[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8190-8204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3719]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Eleventh 
Regular Meeting; Draft Resolutions, Draft Decisions, Discussion Papers, 
Other Agenda Items, and Proposals To Amend the CITES Appendices 
Submitted by the United States for Consideration at the Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States, as a Party to the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), may submit draft resolutions, draft decisions, discussion 
papers, and other agenda items for consideration at meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties to CITES. The United States may also propose 
amendments to the CITES Appendices (species proposals) for 
consideration at meetings of the Conference of the Parties. The 
eleventh regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES 
(COP11) will be held at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 
Headquarters in Gigiri, Kenya, April 10-20, 2000. The deadline for the 
United States to submit to the CITES Secretariat its draft resolutions, 
draft decisions, discussion papers, species proposals, and other agenda 
items for consideration at COP11 was November 12, 1999.
    With this notice we announce the draft resolutions, draft 
decisions, discussion papers, species proposals, and other agenda items 
submitted by the United States for consideration at COP11.

ADDRESSES: (1) For information pertaining to draft resolutions, draft 
decisions, discussion papers, and other agenda items: U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, Branch of CITES 
Operations, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, VA 22203; or 
E-mail: [email protected]. (2) For information pertaining to species 
proposals: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Scientific 
Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750, Arlington, VA 22203; or 
E-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) For information pertaining to 
draft resolutions, draft decisions, discussion documents, and other 
agenda items: Teiko Saito, Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Office of Management Authority, tel. 703-358-2095, fax 703-358-2298. 
(2) For information pertaining to species proposals: Susan Lieberman, 
Chief, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Scientific Authority, 
tel. 703-358-1708, fax 703-358-2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora, TIAS 8249, referred to below as CITES or the 
Convention, is an international treaty designed to control and regulate 
international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now or 
potentially may be threatened with extinction. These species are listed 
in Appendices to CITES, copies of which are available from the Office 
of Management Authority or the Office of Scientific Authority at the 
above addresses, from our World Wide Website http://international.fws.gov, or from the official CITES Secretariat Website 
at http://www.cites.org/CITES/eng/index.shtml. Currently, 148 
countries, including the United States, are Parties to CITES. CITES 
calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties, which 
review issues pertaining to CITES implementation, make provisions 
enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out its 
functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I 
and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make 
recommendations for the improved effectiveness of CITES. Any country 
that is a Party to CITES may propose amendments to Appendices I and II, 
resolutions, decisions, discussion papers, and agenda items for 
consideration by the Conference of the Parties. Only Party countries 
may submit species proposals, draft resolutions, draft decisions, 
discussion papers, and agenda items for consideration at the meeting of 
the Conference of the Parties. Accredited non-governmental 
organizations may participate in the meeting as approved observers, and 
may speak during sessions, but may not vote.
    This is our fifth in a series of Federal Register notices that, 
together with announced public meetings, provide you with an 
opportunity to participate in the development of the United States' 
negotiating positions for the eleventh regular meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP11). We published our first such 
Federal Register notice on January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4613), and with it 
we requested information and recommendations on potential species 
amendments for the United States to consider submitting for discussion 
at COP11. You may obtain information on that Federal Register notice, 
and on species amendment proposals, from the Office of Scientific 
Authority at the above address. We published our second such Federal 
Register notice on September 4, 1998 (63 FR 47316), and with it we 
requested information and recommendations on potential resolutions and 
agenda items for the United States to consider submitting for 
discussion at COP11. You may obtain information on that Federal 
Register notice, and on proposed resolutions and agenda items, from the 
Office of Management Authority at the above address. We published our 
third such Federal Register notice on February 26, 1999 (64 FR 9523), 
and with it we announced the time and place of COP11, announced the 
times and places for the next meetings of the CITES Animals and Plants 
Committees, and announced a public meeting to discuss issues that were 
to be raised at those committee meetings. We published our fourth such 
Federal Register notice on July 8, 1999 (64 FR 36893), and with it

[[Page 8191]]

we listed potential proposed resolutions, agenda items, and proposed 
amendments to the CITES Appendices that the United States was 
considering submitting for consideration at COP11; invited your 
comments on these potential proposals; announced a public meeting to 
discuss the potential proposals; and provided information on how non-
governmental organizations based in the United States can attend COP11 
as observers. You may obtain information on that Federal Register 
notice from the Office of Management Authority (for information 
pertaining to proposed resolutions and agenda items) or the Office of 
Scientific Authority (for information pertaining to proposed amendments 
to the Appendices) at the above addresses. We also published a 
correction in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44234), 
correcting a paragraph regarding Atlantic swordfish on page 36909 of 
our July 8 Federal Register notice (64 FR 36893). You may locate our 
regulations governing this public process in 50 CFR 23.31-23.39.

Who Submitted Comments on Possible Resolutions, Decisions, 
Discussion Papers, and Other Agenda Items for the United States To 
Submit for Consideration at COP11?

    We received comments from the following organizations in response 
to our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999 (64 FR 36893), on 
possible resolutions and agenda items for the United States to submit 
for consideration at COP11: American Tanning & Leather Co.; American 
Zoological Association; Animal Protection Institute; Animal Welfare 
Institute; Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks & 
Aquaria, Inc.; Bundesamt fur Naturschutz (the German CITES Management 
Authority); Center for International Environmental Law; Conservation 
Force; Dallas Zoo; Defenders of Wildlife; Doris Day Animal League; 
Earthkind/Environmental Investigation Agency/Fauna and Flora 
International/Greenpeace/IFAW/Marine Conservation Society/RSPCA/The 
Shark Trust/Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society/Worldwide Fund For 
Nature-UK (joint comment); Earthtrust; Feld Entertainment, Inc.; 
Fisheries Agency of Japan (the Japanese CITES Management Authority for 
introduction from the sea); Fisheries Council of Canada; Fund for 
Animals, Inc.; Global Guardian Trust; Greenpeace U.S./Antarctic Project 
(joint comment); Humane Society of the United States; Institute for 
Conservation Education and Development--Antioch University Southern 
California; International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 
International Coalition of Fisheries Associations; International Fund 
for Animal Welfare; IWMC World Conservation Trust; Japan Fisheries 
Association; Louisiana Alligator Farmers & Ranchers Association; 
Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries; National Fisheries 
Institute; Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council; Riches of the Sea; 
Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey; Safari Club International; Species 
Survival Network; and World Wildlife Fund. In addition, we received 
comments from eight individuals in response to our July 8 Federal 
Register notice on possible resolutions and discussion documents for 
the United States to submit for consideration at COP11.
    We considered all of the comments from each of the above 
organizations and individuals in deciding which draft resolutions, 
draft decisions, discussion papers, and other agenda items to submit.

What Draft Resolutions Did the United States Submit for 
Consideration at COP11?

    What follows is a discussion of the single draft resolution 
submitted by the United States for consideration at COP11. You may 
obtain copies of this draft resolution, electronically or in paper 
form, by contacting the Office of Management Authority at the address 
above. This draft resolution is also available on our Website as well 
as the CITES Secretariat Website.

Reaffirmation of the Synergy Between CITES and the IWC

    We received a recommendation in response to our Federal Register 
notice of September 4, 1998, that the United States submit a resolution 
reaffirming the relationship between CITES and the International 
Whaling Commission (IWC). In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 
1999, we stated that the United States intended to inform the 
Conference of the Parties of an important resolution on this topic, 
which was overwhelmingly adopted by a vote of 21 votes in favor, 10 
votes against, and 3 abstentions at the 51st Meeting of the IWC, in 
Grenada, May 23-27, 1999. The resolution, IWC/51/43, directs the IWC 
Secretariat to advise the CITES Conference of the Parties that the IWC 
has not yet completed a revised management regime that ensures that 
future commercial whaling catch limits are not exceeded and whale 
stocks can be adequately protected. The resolution further directs the 
IWC Secretariat to advise the CITES Conference of the Parties that zero 
catch limits are still in force for species of whales managed by the 
IWC. We stated that the United States intended to submit this important 
IWC resolution to the CITES Secretariat for distribution to the Parties 
at COP11.
    In our July 8 notice, we noted that CITES Resolution Conf. 2.9, 
entitled ``Trade in Certain Species and Stocks of Whales Protected by 
the International Whaling Commission from Commercial Whaling,'' was 
overwhelmingly reaffirmed by the Parties at the tenth regular meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) in 1997, by the defeat of a 
draft resolution proposed by Japan to repeal this resolution. At the 
50th meeting of the IWC subsequent to COP10, the IWC passed a 
resolution that expressed its appreciation for the reaffirmation of 
this link between the IWC and CITES. IWC Resolution IWC/51/43 also 
welcomes the CITES COP10 decision ``to uphold CITES Resolution Conf. 
2.9.'' As clarification, Resolution Conf. 2.9 calls on the CITES 
Parties to ``agree not to issue any import or export permit, or 
certificate for introduction from the sea * * * 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.''
    The 10 organizations who submitted comments on this issue in 
response to our July 8 notice held widely different views. Six 
organizations supported the United States' proposal to submit the IWC 
resolution and, of those organizations, five elaborated on the need for 
more cooperation between the two bodies. Four other organizations 
commented that it would be inappropriate to submit the IWC resolution 
to the meeting of the COP because they felt that the decisions of the 
IWC are not justified.
    In order to allow for a fuller discussion of this topic, the United 
States has submitted a draft resolution entitled ``Reaffirmation of the 
Synergy Between CITES and the IWC,'' for consideration at COP11. This 
draft resolution endorses the cooperation between CITES and the IWC on 
matters of international trade in and management of whales, and urges 
the Parties to make every effort to ensure that this cooperation 
continues. The United States included IWC Resolution IWC/51/43 as an 
annex.

What Draft Decisions Did the United States Submit for Consideration 
at COP11?

    What follows is a discussion of the single draft decision submitted 
by the United States for consideration at COP11. You may obtain copies 
of this

[[Page 8192]]

draft decision, electronically or in paper form, by contacting the 
Office of Management Authority at the address above. This draft 
decision is also available on our Website as well as the CITES 
Secretariat Website.

