[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66464-66492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-27682]



[[Page 66463]]

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

Part II





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); Twelfth Regular 
Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating Positions for Agenda Items and 
Species Proposals Submitted by Foreign Governments and the CITES 
Secretariat; Extension of Comment Period; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 66464]]


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

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); Twelfth 
Regular Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating Positions for Agenda Items 
and Species Proposals Submitted by Foreign Governments and the CITES 
Secretariat; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the provisional agenda for the twelfth 
regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP12) to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). The description of each agenda item is followed by a 
brief explanation of the tentative U.S. negotiating position for that 
item. Proposals submitted by the United States are only covered in this 
notice to a limited extent. This notice contains primarily summaries of 
the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on agenda items, resolutions, 
and species proposals submitted by other countries and the CITES 
Secretariat for COP12. We are also extending the comment period on 
these issues, which was announced in our Federal Register notice of 
August 20, 2002 (67 FR 53962).

DATES: In developing U.S. negotiating positions on these issues, we 
will now consider information and comments that you submit if we 
receive them by October 31, 2002. Our previous comment period was 
announced (August 20, 2002 (67 FR 53962)) to run through October 4, 
2002. This extension is being made in order to give the public every 
opportunity to provide comments in development of our tentative 
negotiating positions.

ADDRESSES: Comments: You should send comments pertaining to resolutions 
and agenda items to the Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, VA 
22203, or via e-mail at: [email protected]. You should send comments 
pertaining to species proposals to the Division of Scientific 
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 
Room 750, Arlington, VA 22203, or via e-mail at: 
[email protected]. Comments and materials that we receive 
will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 
4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at either the Division of Management 
Authority or the Division of Scientific Authority.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) For information pertaining to 
resolutions, discussion papers, and agenda items for the 12th meeting 
of the CITES Conference of the Parties: Peter O. Thomas, Ph.D., Chief, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, tel. 
703-358-2095, fax 703-358-2298, e-mail at: [email protected]. (2) For 
information pertaining to species proposals for the 12th meeting of the 
CITES Conference of the Parties: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Scientific Authority, tel. 703-358-1708, 
fax 703-358-2276, e-mail at: [email protected].

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 become threatened with extinction. These species are 
listed in appendices to CITES, copies of which are available from the 
Division of Management Authority or the Division 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/. Currently, 158 countries, including the 
United States, are Parties to CITES. CITES calls for biennial meetings 
of the Conference of the Parties (COP), 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 and vote on amendments to appendices I and II (species 
proposals), resolutions, decisions, discussion papers, and agenda items 
for consideration by the Conference of the Parties. Accredited 
nongovernmental organizations may participate in the meeting as 
approved observers, and may speak during sessions when recognized, but 
may not vote or submit proposals. COP12 will be held in Santiago, 
Chile, November 3-15, 2002.
    This is our sixth in a series of Federal Register notices that, 
together with announced public meetings, provide you with an 
opportunity to participate in the development of U.S. tentative 
negotiating positions for COP12. We published our first Federal 
Register notice on June 12, 2001 (66 FR 31686), and with it we 
requested information and recommendations on potential species 
proposals for the United States to consider submitting for discussion 
at COP12, and we also presented biological and trade status information 
on several species that we were already considering. You may obtain 
information on that Federal Register notice, and on species amendment 
proposals, from the Division of Scientific Authority at the above 
address. We published our second Federal Register notice on July 25, 
2001 (66 FR 38739), and with it we requested information and 
recommendations on potential resolutions, decisions, and agenda items 
for the United States to consider submitting for discussion at COP12. 
You may obtain information on that Federal Register notice, and on 
proposed resolutions, decisions, and agenda items, from the Division of 
Management Authority at the above address. We published our third 
Federal Register notice on March 27, 2002 (67 FR 14728), and with it we 
announced a public meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the CITES 
appendices (species proposals), resolutions, decisions, and agenda 
items that the United States was considering submitting for 
consideration at COP12, and we provided information on how non-
governmental organizations based in the United States can attend COP12 
as observers. You may obtain information on that Federal Register 
notice from the Division of Management Authority (for information 
pertaining to proposed resolutions and agenda items) or the Division of 
Scientific Authority (for information pertaining to proposed amendments 
to the appendices) at the above addresses.
    We published our fourth Federal Register notice on April 18, 2002 
(67 FR 19207), and with it we described the U.S. approach for COP12; 
described resolutions, decisions, and agenda items that the United 
States was considering submitting for consideration at COP12; described 
proposed amendments to the CITES Appendices (species proposals) that 
the United States was considering submitting for consideration at 
COP12; invited your comments and information on these potential 
proposals; and, reminded you of a public meeting to discuss these 
potential submissions,

[[Page 66465]]

which was announced in our Federal Register notice of March 27, 2002. 
You may obtain information on that notice from the Division of 
Management Authority (for information pertaining to proposed 
resolutions and agenda items) or the Division of Scientific Authority 
(for information pertaining to proposed amendments to the Appendices) 
at the above addresses.
    We published our fifth Federal Register notice on August 20, 2002 
(67 FR 53962). With this notice we announced a public meeting on 
September 10, 2002, which took place as scheduled (see DATES and 
ADDRESSES, from the August 20 Federal Register notice). That public 
meeting was held in the Sidney Yates Auditorium of the Department of 
the Interior. The U.S. discussed a variety of logistical and policy 
issues, heard views of the public on a number of COP12 species 
proposals and resolutions, and answered a number of questions from the 
public.
    We also posted a notice on our Internet website (http://international.fws.gov/) ``Potential Species Proposals, Resolutions, 
Decisions, and Agenda Items the U.S. is Considering Submitting for 
Consideration at CITES COP12'' on April 1, 2002. At the time this 
notice was prepared, we were also planning to post two abbreviated 
tables on tentative U.S. negotiating positions for resolutions, 
decisions, other agenda items, and species proposals on our website.
    You may locate our regulations governing this public process in 50 
CFR 23.31-23.39. Before COP12, we will announce any changes to the 
tentative negotiating positions contained in this notice and any 
undecided negotiating positions by posting a notice on our Internet 
website (http://international.fws.gov/). Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.38 (a), 
the Director has decided to suspend the procedure for publishing a 
notice of final negotiating positions in the Federal Register, because 
time and resources needed to prepare a Federal Register notice would 
detract from essential preparation for COP12, and because the 
information on negotiating positions will otherwise be available on the 
Internet. After COP12, we will announce the amendments to CITES 
appendices I and II and resolutions and decisions that were adopted by 
the Parties at the meeting, and request comments on whether the United 
States should enter reservations on any of the species amendments.
    At our public meeting on April 17, 2002, we discussed species 
proposals, resolutions, discussion papers, and agenda items submitted 
by the United States to COP12. We discussed species amendments and 
resolutions submitted by other CITES Parties and the Secretariat, and 
other agenda items leading up to COP12, at the public meeting on 
September 10, 2002.

