that Working Group. The thirty-seventh meeting of the 
Standing Committee charged the same Working Group with producing a 
revision of the Agreement between CITES and the United Nations 
Environment Programme (UNEP). The existing Agreement was signed on 26 
June 1992 by the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Murray Hosking, 
New Zealand), and on 28 June 1992 by the Executive Director of UNEP 
(Dr. Mostafa Tolba). The decision to revise that existing Agreement 
between the CITES Standing Committee (on behalf of the CITES Parties) 
and UNEP was made by the Standing Committee, in response to the report 
submitted to it by the Working Group. That report, adopted by the 
Standing Committee, has been circulated to the CITES Parties in 
Notification to the Parties Number 961. Reports of the Working Group 
will be presented to the Parties at COP10. The Working Group negotiated 
a revised Agreement between CITES and UNEP, at a meeting held in 
Washington, DC in March, 1997. That meeting was attended by members of 
the Working Group and UNEP. UNEP has since provided additional changes 
to the negotiated revised Agreement, some of which are acceptable and 
some are not. The United States looks forward to a productive dialogue 
on these issues, and to reaching consensus on a revised Agreement 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]
    Comments: Comments were received from two organizations on this 
issue. One commenter supported the resolution consolidation process, 
provided that ``the content of individual measures is not lost or 
weakened'' by such action. Another commenter, whose comments were 
jointly endorsed by two organizations, urged the Service to ``ensure 
that this [consolidation] process is carried out with extreme caution, 
so as not to delete relevant measures * * *.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 all of 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 not involve renegotiation of any previously adopted 
text. The United States would not support any renegotiation of 
previously-adopted text under the guise of a consolidation; that would 
require a new draft resolution to be submitted by a Party.

[[Page 31135]]

    The position of the United States is to fully support the 
continuing effort to consolidate existing resolutions of the COP 
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. Doc. 
10.24 was not received in time to be included in this notice.
(b) Index of Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties [Doc. 10.25]
    Comments: One comment was received on this issue, of which the text 
was jointly endorsed by the commenter and one additional organization. 
These commenters supported the creation of an index of resolutions 
without any further detail.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This resolution, submitted by Australia, 
recommends and proposes an alphabetical index of resolutions of the COP 
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 
executing 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 
does not 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 this document and suggest we would 
work with them and other interested Parties between this COP 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]
    Comments: One commenter suggested that the ``Service propose 
measure for improving the timeliness of the submission of annual 
reports.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The United States supports 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 exports from other countries. The United States is current in its 
Annual Report obligations. Doc. 10.26 was not received in time to be 
included in this notice. One aspect of that document has been reviewed 
however, and the U.S. supports the Secretariat's recommendation that 
the Parties should take measures to develop a standard format for 
permit numbers. The U.S. will propose modifications to the 
Secretariat's recommended format for permit numbers, however.
3. Amendment to Resolution Conf. 9.1 on Establishment of Committees 
[Doc. 10.27]
    Comments: Six organizations commented on this resolution, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter stated that 
regions should ``be afforded the flexibility to appoint anyone of their 
choice'' to CITES committees, calling the proposal an infringement on 
national sovereignty and that the U.S. should withdraw this resolution, 
instead substituting a resolution that ``representatives should be 
selected upon their credentials and their ability to contribute to the 
process.'' One set of comments, which was jointly endorsed by two 
organizations, supported this resolution noting that the appointment of 
countries, rather than persons to all CITES committees is the standard 
practice of the CITES Standing Committee. Another commenter called on 
the U.S. to withdraw the resolution and stated that Regions and 
countries should ``be able to put anyone of their choice in the seat, 
whether or not that person works for a government.'' One commenter, in 
opposing this resolution, stated that restricting committee 
representatives only to CITES Parties would ``stymie the open exchange 
or information and expertise and could have the similarly detrimental 
effect of creating a parallel conference comprised solely of NGOs.'' 
This commenter called for continued NGO participation and increased 
participation by CITES Parties. Another commenter opposed this 
resolution stating that the ``status quo is preferable'' and stated 
that the ``designation of Parties [as representatives to committees] 
will introduce a politic element in the Committees * * * '' This 
commenter called for greater NGO participation in the work of the 
Animals and Plants Committees.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a U.S.-sponsored resolution. See 
Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997 [FR 14689], for a rationale 
explaining the U.S. submission of this resolution. In response to the 
comments, the United States regrets any misunderstandings, in that some 
commenters appear to have misunderstood that the U.S. proposed 
resolution calls for countries to be members of the Committee (as with 
the Standing Committee), but of course individual countries should 
appoint a qualified individual as their contact point for the work of 
the committees. The United States believes that this proposed 
resolution does not infringe on national sovereignty, as claimed, and 
allows the Party selected by the Region to appoint whomever it chooses 
as the Committee member. The United States is aware that the work of 
the committees involves policies and views of governments (such as what 
draft resolutions would be supported), and as such there must be 
accountability to Party governments in the work of the committees. The 
United States emphatically endorses the vigorous, active participation 
of non-governmental organizations in the work of the committees (and 
the COP).
4. Enforcement
(a) Review of Alleged Infractions and Other Problems of Implementation 
of the Convention [Doc. 10.28]
    Comments: One comment was received on this issue, expressing the 
opinion that a comprehensive Infractions Report ``would help facilitate 
meaningful and constructive discussion by the Parties on alleged 
infractions, and result in the identification of mechanisms to reduce 
or eliminate the problems included in the report.'' The United States 
agrees.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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.

[[Page 31136]]

The United States supports this biennial review of alleged infractions 
by the Parties, and necessary and appropriate recommendations to obtain 
wider compliance with the Convention. The United States supports 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, nor has the anticipated second section of the report 
which contains explanatory and other substantive sections. When final 
versions of both sections are received they will be closely scrutinized 
by the United States.
    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 [with 
limited discussion] 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. As with previous Infraction Reports, 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 thereby for 
conservation.
(b) Working Group on Illegal Trade in CITES Specimens [Doc. 10.29]
    Comments: Seven organizations commented on this issue, two of which 
jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter supported this 
resolution, noting that the creation of an Illegal Trade Working Group 
``offers a double benefit because in addition to helping curtail 
illegal trade in endangered species, providing advice and training on 
enforcement techniques, smuggling, identification, document fraud and 
marking techniques will also benefit those of us who engage in legal 
trade of such specimens.'' The United States agrees. Another commenter 
called on the U.S. to withdraw this proposal and stated that ``existing 
[enforcement] mechanisms'' are preferable. One set of comments, which 
was jointly endorsed by two organizations, supported the resolution 
submitted by the U.S. in creating an Illegal Trade Working Group, and 
noted that the proposal would implement the recommendations in 
Resolution Conf. 9.8. The United States agrees. Another commenter 
stated that instead of an Illegal Trade Working Group, the coordination 
of enforcement activities through the Secretariat, or bilateral 
international coordination is preferable. This commenter believed the 
Working Group proposed would operate ``outside the law, review data in 
camera, and be responsible to no sovereign power.'' One commenter 
opposed the resolution, mistakenly noting that it was submitted under a 
different name by the U.S. at COP9. This commenter stated that 
enforcement of the Convention is the responsibility of the Secretariat 
and Parties, and called for greater enforcement capabilities for the 
Secretariat, independent of other entities. Another commenter stated 
that ``law enforcement should be supported by existing national law 
enforcement mechanisms . . . rather than the development of independent 
entities to detract from sovereign responsibilities.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. In response to comments, above, 
the United States notes that it did not submit a resolution to COP9 on 
establishment of an enforcement working group; rather, the United 
States supported such an initiative by the United Kingdom. The proposed 
Illegal Trade Working Group would be an adjunct to the efforts of the 
Secretariat and Parties; it would be responsible to the countries that 
are sovereign Parties to the Convention. The United States urges 
interested organizations to read the draft resolution that was 
submitted by the United States, which elaborates the work of the 
Working Group; it would not enforce laws, but provide enforcement 
technical support to Parties and the Secretariat.
(c) Inspection of Wildlife Shipments [Doc. 10.30]
    Comments: Comments were received from five organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter, without either 
endorsing or stating opposition to the proposed resolution, wrote about 
inspections that they ``must be rational and not unduly burden 
legitimate trade or cause harm to live specimens.'' One set of 
comments, which was jointly endorsed by two organizations, stated 
support for the resolution without giving specifics as to the reasons 
for their support. Another commenter, without either endorsing or 
stating opposition to the proposed resolution, called for the U.S. to 
``seek a reasonable balance on inspection of shipments . . . and not to 
use stiffer enforcement as an indirect tool to deny markets for the 
sustainable use of wildlife.'' One commenter expressed support for the 
resolution ``in so far as it reflects the current practice of the U.S. 
Fish & Wildlife Service and other responsible parties to the Convention 
* * * we support the government's interest in encouraging other parties 
to be diligent in inspecting wildlife shipments.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. In response to comments, the 
United States notes that this draft resolution transmits a resolution 
adopted by the last IUCN General Assembly.
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
    Comments: No comments were received.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: No documentation has been received on 
any of the topics under this sub-item.