Movement of Sample Crocodilian Skins

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we announced that 
the United States was considering drafting a resolution to allow for 
simplified transport of swatches of crocodilian skins for trade fairs 
and other situations where the samples might be used to solicit orders. 
The United States considered this action in order to facilitate trade 
in species that have greatly benefitted from CITES controls. Many 
crocodilians were once listed in Appendix I of CITES. However, through 
conservation programs, such as ranching and captive breeding, 
crocodilians have greatly increased in numbers and represent a CITES 
success story. Sustainable use of these species can benefit these 
conservation efforts and provide economic incentives to continue the 
efforts.
    We received seven comments in response to our July 8 notice, six of 
which supported the idea of facilitated trade opportunities. Three 
commenters wanted the resolution expanded to cover sample skins and 
products for use in trade shows. The CITES Management Authority of 
Germany commented that it was greatly interested in this issue and in 
seeing what the United States was planning to submit to COP11 with 
regard to it.  
    After considering the comments and discussing the issue with the 
Management Authority of Germany and the IUCN Crocodile Specialist 
Group, the United States submitted a draft decision for consideration 
at COP11. The draft decision directs the Secretariat, in consultation 
with the Animals Committee and the Crocodile Specialist Group, to 
review ways in which Parties could streamline the procedures for 
issuing export or re-export documents for crocodilian skins that are 
tagged in accordance with the CITES universal tagging resolution and 
that will be used for display at trade shows and returned to the 
country issuing the export or re-export documents. A draft resolution 
would then be prepared for consideration at the twelfth meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties (COP12).

What Discussion Papers Did the United States Submit for 
Consideration at COP11?

    What follows is a description of the three discussion papers 
submitted by the United States for consideration at COP11. You may 
obtain copies of these discussion papers, electronically or in paper 
form, by contacting the Office of Management Authority at the address 
above. These discussion papers are also available on our Website as 
well as the CITES Secretariat Website.

1. Recognition of the Important Contribution Made by Observers to the 
CITES Process at Meetings of the Conference of the Parties

    In response to our Federal Register notice of September 4, 1998, 
one organization requested that we submit a resolution for 
consideration at COP11 recognizing the important contributions made by 
observers to the CITES process and affirming that observer 
participation in meetings of the COP is vital to the ability of the 
Conference of the Parties to discuss issues with the fullest possible 
available information. We subsequently announced in our Federal 
Register notice of July 8, 1999, that the United States was considering 
submitting a discussion paper on this issue for consideration at COP11. 
Twelve organizations submitted comments on this issue in response to 
our July 8 notice: nine of these organizations fully supported the 
United States submitting a discussion paper; one did not support nor 
oppose; and two opposed.
    Article XI, paragraph 7, of the text of the Convention provides 
that national non-governmental organizations that have been approved to 
attend a meeting of the COP as observers shall have the right to 
participate in the meeting but not to vote. A number of the commenting 
organizations who attended COP10 as observers expressed their concerns 
about the limited level of participation afforded observers at that 
meeting, particularly in Committee I. We are sympathetic to these 
concerns and believe that the participation of observers in the 
discussions of issues at meetings of the COP is beneficial. For many of 
the issues submitted for discussion at meetings of the COP, the 
greatest level of expertise is within the community of non-governmental 
organizations that attend as observers. Through their right to actively 
participate in the sessions of the Plenary, Committee I, Committee II, 
and Working Groups at past meetings of the COP, observers have 
contributed vital information to the discussions of COP issues and, 
therefore, to the advancement of conservation.
    Subsequently, the United States submitted a discussion paper on 
this issue for consideration at COP11. The discussion paper recognizes 
the important contribution that observers make to the CITES process at 
meetings of the COP and urges the Parties to ensure the preservation of 
the right granted to observers by Article XI of the Convention to 
actively participate in all COP sessions. The paper recommends that, 
for COP11 and future meetings of the COP: (a) the CITES Secretariat and 
the host government of the meeting of the COP make every effort to 
ensure that each approved observer be provided with at least one seat 
on the floor in the meeting rooms of the Plenary, Committee I, 
Committee II, and Budget Committee, unless one-third of the Party 
representatives present and voting object; (b) in selecting venues for 
future meetings of the COP, the Parties make every effort to ensure 
that the venues selected have space for observers on the floors of the 
halls for the Plenary, Committee I, Committee II, and the Budget 
Committee; (c) the Presiding Officers of the Plenary, Committee I, 
Committee II, and Budget Committee make every effort to allow observers 
time in the meeting sessions to speak on issues (make interventions); 
(d) recognizing that conservation of time in order to complete a COP 
agenda in the 2-week period is a valid concern, Presiding Officers give 
observers a speaking time limit if necessary and encourage observers 
not to be redundant in speaking on a particular issue; (e) when 
possible, Presiding Officers invite knowledgeable observers to 
participate in Working Groups of Committee I and Committee II; and (f) 
the Secretariat make every effort to ensure that informative documents 
on the conservation and utilization of natural resources, prepared by 
observers for distribution at the meeting of the COP and approved by 
the Secretariat, are distributed to the participants in the meeting.

2. Synergy With the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO)

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we announced that 
the United States was considering submitting a discussion paper on the 
promotion of synergy and cooperation between CITES Parties and the 
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the 
implementation of the FAO plans of action on seabirds, sharks and 
overcapacity, and the review of CITES listing criteria. The United 
States submitted a discussion paper on this issue for consideration at 
COP11. The paper calls upon CITES Parties to expeditiously implement 
the FAO plans of action and to examine areas of cooperation between 
CITES and the

[[Page 8193]]

FAO in this endeavor. It also encourages consultation and cooperation 
between CITES Animals and Plants Committees and international technical 
bodies such as the FAO in the review of the CITES listing criteria as 
called for in CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24.
    Nine organizations submitted comments on this issue. Eight 
organizations supported a discussion paper on cooperation with FAO. One 
organization noted that the paper may be acceptable, but needed to see 
its contents. One organization stressed the role CITES has played in 
focusing international attention on the exploitation of and trade in 
sharks and noted that, while there is a clear link between CITES and 
the FAO shark plan, the plans of action to reduce seabird by-catch and 
national fishing fleet overcapacity are fisheries management issues, 
rather than wildlife trade issues. The discussion paper submitted by 
the United States recognizes the important role CITES played in 
focusing attention on the exploitation and trade in sharks and 
discusses the contents of the seabird and capacity plans of action as 
well as the shark plan of action. The paper recommends that CITES 
recognize the importance of the FAO plans of actions and explore areas 
of cooperation between CITES and FAO in the implementation of the shark 
and seabird plans.
    One organization suggested that the United States submit a draft 
resolution recognizing the important but different roles FAO and CITES 
play, similar to the resolution concerning the relationship between 
CITES and the International Whaling Commission. The United States does 
not believe that such a resolution is needed at this time and that a 
discussion paper recommending continued cooperation between the two 
bodies is sufficient.
    With respect to FAO's role, two organizations stated that they 
agreed that the review of listing criteria should be a CITES-led 
process. Three other organizations, while not disagreeing that the 
review should be CITES-led, noted that FAO can and should provide 
valuable scientific information and technical expertise to CITES and 
supports the United States' position to encourage cooperation with FAO 
in any review of the CITES listing criteria. The discussion paper 
submitted by the United States recognizes that the review of the CITES 
listing criteria as called for in Resolution Conf. 9.24 should be a 
CITES-driven process, with leadership and direction from the Animals 
and Plants Committees. The paper also recognizes the expertise that FAO 
has to contribute to the review process and encourages consultation and 
cooperation between CITES and international technical bodies such as 
FAO and its Committee on Fisheries.

3. Trade in Seahorses and Other Members of the Family Syngnathidae

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that 
the United States was considering submitting an Appendix-II listing 
proposal for seahorses (Hippocampus spp.), based on substantial threats 
to these species, unregulated international trade, widespread 
overfishing, and habitat loss and degradation. In addition to 
requesting public comment through the Federal Register notice, we 
undertook a comprehensive consultation effort with all range countries 
for the entire family Syngnathidae (through a Notification to the 
Parties issued by the CITES Secretariat, followed by a letter sent to 
principal harvesting, exporting, and consuming countries), as well as 
all U.S. States and territories that potentially have seahorses or 
pipefishes in their coastal waters.
    We received several comments during the public comment period for 
our July 8 notice. Comments supporting a listing proposal were received 
from the Humane Society of the United States, Animal Welfare Institute, 
International Fund for Animal Welfare, and Ocean Rider, Inc. Comments 
opposed to a listing proposal were received from the Governments of 
China and Japan (Fisheries Agency of Japan), the Advisory Committee for 
the Protection of Rare Animals and Plants of the Hong Kong Special 
Administration Region, Project Seahorse (represented by Dr. Amanda 
Vincent), and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. Global Guardian 
Trust and World Wildlife Fund were undecided; both organizations 
believed that additional data were necessary to evaluate the 
distribution and trade status of the species. The Government of 
Indonesia and the Council of Agriculture, Taiwan, commented but did not 
advocate a specific position. The Council of Agriculture provided trade 
data for review. We also consulted coastal States within the United 
States regarding the trade and biological status of syngnathids in 
their waters. The State of Florida provided trade data that indicates 
significant trade in syngnathid species. Several other States responded 
but provided only limited information. Although seahorses reside in 
U.S. coastal waters, current stock assessments are extremely limited 
and are a by-product of assessments of commercially harvested marine 
species.
    After reviewing all of the comments received on this issue, and all 
available information, we believe that the available data regarding 
international trade, taxonomic identification, the distribution and 
abundance, and biological and ecological status of the Family 
Syngnathidae are inadequate to support submission of an Appendix-II 
listing at this time. However, we worked closely with the Government of 
Australia and agreed to promote further discussion and conservation 
action on this issue by jointly submitting a discussion paper for 
consideration at COP11. This paper is a review of the current 
biological status of the family; utilization as traditional medicines, 
curios, and aquarium organisms; existing fisheries and captive breeding 
programs; and available trade data. The paper presents information that 
suggests that syngnathid populations are heavily exploited for the 
international wildlife trade, and the United States recommends 
additional taxonomic study, population assessment, research and 
development in husbandry and sustainable harvest, and compilation of 
international and domestic trade data, prior to COP12. The discussion 
paper also incorporates specific recommendations for future action by 
Party members, the Traditional Medicine community, and the scientific 
community. We appreciate the close cooperation with Australia on this 
important conservation issue and look forward to discussing this issue 
at COP11, adopting the recommendations contained therein, and working 
for syngnathid conservation in the CITES context.

For What Discussion Papers, Submitted by Other Countries for 
Consideration at COP11, Did the United States Submit Its Intention 
To Co-Sponsor?

    What follows is a description of a discussion paper, submitted by 
Germany and co-sponsored by the United States, for consideration at 
COP11. You may obtain copies of this discussion paper, electronically 
or in paper form, by contacting the Office of Management Authority at 
the address above. This discussion paper is also available on our 
Website as well as the CITES Secretariat Website.