Tentative Negotiating Positions

    In this notice we summarize the tentative U.S. negotiating 
positions on agenda items, resolutions, and proposals to amend the 
Appendices, that have been submitted by other countries and the CITES 
Secretariat. (Proposals submitted by the United States are covered in 
the Internet website posting (http://international.fws.gov/, 
``Potential Species Proposals, Resolutions, Decisions, and Agenda Items 
the U.S. is Considering Submitting for Consideration at CITES COP12'') 
of April 1, 2002 (see Background, above). We will not cover most of 
those issues in this notice. However, for those U.S. submissions not 
fully explained in the Internet website posting of April 1, 2002, we 
provide additional information in this notice.
    In this notice, numerals next to each agenda item or resolution 
correspond to the numbers used in the agenda for CITES COP12, and 
posted on the CITES Secretariat's Internet website (http://cites.org/eng/cop/12/docs/index.shtml). However, when we completed this notice, 
the Secretariat had not yet made available documents for a number of 
the agenda items and resolutions on the agenda for COP12. Tentative 
negotiating positions in this notice do not include documents posted to 
the Secretariat's website after August 1, 2002.
    In the discussion that follows below, we have included a brief 
description of each proposed resolution, agenda item, or species 
proposal submitted by other countries or the CITES Secretariat, 
followed by a brief explanation of the tentative U.S. negotiating 
position for that item. However, new information that may become 
available at COP12 could lead to modifications of these positions. The 
U.S. delegation will fully disclose changes in our negotiating 
positions and the explanations for those changes during public 
briefings at COP12. The United States is also very concerned about the 
budgetary implications and workload burden that will be placed upon the 
Parties, the Committees, and the Secretariat and intends to review all 
suggested changes in view of these concerns.

Agenda (Provisional) (Doc. 11.3)

Opening Ceremony and Welcoming Addresses

    The Secretariat will not prepare a document on these agenda items. 
According to tradition, as the host country for COP12, Chile will 
conduct an opening ceremony and make welcoming remarks.

Strategic and administrative matters

1. (a) Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, with exceptions 
described below.
    A draft version of the Rules of Procedure, which describe the 
manner in which a meeting of the COP is conducted, is distributed prior 
to all CITES meetings of the COP by the Secretariat. The Secretariat 
prepared document COP12 Doc. 1.1, which includes a draft of the Rules 
of Procedure for COP12, and proposes the Conference of the Parties 
adopt these draft Rules. At the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee 
(Geneva, March 2002), the Secretariat presented a draft version of the 
Rules of Procedure for COP12, which included a number of proposed 
changes to the Rules adopted by the Parties for COP11. The Standing 
Committee discussed this draft document and concerns were raised, 
including by the United States, over a number of the changes to the 
Rules proposed by the Secretariat. The Standing Committee agreed to a 
number of amendments to the Secretariat's version of the draft Rules of 
Procedure, and the Secretariat included these amendments in its draft 
Rules of Procedure in document COP12 Doc. 1.1. In addition to the 
Standing Committee's amendments, the Secretariat proposed a change to 
Rule 28.4, on submission of informative documents and exhibitions, to 
simplify the Rule's text.
    Most of the concerns raised by the United States at the 46th 
meeting of the Standing Committee to the draft Rules of Procedure for 
COP12 presented there have been addressed and incorporated into the 
draft version in document COP12 Doc. 1.1. As such, the United States 
tentatively proposes to support most aspects of the draft version of 
the Rules of Procedure in document COP12 Doc. 1.1, with the following 
exceptions: With respect to Rule 17 on the right to speak at meetings 
of the COP, the United States tentatively does not oppose the proposed 
changes to this Rule about the order on which the Presiding Officer 
calls on speakers, as long as every effort is made to allow delegates 
and observers time to speak or

[[Page 66466]]

make interventions; with respect to Rule 20 on submission of draft 
Resolutions and other documents, the United States tentatively supports 
in part the changes proposed by Chile in document COP12 Doc. 1.2 (see 
below); with respect to Rules 22 and 23 on proposals for amendment of 
Appendices I and II, although the United States tentatively agrees with 
the proposed changes to the text in these Rules, it believes that the 
term ``scope,'' which appears in both, should be clearly defined; and, 
with respect to Rule 25 on methods of voting at meetings of the COP, 
the United States historically has not supported the use of secret 
ballots, believing that the CITES process at meetings of the COP should 
be as transparent as possible. As such, the United States is 
tentatively considering support of the changes to Rule 25 proposed by 
Chile in document COP12 Doc. 1.2 (see below).
(b) Revision of the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1.2; Chile)
    This document was prepared by Chile, and it proposes changes to 
Rules 20 and 25 of the Rules of Procedure. Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support, with exceptions described below.
    In Rule 20, Chile proposes a change to paragraph 3, regarding 
circulation to the Parties of urgent draft Resolutions and other 
documents arising after the 150-day submission deadline. Rule 20.3, as 
drafted by the Secretariat, states that such documents be circulated 
``no later than during the session preceding the session at which they 
are to be discussed.'' Chile proposes that these kinds of documents 
should be circulated at least 24 hours preceding the session at which 
they are to be discussed, as 24 hours is the minimum amount of time 
necessary to review such documents. Although the United States agrees 
with Chile that at least 24 hours is necessary to review these 
documents, it recognizes that it is not always possible for the 
Secretariat to circulate them 24 hours in advance, particularly in the 
final days of the COP. The United States recommends that every effort 
be made to have these documents available 24 hours in advance but does 
not support changing the rule to make this a requirement.
    Chile also proposes several changes to Rule 25, on methods of 
voting, designed to reduce the use of secret ballots. As discussed 
above under agenda item 1. (a), the United States historically has not 
supported the use of secret ballots, believing that the CITES process 
at meetings of the COP should be as transparent as possible. Therefore, 
the United States tentatively supports the changes to Rule 25 proposed 
by Chile in document COP12 Doc. 1.2.
2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Meeting and of 
Chairman of Committees I and II and of the Budget Committee (no 
document)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The Secretariat will not prepare a document for this agenda item. 
The United States will support the election of a highly qualified 
Conference Chair, Vice-Chair, and Committee Chairs representing the 
geographic diversity of CITES.
    The Chair of the CITES Standing Committee (United States) will 
serve as temporary Chair of the meeting of the COP until a permanent 
Conference Chair is elected. According to tradition, the host country, 
which will be Chile in this case, provides the Conference Chair.
    The major technical work of CITES is done in the two simultaneous 
Committees, thus, Committee Chairs must have great technical knowledge 
and skill. In addition, CITES benefits from active participation and 
leadership of representatives of every region of the world. The United 
States will support the election of Committee Chairs and a Vice-Chair 
of the Conference having the required technical knowledge and skills 
and also reflecting the geographic and cultural diversity of CITES 
Parties.
3. Adoption of the Agenda (Doc. 3)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, with additions 
described below.
    This document is prepared for each CITES COP by the Secretariat. 
The United States has reviewed the Provisional Agenda for COP12 
provided by the Secretariat and supports its adoption with the addition 
of several species proposals submitted by the new CITES Management 
Authority of Madagascar. At previous meetings of the CITES COP, the 
United States has supported adoption of the provisional agenda as 
circulated to the Parties. However, the provisional agenda for COP12 
reflects an issue of concern for the United States; specifically, the 
exclusion of species proposals submitted by Madagascar. It is our 
understanding that the proposals were not initially accepted by the 
Secretariat because the Secretariat was unable to verify the lawful 
status of the new CITES Management Authority of Madagascar at the time 
the proposals were received by the Secretariat. However, political 
events in Madagascar since that time have demonstrated that the office 
submitting the proposals was, at that time, the lawful Management 
Authority of Madagascar. Therefore, the United States supports the 
addition of Madagascar's species proposals to the Conference agenda. 
The species proposals in question covered tortoises, chameleons, frogs, 
the whale shark, orchids, and several palms.
4. Adoption of the Working Programme (Doc. 4)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Prior to the a meeting of the CITES COP, working programmes 
distributed by the Secretariat are provisional. It is possible that 
changes may be made to this document prior to the start of COP12, or at 
the meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The United States 
generally supports the COP12 Provisional Working Programme posted at 
the time this notice was prepared. However, The United States remains 
concerned that the species proposals submitted by Madagascar be 
considered by the Parties, as discussed above, under Adoption of the 
Agenda.
    Furthermore, pending our review of any forthcoming changes to the 
Working Programme, we will remain undecided on those potential 
modifications.
5. Establishment of the Credentials Committee (Doc. 5)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    The establishment of the Credentials Committee is a standardized 
matter. The Credentials Committee approves the credentials of delegates 
to the meeting of the COP by confirming that they are official 
representatives of their governments, giving them the right to vote in 
Committee and Plenary sessions. The Credentials Committee consists of 
representatives from no more than five CITES Party governments 
nominated by the Standing Committee. The United States was a member of 
the Credentials Committee at COPs 10 and 11.
6. Report of the Credentials Committee (Doc. 6)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    The United States will support adoption of the report of the 
Credentials Committee if it does not recommend the exclusion of 
legitimate representatives of countries that are Parties to CITES. The 
United States will encourage timely production of Credentials Committee 
reports at COP12.
    Adoption of the report of the Credentials Committee is generally a 
standardized exercise. Representatives