[[Page 31137]]

    The United States 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 Parties do not have national laws and 
regulations in place for implementing CITES, particularly those which 
authorize the seizure and/or forfeiture of specimens imported or 
exported in contravention of the Convention, as well as penalties for 
such violations (as required by Article VIII of the Convention).
    The project, adopted 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, and the U.S. noted 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]
    Comments: Two comments were received, one of which was jointly 
endorsed by two organizations. One commenter wrote that it ``strongly 
supports the initiative and ongoing participation by the United States 
in training CITES enforcement officials in various Parties, otherwise 
lacking appropriate technical expertise.'' Two organizations expressed 
support for the Secretariat's and Parties' efforts to provide training 
to other Parties in need of assistance.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. Doc. 10.32 was not received in time to be 
considered in this notice.
    The United States supports all efforts by the Secretariat and other 
Parties to the Convention to provide training in CITES implementation 
and enforcement to Parties that request it. The Parties concur that 
training is of the highest priority, as evidenced in the ERM Report on 
the Effectiveness of the Convention. The 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]
    Comments: No comments were received.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 continues to support 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]
    Comments: Comments were received from seven organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter supported the 
proposed U.S. position with regard to ``Japan's misguided resolution 
calling for the repeal of Res. Conf. 2.9 * * * The IWC must remain the 
competent authority for international whale management.'' Another 
commenter called for the U.S. to oppose this resolution, writing that 
repeal of Conf. 2.9 ``could bring CITES and the IWC into direct 
conflict, which would not be in the best conservation interests of 
whale species'' and further stated that repeal of Conf. 2.9 would 
``contradict Res. Conf. 9.12, in which the CITES Parties pledged to 
coordinate measures with the IWC to reduce illegal whaling.'' Another 
commenter called for the U.S. to support the resolution and stated that 
CITES' ``relationship with the IWC should be one of consultation and 
exchange of information.'' One set of comments, which was jointly 
endorsed by two organizations, expressed opposition to the proposed 
resolution, stating that it ``would require CITES to interfere with 
operations of another treaty [and] violates the spirit of [the 
Convention's] Article XV [and] contradicts the will of Parties as 
expressed in Resolution 9.12.'' These organizations also stated in 
their comments that changing ``the present relationship [between CITES 
and the IWC] would set the two Conventions on independent and 
potentially conflicting paths.'' The U.S. agrees. Another commenter 
implied that it did not support the proposed U.S. negotiating position 
on this resolution, but restricted its comments more to the subject of 
the proposed down listings of various whale species. One commenter 
stated strong support for the repeal of Conf. 2.9, noting that the 
linkage of CITES to the IWC through that resolution, ``could hamper its 
credibility, effectiveness and independence.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This resolution, submitted by Japan, 
calls for the repeal of Conf. 2.9, which 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 
meeting of the COP 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.
    The IWC has not lifted the moratorium, although some nations, such 
as Japan and Norway, have called

[[Page 31138]]

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 development of an observation and monitoring program to ensure that 
quotas are not exceeded. Japan continues to circumvent the letter of 
the ICRW by allowing increasingly 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. At 
the most recent meeting (37th) of the CITES Standing Committee, Conf. 
2.9 was incorporated into a proposed consolidated resolution for 
consideration by COP10, although Japan objected.
    In consideration of the process related to this issue to date, the 
United States strongly opposes this resolution.
9. Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.3 on Permits and Certificates [Doc. 
10.35]
    Comments: Three organizations commented, two of which jointly 
endorsed one submission. One commenter supported the proposed U.S. 
negotiating position, citing a ``need for a clear and consistent permit 
process.'' Another set of comments, which was jointly endorsed by two 
organizations, also supported passage of this resolution without 
stating a specific rationale.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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]
    Comments: Comments were received from five organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter disagreed with the 
proposed U.S. support of this resolution, and wrote that ``listing lots 
of look-alikes creates significant enforcement and reporting burdens.'' 
Another commenter supported the proposed U.S. opposition to this 
resolution writing that it ``joins the United States in opposing this 
subversive French resolution to reduce protection for Appendix II 
species listed * * * for reasons of similarity of appearance.'' One set 
of comments, jointly endorsed by two organizations, stated opposition 
to the resolution without stating a specific rationale(s). One 
organization supported the proposed resolution stating that the ``issue 
of look-alikes has been a major issue when it comes to bobcat and other 
species.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This resolution, submitted by France, 
recommends that Parties be exempt from the requirements in Article IV, 
paragraph 3 of the Convention, a) 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 opposes 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 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 or conservation concerns.
11. Interpretation of Article XIV, Paragraph 1 [Doc. 10.37]
    Comments: Comments were received from seven organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter supported the U.S. 
proposed opposition to this resolution by writing that this resolution 
would impose ``additional restrictions upon rights specifically 
protected in the body of the Convention [and thus] this resolution 
represents and infringement upon state sovereignty.'' Another 
commenter, which called on the U.S. to support the French proposed 
resolution, stated that ``stricter domestic measures should be reserved 
for extreme circumstances'' and that the adoption of such ``negates the 
effectiveness of the Treaty, tests its credibility as an 
internationally accepted regulatory mechanism, and hinders range states 
conservation programs.'' One commenter called on the U.S. to support 
this proposal, and stated because ``some countries * * * do not allow 
transactions with non-indigenous species that are legal under CITES * * 
* conservation programs are often hindered when the ``use of the 
species is an important part of the conservation of the species.'' 
Another commenter stated that it was ``extremely pleased that the U.S. 
will ``strongly oppose adoption'' of France's submission to weaken a 
Party's ability to set stricter domestic measures to control 
importation of CITES-listed species. National sovereignty must not be 
sacrificed, especially in relation to the strong U.S. laws acknowledged 
by the [U.S. Fish & Wildlife] Service * * *.'' One set of comments, 
which was endorsed by two organizations, agreed with the proposed U.S. 
negotiating position in opposition to the resolution and stated that 
the ``draft resolution would violate the language of the Convention 
[and it would] restrict a sovereign right of Parties that is 
specifically not restricted by the Convention text.'' The United States 
agrees.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 strongly opposes 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.