Trade in Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises to and in Southeast Asia

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we announced that 
we were seeking comments on the sale of live freshwater turtles for 
sale in East Asian food markets because we had received information 
that a ``very large international trade'' in many of these species had 
developed. Based on a review of the comments we received,

[[Page 8194]]

published and unpublished literature, and consultation with experts, we 
determined that it would be appropriate to put this issue on the agenda 
of COP11. Therefore, the United States has co-sponsored a discussion 
paper entitled ``Trade In Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises To and In 
Southeast Asia'' with Germany.
    This discussion paper describes the current trade in ``millions of 
freshwater turtles and tortoises * * * consumed as food and medicine in 
South and East Asia'' and makes recommendations to address the 
situation. In describing this trade, Germany and the United States note 
that the growing economic affluence in many Asian countries has led to 
an increased demand in wildlife for human consumption and use, in 
particular freshwater turtles and tortoises. The markets in which these 
animals and their parts are sold contain a large number of species not 
listed in the CITES Appendices (including North American taxa), along 
with large numbers of specimens from species listed in both Appendix I 
and II. Of particular concern is the documented sale of significant 
numbers of six Appendix-I species, as well as the sale of rare 
Appendix-II species, and some apparently rare species that are not 
listed in the CITES Appendices. There are concerns that many of the 
species for sale originate as wild-caught specimens in countries that 
do not allow their export for commercial purposes, and several taxa for 
sale have only recently been described in the scientific literature.
    The United States is recommending in this discussion paper, with 
Germany, that the CITES Parties importing and exporting these animals, 
the Secretariat, and the Animals Committee should all play a role in 
examining this trade and taking appropriate action to ensure that it is 
sustainable and not harmful to wild populations of the species 
involved. Specifically, the paper calls for the Parties to study the 
trade and their law enforcement protocols, to evaluate the 
appropriateness of new CITES species listings or uplistings, and 
promote sustainability in the trade, as well as other essential 
measures. The paper would direct the Secretariat to convene a technical 
workshop on the issue, and would direct the Animals Committee to 
consider and act upon the workshop's recommendations and to also work 
with the IUCN Freshwater Turtle and Tortoise Specialist Group to update 
their Action Plan.

What Other Items Did the United States Submit for Inclusion in the 
Agenda for COP11?

    What follows is a discussion of a separate item submitted by the 
United States for consideration at COP11.

Discussion of Progress in the Conservation of Swietenia macrophylla 
(Bigleaf mahogany)

    Brazil has proposed including bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia 
macrophylla) as an agenda item for discussion at COP11. The U.S. 
Government has been in close contact with Brazil on this issue and 
provisionally proposed the same agenda item, in the event that Brazil's 
submission was not received by the Secretariat in time. The United 
States is very supportive of providing the Parties an opportunity to 
discuss progress in the conservation of Swietenia macrophylla since 
COP10. Brazil has submitted a document for discussion at COP11, 
reporting on the results of the Mahogany Working Group meeting that 
Brazil hosted in June 1998. In relation to this discussion, we will 
work closely with other Federal agencies and intend to submit an 
informational document outlining U.S. views on the issue and actions 
under way to conserve the species.

What Draft Resolutions, Draft Decisions, Discussion Papers, and 
Other Agenda Items Did the United States Decide Not To Submit for 
Consideration at COP11?

    We discussed the following issues in our Federal Register notice of 
July 8, 1999, as possible topics for U.S. draft resolutions, draft 
decisions, discussion papers, or agenda items for consideration of the 
Parties at COP11, or as possible resolutions or decisions that the 
United States was either considering supporting or was undecided about. 
A discussion of the decision not to submit these topics as draft 
resolutions, draft decisions, discussion papers, or agenda items 
follows. Several of these topics were submitted for consideration at 
COP11 as products of CITES Working Groups (e.g., Working Groups of the 
CITES Standing Committee or Animals Committee) in the form of draft 
resolutions, draft decisions, or discussion papers, which the United 
States will be able to support at COP11.

1. Introduction From the Sea

    At the 14th Meeting of the CITES Animals Committee, held in June 
1997, the Government of Australia presented a document on the 
Implementation of Articles IV(6) and IV(7) (Introduction From the Sea). 
An informal working group, led by Australia, was formed to examine this 
complex matter in more detail. The United States participated in an 
exchange of letters with Australia that focused on practical solutions 
to potential problems related to implementation of the provisions of 
the Convention for CITES-listed species taken in the marine environment 
outside the jurisdiction of any country. In our Federal Register notice 
of July 8, 1999, we announced that Australia intended to submit this 
topic for discussion at COP11 and that the United States would continue 
to participate in discussions regarding this issue. If acceptable 
progress was made, the United States expected to support the results of 
those discussions. If acceptable progress was not made, the United 
States would consider developing its own proposed resolution on this 
issue for consideration at COP11.
    Three organizations submitted comments expressing widely differing 
views on this issue. One organization agreed that clarification of the 
term ``introduction from the sea'' is needed so the Parties fully 
understand their obligations under CITES with respect to the issuance 
of documents and other practical matters. This organization suggested 
that a document should be prepared for COP11 as a first step in 
clarifying the interpretation of the term. Another organization 
commented that the definition of ``introduction from the sea'' is very 
clear in the text of the Convention and that the organization would 
need to hear discussions at the meeting of the COP and see the details 
of a draft resolution before commenting further. A third organization 
opposed discussion of this issue at COP11 because the organization 
believes such discussion would preempt deliberation on listing marine 
species in the Appendices of CITES.
    Based on our review of the issue, discussions with Australia, and 
consideration of the comments received, the United States believes it 
is important that the Parties agree to a standard interpretation and 
implementation of ``introduction from the sea.'' The adoption of a 
resolution would not preempt any deliberation on listing marine 
species, but would establish a common interpretation to assure the 
Parties that there is a practical system to implement any future 
listing. Australia submitted, for consideration at COP11, a draft 
resolution with a detailed discussion of the issues and a table of 
scenarios and requirements for specimens that are to be introduced from 
the sea. Thus, as proposed, the United States did not submit a separate 
draft resolution on the

[[Page 8195]]

subject. Australia is to be commended for its tremendous effort in 
analyzing the issue and providing a document for the Parties to 
consider. We are currently reviewing Australia's draft resolution and 
will provide a proposed U.S. negotiating position on this document in 
our Federal Register notice addressing foreign submissions for COP11.

2. Use of Annotations in the Appendices

    The issue of the use of annotations in the Appendices is expected 
to be one of the most important for consideration at COP11. We received 
comments from several organizations in response to our Federal Register 
notice of September 4, 1998, recommending that we submit a resolution 
to clarify the criteria to be used when transferring populations or 
species from Appendix I to II with a product annotation. Annotations 
are footnotes in the CITES Appendices that are used by the CITES 
Parties for a number of purposes. As evidenced in proposals submitted 
for consideration at COP10 and COP11, they are increasingly used when 
species or populations of species are transferred or proposed to be 
transferred from Appendix I to II with an annotation that specifies 
that certain parts, products, or specimens are allowed to be traded 
under the provisions of Appendix II, whereas other parts and products 
are still treated as Appendix-I species. We discussed this issue in our 
July 8, 1999 Federal Register notice.
    The United States has taken an active leadership role on this 
issue. At COP10, the Parties adopted Decision 10.70, which directed the 
Standing Committee to clarify legal and implementation issues related 
to the use of annotations in the Appendices. The United States 
participated in the Standing Committee Working Group on this issue, 
along with Switzerland (Chair), Argentina, Canada, Germany, and 
Namibia. Switzerland has submitted a draft resolution for consideration 
at COP11 that is a consensus product of this Working Group. Therefore, 
the United States decided that there was no need to submit a separate 
resolution.

3. Transborder Movements of Live Animals for Exhibition Purposes

    At COP10, the Parties adopted Decision 10.142, which directed the 
CITES Secretariat to prepare recommendations on simpler procedures for 
the transborder movements of live-animal exhibitions. In March 1998, 
the Standing Committee agreed to establish an informal Working Group, 
consisting of the United States (Chair), Germany, Switzerland, the 
Russian Federation, and the Secretariat. The United States has a strong 
interest in making the current exhibition resolution (Conf. 8.16) more 
workable and, therefore, played an active role in the Working Group. In 
our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we announced that we would 
forward to the Working Group suggestions on a passport-type system for 
the transborder movements of animals and a review of marking 
requirements. Since we anticipated that the United States would most 
likely be able to support the Secretariat's recommendations to the 
Standing Committee, we did not plan to submit a separate draft 
resolution.
    We received comments from five organizations in response to our 
July 8 notice. All of them would like to see the development of a 
passport-type system to implement simplified procedures that would 
alleviate administrative or enforcement burdens while establishing 
greater safeguards against illegal trade. One organization recommended 
that the term ``exhibition'' should be defined; the passport should 
have a detailed description of the specimen and be surrendered upon 
expiration; a copy of the passport should be on file with the 
Secretariat; a renewal of a passport should be subject to a review of 
irregularities; and exhibitors should provide assurances that any 
female animal is not pregnant upon export and will not be put in a 
situation where she will become pregnant while in a foreign country. 
Another organization commented that poor enforcement of CITES 
provisions for traveling live-animal exhibitions has been a persistent 
problem and that employing a marking and passport regime would help 
improve enforcement. This organization thought current enforcement 
problems were caused by difficulty in monitoring exhibitions that 
change names and locations frequently, inspectors who avoid inspecting 
exhibition animals, and a shortage of facilities to hold confiscated 
animals. Another organization, however, believes a few incidents of 
``circuses'' that engaged in illegal trade or failed to properly care 
for their animals have been highly and repetitively publicized, 
creating a negative perception about circuses in general that is 
inaccurate and unwarranted. The establishment of a passport system 
would help ensure the legitimacy of exhibitions. We also received 
differing views on the inclusion of animals that do not qualify for the 
exemptions of CITES Article VII, paragraphs 2 and 5, as defined by the 
current resolutions on pre-Convention (Conf. 5.11) and bred-in-
captivity (Conf. 10.16). One organization did not want to provide 
exhibitions with special exemptions outside of the current resolutions. 
Two other organizations supported the inclusion of Asian elephants born 
in captivity outside of the range countries for the species among those 
animals that could be issued a passport document, by amending 
Resolution Conf. 10.16 to recognize a special circumstance for Asian 
elephants.
    The United States participated in the Working Group through an 
exchange of letters and conference calls to explore practical solutions 
to a number of issues, including the movement of African and Asian 
elephants that do not qualify under current resolutions as pre-
Convention or bred in captivity, respectively. The United States 
developed a draft resolution based on Resolution Conf. 8.16 on 
traveling live-animal exhibitions. Comments from Working Group members 
were incorporated, and a second draft was reviewed. The group was 
unable to reach consensus on the draft and agreed that Resolution Conf. 
8.16 should be revised only if these issues could be resolved. For 
various reasons, the group could not agree on the pre-Convention and 
bred-in-captivity issues, concluding that several of the proposed 
solutions were contrary to the provisions of the CITES. Thus, the group 
requested advice from the Standing Committee. In October 1999, the 
Secretariat presented a summary document to the Standing Committee. The 
Committee agreed that the Working Group need not continue its work, and 
asked the Secretariat to prepare a document for COP11. This topic is on 
the agenda for consideration at COP11, but we have not yet received the 
document to review. We hope to provide a proposed U.S. negotiating 
position on the document in our Federal Register notice addressing 
foreign submissions for COP11.