[[Page 66467]]

whose credentials are not in order should be given observer status as 
provided for under Article XI of the Convention. If evidence is 
provided that credentials are forthcoming but have been delayed, 
representatives can be allowed to vote on a provisional basis. A 
liberal interpretation of the Rules of Procedure on credentials should 
be adhered to in order to permit clearly legitimate representatives to 
participate. Exclusion of clearly legitimate representatives whose 
credentials are not in order could undermine essential cooperation 
among Parties. However, vigilance is necessary in cases of close votes, 
or decisions to be made by secret ballot.
7. Admission of Observers (Doc. 7)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    A document for this agenda item, prepared by the Secretariat, is 
not normally distributed prior to the start of a CITES COP. The United 
States supports admission to the meeting of all technically qualified 
non-governmental organizations, and the United States opposes 
unreasonable limitations on their full participation as observers at 
COP12. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are admitted as observers 
if their headquarters are located in a CITES Party country, and if the 
national government of that Party approves their attendance at the COP. 
International NGOs are admitted by approval of the CITES Secretariat. 
After being approved as an observer, an NGO is admitted to the meeting 
of the COP, unless one-third of the Parties objects.
    Non-governmental organizations representing a broad range of 
viewpoints and perspectives play a vital and important role in CITES 
activities and have much to offer to the debates and negotiations at a 
meeting of the COP. Their participation is specifically provided by 
Article XI of the Convention. The United States supports the 
opportunity for all technically qualified observers to fully 
participate at meetings of the COP, as is standard CITES practice. The 
United States also supports flexibility and openness in the process of 
disseminating documents produced by NGOs to Party delegates. This 
information sharing is vital to decision-making and scientific and 
technical understanding at a CITES meeting.
8. Matters Related to the Standing Committee
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    The United States is the North American regional representative and 
the Chair of the Standing Committee. The Forty-seventh Meeting of the 
Standing Committee will meet on November 1-2, 2002, before COP12 
begins, to nominate the chairs of COP committees, provide guidance 
needed to conduct the meeting of the COP, and follow-up on outstanding 
committee issues. The Financial Sub-Committee will also meet to 
finalize the budget for the COP Budget Sub-Committee. The Forty-eighth 
meeting of the Standing Committee will tentatively meet at the end of 
the COP.
(a) Report of the Chairman (Doc. 8)
    When we completed this notice, we still had not received a document 
for this agenda item from the Secretariat. The United States, as Chair 
of the Committee, will prepare this requisite report on the execution 
of the Committee's responsibilities and its activities between COP11 
and COP12 to accurately reflect the discussions and decisions of the 
Committee.
(b) Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members (No 
Document)
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    The Regional Representative for North America from COP11 through 
COP13 has been, and will be, the United States. Under Resolution 
Conf.11.1, ``terms of office of the regional members shall commence at 
the close of the regular meeting at which they are elected and shall 
expire at the close of the second regular meeting thereafter.''
9. Financing and Budgeting of the Secretariat and of Meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    At each meeting of the COP, the CITES Secretariat submits its 
financial report and budget for approval. The Parties may modify the 
budget before approving it. Financial support for the Secretariat comes 
from a Trust Fund consisting of voluntary annual contributions from 
Party governments, based on a United Nations scale. Additional support 
for CITES activities is provided through extra contributions from 
governments and nongovernmental organizations, and is used for projects 
approved by the Standing Committee. This ``external funding'' is not 
part of the Secretariat's budget.
    The United States is currently reviewing the Secretariat's budget 
documents. The United States advocates fiscal responsibility and 
accountability on the part of the Secretariat and the Conference of the 
Parties. The United States plans to be an active participant in the 
budget discussions at COP12 and at the Finance Sub-Committee meetings 
of the Standing Committee just before COP12. The United States strongly 
supports a budget that represents zero-growth in Parties' voluntary 
contributions.
(a) Budget for 2003-2005 (Doc. 9.1)
    The Parties will fully discuss issues associated with the 
anticipated expenditures of the Secretariat for the triennium 2003-2005 
at COP12. The United States will review the documents carefully, 
bearing in mind the need to balance tasks assigned to the Secretariat 
with available resources.
(b) Procedure for Approval of Externally Funded Projects (Doc. 9.2)
    External funding is financial support provided by Parties and 
nongovernmental organizations for projects approved as CITES priorities 
by the Standing Committee. The external funding procedure is designed 
to avoid conflicts of interest (real or apparent) when approving 
projects and channeling funds between the provider and the recipient. 
At SC46, the Parties did agree to a revised procedure to allow more 
flexibility to the Secretariat in approving external funds. The United 
States, through the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
State, contributes external funding to Standing Committee-approved 
projects including delegate travel to the meetings of the COP, support 
for Committee meetings, CITES enforcement and implementation training, 
and biological studies of significantly traded species.
10. Committee Reports and Recommendations
(a) Animals Committee
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
(i) Report of the Chairman (Doc. 10.1)
    The current Chair (Mr. Marinus Hoogmoed of the Netherlands) will 
report on the activities of the Animals Committee since COP11. Since 
April 15, 2001, the Animals Committee has met three times: the 
sixteenth meeting (AC16) was held on December 11-15, 2000, in 
Shepherdstown, West Virginia; the seventeenth meeting (AC17) was held 
on July 30-August 3, 2001, in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the eighteenth

[[Page 66468]]