[[Page 31139]]

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]
    Comments: Seven organizations commented, two of which jointly 
endorsed one submission. The set of comments which were endorsed by two 
organizations, supported the proposed U.S. negotiating position and 
stated ``'primarily commercial'' cannot be defined according to the use 
of funds earned without violating the treaty [and] acceptance [of the 
resolution] could lead to exports of large stocks of Appendix I 
specimens for commercial purposes in violation of * * * Article III.'' 
Another commenter agreed with the proposed U.S. position and stated 
that ``this resolution could create loopholes for trade in specimens of 
Appendix I species. * * *'' This commenter also stated that the 
proposed resolution would ``impose an impossible burden of proof upon 
importing nations by requiring them to assess the exporting nation's 
reasons for taking of the specimen in question. The determination of 
``primarily commercial purposes'' should be based on the ultimate end 
of the specimens in trade in the importing country, not activities in 
the exporting country.'' One commenter stated that the definition of 
``primarily commercial purposes'' in the draft resolution were 
``unacceptable'' and that the resolution, if passed, ``could create 
loopholes facilitating illegal trade in Appendix I species, most 
notable elephant ivory.'' The commenter further stated that the 
``resolution contradicts the spirit of Article II (1) and Conf. 5.10 
which seek to strictly limit commercial sale of Appendix I species * * 
* Clearly submission of this resolution is another devious attempt to 
commercialize stockpiled ivory and put a huge wedge in the door to 
resuming the full-scale trade in elephant products.'' Another commenter 
recommended that paragraph 5 of the draft be amended ``to make it 
clearer * * * that the Convention prohibits trade in Appendix I 
specimens when commercial components are involved only when the 
purposes of import are primarily commercial.'' One commenter stated 
that the U.S. should `seriously consider [this proposed definition] and 
[the draft resolution] should be supported by the U.S.' This commenter 
stated that the ``definition of `primarily commercial purposes' needs 
to be approached with an understanding that appropriately controlled 
trade in products from well-managed conservation programs can be 
beneficial both the people and to wildlife conservation.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. 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), 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, 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 enhance the status of the species; and, (e) the 
transaction receives prior approval by the Standing Committee.
    The United States opposes 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 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.
13. Criteria for Granting Export Permits in Accordance With Article V, 
Paragraph 2 [Doc. 10.39]
    Comments: No comments were received.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 believes 
that such criteria are not necessary, particularly in light of the 
adoption of Resolutions Conf. 9.3 and 9.25.
14. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat [Doc. 10.40]
    Comments: One set of comments was received, which was jointly 
endorsed by two organizations. These organizations stated that 
``efforts to halt this illegal trade is contingent on the continued 
cooperation of CITES and the IWC'' and that because ``all whales are 
listed on CITES Appendix I * * * it is important that discussions about 
the illegal international trade in whale meat continue to occur within 
the CITES forum.'' The United States agrees.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 issue. The United 
States wishes to facilitate discussions of methods of how to better 
enforce the Convention, as we believe that this is still a significant 
problem. The U.S. is very concerned about illegal trade in whale 
products, especially after the recent case of 4-6 tons of meat that 
were illegally shipped from Norway to Tokyo, Japan. A similar case of 
whale meat smuggled from

[[Page 31140]]

Norway to Japan occurred in 1993. A resolution was adopted by the 
Parties at COP9, which called for further cooperation between CITES and 
the IWC in order to stop illegal international trade in whale products. 
In 1995 the IWC passed a resolution which calls for all governments and 
other entities with a history of practicing whaling to determine if 
they have any remaining stockpiles of whale meat. This agenda item will 
allow for discussion of these issues.
15. Illegal Trade in Bear Specimens [Doc. 10.41]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two organizations. One set of comments 
``wholeheartedly endors[ed] the resolutions'' adopted by the Animals 
and Standing Committees and urged the U.S. ``to continue its leadership 
by doing everything in its power to ensure that the Parties agree to a 
global moratorium on all trade in bear parts and products.'' Another 
set supported the draft U.S. position and stated that they hoped that 
``the United States will join China at COP10 and call for a global 
moratorium on the international trade in these valuable bear parts.'' 
The comments which were endorsed by two organizations stated that they 
favored a global moratorium of the bear parts trade and urged the 
Service promote initiatives to increase law enforcement activities 
related to illegal wildlife trade, particularly focused on illegal bear 
gall bladders.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Discussions at COP10 of the illegal 
trade in bear specimens will probably 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.
    Upon 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 responded to this 
notification and provided information on its bear populations, and 
trade and enforcement activities.
    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 evaluating 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 for the conservation of bear populations. Some possible 
outcomes that the U.S. would support include: 1) Working with key 
consumer countries to seek solutions to curtailing the illegal trade in 
bear parts, including adoption of effective legislation and regulation; 
2) Increased efforts to obtain biological data for Asian bear 
populations, along with assessments of the scope and impact of illegal 
and legal trade; 3) Increased cooperative law enforcement efforts, 
including bilateral and multilateral law enforcement efforts, including 
sharing of intelligence information, forensics identification, and 
training. The issue could indeed be placed on the agenda of the 
[proposed] Illegal Trade Working Group; 4) Continuation and 
strengthening of ongoing efforts for cooperation with traditional 
medicine communities, to increase public awareness and industry 
knowledge about the conservation concerns associated with the bear 
trade, and the need for stronger trade controls and conservation 
measures. Efforts to find substitutes and alternatives should be 
encouraged; and 5) If the Parties recommend a voluntary suspension of 
trade in bear products (gall bladders, bile, other organs), support 
such a suspension of trade, provided it is coupled with the above 
efforts. The U.S. could implement such a multilateral decision, if it 
is based on the fact that any commercial trade in gall bladders or bear 
bile products (even from Appendix II species) is potentially 
detrimental to endangered bear populations. Such a suspension should 
not include trophies of bears, particularly those included in Appendix 
II; that trade is not believed to pose a conservation or illegal trade 
problem. Doc. 10.41 was not received in time from the Secretariat to be 
considered in this notice.
16. Exports of Leopard Hunting Trophies and Skins [Doc. 10.42]
    Comments: One comment was received on this issue. This commenter 
``strenuously opposes any actions which may facilitate trade in leopard 
hunting trophies and skins or weaken the requirements for engaging in 
such trade.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.42 was not received in time from 
the Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
17. Trade in Tiger Specimens [Doc. 10.43]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue. One commenter 
stated that ``it is hoped the United States will not only maintain the 
beneficial conservation activities it has already taken, but increase 
them.'' The other set of comments which were endorsed by two 
organizations urged the Service ``to advocate whatever measures are 
necessary to achieve full implementation of Conf. 9.13 by the U.S. and 
other Parties.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.43 was not received in time from 
the Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
    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, including analysis of levels of 
arsenic, mercury, and other chemicals found in