4. Captive Breeding

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we notified the 
public that we would be participating in further discussions on captive 
breeding, particularly revision of CITES Resolution Conf. 8.15, which 
established procedures for the registration of operations breeding 
Appendix-I species in captivity for commercial purposes. The United 
States commented on several drafts of a revised resolution to replace 
Resolution Conf. 8.15. The final draft was prepared by the Chair of the 
CITES Animals Committee and subsequently submitted by the CITES 
Secretariat for consideration at COP11. In addition, the

[[Page 8196]]

United States previously submitted comments and suggestions on the 
development of a list of ``species commonly bred in captivity,'' as 
defined in paragraph (b)(ii)(C)(2.a) of Resolution Conf. 10.16. 
Although there is no formal document or agenda item on this issue, it 
is interrelated with the revision of Resolution Conf. 8.15 and is 
likely to be part of those discussions. We intend to outline the U.S. 
proposed negotiating position on the draft revised resolution on this 
issue in our Federal Register notice addressing foreign submissions for 
COP11. The United States intends to remain active in any discussions on 
how to implement the provisions of the Convention relating to animals 
bred in captivity.

5. Trade in African Bushmeat

    In response to our Federal Register notice of September 4, 1998, 
two organizations recommended that we submit an agenda item for 
consideration at COP11 addressing the African bushmeat trade. Both 
commenters expressed concern about the impact of bushmeat trade on 
African elephants and primates, particularly the great apes. We 
subsequently announced in our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, 
that the United States was considering submitting a discussion paper on 
the commercial international illegal African bushmeat trade and was 
planning to seek one or more co-sponsors in submitting this paper. 
Fourteen organizations submitted comments on this issue in response to 
our July 8 notice: twelve of these organizations supported the United 
States submitting a discussion paper; one thought that the issue should 
be handled by improving CITES enforcement; and one opposed submitting a 
discussion paper.
    We recognize that the commercial international illegal African 
bushmeat trade poses a serious threat to the survival of numerous 
protected species, including elephants and the great apes. Further, 
commercial-level bushmeat hunting threatens both CITES and non-CITES 
species. Because much of the illegal commercial trade does involve 
CITES-listed species and occurs between CITES member countries, CITES 
is an appropriate forum for discussing this issue. However, the United 
States feels that it is important that at least one African range state 
play an active role in bringing this discussion to the CITES Parties. 
An African range state country did not submit or co-sponsor a 
discussion paper on the commercial African bushmeat trade before the 
submission deadline.
    Therefore, the United States did not submit a discussion paper on 
the commercial international illegal African bushmeat trade. We believe 
that this is an extremely important issue to CITES and intend to be 
actively involved in any discussions of this issue at COP11. As the 
United Kingdom submitted a discussion paper entitled ``Bushmeat as a 
Trade and Wildlife Management Issue,'' we are confident that the topic 
will be discussed at the meeting. We intend to outline our tentative 
position on the United Kingdom's document in our Federal Register 
notice addressing foreign submissions for COP11.

6. Definition of the Term ``Hunting Trophy''

    The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submitted 
comments that provided a definition of ``sport-hunted trophy'' and 
cited concerns on the commercialization of such specimens both in the 
country of origin and the country of import. CIEL recommended that the 
United States submit amendments to revise Resolution Conf. 2.11 (Rev.) 
on ``Trade in Hunting Trophies of Species Listed in Appendix I.'' CIEL 
also requested that the United States provide a definition of such 
hunting trophies in the listing annotations on the Appendix-II African 
elephant populations and South African white rhino population. Five 
other organizations provided comments in response to our Federal 
Register notice of July 8, 1999. CIEL provided draft text for a sport-
hunted trophy resolution. The Humane Society of the United States 
(HSUS) encouraged the United States to submit a resolution for many of 
the same reasons originally given by CIEL. Conservation Force, the 
Global Guardian Trust, and the Safari Club International all opposed 
such a submission indicating that this issue should be up to the 
discretion of each Party and that Parties were already well aware of 
what constitutes a sport-hunted trophy.
    The United States has decided not to submit a resolution on the 
definition of a ``sport-hunted trophy.'' The United States believes 
that most of the concerns expressed by CIEL and HSUS will be addressed 
and resolved through the annotations resolution submitted by 
Switzerland. This resolution is the product of the Standing Committee's 
Annotations Working Group of which the United States was a member (see 
No. 2 above). In addition, the Parties have already addressed the 
problem of internal legal and illegal trade of rhino products and 
hunting of rhinos through Resolution Conf. 9.14 on ``Conservation of 
Rhinoceros in Asia and Africa.'' Also, the Parties are aware that 
properly monitored legal trade in a species should not lead to an 
increase in illegal trade as noted in Resolution Conf. 8.3 on 
``Recognition of the Benefits of Trade in Wildlife.''
    In our July 8, 1999, Federal Register notice, we discussed several 
other possible draft resolutions, draft decisions, or discussion papers 
as topics that the United States was considering not submitting for 
consideration at COP11. We have not addressed these issues in the above 
sections because we did not receive any comments that changed our 
position on them, and the United States decided not to submit them (for 
the same reasons provided in our July 8 notice).

Who Submitted Comments on Possible Species Proposals for the United 
States To Submit for Consideration at COP11?

    We received comments from the following companies and organizations 
in response to our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, on possible 
species amendment proposals for the United States to submit for 
consideration at COP11: Afrasian Woods/Gross Veneer Sales; African 
Timber Organization; Aljoma Lumber, Inc.; American Furniture 
Manufacturers Association; Association Technique Internationale des 
Bois Tropicaux; American Zoological Association; Animal Welfare 
Institute; Center for International Environmental Law; Center for 
Marine Conservation; The Chameleon Information Network; Conservation 
Force; The Dean Company; Dean Hardwoods, Inc.; Eidai Industries, Inc.; 
Environmental Investigation Agency; Fauna and Flora International; 
Fisheries Agency of Japan; Fisheries Council of Canada; Fragrance & 
Materials Association; Frost Hardwood Lumber Co.; Ghana Timber Millers 
Organization; Global Guardian Trust; Greenpeace Mexico; Greenpeace 
U.S.; Grzep, C.G.; Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association; Humane 
Society International; Humane Society of the United States; 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; International 
Fund for Animal Welfare; International Society of Tropical Foresters; 
International Specialities, Inc.; International Wood Products 
Association; IUCN Central Asia Sustainable Use Specialist Group; Japan 
Fisheries Association; Malaysian Timber Council; Marwood, Inc.; 
National Fisheries Institute; National Hardwood Lumber Association; 
Newman Lumber Co.; Ocean Rider, Inc.; Pet Industry Joint Advisory 
Council; Plywood Tropics USA, Inc.; Project Seahorse (Dr. Amanda 
Vincent); Safari

[[Page 8197]]

Club International; Select Interior Door, Ltd.; Shark Research 
Institute; States Industries, Inc.; Steinway & Sons; T. Baird McIlvain 
International Co.; Thompson Mahogany Company; Wood Moulding & Millwork 
Producers Association; World Timber Corporation; and World Wildlife 
Fund.
    We received one comment directly from the State of Arizona (Game 
and Fish Department). We also received comments from four members of 
Congress and five individuals. Finally, we received comments from the 
following range country governments, either in response to the July 8 
notice or as a result of direct consultations we pursued with range 
country governments independently of this public involvement process: 
Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalem, 
Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El 
Salvador, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, 
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, the 
Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation (provided by 
Germany), Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania (provided 
by Kenya), Turkey, and Turkmenistan. Additional comments were received 
from Hong Kong and Taiwan. The United States considered all comments in 
making its decisions on which species proposals to submit for 
consideration at COP11.

What Species Proposals Did the United States Submit for 
Consideration at COP11?

    The United States submitted the following proposals to amend the 
CITES Appendices, for consideration at COP11. All of these proposals 
were discussed in our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, as 
proposals the United States was considering, or was undecided on. You 
may obtain copies of these proposals, electronically or in paper form, 
by contacting the Office of Scientific Authority at the address above. 
These proposals are also available on our Website as well as the CITES 
Secretariat Website.
    The United States submitted the following proposals for species 
native to the United States or found in U.S. waters:

1. Guaiacum sanctum (Holywood lignum-vitae): Transfer From Appendix II 
to I

    Holywood lignum-vitae, a valuable timber species widely distributed 
in the Florida Keys, West Indies, and Central America, has been listed 
in Appendix II since 1975. This species has been depleted through 
deforestation and felling for timber, such that it has now been 
extirpated or is extremely rare on most of the Caribbean islands. 
Remaining populations in Central America and Florida are confined to 
restricted areas and are still threatened by habitat loss and over-
exploitation. We consulted the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest 
Service and all range country governments regarding this proposal. El 
Salvador expressed support for the proposal. Belize, Costa Rica, and 
Mexico provided information, but stated no position. Cuba and the 
Dominican Republic opposed the proposal. Three comments were received 
from the public during the Federal Register comment period. The 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and World 
Wildlife Fund supported the proposed uplisting, while Global Guardian 
Trust felt that more information was needed. Our scientific assessment 
is that the species qualifies for transfer from Appendix II to Appendix 
I, and, accordingly, the United States submitted a proposal to transfer 
this species to Appendix I.

2. Kalmia cuneata (White wicky): Remove From Appendix II

    White wicky, an endemic plant of the North and South Carolina 
coastal plain, has been listed in CITES Appendix II since 1983. White 
wicky has not been in international trade in recent years. The main 
threats to the species are habitat loss due to land development, 
conversion to agriculture or production forestry, and fire suppression. 
We consulted with the States of North Carolina and South Carolina 
regarding this proposal. Neither expressed any objections. We received 
two comments--from Global Guardian Trust and International Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies--in support of this proposal. Because 
international trade does not pose a threat to this species, the United 
States submitted a proposal to delete the species from Appendix II.