meeting (AC18) was held on April 8-12, 2002, in San Jose, Costa Rica. 
The Regional Representative from North America on the Animals Committee 
is Dr. Kurt Johnson of our Division of Scientific Authority, who 
replaced Dr. Susan Lieberman when she ended her employment with the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service between COPs 11 and 12. The United 
States is an active participant in Animals Committee meetings, working 
groups, and activities. When we completed this notice, we still had not 
received a copy of the Chair's Report. You may obtain information 
regarding Animals Committee meetings from the Division of Scientific 
Authority at the address above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
(ii) Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members (No 
Document)
    The six CITES regions are represented on the Animals Committee by 
one or two persons, according to the number of countries in each 
region. This process was established in CITES Resolution Conf. 11.1, 
which is available on the Secretariat's web page. The representatives 
are individuals, and not governments. Parties within each CITES region 
meet during the meeting of the COP to elect new Animals Committee 
members to represent them. The current North American regional 
representative on the Animals Committee is Dr. Kurt Johnson, of our 
Division of Scientific Authority, on behalf of the United States. Dr. 
Johnson also serves as Chair of the Animals Committee working groups on 
Significant Trade and Review of the Appendices. The United States, 
Mexico, and Canada have discussed our representation for the interval 
between COP12 and COP13, and we will meet to finalize the region's 
selections for representative and alternate during the first week of 
COP12.
(b) Plants Committee
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
(i) Report of the Chairman (Doc. 10.2)
    The current Chair (Dr. Margarita Clemente of Spain) will report on 
the activities of the Plants Committee since COP11. Since COP11, the 
Plants Committee has met three times: the tenth meeting of the Plants 
Committee (PC10) was held in Shepherdstown, West Virginia (December 11-
15, 2000); the eleventh meeting (PC11) was held in Langkawi, Malaysia 
(September 3-7, 2001); and the twelfth meeting (PC12) was held in 
Leiden, the Netherlands (May 13-17, 2002). The United States sent a 
delegation to those Plants Committee meetings and has participated 
actively in Plants Committee activities. When we completed this notice, 
we still had not received a copy of the Chair's Report. You may obtain 
information regarding the Plants Committee from the Division of 
Scientific Authority at the address above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
(ii) Election of New Regional and Alternate Regional Members (No 
Document)
    The six CITES regions are represented on the Plants Committee by 
one or two persons, according to the number of countries in each 
region. This process was established in CITES Resolution Conf. 11.1, 
which is available on the Secretariat's web page. The representatives 
are individuals, and not governments. Party countries within each CITES 
region meet during the meeting of the COP to elect new Plants Committee 
members to represent them. The current North American regional 
representative on the Plants Committee is Dr. Bertrand von Arx from 
Canada. The United States, Mexico, and Canada have discussed our 
representation for the interval between COPs 12 and 13 and will meet to 
finalize the region's selections for representative and alternate 
during the first week of COP12.
(c) Nomenclature Committee Report (Doc. 10.3)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review
    The Nomenclature Committee reviews nomenclature (scientific name) 
and taxonomic (scientific classification) issues that apply to species 
listed in the CITES Appendices. The Committee also prepares and adopts 
checklists for the various taxa (classifications) listed in the CITES 
Appendices.
    The Nomenclature Committee does not have regional representatives 
and meets only as needed, usually during the meetings of the Plants and 
Animals Committee. The United States participates in all activities of 
the Nomenclature Committee. The current Co-chairs are Dr. Marinus 
Hoogmoed (of the Scientific Authority of the Netherlands) for fauna 
(animals), and Dr. Noel McGough (of the Scientific Authority of the 
United Kingdom) for flora (plants). Drs. Hoogmoed and McGough had not 
submitted their report for consideration at COP12 by the time this 
notice was completed.
11. Identification Manual (Doc. 11)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This document describes the ongoing production of material for the 
CITES Identification Manual. This manual contains information necessary 
to identify specimens of CITES-listed plants and animals in trade, and 
is often used by Parties' law enforcement agencies. Since COP11, the 
Secretariat has been responsible for updating the Identification Manual 
with new material on newly listed species. Proponents of successful 
listing proposals are supposed to provide identification material 
within one year of the proposal's adoption.
    This document specifies identification material that is currently 
under production, being translated, or delinquent from Parties. 
According to this list, the United States must still submit material 
for identifying eight taxa that we proposed for listing in previous 
meetings of the Conference of the Parties. We pledge to develop this 
material as time and resources allow, and we will inform the 
Secretariat and the other Parties at COP12. The United States completed 
and submitted identification materials to the CITES Secretariat for 
several plant species in May 2002. In addition, the United States 
volunteered to submit a new identification manual on Indo-Pacific 
corals in trade, which is scheduled for completion in the near future.
12. Revision of the Action Plan of the Convention (Doc. 12)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, with the exceptions 
and amendments described below.
    The United States has been an active member and sometimes Chair of 
the Standing Committee working group on the Action Plan. The United 
States continues to support the execution of the Action Plan and 
support the recommendations of the working group. The United States 
would, however, like the Parties to direct the Standing Committee 
working group to focus on the periodic review and evaluation of the 
progress of the Action Plan rather than on continuing to revise and 
update it. The United States believes that the Parties, the 
Secretariat, and Committees will be unable to develop their own work 
plans to implement the Strategic and Action plans if these plans 
continue to be updated and revised. The United States is also concerned 
that the Action Plan is not being implemented overall and that it holds 
the Committees and Secretariat to a higher level of responsibility than 
many of the Parties.

[[Page 66469]]

The United States suggests that the Parties direct the Committees and 
Secretariat to report to COP13 on progress of the implementation of 
their work plans and provide a schedule for their completion under the 
Action Plan. The United States, while recognizing that some Parties 
lack the capacity to take on the task of implementing the Action Plan, 
would also like the Parties to, at a minimum, include national 
implementation of the objectives of the Action Plan in their future 
biennial reports.
13. Establishment of Committees
(a) Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.1 on Establishment of Committees 
(Doc. 13.1; Chile)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    Chile proposes to revise the current resolution that sets the level 
of regional representation in the Animals and Plants Committees so that 
representation in these committees is the same as the Standing 
Committee. Currently, regional representation in the Animals and Plants 
Committees consists of 10 individuals in each committee as follows: one 
each chosen by North America and Oceania, and two chosen by each of the 
major geographic regions of Africa, Asia, Europe, and South and Central 
America and the Caribbean. Regional representation in the Standing 
Committee consists of 14 individuals as follows: 1 for regions with up 
to 15 Parties; 2 for regions with 16 to 30 Parties; 3 for regions with 
31 to 45 Parties; or 4 for regions with more than 45 Parties.
    The United States tentatively plans to oppose this revision of the 
resolution on establishment of committees. The addition of 8 new 
representatives (4 in each committee) would have significant financial 
implications at a time when funds are insufficient to conduct all the 
priority tasks identified in the Strategic Plan. Also, representatives 
to the Animals and Plants Committees are chosen by the geographic 
region for their scientific expertise, not as representatives of 
governments. Thus, the need for additional individuals with scientific 
expertise from regions is unclear.
(b) Enhancing Implementation of the Convention (Doc. 13.2; United 
States)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    We think the Parties need to identify an ongoing forum within the 
Convention to discuss implementation issues. Such a forum needs to 
include technical experts on implementation within the Parties and be 
led by the Parties. An in-depth discussion of implementation issues is 
constrained by the current committee structure and corresponding budget 
allocations. The United States thinks that it is important to look 
beyond this structure in exploring ways to address critical 
implementation problems.
(c) Review of the Committee Structure (Doc. 13.3)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12. As noted for the previous agenda item 
(13 b), we think the current committee structure fails to address 
numerous important implementation issues, particularly with regard to 
certain CITES species listings or types of parts and derivatives in 
trade.
14. Title of the Convention (Doc. 14)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
15. Outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the 
Discussion on International Environmental Governance: Consequences for 
CITES (Doc. 15)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
16. Cooperation With Other Organizations
(a) Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for Conservation of 
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regarding the trade in 
toothfish (Doc. 16.1; Chile)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    CCAMLR is responsible for the conservation and management of 
Antarctic marine living resources in waters between the Antarctic 
continent and the Antarctic Convergence, a line of latitudes between 45 
and 60 degrees South where the colder, fresher Antarctic waters meet 
the warmer, saltier waters from the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific 
Oceans. In response to concerns over illegal, unreported, and 
unregulated (IUU) fishing for toothfish (Dissostichus spp.) in these 
waters, CCAMLR members have adopted conservation measures, including a 
Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) introduced in May 2000 for tracking 
and monitoring the harvest and trade in toothfish.
    Chile indicates that the 30 Member countries and acceding States to 
CCAMLR represent the main harvesting, processing, and consuming 
countries for toothfish, and that CCAMLR has made progress in 
controlling IUU fishing. In fact, only about half of this number of 
Members and acceding States are engaged in toothfish harvest and trade. 
Chile also states that there is no doubt that cooperation on the part 
of countries that are not parties to CCAMLR, but are parties to CITES, 
would be helpful in supporting CCAMLR's conservation measures.
    The resolution calls for all CITES Parties that fish for or trade 
in toothfish to, (a) comply with CCAMLR conservation measures regarding 
toothfish (including adopting use of the CCAMLR Dissostichus Catch 
Document (DCD) for toothfish that are imported, exported, or in transit 
through their territories) if they are not already doing so, (b) be 
vigilant in examining toothfish in trade, particularly its geographic 
origin, (c) cooperate with the CCAMLR Secretariat in the collection of 
trade data, and (d) take measures to ensure that their flag vessels are 
not used to undermine CCAMLR conservation measures or those adopted by 
States in whose territorial waters Dissostichus is found. The 
resolution urges CCAMLR to keep CITES Parties informed, directs the 
CITES Secretariat to provide CCAMLR with any available information on 
illicit trade, and invites all interested States, the United Nations 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and others to cooperate in 
efforts to prevent illicit trade.
    Australia has submitted a proposal for including Patagonian and 
Antarctic toothfish in CITES appendix II (Prop. 39) and provided a 
discussion paper on how CCAMLR and CITES permitting regimes may work 
together to monitor trade. (See number 66 of this notice). Chile is 
urging CITES Parties to voluntarily adhere to CCAMLR conservation 
measures as an alternative approach to an appendix-II listing. As with 
all papers concerning trade in Dissostichus spp., in order to determine