[[Page 31141]]

patented traditional Asian medicinal products; the Service's education 
and outreach program with the Asian community in the United States and 
a similar outreach program with the traditional Asian medicine 
practitioner community; the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act 
passed by the U.S. Congress and the Service's review of grant proposals 
under the Act; and funding through the National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation for such grants.
    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 two 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 Service also 
serves on the council which administers the National Fish & Wildlife 
Foundation's Save The Tiger Fund, a grant program funded by primarily 
by Exxon to assist with the conservation of tigers.
18. Trade in African Eelephant Specimens
(a) Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.16 [Doc. 10.44]
    Comments: Comments were received from one organization on this 
specific sub-item, which stated that the U.S. ``should heed the 
warnings in the most recent Panel of Experts report concerning proposed 
elephant down listings by Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia.'' This 
commenter further stated that ``sufficient trade controls and 
regulatory enforcement mechanisms--especially in Zimbabwe--are not in 
place. The commenter added that ``the United States should promote 
ongoing respect for the Panel of Experts procedure and its efforts.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.44 was not received in time from 
the Secretariat to be considered in this notice. The U.S. supports the 
Panel of Experts process, and supports detailed review, evaluation, and 
consideration of the conclusions of the panel.
(b) Revision of Resolution Conf. 7.9 [Doc. 10.45]
    Comments: Comments were received from three organizations on this 
specific sub-item, of which two organizations endorsed one submission. 
One commenter stated that the U.S. should support this resolution but 
``should consider amending Section M * * * to call upon the Parties to 
take into account the potential impact upon elephant populations in 
non-proponent range states.'' The other set of comments, jointly 
endorsed, supported the Panel of Experts procedure and endorsed some of 
the changes to Conf. 7.9 proposed by the Standing Committee. These 
comments also urged the Service ``to note * * * at COP10 that it was 
inappropriate for the Secretariat to have expressed its opinion that 
there is no need for a special procedure for considering proposals to 
transfer populations of African elephant from Appendix I to Appendix II 
* * *''.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 their 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 strongly 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]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this sub-item, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two organizations. One commenter stated that 
``it is vital that the Service recognize that allowing sale of 
stockpiles, no matter how seemingly rigid the restrictions on such 
sales may be, will ultimately provide a laundering loophole for illegal 
ivory...[which] will undoubtedly lead to a renewed elephant 
slaughter.'' The two organizations jointly endorsed one set of 
comments, agreed with the proposed U.S. position, and stated ``no 
single option regarding ivory stockpiles should be endorsed * * * since 
countries should be able to evaluate all options.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: COP9 asked the Standing Committee to 
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 
U.S. 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. Doc. 10.45 was not 
received in time from the Secretariat to be considered in this notice.
19. Trade In and Conservation of Rhinoceroses
    Comments: One set of comments was received which dealt with rhino 
conservation in general terms. This commenter ``agrees with the Service 
that [Standing Committee Doc. SC.37.17] should not be supported'' as it 
``would be an unconscionable waste of scarce resources * * * to conduct 
an [sic] study on indicators, when there is not enough resources to 
provide on-the-ground protection of rhinos in the wild and elimination 
of rhino horn markets through outreach activities.''
    Background: The 37th meeting of the Standing 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 or accepted 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. The U.S. would

[[Page 31142]]

not support any funding from the CITES Trust Fund for those efforts.
    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 two 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]
    Comments: No comments were received on this specific sub-item.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.47 was not received in time to 
be considered in this notice.
(b) Trade in Live Rhinoceroses From South Africa [Doc. 10.48]
    Comments: One comment was received on this specific sub-item. This 
commenter stated that ``[r]emoval of the annotation without uplisting 
to Appendix I will be a clear sign that future rhino horn trade is 
imminent, undermining CITES long-term interest in rhino conservation.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.48 was not received in time to 
be considered in this notice. 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 will submit a report to COP10 on its implementation of this down 
listing. The U.S. 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 it informed the United States that no such procedure is 
necessary. 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, and be 
subject to all of the procedures relevant to species listing proposals. 
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]

    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter 
stated in general terms that the ``annotated downlisting [for vicuna 
wool] has proved problematic and the Parties should revert to the pre-
COP9 annotation which only allowed trade in finished vicuna products. 
International trade in raw wool must be prohibited.'' The jointly 
endorsed comments strongly urged the U.S. ``to propose that Parties 
reinstate the wording of the vicuna annotation adopted at COP6, which 
permitted vicuna in carefully designated areas of Peru and Chile to be 
downlisted from Appendix I to Appendix II * * * with an annotation to 
allow the export of fabric and garments made from wool sheared from 
live vicuna and marked prior to export. Trade in raw wool was 
prohibited.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.49 was not received in time to 
be considered in this notice.
21. Conservation of Edible-nest Swiftlets of the Genus Collocalia [Doc. 
10.50]
    Comments: No comments were received on this proposed resolution.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. Doc. 
10.50 was not received in time for inclusion in this notice.
22. Biological and Trade Status of Sharks [Doc. 10.51]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 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. Doc. 10.51 was not received in time for inclusion in this 
notice.
    In order to provide a framework for this and other activities that 
CITES will undertake to implement Con. 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 U.S. 
submission of this resolution.
23. Trade in Plant Specimens
    Comments: No comments were received on any of the sub-items related 
to this issue.
    Background: Relevant documents were not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
(a) Implementation of the Convention for Timber Species [Doc. 10.52]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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

[[Page 31143]]

be submitted to COP10, except the one entitled Regarding Appendix III 
Listings (TWG.02.Concl.04 (Rev.)). The United States supports all of 
the draft resolutions, except for that one; the United States opposed 
the proposed amendment of Conf. 9.25, and will 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 the Appendix III provisions of the CITES treaty.
    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.
(b) Amendment to the Definition of ``Artificially Propagated'' [Doc. 
10.53]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.53 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
(c) Disposal of Confiscated Live Plants [Doc. 10.54]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.54 is still under review by the 
United States. The United States has established a system of Plant 
Rescue Centers 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. There are currently 54 active plant rescue centers in 
the United States. During 1996, 416 shipments containing 12,633 live 
plants were confiscated upon import into the United States in violation 
of CITES. The five families of CITES plants most confiscated were 
Orchidaceae (8,908 plants), Bromeliaceae (1,280 plants), Cactaceae (926 
plants), Primulaceae (815 plants), and Euphorbiaceae (409 plants). Four 
hundred fourteen (414) of these shipments containing 12,174 plants were 
assigned to plant rescue centers. The United States supports the 
development of CITES guidelines on how to deal with disposal of live 
confiscated plants, and agrees generally with the Guidelines produced 
by the Plants Committee working group. However, the United States does 
not agree with the sale of confiscated specimens to traders, commercial 
propagators, or others involved in commercial activities. This could 
encourage potential illegal trade and possibly enable the original 
importer of the confiscated plants to reobtain these plants, or 
otherwise too easily benefit from the illegal import; it also violates 
existing agreements with the U.S. Plant Rescue Centers. The U.S. will 
discuss the operations of the U.S. Plant Rescue Center Program at the 
COP.
24. Significant Trade in Appendix II Species
    Comments: One general comment was received on this issue, which was 
jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. These comments 
supported the Service's position and stated: ``We believe that the 
Significant Trade Process is being undermined by the use of 
consultations with range states in lieu of forwarding specific primary 
or secondary recommendations.'' These comments highlighted several 
``weaknesses'' in the Significant Trade Review process including 
``vaguely worded'' recommendations, the Secretariat being ``far too 
easily satisfied that * * * actions taken have fulfilled * * * 
recommendations,'' and a new procedure instituted by the Animals 
Committee ``whereby the Conf. 8.9 process is avoided in favor of 
Committee member consultations with the Party of concern, which 
eliminates penalties to Parties for not complying with 
recommendations.''
(a) Animals [Doc. 10.55]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.55 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
    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 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.
    The United States shares concerns that the Significant Trade Review 
process, particularly regarding recommendations made to the Secretariat 
for transmission to the range states, is neither specific enough nor 
sufficiently ``action-oriented.'' The U.S. also shares other concerns 
regarding consultation with range states, and looks forward to 
discussions on these issues at COP10. Except for corals and 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 discussions 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. The United States supports 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. The United States agrees that insufficient resources are 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 U.S. submission of this resolution.
(b) Plants [Doc. 10.56]
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.56 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice. The United States