3. Falco rusticolus (Gyrfalcon): Transfer North American Population 
From Appendix I to II With an Annotation

    The gyrfalcon was listed in Appendix I in 1975. The North American 
gyrfalcon population was transferred to Appendix II in 1981 (COP3), but 
was returned to Appendix I in 1985 (COP5) because of concern over 
illegal trade. At present, the North American gyrfalcon population, 
consisting of over 5,000 individuals, occurs over a large area of 
wilderness habitat and has not been subjected to an observed, inferred, 
or projected decline in numbers or in the area and quality of its 
habitat for over 20 years. Evidence indicates that this population has 
not declined due to legal or illegal international trade since at least 
1981. We consulted the Government of Canada regarding this proposal. 
Canadian authorities expressed support for the proposal and provided 
specific supporting language, which was included in the proposal 
itself. We received three comments from the public during the Federal 
Register comment period. Two letters supported the transfer and one 
opposed it on the grounds that no species should be split-listed.
    The U.S. position is that any potential negative effects of a split 
listing between these birds and Eurasian birds (e.g., increased 
potential for illegal trade, similarity of appearance) could be 
addressed by an annotation specifying a zero export quota for wild-
caught birds, which we have proposed. Any change in this annotation 
would require prior approval of the Conference of the Parties, through 
submission of a proposal to a future meeting of the Conference of the 
Parties. Although the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and several State 
jurisdictions allow the limited capture of wild birds for private use 
and CITES would have allowed the exportation of these birds for 
personal use, all of the birds exported from Canada and the United 
States since 1984 have been captive-bred birds. In addition, a zero 
quota for wild birds would still allow limited trade in wild birds for 
scientific or conservation breeding purposes, in accordance with the 
requirements for Appendix I. Therefore, since the transfer of the 
species from Appendix I to Appendix II, with a zero export quota for 
wild birds, should have no significant impact on the species, the 
United States submitted such a proposal.

4. Clemmys guttata (Spotted turtle): Include in Appendix II

    The spotted turtle occurs in southern Ontario, Canada, and in 
northeastern, upper midwestern, mid-Atlantic, and southeastern States 
in the United States. The primary threats to the spotted turtle are 
habitat fragmentation, alteration, and destruction; over-collection; 
and road mortality. The species is listed as endangered, threatened, or 
a species of special concern at the State or Provincial level 
throughout much of its range. Illegal commercial collecting and 
incidental collection by hobbyists are depleting populations in many 
areas. Our review of available data shows that substantial numbers of 
spotted turtles were exported from the United States from 1995 through 
1998. We consulted

[[Page 8198]]

all States within the range of the spotted turtle, as well as the 
Government of Canada. All responding States, the Canadian Government, 
and Ontario provincial authorities supported listing the species in 
Appendix II. We also received comments from five organizations during 
the public comment period. The Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society 
of the United States, International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council supported the 
listing, while Global Guardian Trust opposed it on the grounds that 
listing is unnecessary. The United States believes that the spotted 
turtle meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II and has, 
therefore, submitted an Appendix-II proposal for the species.

5. Crotalus horridus (Timber rattlesnake): Include in Appendix II

    The timber rattlesnake occurs in 31 States in the northeastern, 
southeastern, and midwestern United States. The United States proposed 
an Appendix II listing at COP10, but that proposal was withdrawn. Three 
geographical ``forms'' of the timber rattlesnake are commonly 
recognized. The southern population of the timber rattlesnake, known as 
the ``canebrake rattlesnake,'' has been recognized as a subspecies 
Crotalus horridus atricaudatus by some herpetologists. However, there 
is no consensus among herpetologists that the southern population is a 
separate subspecies, and we have treated all three geographical forms 
as a single species--Crotalus horridus. Research, long-term monitoring, 
and anecdotal observations indicate that timber rattlesnake populations 
are declining throughout much of the species' range, especially in the 
Northeast and Midwest. In many States only relict populations remain, 
and large local populations are considered to be rare. Timber 
rattlesnakes are threatened throughout the species' range by ongoing 
habitat degradation and loss, highway mortality, rattlesnake roundups, 
collection for domestic and international trade, and intentional 
killing. The numerous threats to the timber rattlesnake are exacerbated 
by the species' low reproductive potential.
    We consulted all States within the range of the timber rattlesnake 
regarding this proposal. The States, through the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, expressed support for 
listing the species in Appendix II. We received comments from six 
organizations during the public comment period. The Animal Welfare 
Institute, Humane Society of the United States, and International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies supported the listing, while 
Conservation Force opposed it on the grounds that nagement is largely a 
domestic matter of the United States. The American Zoological 
Association expressed concern over the subspecific taxonomic issues 
mentioned above, while Global Guardian Trust stated that the impacts of 
international trade on the species are unknown. The United States 
believes that the timber rattlesnake qualifies for inclusion in 
Appendix II and has, therefore, proposed to list the species in 
Appendix II.

6. Bufo retiformis (Sonoran green toad): Remove From Appendix II

    The Sonoran green toad, limited to portions of Arizona and Sonora, 
Mexico, has been included in Appendix II since 1975. Although this 
species has a limited geographic distribution, its population status 
within that distribution, much of which is within protected areas, is 
considered to be stable. There is little or no documented international 
trade in this species, and no other significant threats to the species 
have been identified. The State of Arizona (Game and Fish Department) 
supports the removal. The Government of Mexico was consulted, but did 
not respond. Four comments received from the public were in favor of 
delisting, while one, from the Humane Society of the United States, was 
opposed on the grounds that, even though no apparent trade in this 
species exists, it could be misidentified for other Bufo species that 
are in trade. However, we believe that the species can be readily 
distinguished from other Bufo species and that little problem with 
misidentification would occur. Given the lack of trade and the fact 
that the species is readily identifiable, the United States proposed to 
delete this species from Appendix II.

7. Rhincodon typus (Whale shark): Include in Appendix II

    The whale shark occurs in tropical and warm-temperate waters of the 
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. It is pelagic and can be 
encountered in deep water far from land. However, shallow areas near 
the mouths of some rivers and estuaries constitute feeding or breeding/
birthing grounds where whale sharks gather seasonally. The species is 
rare, although quantitative population estimates are not available. 
Local seasonal populations have declined drastically in some areas, and 
fishing effort and price have increased greatly. In the Philippines, 
significant declines in catch-per-unit-of-effort have led to attempts 
to exploit new fishing areas. Similar declines, possibly caused by 
over-exploitation, have been noted in Taiwan and the Maldives. It is 
not known whether fishing in one area affects populations in other 
areas, although at least some of the sharks migrate long distances 
within ocean basins, suggesting that localized fishing pressure may 
have regional or global effects. International trade in whale shark 
products takes place in Southeast Asia. The whale shark is fished for 
its fins and meat throughout Asia (India, Pakistan, China, Indonesia, 
the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, the Maldives, and elsewhere), in some 
cases despite legal protection (e.g., in the Philippines). In recent 
years, a market for fresh whale shark meat has developed in Taiwan, 
supplied by the Philippines.
    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that 
the United States was considering submitting a proposal to list the 
whale shark in Appendix II. We received comments from several 
organizations during the comment period. The Fisheries Agency of Japan, 
Fisheries Council of Canada, Japan Fisheries Association, National 
Fisheries Institute, and the Global Guardian Trust opposed the listing 
in Appendix II, stating that not enough data existed to confirm that 
trade has negatively impacted whale shark populations and 
implementation of the newly adopted United Nations Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO) International Plan of Action for Sharks will, in 
time, sufficiently protect the species. The Shark Research Institute, 
Center for Marine Conservation, Animal Welfare Institute, and Humane 
Society of the United States supported an Appendix II listing, stating 
that the species' life history and behavior make it vulnerable to over-
exploitation, that evidence exists of growing harvest pressure to 
supply international markets, and that extinction is likely without 
CITES protection. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) noted that the Philippines 
might submit a proposal to list the whale shark in CITES Appendix III 
and urged us to consult closely with them and other countries before 
pursuing a listing proposal. [WWF did not say that they supported the 
proposal and we have not received official support from the 
Philippines.]
    The United States has endeavored to consult with the whale shark 
range states through the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory 
Species of Wild Animals (CMS), and other bilateral and multilateral 
contacts. Responses thus far have been favorable. At the recent meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties to CMS, in South Africa, 
representatives from the following

[[Page 8199]]

countries gave their preliminary support to the proposal, pending 
official approval from their governments: Guinea, Senegal, Pakistan, 
Sri Lanka, Iran, Australia, Philippines, and the Netherlands. We will 
submit more detailed discussion of the results of these consultations. 
Based on the available biological and trade information and the 
favorable responses from range states thus far, the United States 
submitted a proposal to list whale sharks in Appendix II.

8. Carcharodon carcharias (Great white shark): Include in Appendix I 
(Co-Sponsored the Proposal Submitted by Australia)

    The great white shark is a coastal and offshore inhabitant of 
continental and insular shelves. It is distributed throughout temperate 
and subtropical oceans of the northern and southern hemispheres, and 
seasonally strays into tropical waters and colder temperate waters. 
Great white sharks are exploited worldwide by incidental fisheries, as 
a by-catch of longline fishing and gillnet fishing. In the past, 
occasional captures have been routinely marketed for the curio trade, 
with jaws and individual teeth across the entire size and maturity 
range commanding high prices in international markets. There is a 
smaller market for flesh and fins, with fins commanding as much as 
US$25.50/kg. Information from worldwide commercial catches, 
recreational catches, and captures in beach-meshing operations suggests 
that numbers are declining. Based on this and other information, the 
Government of Australia prepared a draft proposal to list the great 
white shark in Appendix I.
    In response to our July 8, 1999, Federal Register notice, in which 
we indicated that the United States was considering submitting a 
proposal to list the species in Appendix I, we received comments from 
the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Fisheries Council of Canada, Japan 
Fisheries Association, Global Guardian Trust, National Fisheries 
Institute, Shark Research Institute, International Fund for Animal 
Welfare, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society International, Humane 
Society of the United States, and the Center for Marine Conservation. 
The first five organizations opposed the proposed listing, stating that 
insufficient data exists on stock status and trade, and that the 
implementation of the newly adopted FAO International Plan of Action 
for the Conservation and Management of Sharks will, in time, offer 
sufficient protection for global populations. The other commenters 
supported the proposed listing.
    While developing its draft proposal to list great white sharks in 
Appendix I, the Government of Australia consulted with 45 range 
countries and received responses from 19. The United States, Republic 
of Seychelles, Croatia, France, Chile, Cameroon, and South Africa 
indicated full support for including the species in Appendix I. The 
Philippines and United Kingdom indicated support for the proposal in 
principle, while preferring that the great white shark be listed in 
Appendix II until further information is obtained. Canada stated that 
the biological criteria for listing in Appendix I were met but that 
trade criteria were not. Japan, Argentina, Spain, and Mexico indicated 
that, because in their view information is lacking to support claims 
that the proposal meets criteria for Appendix-I listing, they do not 
support the proposal. China commented that, since the FAO International 
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks exists, 
there is no need to list the great white shark on the Appendices of 
CITES. New Zealand, Peru, and Uruguay provided general information 
without indicating support or opposition, and Liberia provided positive 
comments about the proposal.
    After considering the available information, Australia's 
documentation, and the submitted comments, the United States believes 
this species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I and has 
indicated its intention to the Secretariat to co-sponsor the Appendix-I 
proposal that Australia submitted for the great white shark.
    The United States also submitted the following proposals for 
species that are not native to the United States. All of these were 
submitted in co-sponsorship with other countries:

1. Manis crassicaudata, M. javanica, and M. pentadactyla (Asian 
pangolins): Transfer From Appendix II to I (Co-Sponsored With India, 
Nepal, and Sri Lanka)