[[Page 66470]]

a position on Chile's proposed resolution, U.S. government agencies 
will evaluate the many complex aspects of the trade and how CITES might 
be useful as an adjunct to traditional fisheries management. This 
includes how our position would affect or be affected by the proposed 
cooperation with FAO (see Doc. 16.2.2, discussed below) regarding 
international trade in marine fish species. At this time, the United 
States is undecided as to our positions on issues related to the role 
of CITES in international toothfish trade.
(b) CITES and FAO
(i) Synergy and Cooperation Between CITES and FAO (Doc. 16.2.1; Japan)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    Japan has submitted a draft resolution calling on the CITES 
Secretariat to work with the FAO Secretariat toward developing a 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would establish a framework for 
cooperation between CITES and FAO. Japan states that the MOU would 
enhance cooperation and exchange of information and establish a process 
to ensure FAO involvement in the scientific evaluation of proposals for 
listing and down-listing of commercially exploited aquatic species.
    A set of recommendations for strengthening cooperation between 
CITES and FAO with respect to commercially exploited fish species was 
agreed to in Bremen, Germany at the 8th session of the FAO Committee on 
Fisheries Subcommittee on Fish Trade held during February 2002. The 
United States was pleased to work closely with Japan and others at the 
meetings in Bremen and has also submitted a document endorsing an MOU 
between FAO and CITES (see Doc. 16.2.2).
    We agree that FAO and the mandated regional fisheries management 
organizations (RFMOs) are appropriate inter-governmental bodies 
responsible for fisheries management (under Article XV, 2b). The United 
States, however, believes that regulation of international trade under 
CITES can serve as a useful adjunct to traditional fisheries management 
for species that might be listed in the CITES Appendices. The United 
States supports the expert process outlined in the Bremen 
recommendations but does not believe that action in FAO does not 
require a parallel response in CITES. The Bremen recommendations call 
for both CITES and FAO to make the political commitment necessary to 
ensure improved cooperation on commercial fish species; for CITES, this 
means through action at the COP.
(ii) FAO Collaboration With CITES Through a Memorandum of Understanding 
(Doc. 16.2.2; United States)
    Tentative negotiating position: Support.
    The Eighth Session of the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of 
the United Nations) Committee on Fisheries, Sub-Committee on Fish 
Trade, held in February 2002 (Bremen, Germany), sent forward a 
recommendation supporting the implementation of a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between FAO and CITES. The United States has 
submitted this document requesting that the CITES Parties review this 
recommendation and suggesting that the Standing committee determine a 
course of action and time-frame for initiating and finalizing such an 
MOU. The MOU would cover all CITES-specific issues under review by FAO, 
and could be established between the CITES Standing Committee and the 
comparable FAO committee. The United States recognizes the 
contributions FAO has made in evaluating the CITES listing criteria for 
marine fish and supports a formal MOU between CITES and FAO to 
facilitate exchange of information and technical advice regarding 
commercially exploited fish species.
(c) Cooperation and Synergy With the Inter-American Convention for the 
Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (Doc. 16.3; Ecuador)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This draft resolution directs the CITES Secretariat to investigate 
opportunities for cooperation and coordination between CITES and the 
Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea 
Turtles (IAC) (including Parties to the IAC and its Secretariat).
    As a Party to the IAC, which entered into force May 2, 2001, the 
United States supports this draft resolution. We also note that a draft 
resolution developed at the second CITES wider Caribbean range States 
hawksbill turtle dialogue meeting (May 21-23, 2002, Cayman Islands, 
United Kingdom), with the support of the United States, urges the 
participation of relevant regional and international multilateral 
environmental agreements, such as UNEP-CEP, the IAC and other relevant 
bodies, to promote joint collaboration to recover hawksbill sea turtles 
throughout the Wider Caribbean. CITES, IAC, and UNEP-CEP all have 
important roles in the conservation of sea turtles in the region. 
Therefore, we intend to support this draft resolution and to recognize 
these organizations' roles in the conservation of marine turtles.
(d) CITES and the International Whaling Commission
(i) Cooperation Between CITES and the International Whaling Commission 
(Doc. 16.4.1; Mexico)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    If adopted, this resolution would reaffirm the complementary 
relationship between CITES and the IWC as a crucial element for the 
conservation of whale stocks. The resolution encourages the IWC to 
inform CITES of its decisions regarding whale stocks. It proposes 
retaining whale species listed in the CITES appendices in which they 
are currently listed because it is premature to downlist these species 
while work is continuing to develop a Revised Management Scheme. 
Maintaining this listing would strengthen the ability of IWC to enforce 
its current moratorium on commercial whaling, as communicated to CITES 
by IWC in 1978, through listing in CITES appendix I.
(ii) Matters Relating to the International Whaling Commission (Doc. 
16.4.2; United States)
    The United States notified the CITES Secretariat that we will not 
be submitting this document at this time. However, the United States 
does plan to submit an information document at COP12 detailing the 
status of efforts by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to 
adopt a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) to manage commercial whaling, 
should it resume. This information paper will also include a summary of 
actions taken at the October 14-17, 2002, meeting of the IWC 
(Cambridge, United Kingdom), which is intended to make further progress 
on the Revised Management Scheme. The United States believes that no 
great whale species should be considered for downlisting from appendix 
I until the IWC adopts an effective Revised Management Scheme.
(e) Statements From Representatives of Other Conventions and Agreements 
(No Document)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    The Secretariat will not produce a document for this issue. The 
United States supports ongoing dialogue between CITES and other 
relevant and related conventions and agreements and