[[Page 31144]]

supports 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]
    Comments: One comment was received on this issue, which was jointly 
endorsed by two organizations. These organizations supported the U.S. 
submission of this draft resolution, stating that the ``sale of 
Appendix I tourist items encourages illegal trade and hampers 
enforcement [and] [b]order crossings are ideal places to educate 
travellers [sic] about the Convention.'' The U.S. agrees.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this resolution.
26. Trade in Specimens of Species Transferred to Appendix II Subject to 
Annual Export Quotas [Doc. 10.58]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.58 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
27. Trade in Alien Species [Doc. 10.59]
    Comments: Comments were received from three organizations on this 
issue, one set of which was jointly endorsed by two organizations. One 
commenter stated that this issue ``should remain outside the scope of 
CITES'' and since the Convention ``is experiencing significant problems 
fulfilling its current `obligations * * * ' involvement in invasive 
species issues should be avoided. Another set of comments, jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations, ``fully supports this document 
and discussions on the need to prevent the introduction to the wild of 
live exotic animals and plants that are traded internationally.''.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 U.S. 
submission of this document. In response to comments, the United States 
stresses that CITES is indeed the appropriate forum for the discussion 
of introductions of invasive species deriving from international trade 
in live specimens of these species. Alien [nonindigenous] species have 
been identified as the second largest threat to biological diversity 
globally after habitat loss and degradation. The U.S. submitted a 
discussion paper asking that this issue be discussed at COP10. The 
intent of the United States is to: (1) heighten international awareness 
of the threats alien species pose to the conservation of biodiversity 
and focus attention on finding practical solutions to the alien species 
problems; (2) encourage cooperation and collaboration between CITES and 
the Convention on Biological Diversity on threats to biodiversity from 
the introduction of alien species through international trade in these 
species; and (3) encourage Parties to pay particular attention to these 
issues when developing national legislation and regulations, when 
issuing export or import permits for live specimens of potentially 
invasive species, or when otherwise approving exports or imports of 
live specimens of potentially invasive species.
28. Establishment of a Working Group for Marine Fish Species [Doc. 
10.60]
    Comments: Comments were received from twelve organizations on this 
issue, one set of which was jointly endorsed by two organizations. One 
organization stated that it ``applaud[ed] U.S. efforts to ensure that 
CITES trade rules are fully coordinated with conservation and 
management rules under other international agreements''; they did 
express concern for the ``open-ended'' jurisdiction of the proposed 
Working Group and the lack of ``indication who would be chosen to serve 
on this working group.'' Two organizations, in opposing this draft 
resolution, expressed the view that marine species management and 
conservation issues should be dealt with only by the United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and either coastal nations or 
regional fisheries management organizations. Another commenter, whose 
submission was jointly endorsed by two organizations, supported the 
draft resolution, and noted that the proposed Working Group ``would 
serve similar function to the [CITES] Timber Working Group''. One 
commenter, a foreign government, stated in opposition to the draft 
resolution, that not only should only the FAO and coastal nations be 
solely responsible for marine species management and conservation, but 
that this draft resolution is unacceptable because of the increased 
workload it would cause for CITES, and the absence of scientific 
evidence ``of verification of the `extinction level' to be considered 
by CITES.'' Another foreign commenter, in opposing this draft 
resolution, stated that the U.S. submission of this proposal was 
``inconsistent with its position committed * * * at the [22nd meeting 
of the] FAO Fisheries Committee,'' specifically with regard to the 
conservation and management of shark species. One other foreign 
organization, in opposition to the draft resolution, stated that 
``issues pertaining to marine fishes should be promoted by more 
appropriate organizations such as the * * * FAO of the United 
Nations.'' This commenter also stated the formation of such a working 
group would complicate ``the present thinking on marine living 
resources [and] might cause unnecessary confusion.'' Another foreign 
organization, requesting that the U.S. withdraw the draft resolution 
specifically because of its involvement in shark management and 
conservation, expressed concerns that ``CITES to a large extent is a 
relic of the past,'' and that the draft resolution ``perpetuates the 
scatter-gun, confrontational approach.'' This organization favored FAO 
management of shark species. One commenter, expressed the opinion that 
the submission of the draft resolution was ``premature and potentially 
counterproductive to the conservation and management of ocean 
fisheries.'' This commenter also stated that it was ``debatable'' that 
several marine species qualify for listing under CITES, that the tasks 
of the proposed working group would be ``overwhelmingly complex,'' that 
``regional fishery organizations and coastal nations are responsible 
for managing and conserving ocean fisheries,'' that the control of 
harvests is the ``most effective means of conserving marine fish,'' and 
that the proposed Working Group's tasks would be ``redundant'' to the 
work of the FAO. Another commenter opposed the draft resolution as 
``costly, useless and inefficient in nature * * * premature, redundant 
and overlapping.'' This organization also stated that the working 
Group's creation would ``create another financial and administrative 
burden for the Convention,'' and that ``it is a utopian idea to try to 
manage a few selected fish species without managing the totality of the 
marine species, including the marine mammals.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See

[[Page 31145]]

Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a rationale explaining 
the U.S. submission of this resolution. In response to comments 
received, the United States notes that this proposed working group is 
modeled after the Timber Working Group established at COP9, and will 
complement but not in any way supersede efforts of international 
fishery management organizations. The purpose of the Working Group is 
not to propose marine fish species for listing, or deal with listing 
issues in any manner, but rather to investigate concerns associated 
with inclusion in the CITES Appendices of marine fish species subject 
to large-scale commercial harvesting and international trade, and 
develop recommendations on approaches to address identified issues with 
the FAO and other fishery organizations. In addition, this proposed 
working group will facilitate liaison between the CITES Animals 
Committee and the FAO and other international fisheries organizations, 
in order to complete the implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17. The 
United States regrets the misunderstanding, reflected in some comments 
received, that the proposed working group would take on the work of 
management of commercial fisheries, which is not within CITES' purview. 
Rather, if a commercially fished marine species becomes depleted to the 
point that it qualifies for inclusion in the CITES Appendices, the 
efforts of this working group will be a vital component of effective 
implementation of such a CITES listing.
29. Scientific Justification for National Export Quotas [Doc. 10.61]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter 
stated that the U.S. should oppose this draft resolution as 
``burdensome and unnecessary.'' Other comments received, which were 
jointly endorsed, supported the draft resolution stating that it 
``would strengthen Resolution Conf. 9.3'' by requiring scientific 
justification for CITES export quotas.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 CITES requires Parties to make a non-
detriment finding when issuing an export permit, providing 
documentation of such a 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 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 refers to those quotas that are determined by 
individual exporting countries, and not those quotas that are approved 
by the COP. At present, the United States is evaluating whether the 
draft resolution submitted by Israel is needed in order to interpret 
the Convention, but is currently leaning towards opposing this 
document.
30. Disposal of Stocks of Dead Specimens of Appendix I Species [Doc. 
10.62]
    Comments: Three comments were received, one of which was jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter supported the 
proposed U.S. negotiating position. One stated that ``adoption of this 
resolution would create significant loopholes in enforcement of trade 
of Appendix I species.'' This commenter further stated that ``an 
unqualified expansion of the utilization of Appendix I species violates 
the intent of CITES...which strictly restricts trade in specimens from 
Appendix I species.'' Comments which were jointly endorsed by two 
organizations opposed this draft resolution, stating that it would 
``weaken Resolution Conf. 9.10 [and] allow use of confiscated specimens 
giving value to illegally traded specimens, parts and products.'' 
Another commenter stated that the U.S. should investigate new 
approaches to the disposal of stock of dead Appendix I specimens 
without either endorsing or opposing the proposed U.S. negotiating 
position.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 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 will strongly 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 in international trade 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 such 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.
31. Marking of CITES Specimens [Doc. 10.63]
    Comments: One set of comments was received, which was jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations. These organizations disagreed 
with the proposed U.S. negotiating position and strongly urged the U.S. 
to oppose this draft resolution. These commenters stated that the 
proposed changes would allow ``secondary products'' to ``enter 
international trade without marking'' and expressed concern that the 
draft resolution's provisions ``pose a