    These three pangolin species occur in south and southeast Asia, 
with some degree of overlap among their respective geographic ranges. 
All three species have been listed in Appendix II since 1975. Based on 
our review of extensive biological and trade information compiled by 
the CITES Animals Committee, we believe that all three species qualify 
for transfer to Appendix I based on the CITES listing criteria in 
Resolution Conf. 9.24. Pangolins are heavily exploited for food, for 
skins (used in the manufacture of leather goods such as boots), and 
medicinal uses (their scales are utilized in traditional Asian 
medicines). Considerable international trade occurs.
    Range country Governments of Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalem, Burma/
Myanmar, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the 
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam were consulted in regard 
to the desirability of transferring Asian pangolins from Appendix II to 
I. Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalem, and the Philippines support the 
proposed transfer. Indonesia stated ``If uplisting into Appendix I 
would help the conservation of this species, we are not in the position 
to reject the proposal.'' China believes that further assessment is 
needed on whether or not to transfer Asian pangolins from Appendix II 
to I; they believe that more information is needed about the species 
before any transfer is made. Malaysia and Singapore expressed no 
opinion on the proposed transfer. Other countries did not respond. We 
received five comments from the public during the public comment 
period. Global Guardian Trust opposed the proposal, while the Animal 
Welfare Institute and Humane Society of the United States supported the 
proposal. World Wildlife Fund stated that inclusion of all pangolins in 
Appendix I would present an enforcement challenge because of the large 
number of patented medicines in trade. They suggested that the United 
States might first consider submitting a resolution to facilitate 
dialogue on regulating the trade.
    Despite the implementation issues that might accompany an Appendix-
I listing, the United States feels that the three Asian pangolin 
species meet the criteria for listing in Appendix I. Numerous range 
countries share this belief, as evidenced by the fact that India, 
Nepal, and Sri Lanka co-sponsored the proposal, and by the strong 
support offered by several other range states. Thus, the United States 
submitted a proposal to transfer the Asian pangolins from Appendix II 
to Appendix I.

2. Tursiops truncatus (Bottlenose dolphin): Transfer Black/Azov Sea 
Population From Appendix II to I (Co-Sponsored With Georgia)

    The subspecies Tursiops truncatus ponticus is endemic to the Black 
Sea and isolated from other populations of bottlenose dolphins in the 
Mediterranean and other waters. It is believed that overall abundance 
of dolphins in the Black Sea has declined greatly due to severe over-
exploitation up into the 1980s, for human

[[Page 8200]]

consumption and for industrial products. The size of the present 
population of bottlenose dolphins is unknown, and no estimates exist of 
sustainable levels of take. The habitat is thought to be highly 
degraded and declining in quality due to contamination by sewage and 
industrial effluents, algal blooms, decrease in prey species due to 
overfishing, and by-catch in other fisheries. A substantial 
international commercial trade in bottlenose dolphins from the Black 
Sea has developed.
    In response to our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we 
received comments on this proposal from the following: Fisheries Agency 
of Japan, World Wildlife Fund, Center for Marine Conservation, World 
Wildlife Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the United 
States, and Global Guardian Trust. The Fisheries Agency of Japan 
believed that continuing trade under Appendix II suggests that source 
countries are confident that populations are healthy, and did not 
support the Appendix-I listing. Global Guardian Trust stated that it is 
difficult to claim the population meets the criteria for Appendix I. 
The other commenters supported a transfer of the species to Appendix I.
    During our initial range country consultations, we learned that one 
country--Georgia--wished to be a co-sponsor of the proposal. 
Subsequently, we worked together with Georgia to prepare the proposal 
and consult other range countries for the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin. 
Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania supported transfer of the species from 
Appendix II to Appendix I, while Russia and Ukraine did not offer an 
opinion. On the basis of the available biological information, which 
indicates that this population warrants transfer to Appendix I, the 
United States submitted a proposal to uplist the bottlenose dolphin 
population of the Black Sea to Appendix I, in co-sponsorship with 
Georgia.

3. Moschus spp. (Musk deer): Transfer From Appendix II to I (Co-
Sponsored With India and Nepal)

    Musk deer are native to Asia, ranging from eastern Siberia south 
through Manchuria and central China to the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-
Himalayan region of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. The number of 
Moschus species is not resolved, with authorities describing anywhere 
from four to seven species. This, in turn, affects subspecies 
classification. The subspecies Moschus moschiferus moschiferus was 
first listed in CITES Appendix I in 1975. In 1979, the listing was 
changed so that Moschus moschiferus (Himalayan population) was listed 
in Appendix I and all remaining populations of Moschus spp. were in 
Appendix II. In 1983, the listing was once again changed such that all 
musk deer populations of Afghanistan, Bhutan, India, Burma/Myanmar, 
Nepal, and Pakistan were in Appendix I and all other musk deer 
populations were in Appendix II. The limitations of clear taxonomic 
description, including the inability to distinguish among musk pods 
from various species, adds to the argument for including all members of 
the genus in Appendix I. Available information indicates that musk deer 
populations continue to decline throughout the range of the genus due 
to widespread poaching. Modification and loss of forest and scrub-
forest habitat are additional threats in many portions of the range.
    We formally consulted all musk deer range countries. Our letter to 
Afghanistan was returned as undeliverable, and no response was received 
from Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Burma/Myanmar, and the Russian 
Federation. China opposed the proposed uplisting to Appendix I, 
providing several reasons. They maintained that the threat to wild musk 
deer was being reduced by the increased production of synthetic musk 
and improvement in management on musk deer farms, including a captive 
breeding technique that they state is ``almost ripe'' and a technique 
for getting musk from live deer that has gradually improved. China 
believes that domestic measures are adequate to protect musk deer. The 
letter from China pointed out that musk deer are still abundant in 
their country as well as Russia, and that they consider ``2 millions 
square kilometers in the country as suitable habitat for these 
species.'' Mongolia supported the proposed uplisting to Appendix I. 
Although no census of musk deer in Mongolia has been taken since 1985, 
they reported increased poaching and reduction of musk deer 
populations. We received six comments from the public during the 
Federal Register comment period. Conservation Force and Global Guardian 
Trust opposed the proposal, while the Animal Welfare Institute and 
Humane Society of the United States supported the proposal. World 
Wildlife Fund stated that inclusion of all musk deer in Appendix I 
would present a tremendous enforcement challenge because of the large 
number of patented medicines, containing musk, which are in trade. They 
suggested that the United States might first consider submitting a 
resolution to facilitate dialogue on regulating the trade.
    After evaluating all comments received and all available 
information, we believe that these taxa meet the criteria for inclusion 
in Appendix I. The willingness of India and Nepal to co-sponsor the 
proposal, and Mongolia's strong support of an Appendix-I listing 
indicate that many range countries share this belief. Thus, the United 
States submitted a proposal to transfer all Moschus populations 
currently in Appendix II to Appendix I, in co-sponsorship with India 
and Nepal.

4. Poecilotheria spp. (Eastern Hemisphere tarantulas): Include in 
Appendix II (Co-Sponsored With Sri Lanka)

    The 11 species of eastern hemisphere tarantula (Poecilotheria spp.) 
occur only in Sri Lanka and the east coast of India. With the listing 
of western hemisphere tarantulas (Brachypelma spp.) in Appendix II in 
1994, much of the commercial pet trade shifted to eastern hemisphere 
tarantulas. The natural reproductive potential of these species is 
relatively low and cannot keep up with current demand for the pet 
trade. In addition, captive propagation of these species is rarely 
successful and is unlikely to provide enough individuals to meet 
demand. Finally, the native forest habitat of these species is 
declining due to deforestation. In addition to working with Sri Lanka 
on this proposal, we consulted with the Government of India. Although 
they are not co-sponsoring this proposal, they have stated that they 
support it. We also received three supporting comments from the public 
(Animal Welfare Institute, Global Guardian Trust, Humane Society of the 
United States). For these reasons, the United States submitted, in co-
sponsorship with Sri Lanka, a proposal to list all eastern hemisphere 
tarantulas in Appendix II.

5. Malacochersus tornieri (Pancake tortoise): Transfer From Appendix II 
to I (Co-Sponsored the Proposal With Kenya)

    The pancake tortoise ranges from central Kenya southward through 
central Tanzania. Within that range, the species tends to be patchily 
distributed because of its rigid habitat requirements. The species is 
found only where suitable rock crevices and outcroppings are found in 
thorn-scrub and savannah vegetation. The pancake tortoise was listed in 
Appendix II in 1975. Kenya banned trade in the species in 1981. 
Immediately following the ban in Kenya, exports from Tanzania 
increased. Field surveys conducted in the early 1990s indicated that 
pancake tortoise populations had become

[[Page 8201]]

depleted in much of the species' range in Tanzania, especially in 
readily accessible areas. Additional collection pressure, combined with 
a low reproduction rate and specialized habitat requirements, could 
cause the species to become severely threatened throughout its range in 
Tanzania in the near future. For these reasons, the United States has 
co-sponsored the proposal submitted by Kenya to transfer the pancake 
tortoise from Appendix II to Appendix I. We understand that Kenya has 
consulted with Tanzania (the only other range country for this species) 
regarding this proposal.

6. Cuora spp. (Southeast Asian box turtles): Include in Appendix II 
(Co-Sponsored the Proposal Submitted by Germany)

    The nine species of Asian box turtle (Cuora spp.) occur throughout 
much of Southeast Asia. None of the species is currently listed under 
CITES. The Southeast Asian box turtle (C. amboinensis) has been 
exploited heavily for food throughout much of its range. The Chinese 
three-striped box turtle (C. trifasciata) is in heavy demand for 
medicinal use and as a food item. Other species are in demand in food 
markets, for medicinal uses, in the pet trade, or for various 
combinations of these purposes. Some species are known primarily from 
food markets in China. Wild populations of many Cuora species have 
declined drastically over the last 10 years.
    We consulted all CITES range countries (Bangladesh, Brunei, 
Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, 
Thailand, and Vietnam) with regard to possible CITES listing for the 
two species listed above or for the genus Cuora as a whole. Bangladesh 
and Malaysia supported listing C. amboinensis in Appendix II; Indonesia 
stated that it would likely support the species' listing; Brunei 
Darussalem and India supported listing the entire genus; China 
supported both C. amboinensis and C. trifasciata for Appendix-II 
listing; and Singapore stated that C. trifasciata may qualify for 
Appendix II. Comments received from the Animal Welfare Institute, 
Humane Society of the United States, Pet Industry Joint Advisory 
Council, and World Wildlife Fund were supportive of Appendix-II status 
for the two aforementioned species or for the genus as a whole. Global 
Guardian Trust felt that a decision on listing should depend on the 
outcome of discussions between the United States and range countries. 
The United States feels that all species in the genus Cuora qualify for 
listing in Appendix II and co-sponsored the proposal submitted by 
Germany to list the entire genus Cuora in Appendix II.