[[Page 66471]]

believes statements from them could be valuable at meetings of the COP.
17. Sustainable Use and Trade in CITES Species (Doc. 17; Norway)
    Tentative negotiating position: Oppose, with some exceptions.
    Norway addresses concerns it has regarding sustainable use and the 
amendment of the CITES appendices. Norway thinks there are difficulties 
with delisting or downlisting a CITES species even when warranted by 
the CITES criteria, and warns against the use of trade restrictions as 
``protectionistic measures under cover of scientific uncertainty.'' 
Norway proposes: (a) the development of CITES guidelines for the 
interpretation of the principle of sustainable use, in cooperation with 
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Food and 
Agriculture Organization (FAO); (b) the preparation of a proposal by 
COP13 to revise the listing criteria so as to include the principle of 
sustainable use; and (c) the development of a 5-year review process or 
a ``sunset clause'' to ensure that the CITES appendices reflect 
accurately the conservation status of a species.
    Although the United States fully supports the sustainable use of 
wildlife as a means for the economic development of local communities 
as well as an incentive for the conservation of species and ecosystems, 
we do not believe there is a need to develop a CITES definition of 
sustainable use. From its inception, CITES has been an effective tool 
for the promotion of sustainable use of appendix-II species through the 
issuance of non-detriment findings as required under Article IV, 
paragraph 2(a), of the Convention. There would be difficulties in the 
practical application of many elements in the Norwegian proposal. We 
believe the development of CITES guidelines for the interpretation of 
the principle of sustainable use would be potentially problematic. 
Guidelines would likely vary considerably depending on the species, 
ecosystems, and/or socio-economic or political systems involved.
    Failure to adopt a proposal for the delisting of an appendix-II 
species or the transfer of a species from appendix I to II does not 
mean that there are widespread difficulties related to the delisting 
and downlisting processes. It simply means that the majority of Parties 
have not been persuaded to adopt a given proposal. Furthermore, we 
disagree with the assertion that listing of species in the CITES 
Appendices is used to conceal scientific uncertainty. To the contrary, 
the United States believes that it is important to acknowledge the 
importance of the precautionary approach to wildlife management and 
that failure to do so would constitute a greater risk than if no trade 
restrictions were in place for wild populations for which there is 
uncertainty. In fact, the United States and Norway both subscribe to 
the precautionary approach in the case of fisheries management. As 
Parties to the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement, both have 
agreed to be ``more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable 
or inadequate,'' and further that ``the absence of adequate scientific 
information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to 
take conservation and management measures'' (UNFSA Article 6, paragraph 
2).
    Through Decision 11.2, the Parties established a specific protocol 
for examining the current listing criteria contained in Resolution 
Conf. 9.24. Since COP11, a Criteria Working Group has been reviewing 
the listing criteria. A report of the working group will be presented 
at COP12 (see Doc. 58, below). Comments on the criteria included in 
Norway's resolution should have taken place through this process. If 
not, Norway still has an opportunity to present their comments during 
discussion of the listing criteria at COP12.
    Finally, there is already a process in place for periodic review of 
the appendices. The Plants and Animals Committees review listings that 
may no longer be appropriate, utilizing the listing criteria in 
Resolution Conf. 9.24. Within the Animals Committee, the species 
reviews are conducted on a voluntary basis by Parties. As a result, 
relatively few reviews have been completed thus far. The Animals 
Committee is currently developing guidelines for improving the periodic 
review process. Without an adequate budget that is specifically 
allocated for conducting species reviews, it is unlikely that all 
listed species can be reviewed properly every 5 years as recommended by 
Norway. In addition, establishment of a sunset clause is troublesome 
given that it could result in the delisting of species that continue to 
require the trade controls afforded by CITES.
    Although the United States does not plan to support this resolution 
on sustainable use and trade in CITES species as currently drafted, we 
would consider support for a dialogue on the concept of sustainable use 
within CITES that could further clarify its meaning, particularly in 
high-volume or high-value species. Furthermore, the United States 
supports closer collaboration between CITES and FAO, CBD, or other 
appropriate inter-governmental organizations in areas where work can be 
complementary (see item 16b, above).
18. Economic Instruments and Trade Policy (Doc. 18)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
19. Financing of the Conservation of Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(Doc. 19)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12. In response to Decision 11.78, the 
Secretariat distributed Notification to the Parties No. 2001/016, in 
which it requested information on national funding mechanisms for the 
conservation of wild fauna and flora. The United States provided 
information on four such mechanisms, but noted in its response that it 
would be unable to provide information on all relevant U.S. funding 
mechanisms due to the enormity of the task. The United States supports 
efforts to provide information on the broad array of mechanisms 
available to support wildlife conservation.
20. Reports of Dialogue Meetings
(a) Results of the African Elephants Dialogue Meeting (Doc. 20.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat as the African elephants dialogue 
meeting is scheduled to be held in Santiago, Chile, immediately prior 
to the start of COP12. Once we receive a document on this agenda item, 
presumably at COP12, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
(b) Results of the Wider Caribbean Hawksbill Turtle Dialogue Meeting 
(Doc. 20.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.

[[Page 66472]]

    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    We expect that this will provide an update on the two CITES wider 
Caribbean range states hawksbill turtle dialogue meetings held since 
the eleventh meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (COP11). At 
COP11, Cuba submitted two proposals to transfer the hawksbill turtle 
(Eretmochelys imbricata) population inhabiting Cuban waters from 
appendix I to appendix II (Proposals 40 and 41), but they were 
rejected, partly because there was no regional consensus among 
hawksbill range countries in the Caribbean. After COP11, the 
Secretariat convened two technical workshops of Caribbean hawksbill 
turtle range states and territories to discuss and, if possible, reach 
consensus on the many difficult issues raised at COP11 regarding the 
conservation and management of hawksbill sea turtles. The first CITES 
wider Caribbean range states hawksbill turtle dialogue meeting was held 
in Mexico May 15-17, 2001. This was followed by a second hawksbill 
turtle dialogue meeting held May 21-23, 2002, in the Cayman Islands, 
United Kingdom. The United States provided financial support for and 
participated actively in both hawksbill turtle dialogue meetings. At 
the second hawksbill turtle dialogue meeting, working groups drafted a 
communique and a draft resolution for submission at COP12, with the 
participation and full support of the United States. Among other 
things, the draft resolution urges Caribbean states and territories to 
develop a regional conservation strategy for hawksbill turtles. It also 
urges Parties to adopt and implement standard protocols for the 
monitoring of hawksbill turtles developed at the second hawksbill 
dialogue meeting. The United States will work for adoption of the draft 
resolution.

Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention

Review of Resolution and Decisions

21. Review of Resolutions and Decisions
(a) Review of Resolutions
(i) Resolutions To Be Repealed (Doc. 21.1.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    Decision 11.136, adopted at COP11, directed the Secretariat to 
analyze information it receives from the Parties regarding problems in 
the implementation of existing Resolutions and prepare a document for 
the Standing Committee. Based on its own analysis of the implementation 
of existing Resolutions and on information it received from several 
CITES Party countries (including the United States), the Secretariat 
prepared and presented document SC46 Doc. 10 at the 46th meeting of the 
Standing Committee (Geneva, March 2002). This document provided a list 
of those Resolutions for which the Secretariat was planning to prepare 
proposals for COP12 to either repeal or revise. The Standing Committee 
requested that the Secretariat notify all Parties of the Resolutions 
for which it intends to prepare amendment proposals for COP12, and to 
provide a brief explanation of the reasons for the proposed amendments.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the Secretariat had not yet 
notified the United States of the Resolutions for which it intends to 
prepare proposals for COP12.
(ii) Resolutions To Be Revised (Doc. 21.1.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    This issue, ``Resolutions to be revised,'' is part of the same 
analysis by the Secretariat that is described above for agenda item 21. 
(a) (i), entitled ``Resolutions to be repealed.'' As with that agenda 
item, at the time this notice was prepared, the Secretariat had not yet 
notified the United States of the Resolutions for which it intends to 
prepare proposals for COP12.
(b) Review of Decisions (Doc. 21.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    In addition to providing a list of those Resolutions for which the 
Secretariat was planning to prepare proposals for COP12 to either 
repeal or revise, document SC46 Doc. 10, presented by the Secretariat 
at the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee (Geneva, March 2002), 
included a statement that the Secretariat was planning to prepare 
proposals to put into Resolutions the texts of existing Decisions that 
are not time-limited.
    In principle, the United States supports the concept of moving the 
text of Decisions that are not time-limited into Resolutions. Decisions 
are supposed to provide immediate instructions that are more short-term 
in nature than the guidance found in Resolutions. They are usually 
intended to be carried out between two meetings of the COP.