[[Page 31146]]

significant threat to species which are not currently ranched but may 
be so in the future.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This document was submitted by the CITES 
Secretariat on behalf of the Animals Committee. The Animals Committee 
discussed 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, 
unenforceable by national authorities, and otherwise impractical. The 
United States supports 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]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The United States supports universal 
tagging of crocodilian skins. Doc. 10.64 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
33. Identification of Corals and Reporting of Coral Trade [Doc. 10.65]
    Comments: One comment was received on this issue. This commenter 
supported this U.S. proposal stating that identification and reporting 
of quantities of coral in international trade ``has plagued the trade 
for many years. The proposed resolution addresses the reporting issues 
and provides a pragmatic solution for handling recognizable 
coral...under CITES.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this resolution, at the 
request of the Animals Committee.
34. Implementation of Article VII, Paragraph 2: Pre-Convention 
Specimens [Doc. 10.66]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997 for a 
rationale explaining the U.S. 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]
    Comments: Comments were received from seven organizations on this 
issue, one of which was jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. 
One commenter stated that the draft resolution ``is so restrictive and 
over-bearing that it is a disincentive to captive-breeding.'' Another 
organization encouraged the Service ``to amend its resolution * * * to 
allow additional animals, eggs, or gametes from the wild to be added to 
the breeding stock to prevent deleterious in-breeding * * *'' This 
commenter also suggested that there was insufficient time to guarantee 
that ``more good than harm will result'' from consideration of this 
resolution, and requested that consideration be ``postponed.'' One 
commenter stated that birds ``taken before some CITES designation 
should be exempt'' and added further that ``laws should encourage the 
redistribution of bloodlines to facilitate the maintenance of the most 
genetically diverse populations.'' Another set of comments expressed 
support for the U.S. submission, but urged the deletion of language 
which ``permits the augmentation of parental breeding stock with the 
`occasional addition of animals, eggs or gametes from wild 
populations.' '' This commenter stated opposition to the placement of 
confiscated live animals in captive breeding facilities. One commenter 
expressed opposition to the importation of animals, eggs, or gametes 
for captive breeding, and also suggested ``postponement of 
discussions'' of these issues until after COP10 because Parties ``have 
not had sufficient time to review any documents that may be submitted 
by the Secretariat * * *'' Another organization supported the Service's 
``efforts to design a comprehensive set of standards and requirements 
for captive-breeding facilities and applaud their proposal in so far as 
it establishes a thorough program for registration of facilities.'' One 
organization stated its concern with the U.S. draft resolution's 
``unnecessarily restrictive definition of F2'' but stated that ``this 
proposal serves to further reinforce the need to establish an exemption 
for `special circumstances' species such as Asian elephants.'' This 
commenter opposed the resolution ``in so far as it is more restrictive 
with regard to application of the definition of captive-bred'' but 
supported the resolution ``in so far as it paves the way for a limited, 
narrowly tailored exemption for species with special circumstances.''
    The United States submitted documents on captive breeding, and 
these documents are discussed in the March 27, 1997, Federal Register 
notice.
    Doc. 10.67, 10.68.1, and 10.68.2 were not received from the 
Secretariat in time for inclusion in this notice. At COP9, the Parties 
directed the Secretariat, working with the Animals Committee, to 
prepare a 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. The United States is closely evaluating the document from the 
Secretariat, and will provide detailed information, views, and 
positions throughout COP10. The United States is concerned however that 
discussions in the Animals Committee and indeed by the Secretariat in 
its proposed resolution, may go beyond the direction given to the 
Secretariat and the Animals Committee at COP9.
(b) Proposals to Register the First Commercial Captive-Breeding 
Operation for an Appendix I Animal Species
    Comments: No comments were received on this specific sub-item.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 any pending proposals.
36. Hybrids
(a) Amendment to Resolution Conf. 2.13 [Doc. 10.70]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this specific sub-item, one 
of which was jointly endorsed by two

[[Page 31147]]

separate organizations. One commenter supported the proposed U.S. 
opposition to this draft resolution, stating that it would weaken Conf. 
2.13 ``by allowing commercial trade in captive-bred hybrids of CITES-
listed species without CITES regulation * * * These changes are 
contrary to the spirit of the Convention and will weaken species 
protection and enforcement efforts.'' The comments that were jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations also supported U.S. proposed 
opposition to this draft resolution noting that the proposal ``would 
weaken Conf. 2.13 by allowing commercial trade in captive-bred hybrids 
of CITES-listed species without CITES regulation.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This resolution was submitted by 
Australia and seeks to clarify the situation 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 parents' 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 significantly, 
by recommending that a hybridized specimen 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 opposes 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 proposed manner, additional layers of complexity and 
confusion would be added to the issue of trade in hybrid animal 
species. It could significantly increase illegal trade and risk to wild 
populations. In addition, these important conservation concerns arise 
from modifying Conf. 2.13 pursuant to the proposed resolution: (1) 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; (2) A captive-breeding facility may 
require supplementation of wild-caught parental stock in order to 
maintain a given level of hybrid specimen productivity; (3) 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; and (4) 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 
proposed resolution, 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 disagrees with Australia, 
and strongly prefers that such concerns be addressed in a specific 
listing proposal.
(b) Regulation of Trade in Animal Hybrids [Doc. 10.71]
    Comments: One set of comments was received on this specific sub-
item. This commenter stated that this draft resolution represented ``a 
reasonable approach to the issue of hybrids and the U.S. should support 
the proposal.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.71 was not received in time to 
be included in this notice. The United States supports the consensus 
reached by the Animals Committee at its last meeting on this issue, and 
hopes the Secretariat's document reflects that consensus.
37. Shipments Covered by Customs Carnets [Doc. 10.72]
    Comments: Comments were received from three organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One organization supported the 
``spirit of the resolution in so far as it encourages improved 
education and training for customs officials, as well as increased 
awareness of relevant requirements for shipments of wildlife,'' but 
expressed concern about the meaning of the draft resolution as it 
related to the legal force of customs carnets versus CITES permits and 
certificates, noting that these two different types of documents are 
``mutually exclusive under current law and practice.'' The comments 
which were jointly endorsed supported the draft resolution without 
providing specifics.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this resolution.
38. Frequent Transborder Movements of Personally Owned Live Animals 
[Doc. 10.73]
    Comments: Comments were received from four organizations, two of 
which jointly endorsed one submission. One commenter, supporting the 
proposed U.S. position, stated that the draft resolution ``represents a 
most practical and logical solution to the problems facing private 
owners of legally acquired and possessed Appendix I species who seek to 
temporarily transport their animals across international borders * * 
*'' This organization stated that this draft resolution would have very 
positive effects in gaining captive-bred status for captive-born Asian 
elephants. The set of comments jointly endorsed by two separate 
organizations also supported the proposed U.S. negotiating position, 
and recommended ``that the certificate either be presented on re-entry 
or, if the animal cannot be returned, documentation to that effect be 
supplied to the * *  state of residence.'' These comments also stated 
that their support of the resolution was contingent on the acceptable 
of amendments being proposed by the United States. Another organization 
also supported the U.S. proposed position by noting that this proposed 
resolution ``aims at correcting some inconsequential actions.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This resolution, jointly submitted by 
Switzerland and Germany, calls for the creation of a certificate of 
ownership to accompany CITES-listed, personally-owned, live 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 frequently 
cross international borders (falconry practitioners, pet owners who 
travel, etc.) poses technical and administrative burdens. In addition, 
the Service is concerned with the number of retroactive permits it has 
had to issue, since the United States recognizes the exemption while 
other countries do not.
    The United States will 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