7. Mantella spp. (Mantella frogs): Include in Appendix II (Co-Sponsored 
the Proposal With the Netherlands)

    Mantella frogs occur only on the island of Madagascar. Four 
species, Mantella bernhardi, M. cowani, M. haraldmeieri, and M. 
viridis, were proposed for listing in Appendix II at COP10. That 
proposal was withdrawn when Madagascar agreed to list the four species 
in Appendix III. However, to date that listing has not taken place. In 
our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that the 
United States was considering submitting a proposal to list these four 
species in Appendix II. Most of the approximately 15 known species of 
Mantella have limited distributions due to the limited availability of 
their preferred, primary forest habitats, and available habitat 
continues to decline due to deforestation. Many of these species are 
known to be in international trade, and population declines have been 
documented at several locations following heavy collection for 
international trade. Difficulty in distinguishing among various 
Mantella species, leading to ``similarity of appearance'' problems, 
further justifies listing the entire genus in Appendix II. After 
dialogue with the Governments of Madagascar and the Netherlands, the 
United States agreed to co-sponsor a proposal to include all species in 
the genus Mantella in Appendix II. We had received information that 
Madagascar would co-sponsor the proposal, but that information was not 
received by the Secretariat by the submission deadline. However, we 
remain convinced of Madagascar's support for the inclusion of all 
species in the genus in Appendix II. We received comments from five 
organizations in response to our July 8 notice. World Wildlife Fund 
supported listing the entire genus in Appendix II, while the Animal 
Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States expressed 
support for listing the four species mentioned in the notice. Global 
Guardian Trust stated that a decision on listing should depend on the 
outcome of discussions between the United States and Madagascar.

What Species Proposals Did the United States Decide Not To Submit 
for Consideration at COP11?

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we described 
several potential species proposals that the United States was 
considering submitting, was considering pending additional information, 
or was undecided on. Based on comments that we received, workload 
considerations, and other developments and factors, the United States 
did not submit the following proposals to amend the Appendices for 
consideration at COP11.

1. Hippocampus spp. (Seahorses)

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that 
the United States was considering submitting a proposal to list all 
seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) in Appendix II. After reviewing all of the 
comments received on this issue, and all available information, we 
believe that the available data regarding international trade, 
taxonomic identification, species distribution, and biological and 
ecological status of the seahorses are not adequate to support 
submission of an Appendix-II proposal at this time. However, the United 
States remains very concerned about the conservation status of 
seahorses and other members of the family Syngnathidae, and has decided 
to submit a discussion paper on this issue for consideration at COP11. 
If sufficient progress is not made in the conservation of these 
species, the United States may consider submission of a proposal for 
consideration at COP12. Please refer to paragraph 3 above, ``Trade in 
Seahorses and Other Members of the Family Syngnathidae'' in the section 
``What Discussion Papers Did the United States Submit for Consideration 
at COP11?,'' for information about the discussion paper submitted by 
the United States.

2. Eumetopias jubatus (Steller's sea lion)

    The global population of Steller's sea lion was estimated at over 
300,000 individuals in the late 1970s. Declines in abundance began in 
the eastern Aleutian Islands in the early 1970s, and by 1985 the 
populations had declined throughout the Aleutian Islands and eastward 
into the Gulf of Alaska, at least to the Kenai Peninsula. The species 
was listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 
November 1990. Since then, two stocks, an eastern (stable population 
trends) and western (declining trends) population have been identified. 
In 1997, the status of the western stock of Steller's sea lions was 
changed to endangered. It is presumed that international trade occurs 
in this species, particularly within the western North Pacific Ocean 
part of the species' range, based on the availability of Steller's sea 
lion meat at shops at international airports in Japan.
    As a result of our consultation with range country governments, we 
received comments from Japan and Canada, both

[[Page 8202]]

of which opposed a listing in Appendix I. Russia was contacted, but did 
not comment on the proposed action. In response to our Federal Register 
notice of July 8, 1999, we received comments on this issue from the 
Japan Fisheries Agency, International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies, Global Guardian Trust, Center for Marine Conservation, 
American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Humane Society of the United 
States, Animal Welfare Institute, and Greenpeace. The first three 
organizations opposed an Appendix I listing, stating that international 
trade is not significantly affecting Steller's sea lion populations.
    The United States decided not to submit a proposal to include the 
species in Appendix I at this time, based on a number of factors, 
including range country views. We will continue to be gravely concerned 
about the conservation of this highly depleted species and will 
continue to work for the conservation and recovery of Steller's sea 
lion populations, through the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the 
Endangered Species Act. We will monitor the status of the species 
throughout its range, put this important item on the agendas of the 
appropriate fora, such as the U.S./Japan Consultative Committee on 
Fisheries and the North Pacific Marine Science Research Organization 
(PICES), and pursue the topic through appropriate diplomatic channels.

3. Chamaeleo parsonii parsonii (Parson's chameleon)

    Parson's chameleon is endemic to the rainforests of eastern 
Madagascar. The species was listed in Appendix II in 1977. The primary 
threats to this species are the continued loss of its rainforest 
habitat and unsustainable exports for the live reptile trade. Parson's 
chameleons require dense forest cover, most of which has already been 
lost through deforestation. Parson's chameleons have been exported for 
the pet trade and as zoological specimens since at least 1988. Legal 
commercial exports were suspended in 1995, and relatively few captive 
offspring are produced. These two factors have served to drive up both 
the demand from hobbyists and the selling price of chameleons imported 
prior to the ban or born in captivity. In the event that trade resumes, 
Parson's chameleon would be placed under heavy pressure from collectors 
supplying exporters. In response to our Federal Register notice of July 
8, 1999, we received responses from six organizations and two 
individuals. The two individuals, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, 
and Global Guardian Trust opposed the listing, while the Animal Welfare 
Institute, Humane Society of the United States, and Chameleon 
Information Network supported it. World Wildlife Fund discouraged the 
use of split listings. We formally consulted Madagascar in regard to 
the proposal, but received no response. Because of the lack of range 
country response, the export moratorium currently in place, and 
workload factors, the United States decided not to submit a proposal to 
transfer Parson's chameleon to Appendix I at COP11. However, we will 
continue to monitor the trade and biological status of this taxon. In 
the event that the export moratorium is lifted in the near future, or 
other information becomes available, the United States may consider 
proposing this species for Appendix I at COP12.

4. Swietenia macrophylla (Bigleaf mahogany)

    The United States is the largest importer of wood of this species, 
which occurs in range states from Mexico to Brazil and Bolivia. Brazil 
and Bolivia are the two largest exporters; the other 11 range states 
export far less. In November 1995, Costa Rica listed Bigleaf mahogany 
(from the Americas) in Appendix III, including its saw-logs, sawn wood, 
and veneer sheets (other derivatives such as furniture are exempt from 
CITES requirements). Bolivia included bigleaf mahogany in Appendix III 
in March 1998, and Brazil and Mexico took the same action in July 1998 
and April 1999, respectively. Species listed in Appendix III can be 
traded commercially, provided the appropriate findings are made and 
CITES documents are issued. Once a species is added to Appendix III, 
the countries that list the species are required to issue permits and 
ensure that specimens are legally acquired; non-listing range countries 
must issue certificates of origin; and importing countries are required 
to ensure that all shipments are accompanied by the appropriate CITES 
documents.
    Proposals to include this species in Appendix II were submitted to 
COP8 by Costa Rica and the United States, to COP9 by the Netherlands, 
and to COP10 by Bolivia and the United States. At COP8, the proposal 
was withdrawn; at COP9 it gained 60 percent of the vote, short of the 
two-thirds majority needed for adoption. The COP10 proposal also 
received the majority of the votes, but did not obtain the required 
two-thirds majority. At COP10, Brazil offered to host a Mahogany 
Working Group meeting that would examine the conservation status of the 
species, including related forest policies and management, and 
international cooperation and trade, and make recommendations 
accordingly.
    The Working Group met in Brasilia in June 1998. Attendees included 
seven range states, including the six largest (Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, 
Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela), the major importing countries, 
including the United States, the Food and Agriculture Organization of 
the United Nations, the International Tropical Timber Organization, 
non-governmental organizations, experts, and others. The group affirmed 
the utility of Appendix-III listings and the need for forest 
inventories. The group agreed to joint actions, which include 
evaluating the status of commercial timber species, technical and 
scientific cooperation for the species' sustained management and 
reproduction, and commercial and industrial cooperation, as well as 
supervision, control, and inspection of the products.
    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that 
the United States was considering proposing Swietenia macrophylla for 
listing in Appendix II of CITES, and that we were seeking additional 
information in the status and trade of the species. The overwhelming 
majority of responses received in reply to the notice and at the public 
meeting held on July 28, 1999, were opposed to a U.S. proposal to list 
bigleaf mahogany in Appendix II. We received comments from the 
following companies and organizations: Afrasian Woods/Gross Veneer 
Sales; African Timber Organization; Aljoma Lumber, Inc.; American 
Furniture Manufacturers Association; Association Technique 
Internationale des Bois Tropicaux; Center for International 
Environmental Law; The Dean Company; Dean Hardwoods, Inc.; Eidai 
Industries, Inc.; Frost Hardwood Lumber Co.; Fund for Animals, Inc.; 
Ghana Timber Millers Organization; Global Guardian Trust; Greenpeace 
Mexico; Grzep, C.G.; Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Association; 
International Society of Tropical Foresters; International 
Specialities, Inc.; International Wood Products Association; Malaysian 
Timber Council; Marwood, Inc.; National Hardwood Lumber Association; 
Newman Lumber Co.; Plywood Tropics USA, Inc.; Select Interior Door, 
Ltd.; States Industries, Inc.; Steinway & Sons; T. Baird McIlvain 
International Co.; Thompson Mahogany Company; Wood Moulding & Millwork 
Producers Association; and World Timber Corporation. In addition, we 
received comments from the following members of Congress: Congressman 
Owen Pickett,

[[Page 8203]]

Congressman Nick Rahall, Senator John Breaux, and Senator Robert Byrd. 
Only the Center for International Environmental Law and Greenpeace 
Mexico expressed support for an Appendix II proposal.
    We also consulted all of the range nations for this species, in 
writing. We received seven responses: Ecuador, Honduras, and Mexico 
expressed support; Costa Rica and Nicaragua provided information, but 
stated no position; and Bolivia and Brazil expressed opposition to a 
U.S. proposal to list this species in Appendix II. As noted above, 
Brazil proposed including bigleaf mahogany as an agenda item for 
discussion and submitted a document for discussion at COP11, reporting 
on the results of the Mahogany Working Group meeting that Brazil hosted 
in June 1998. The United States is very supportive of providing the 
Parties an opportunity to discuss progress in the conservation of 
Swietenia macrophylla since COP10. In relation to this discussion, we 
will work closely with other Federal agencies, and intend to submit an 
informational document outlining U.S. views on the issue and actions 
under way to conserve the species. For a number of reasons, the United 
States decided not to submit an Appendix-II proposal for bigleaf 
mahogany at this time.