Regular and Special Reporting Requirements

22. Report on national reports required under Article VIII, paragraph 
7, of the Convention
    (a) Annual reports (Doc. 22.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    The United States supports efforts to encourage all Parties to 
submit annual reports, for all species of fauna and flora, consistent 
with their domestic legislation. Each Party is required by CITES to 
submit an annual report containing a summary of the permits it has 
granted and the types and numbers of specimens of species in the CITES 
Appendices that it has imported and exported. Accurate annual report 
data are essential to measure the impact of international trade on 
CITES-listed species, and can also be an effective enforcement tool, 
particularly when imports into a given country are compared to export 
quotas from other countries. The United States has submitted all of its 
CITES annual reports through 2000, and intends to meet its obligation 
to submit its 2001 annual report by the October 31, 2002, submission 
deadline.
(b) Biennial reports (Doc. 22.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it

[[Page 66473]]

closely and develop a tentative negotiating position for COP12.
    The United States supports efforts to encourage all Parties to 
submit biennial reports on legislative, regulatory, and administrative 
measures taken to enforce the provisions of CITES. Each Party is 
required by CITES to submit such biennial reports. Due to staffing 
shortages for the past several years, and work priorities involving 
timely preparation of the U.S. annual reports, we have been unable to 
prepare and submit U.S. biennial reports since 1987-1988. However, the 
United States intends to meet its obligation to submit its 2000-2001 
biennial report before the opening of COP12 in November 2002.
23. Appendix-I Species Subject to Export Quotas
(a) Leopard
(i) Report on implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.14 on quotas for 
leopard hunting trophies and skins for personal use (Doc. 23.1.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose, with exceptions 
described below.
    This document, with a proposed amendment to an existing resolution 
(Resolution Conf. 10.14), was marked ``provisional'' by the CITES 
Secretariat when this notice was prepared. If we receive a new version 
of this document in the future, we will review it closely to determine 
whether our tentative negotiating position for COP12, outlined here, 
needs to be changed.
    Resolution Conf. 10.14 establishes annual export quotas for leopard 
hunting trophies and skins and requires that Parties with such a quota 
submit a special annual report, in addition to the annual report 
required by Article VIII, paragraph 7, of the Convention, that 
identifies particular information about the exports. Conf. 10.14 also 
established the tagging requirements for leopard trophies. The 
Secretariat submitted a proposed amendment to Conf. 10.14 that, at a 
minimum, would remove the special annual reporting requirements called 
for under the Resolution and would allow the Parties with leopard 
quotas to submit the required information solely in their CITES annual 
report. However, the Secretariat's proposed amendment also recommends 
that Conf. 10.14 be repealed, in its entirety, on the basis that none 
of the Parties with leopard quotas have exceeded them in the past, that 
sustainable quotas can be established under existing national voluntary 
quotas, and that tagging leopard skins and trophies does not provide 
any benefit in controlling illegal trade.
    The United States agrees that requiring a special annual report 
would not be necessary, provided that the Parties include the same 
information regarding the annual leopard exports that is called for in 
Conf. 10.14 in the CITES annual report and the Parties have a 
consistent record of submitting their annual reports. However, a large 
number of the leopard trading countries have failed to submit their 
annual reports either in a timely manner or at all. Because this 
species is included in appendix I, the United States does not agree 
with the Secretariat that Conf. 10.14 should be repealed. The Parties 
have identified leopard as a species of particular concern by placing 
it in appendix I. As such, it is important for the Parties to be 
actively involved in the establishment of quotas. It is also important 
to maintain the tagging program to assist in the control of illegal 
trade and to properly identify legitimate trophy specimens that enter 
international trade.
(ii) Amendment to the quota of the United Republic of Tanzania (Doc. 
23.1.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    This document proposes to amend the leopard export quota 
established in Conf. 10.14. Currently, the annual quota for Tanzania is 
250 leopards. This document requests that the quota be raised to 500 
leopards annually. The United States, as reflected in the document we 
submitted for COP12 on establishing scientifically based quotas, is 
very interested in ensuring that annual export quotas are established 
on strong biological data. Tanzania's request does not go into 
sufficient detail about the leopard review to determine at this time 
whether the proposed increase is based on sound science that would 
ensure sustainable harvesting of leopards or is market-driven to 
increase the level of tourism within Tanzania. Therefore, we have not 
been able to develop a tentative negotiating position for COP12 at this 
time.
(b) Markhor (Doc. 23.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    The document submitted for this agenda item at the previous COP 
(COP11) covered the use of annual export quotas for Capra falconeri 
(markhor) granted to Pakistan at COP10 under the provisions of 
Resolution Conf. 10.15. In that document the Secretariat made four 
comments/ recommendations: (1) That the deadline to May 31st be 
accepted; (2) that Resolution Conf. 10.15 makes no reference to 
management of revenues and that this matter should be addressed at the 
national level; (3) the Secretariat commends Pakistan for reporting its 
first successful hunts since a markhor quota was approved and the 
implementation of its community-based conservation program for markhor; 
and (4) the Secretariat notes that no information was provided on the 
status of markhor in the 1998 annual report; the Secretariat suggests 
that Pakistan should provide information to the COP on a sustainable 
monitoring program at an appropriate frequency that would cover all 
important subpopulations of markhor.
    At COP11, Resolution Conf. 10.15 was amended to include most of 
these recommendations. At COP11, the United States was concerned about 
the poor reporting and lack of adequate population survey data 
presented by Pakistan. We remain concerned about these issues, and 
await the document for COP12 to see how they have been addressed. We 
have heard from reliable sources that Pakistan might request an 
increase in their quota to 20 animals. We do not support such an 
increase. In fact, if the forthcoming document demonstrates that 
Pakistan has continued a poor record of reporting, or has not conducted 
adequate surveys, the United States will consider recommending a quota 
reduction or suspension.
24. Exports of Vicuna Wool and Cloth (Doc. 24)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
25. Transport of Live Animals (Doc. 25)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, we were still reviewing the 
document posted by the Secretariat. We will continue to do so as we 
develop a tentative negotiating position for COP12.

[[Page 66474]]

    The United States has been supportive and actively involved in the 
Transport Working Group (TWG) of the Animals Committee since its 
inception. We expect to continue that level of support after COP12, and 
we support the COP re-authorizing the TWG through COP13. At the 18th 
meeting of the Animals Committee (San Jose, Costa Rica, April 2002), 
the Chair of the TWG reported on the group's continuing efforts to 
recommend revisions to the Live Animals Regulations of the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA) and to evaluate 
mortality levels in traded CITES-listed wildlife. The United States 
supported the TWG's efforts in this area, and we expect to continue our 
general support of the group's activities.