[[Page 31148]]

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 numbers of 
certificates issued by species 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]
    Comments: Five comments were received on this issue, with one 
submission endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter 
opposed this resolution noting that its provisions ``would present 
opportunities for fraud, for laundering Appendix I animals, and 
engaging in other illegal activities that would deleteriously affect 
wild populations as well as the integrity of the Convention.'' This 
commenter also stated that the consideration of the passport issue 
should be ``held over for COP11.'' Another commenter expressed support 
for the ``general concept'' of `` `passports' to facilitate movement of 
privately owned animals,'' but expressed concerns with ``the 
resolution's limited application to government-owned or sponsored 
exhibitions, and the fact that the resolution as drafted does not 
address the concerns of other parties over appropriate safeguards to 
prevent illegal activity.'' One commenter stated that they oppose 
``this extremely vague resolution'' and stated that ``animal acts'' do 
not ``constitute an art form''. This commenter also expressed doubts as 
to the feasibility of the passport provisions as drafted. Another set 
of comments, jointly endorsed by two organizations, opposed the draft 
resolution as ``extremely vague and confusing'' and stated that it 
``attempts to amend the treaty by creating a new category of exemption 
under Article VII.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 COP8, the Parties adopted Conf. 8.16 to correct 
technical problems and prevent fraud in the movement of animals that 
are part of traveling exhibitions. Conf. 8.16 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 are expected to mark or identify each 
specimen.
    This proposed resolution, submitted by the Russian Federation, 
considers a circus to be 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. The 
second problem concerns progeny born to circuses that strictly do not 
meet Conf. 2.12, which 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 sufficient 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. 
Some of 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 will oppose 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 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]
    Comments: Four comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter 
referenced the activities of the Animals Committee Working Group 
focusing on this issue, and stated that the U.S. should not seek any 
further amendments to the group's recommendations. Another commenter 
wrote extensively on the IATA live animal transport guidelines, stating 
that ``many of the IATA requirements will greatly contribute to the 
death or unnecessary abuse of birds in transit.'' This commenter called 
on the U.S. to abandon the IATA shipping guidelines. One commenter 
expressed general concern with the knowledge and expertise of Service 
wildlife inspectors, and stated that the Party's should ``work together 
to develop a more comprehensive set of guidelines and resources for use 
by current inspection authorities.'' Another set of comments, jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations, supported the Service's 
submission without giving detailed comments.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 U.S. 
submission of this resolution. The United States agrees that the 
consensus document prepared by the Animals

[[Page 31149]]

Committee should be adopted without major revisions, while at the same 
time retaining the essential portions of Conf. 9.23. The CITES Parties 
have endorsed the IATA Live Animals Regulations, as an international 
industry standard for the transport of live animals. The United States 
supports this endorsement, and will work for their implementation and 
enforcement, while also working to modify the IATA Regulations, when 
appropriate for the health and welfare of live animals in international 
trade.
41. Designation of Scientific Authorities [Doc. 10.76]
    Comments: One comment was received, which was jointly endorsed by 
two separate organizations. These comments support the U.S. draft 
resolution.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is a United States sponsored 
resolution. See Federal Register notice of March 27, 1997, for a 
rationale explaining the U.S. submission of this resolution.
42. Standard Nomenclature [Doc. 10.77]
    Comments: No comments were received on this specific issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: Doc. 10.77 was not received in time for 
inclusion in this notice.
43. Information on the Population Status and Threats to Ovis vignei 
[Doc. 10.78]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter 
stated that the U.S. ``should oppose the recommendations of the 
Nomenclature Committee to consider all of the urial as listed on 
Appendix I.'' This commenter suggested that the U.S. propose a split-
listing ``which recognize the conservation programs of range states 
involving international sport hunting.'' Another set of comments, which 
was jointly endorsed, urged the Service to support the finding of the 
Nomenclature Committee which recommended that all subspecies of Ovis 
vignei be considered as listed on Appendix I. These commenters stated 
that they ``reject plans by IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group and 
others to promote trophy hunting of these rare sheep, which are 
declining in the wild.'' This commenter supported ``non-consumptive'' 
uses of these animals, such that they can ``remain in the population 
where they can continue to contribute to the gene pool of these rare 
subspecies.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: This is an information document 
submitted by the Government of Germany discussing the population status 
and threats to Ovis vignei. The United States supports the effort to 
resolve the listing status of Ovis vignei and thanks the Government of 
Germany for presenting this document. The United States supports the 
recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on this issue.
44. Traditional Medicines and CITES [Doc. 10.79 and Doc. 10.80]
    Comments: Two comments were received, one of which was jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter was ``pleased to 
see that the United States is willing to promote discussion of the use 
of threatened and endangered species in traditional medicine.'' This 
commenter added, however, that discussions including the traditional 
medicine community ``should not be an examination of ways to facilitate 
the regular, legal use of these at-risk species in medicine, but 
rather, a cooperative effort to promote conservation of these animals 
concomitant with promotion of alternatives to endangered animal 
remedies.'' The other comments, which were jointly endorsed, expressed 
no position.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: One of the two documents in this item 
(Doc. 10.80) is a U.S.-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 U.S. 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 
(Doc. 10.79).
    The United States supports the Annex to Doc 10.79, submitted by the 
United Kingdom and most of its recommendations. The United States 
strongly supports cooperative educational efforts, working with 
consumer communities to increase understanding of the impacts of the 
wildlife trade and wildlife conservation, and facilitating the use of 
substitutes and alternatives to endangered species products, while 
respecting the value of traditional medicines and the cultures and 
communities that use them. However, it continues to believe that 
understanding of the relationship between traditional medicine and 
endangered species is best worked out with the full involvement of each 
country's traditional medicine practitioners, a process that requires 
consensus building among members of that community. This involvement is 
critical if long-term change is to occur in patterns of traditional 
medicine use.
    The United States supports several of the recommendations in Doc 
10.79, including the following: (1) a resolution on traditional 
medicines containing wild species, with the caveat that representatives 
of traditional medicine communities must be intricately involved in the 
process; (2) directing the Animals Committee to include within the 
implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9, a review of significant trade 
in animal species for medicinal use, with the understanding that 
representatives of traditional medicine communities should be asked to 
provide significant information; (3) directing the CITES Secretariat to 
convene a technical workshop to establish priority actions for 
addressing the complex problems of utilization of CITES-listed species 
in traditional East Asian medicines. The United States supports this 
recommendation in principle, but believes that such a workshop may be 
premature. The real work of addressing traditional medicine issues 
needs to be carried out within countries at local and regional levels, 
and led by community representatives. The United States recommends that 
the traditional medicine community and its affiliated industries 
convene any such technical workshop that is proposed so as to ensure 
that discussion and consensus reaches the appropriate levels in the 
community; (4) including within the continuing implementation of 
Resolution Conf. 8.4, of a review of measures taken by Parties in their 
national legislation to control the import/export of medicinal products 
containing CITES-listed species; and (5) strongly encouraging Parties 
to effectively implement Resolutions Conf. 9.13 and 9.14.
45. Financing of the Conservation of Biodiversity and Development of 
Sustainable Use of Natural Resources [Doc. 10.81]
    Comments: Four comments were received, one of which was jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations. One organization opposed this 
draft resolution and stated that conservation funds should be generated 
``through sustainable use programs, such as sport hunting.'' Another 
commenter stated strong opposition, and urged the U.S. to ``firmly 
oppose this study and urge parties and NGO's to raise needed funds 
through sustainable use programs and through their own government 
appropriations process.'' One organization wrote that the U.S. ``should 
strenuously oppose any proposal to conduct a feasibility study on 
taxing the wildlife trade and the issuance of eco-certificates in order 
to provide