5. Dissostichus eleginoides (Patagonian toothfish)

    Dissostichus eleginoides occurs along slope waters in the Pacific 
off Chile from 30  deg.S to Cape Horn, in the southern Atlantic along 
the coast and slope waters of southern Patagonia and Argentina, to 
south of South Africa and south of New Zealand, including the sub-
Antarctic waters of the Indian Ocean and Macquarie Island on the Indo-
Pacific boundary of the Southern Ocean. The fishery for Patagonian 
toothfish is relatively new, and no long-term fishery data exist by 
which to establish trends. However, rapid increases in catch have 
occurred over the last few years. In addition, several characteristics 
of the life history of D. eleginoides make it vulnerable to over-
exploitation, such as low fecundity, slow growth, long life, and late 
maturation. Illegal trade and overharvest in and outside of the 
jurisdictional waters of the Convention for the Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is of prime concern to the 
United States and other Parties to CCAMLR.
    In response to our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we 
received comments on this issue from Fisheries Agency of Japan, Japan 
Fisheries Association, National Fisheries Institute, Global Guardian 
Trust, Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace, Humane Society 
International, and Humane Society of the United States. The first four 
commenters opposed an Appendix-II listing, stating that toothfish 
management should be left to regional bodies like CCAMLR. The other 
organizations supported the proposal.
    The United States and other Parties have made proposals to CCAMLR 
for a toothfish catch certification program since October 1998, and a 
final program was adopted by CCAMLR parties in November 1999. The 
scheme will document information regarding the catch of most toothfish 
including the amount of fish caught by weight; the National Agency that 
authorized the catch; the number of the license or permit issued to the 
vessel, as appropriate; information concerning the vessel on which the 
fish was caught; and the location of where the fish was caught. The 
scheme obligates Contracting Parties to CCAMLR to require their vessels 
to use the scheme for all fishing for toothfish. Second, it requires 
that any Contracting Party landing fish from a Party or non-Party to 
CCAMLR in its territory or on a flag vessel ensure that the fish it is 
landing is accompanied by the documentation called for in the scheme. 
Finally, it requires CCAMLR Parties that import toothfish to ensure 
that all imported fish are accompanied by the documentation called for 
in the scheme. The United States believes that implementation of the 
adopted certification scheme will help ensure the sustainability of the 
Patagonian toothfish fishery while protecting spawning populations and 
reducing illegal catch. Therefore, the United States decided not to 
submit a proposal for Patagonian toothfish.

6. Rhacodactylus spp. (New Caledonia geckos)

    Rhacodactylus geckos are endemic to New Caledonia and nearby 
islands. None of the species is currently listed under CITES. In our 
Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that the United 
States was considering submitting a proposal to list four species of 
New Caledonian geckos (Rhacodactylus chahoua, R. ciliatus, R. 
leachianus, and R. sarasinorum) in Appendix II. These species are 
threatened by habitat destruction due to agricultural and related 
burning, deforestation, and mining; introduction of exotic species; and 
collection for the international commercial pet trade. Collection 
pressure appears to be most intense on some of the more remote, 
uninhabited islands where it is difficult to control collection. We 
received six comments regarding the possible listing of New Caledonian 
geckos in Appendix II. Jean Chazeau (Laboratoire de Zoologie Applique, 
New Caledonia), the Humane Society of the United States, and the Global 
Guardian Trust supported such listing, whereas one individual and the 
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council opposed the listing. World Wildlife 
Fund neither supported nor opposed the listing, but commented that New 
Caledonia currently prohibits the export of these geckos and that 
further information was needed to determine if the species meet the 
listing criteria. We also formally consulted the Governments of New 
Caledonia and France but received no comments. Based on the lack of 
range country response and workload considerations, the United States 
decided not to submit a proposal to include these species in Appendix 
II. We will discuss the issue with the Governments of New Caledonia and 
France at COP11 and monitor the trade in these species between COP11 
and COP12. If warranted, the United States will consider submission of 
a proposal at COP12.

7. Cacatua sulphurea (Lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo)

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we recalled that 
the Conference of the Parties agreed at COP10 to retain the lesser 
sulphur-crested cockatoo in Appendix II, but reconsider listing the 
species in Appendix I if Indonesia had not progressed in implementing a 
recovery plan for the species. We requested additional information from 
the public on implementation of the recovery plan, and we indicated 
that we were consulting with the Government of Indonesia on this 
matter. The Government of Indonesia has informed us that they are now 
in the process of implementing their recovery plan, and the species 
should remain in Appendix II. We note that several surveys of this 
species have been conducted in different parts of its range, to assess 
its status in the wild, and Indonesia has banned the export of this 
species since 1995. We have encountered no information to indicate that 
this export ban is not being adequately enforced, and we received no 
comments containing information to suggest that progress has not been 
made with the recovery plan. Although one commenter suggested that we 
submit a proposal to list the species in Appendix I as a precautionary 
measure, the United States has decided not to submit such a proposal at 
this time. However, we will continue to monitor trade in this species 
and progress with implementation of

[[Page 8204]]

the recovery plan in Indonesia. If necessary, the United States will 
reconsider this species for transfer to Appendix I at COP12.

8. Ovis vignei (Urial sheep)

    Urial sheep are native to central Asia, ranging from Iran and 
Turkmenistan in the west to northern India (Ladakh) in the east. Within 
this range, urial tend to have a patchy distribution associated with 
mountain ranges and rugged hill and canyon country. The number of urial 
subspecies is not resolved, with authorities describing from five to 
seven. The nominate subspecies, O. vignei vignei, has been listed in 
CITES Appendix I since 1975; no other subspecies are currently listed. 
Urial populations appear to have declined across much of the species' 
entire range over the past 20-30 years as a result of poaching and 
habitat degradation. In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we 
indicated that the United States was considering submitting, 
supporting, or co-sponsoring a proposal to list the entire species Ovis 
vignei in Appendix I.
    We consulted all urial range countries, as well as the Russian 
Federation (through Germany), and received responses from Kazakhstan, 
the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Tajikistan simply 
provided information about the status of urials in that country, while 
the three other countries opposed the Appendix-I listing for all 
unlisted subspecies. We received comments from seven organizations 
during the public comment period. The Animal Welfare Institute and 
Humane Society of the United States supported the inclusion of the 
entire species in Appendix I. The International Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies stated that available information would appear to 
indicate that some subspecies should be in Appendix I while others 
should not. Safari Club International stated that the issue of urial 
conservation should be approached on a population-by-population basis. 
The IUCN Sustainable Use Specialist Group stated that an Appendix-I 
listing would create problems for planned urial conservation projects 
based on sustainable use in Pakistan. Conservation Force opposed a 
listing on the grounds that the species' status and limited trade do 
not warrant an Appendix-I listing and that such a listing would 
severely limit sustainable use programs necessary for the conservation 
of the species.
    In light of range country concerns about an Appendix-I listing and 
recent population information suggesting that an Appendix-I listing for 
the entire species may not be warranted, the United States decided not 
to co-sponsor Germany's proposal to list the entire species in Appendix 
I. We will continue to gather information needed to determine what 
position the United States should take at COP11 relative to the listing 
of urial under CITES.

9. Thunnus maccoyii (Southern bluefin tuna)

    Southern bluefin tuna are large, highly migratory, pelagic fish 
that inhabit portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans in 
the Southern Hemisphere. Some researchers have estimated that the total 
Southern bluefin tuna population declined by 50 percent between 1960 
and 1966, and then by 30-57 percent between 1966 and 1991. By 1994, 
estimated adult population size had fallen 80-94 percent below 1966 
levels. However, some recent assessments indicate that numbers of 
adults have increased between 1991 and 1994. Southern bluefin tuna are 
very valuable and are exploited for the Japanese high-grade sashimi 
market, and markets have developed recently in Taiwan and the Republic 
of Korea. The primary harvest is by Australia and New Zealand in their 
coastal waters and Japan in offshore waters. The fishery has been 
active since the 1950s, but the United States does not participate. 
Illegal fisheries have been documented in Australia's Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ).
    Southern bluefin tuna management was formalized between the three 
major harvesting nations under the Convention for the Conservation of 
Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) in May 1994. Commercial landings declined 
precipitously during the early 1980s and have remained low because of 
global total allowable catch (TAC) levels set by CCSBT. Through 1998, 
CCSBT set annual quotas well below historic harvest levels. However, 
quota effectiveness is undermined by rising catches of non-CCSBT 
fishing fleets and disputes on quotas by CCSBT members. Recent 
conflicts over these and other issues were addressed by the 
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and CCSBT members are 
working to resolve differences in opinion over stock status and catch 
allocation.
    In response to our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we 
received comments on this issue from Japan Fisheries Association, 
Global Guardian Trust, Humane Society International, and Humane Society 
of the United States. The first two commenters opposed any listing of 
southern bluefin tuna under CITES, emphasizing the management authority 
of CCSBT. The other commenters supported an Appendix-II listing for the 
species.
    Given the conflict resolution currently under way within CCSBT, and 
the comments received, the United States decided not to submit an 
Appendix-II proposal for southern bluefin tuna.

10. Other Species

    In our Federal Register notice of July 8, 1999, we indicated that 
the United States did not intend to submit several potential species 
proposals for consideration at COP11. We did not receive any comments 
that provided information that led the United States to change its 
position on these species. Therefore, the United States submitted no 
proposals for those species and we have not addressed them any further 
in this notice.

Future Actions

    Through one additional Federal Register notice, we will publish the 
provisional agenda for COP11 and inform you about proposed U.S. 
negotiating positions on proposals to amend the Appendices, draft 
resolutions, draft decisions, discussion papers, and other issues 
before the Parties for consideration at COP11. We will also publish an 
announcement of a public meeting that we expect to hold approximately 
one month prior to COP11, to receive public input on our positions 
regarding COP11 issues.
    Prior to COP11, we will post on our Website any changes the United 
States makes to its proposed negotiating positions contained in the 
Federal Register notice referred to in the above paragraph.
    After the meeting of the COP, we will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register announcing the amendments to CITES Appendices I and II 
that were adopted by the Parties at the meeting, and requesting 
comments on whether the United States should enter reservations on any 
of these amendments.

Author and Authority

    The primary authors of this notice are Mark Albert, Office of 
Management Authority; and Susan Lieberman, Kurt Johnson, Julie Lyke, 
Javier Alvarez, Tim VanNorman, and John Field, Office of Scientific 
Authority; under the authority of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: February 9, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director.
[FR Doc. 00-3719 Filed 2-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P