[[Page 31150]]

conservation funds for biodiversity'' and instead recommended that 
range state sustainable use programs could generate conservation funds. 
Two commenters also opposed this draft resolution stating that its 
recommendations are ``beyond the scope of the treaty [and] would 
require the Standing Committee to involve itself in the internal 
finances of Parties.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 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 opposes 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]
    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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. The United 
States supports 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.
    Doc. 10.82 was not received in time for inclusion in this notice. 
However, the United States will encourage the Secretariat and Parties 
to find the most cost effective yet efficient solution to these 
problems, and work with existing internet providers. The United States 
would not support a costly feasibility study, if other solutions were 
readily available. The U.S. will continue to urge the Secretariat to 
assess the computer and other information management needs of the 
Parties.
47. Inclusion of Higher Taxa [Doc. 10.83]
    Comments: Four comments were received, one of which was jointly 
endorsed by two separate organizations. One commenter supported the 
proposed U.S. opposition to this draft resolution and stated that ``its 
passage could lead to numerous split-listings which will ultimately 
make CITES enforcement difficult. [The resolution] is highly illogical 
and inconsistent with the language of the Convention itself and the new 
listing criteria adopted at COP9.'' Another organization commented that 
the U.S. should oppose this draft resolution as ``confusing, 
unnecessary'' as it would ``vastly complicate the listing process * * * 
[and] lead to a proliferation of split-listings.'' One organization 
disagreed with the proposed U.S. position, as the resolution would 
``avoid negative consequences * * * on conservation programs'' if 
adopted. Other comments, which were jointly endorsed by two separate 
organizations, opposed the draft resolution as it ``would effectively 
make listings of higher taxa almost impossible by requiring separate 
annotations for each species [and] may interfere with management 
programs * * *''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: 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 opposes 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. 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, the new listing criteria (Conf. 9.24, 
Annex 3) already adequately address the issues associated with split-
listings, and in general, discourage their use. This subject was 
addressed at length at COP9, and the submission of this newer 
resolution does not allow for a fair amount of time for the Parties to 
implement the terms of Conf. 9.24. 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 Conf. 9.24.
48. Proposals Concerning Export Quotas for Specimens of Appendix I or 
II Species [Doc. 10.84]
    Comments: Two comments were received on this issue, one of which 
was jointly endorsed by two organizations. Both comments were on the 
markhor (Capra falconeri) proposal. One commenter stated that the U.S. 
should support the proposal to establish quotas as the program which 
would authorize the export of hunting trophies under this plan ``is 
related to a sustainable use program designed to involve rural villages 
in the management and conservation of wildlife.'' Another set of 
comments, which was jointly endorsed, urged the U.S. to oppose this 
draft proposal for several reasons: it ``is inconsistent with Article 
III, para 2(d)'' because it would permit ``the exporting country to 
issue an export permit prior to the issuance of an import permit; ``is 
inconsistent with Article III, para 3(c) * * * because it defines 
`primarily commercial purposes' * * * in terms of the conditions at 
export; ``is inconsistent with Resolution Conf. 2.11 (Rev.) because it 
removes the authority of the importing country to make an independent 
finding of non-detriment even if new data becomes available; ``is 
inconsistent with Resolution Conf. 9.21 which requires that a request 
for a quota for an Appendix I species must be made by a proposal, not a 
resolution;'' and because non-consumptive uses of

[[Page 31151]]

markhor specimens will ``ensure that animals remain in the population 
where they can continue to contribute to the gene pool of these rare 
subspecies.''
    U.S. Negotiating Position: The U.S. supports some aspects of 
Pakistan's proposed resolution containing both a proposed annual export 
quota for 6 markhor (Capra falconeri spp.) sport-hunted trophies, and 
an accompanying management plan. Countries can impose export quotas 
that they believe are needed to protect their wildlife resources and 
more easily enable them to make the required non-detriment findings. 
Export quotas on Appendix I species are limited to imports for non-
commercial trade, including sport hunting trophies. The process is 
established in Resolution Conf. 9.21. The United States stated at COP9 
that if a quota were adopted by the Parties and the United States felt 
that it should or could not comply with (e.g., the species was listed 
under Endangered Species Act and required separate findings, or the 
United States was not convinced of the biological or trade control 
information presented), the United States would stipulate to that 
effect at the time of the relevant COP action. While Pakistan could 
approve the export of trophies of Appendix I species without obtaining 
concurrence on a quota from the CITES Parties, having a quota (1) 
assures the community that such trophies will be accepted by importing 
countries, and (2) provides the exporting country some additional 
support to control the level of offtake at the regional level. The 
biological and implementation information in the proposal appear to be 
adequate to support the very limited offtake requested in this 
resolution. The background document submitted provides information on 
the distribution, status, threats, and conservation measures relating 
to the markhor in Pakistan.
    The United States does not oppose the Pakistan resolution, as the 
proposed quota of 6 markhor appears to be a conservative harvest level. 
Furthermore, with some modifications, the conservation plan is very 
positive. The United States notes that the subspecies Capra falconeri 
chialtanensis = Capra aegagrus (Chiltan markhor) is listed as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act, although does not appear 
to be covered by the resolution. However, the straight-horned markhor 
(Capra falconeri magaceros) is also endangered under the ESA, and the 
finding of enhancement required for imports of endangered species may 
preclude issuance of permits for their import, even if the resolution 
is adopted.

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]

    The Service's summary of comments on proposals to amend the 
appendices and negotiating positions on these proposals will be 
presented in a separate Federal Register notice.

XVI. Conclusion of the Meeting

    Comments: No comments were received on this issue.
    1. Determination of the time and venue of the next regular meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties [Doc. 10.89]
    U.S. Negotiating Strategy: 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 will 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.

Other Comments Received

    Numerous comments were received on a variety of issues not directly 
related to issues on the provisional Agenda of COP10, and are not 
summarized here. However, information and comments were received 
regarding the issue of annotations of the CITES appendices for the 
purpose of transferring a species from Appendix I to II. The U.S. is 
currently considering whether to submit a draft resolution on this 
issue, and this issue is still under internal review. One set of 
comments submitted related to this issue, which was jointly endorsed by 
another organization as well. These organizations expressed concern 
that the ``lack of guidelines to supervise the use of such annotations 
may cause many problems that could detrimentally effect [sic] species. 
For example, the Parties could transfer a species from Appendix I to 
Appendix II in a two-step process without any of the controls the 
Parties have adopted to ensure that species are not harmed by increased 
trade.'' In addition, these commenters expressed concern that there is 
currently no resolution in force that ``supervises the use of product 
annotation, nor do the Parties have a review mechanism to ensure that a 
product annotation is not detrimental to the survival of the species.''
    The U.S. is concerned about the lack of guidance given to Parties 
on this issue due to the lack of an interpretive resolution to date. 
The U.S. believes that there is a very limited number of situations in 
which a product annotation may be useful, primarily in cases where 
multiple parts of a given species may be in trade, with a very wide 
disparity of value for the different parts and the products 
subsequently manufactured from them. The U.S. believes that trade in 
the lower value items may not always be a serious conservation concern, 
but that clear criteria and guidelines for their use are critical.

    Authors: This notice was prepared by Bruce J. Weissgold and Dr. 
Susan S. Lieberman, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

    Dated: June 2, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-14833 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P