General Compliance Issues

26. Compliance With the Convention (Doc. 26)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
27. Enforcement Matters (Doc. 27)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, we were still reviewing the 
document posted by the Secretariat, which was marked Provisional at 
that time. The document was later posted in a final form, and we will 
continue to review it as we develop a tentative negotiating position 
for COP12. However, while the United States feels that there is merit 
in the major recommendation presented in the document, we remain 
officially undecided pending additional review and consultation.
    This document, prepared by the Secretariat, covers a wide range of 
issues related to the enforcement of the Convention, including: 
communication by Parties with the Secretariat, enforcement alerts 
issued by the Secretariat, the confidentiality of information received 
by the Secretariat, allegations of corruption in CITES management 
authorities and enforcement agencies, national interagency enforcement 
cooperation, specialized enforcement units and personnel, regional and 
international interagency enforcement cooperation, dealing with 
offenders, forensic science, courier and postal services, domestic 
enforcement, fraudulent use of CITES permits and certificates, and 
designation of scientific authorities by the Parties.
    The document also contains a draft decision in which the 
Secretariat suggests that the COP authorize the Secretariat to convene 
an experts meeting to discuss enforcement-related issues before the 
Convention.
    The United States is generally very supportive of the Secretariat's 
efforts to provide enforcement assistance and coordination with the 
Parties, and the United States frequently requests the Secretariat's 
assistance in contacting other Parties for enforcement-related issues.
28. National Laws for Implementation of the Convention (Doc. 28)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    We expect that this document, prepared by the Secretariat, will 
cover progress on implementation of Decisions 11.15, 11.17, 11.18, and 
11.19. The most recent action on these matters took place at the 46th 
meeting of the Standing Committee (March 12-15; Geneva, Switzerland) in 
which the Committee reached agreement on a variety of actions or 
recommendations directed to a large number of Parties deemed by the 
Secretariat to have inadequate domestic legislation to effectively 
implement the Convention.
29. Verification of the Authenticity and Veracity of CITES Permits and 
Certificates (Doc. 29; Chile)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, noting budgetary 
concerns.
    This document and draft resolution are intended to address concerns 
about the authenticity of CITES documents. The document identifies the 
unfortunate fact that fraudulent CITES documents have been discovered 
in use. With the improvements in technology, false documents can be 
created that are very difficult to distinguish from valid CITES 
documents issued by an appropriate CITES Management Authority. Chile 
proposes that all Parties establish an Internet website where copies of 
all CITES documents that a Party issues would be available for 
comparison purposes. The United States agrees that a concise and secure 
method of verifying the authenticity of CITES documents would be very 
beneficial. However, substantial logistical and legal ramifications 
must be considered prior to any type of website being established. 
Logistical concerns include the security of the site, the level of 
access available to Parties, and the cost of establishing the websites. 
For the United States, if not other Parties, there is the question of 
whether making such data available is in compliance with current 
domestic laws and regulations. Therefore, the United States would 
recommend that this proposal be reviewed further by the Parties and, if 
desirable and funding can be obtained, a working group be formed to 
address this particular proposal and other means to allow the 
verification of CITES documents.
30. Implementation of CITES in the European Community (Doc. 30; 
Denmark)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The United States supported the amendment in 1983 and submitted it 
to Congress, but it was not ratified. There were concerns because the 
amendment is not specific to the European Community and would allow 
accession of other regional economic integration organizations to 
CITES. In addition, at that time not all European Community members 
were Parties to CITES. The United States has not ratified the Gaborone 
amendment, and the United States is uncertain whether it will support 
this draft decision.

Species Trade and Conservation Issues

31. Trade in Bear Specimens (Doc. 31)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose unless an alternative 
solution to address the ongoing illegal trade in some appendix I 
species is developed by the Parties.
    This report was prepared by the CITES Secretariat, and also serves 
as the report of the Standing Committee as required in Decision 11.80. 
The report summarizes information provided or actions taken in response 
to five Decisions adopted at COP11 relating to trade in bear specimens. 
The Parties, including the United States, that have provided 
information to the Secretariat all report that they have adequate 
national legislation and enforcement measures in place to implement the 
Convention with regard to bears. The Secretariat concludes that the 
actions called for in Decisions 11.43, 11.44, 11.45, 11.46 and 11.80 
have been achieved, and those Decisions can be deleted. The Secretariat 
further asserts that the Parties should have in place legislative and 
enforcement measures to effectively implement the Convention for CITES-
listed species, and that those

[[Page 66475]]

measures need not be species-specific. Subsequently, it recommends 
repealing the six points listed under URGES in Resolution Conf. 10.8. 
The United States is hesitant to do this without having alternate 
options available to eliminate the illegal trade in and strengthen law 
enforcement efforts for appendix I bears.
32. Conservation of Leopard, Snow Leopards and Clouded Leopard (Doc. 
32; India)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
33. Conservation of and Trade in Tigers (Doc. 33)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    In January 1999, we hosted the CITES Tiger Missions Technical Team 
in Los Angeles, California, as part of its investigations of tiger 
range and consumer states. This visit provided us, as well as other 
relevant Federal agencies, an opportunity to meet with the members of 
the technical team and outline law enforcement and public outreach 
efforts with regard to tiger conservation in the United States. The 
team prepared a report of its mission, which was presented at the 42nd 
meeting of the Standing Committee.
    In October 1998, Congress amended the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
Conservation Act (RTCA) of 1994. The amendments allow for penalties for 
actual or even the attempted import, export, or sale of products 
labeled or purporting to contain rhino or tiger products, items, or 
derivative substances. The Act also directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service to develop and implement an educational outreach program in the 
United States for the conservation of rhinoceros and tiger species. In 
April 2000, we hosted two public meetings to review and take comments 
on a proposed outreach plan, which was published in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 21206). Since that time, we have been active in forming 
partnerships with other organizations to carry out the activities of 
the plan. The Service also continues to be active in providing funding 
for tiger conservation worldwide through the Rhinoceros and Tiger 
Conservation Fund, authorized by the RTCA of 1994.
34. Conservation of Elephants and Trade in Elephant Specimens
(a) Illegal Trade in Ivory and Other Elephant Specimens (Doc. 34.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
(b) Illegal Hunting in Elephant Range States (Doc. 34.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
(c) Revision of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.) on Trade in Elephant 
Specimens (Doc. 34.3; India and Kenya)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The document for consideration was submitted by Kenya and India. 
The document emphasizes a need to revise Resolution Conf. 10.10 to 
reflect new information regarding the sale of illegal ivory and the 
need to educate consumers, the deletion of paragraphs which address the 
detection of links between poaching trends and changes in the CITES 
Appendices, and adding a requirement that Parties receive annual 
updated information on illegal ivory collected by the Elephant Trade 
Information System (ETIS).
    The United States is undecided on whether it will support the 
proposed resolution from Kenya and India. The United States is 
continuing to evaluate this issue, and plans to develop a policy 
position on this proposed resolution once all the documents on ETIS and 
the range states' dialogue are available for review.
35. Conservation of and Trade in Rhinoceroses (Doc. 35)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose unless an alternative 
solution to address the ongoing illegal trade in some appendix I 
species is developed by the Parties.
    Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev.) establishes a series of standard 
measures that all rhinoceros range countries should implement to 
improve the conservation status of rhinoceros. It also directs the 
Standing Committee to take appropriate actions to address illegal trade 
in rhinoceros specimens, and it establishes a reporting system for 
providing information on rhinoceros activities in various range and 
non-range countries to the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat 
proposes in this document to repeal Conf. 9.14 (Rev.) because they 
believe it contains generic recommendations that the Parties should be 
implementing for all species, and because the Parties have failed to 
report on their activities related to rhinoceros conservation. Whereas 
we understand the Secretariat's frustration with the lack of response 
by the Parties, we believe that rhinoceros species warrant special 
attention from the Parties. Some of the recommendations, such as those 
for tracking rhinoceros horn stocks, are specific to rhinoceros, and we 
believe these species, and other high-profile appendix-I species with 
significant ongoing conservation problems, continue to deserve special 
attention under CITES. In addition, we believe that range countries 
have demonstrated a keen interest in rhinoceros conservation at past 
COPs. Therefore, we are not sure that repeal of Conf. 9.14 (Rev.) is 
appropriate, but we would welcome recommendations to improve its 
effectiveness. We will be particularly looking to range countries on 
this issue at COP12.
36. Conservation of and Trade in Musk Deer (Doc. 36)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    This document is likely to resemble the document submitted by the 
Secretariat to the last meeting of the Standing Committee (SC46). Our 
position on that document was that there had been a lack of significant 
progress on the musk deer conservation actions called for in the 
relevant Resolution and Decisions from COP11, and that such lack of 
progress was of great concern to us. The existing Resolution and 
Decision were adopted at COP11 as a compromise to an appendix-I listing 
for the entire genus Moschus. As such, they should have formed the 
basis for priority action on this taxon by the Secretariat. However, 
adequate effort has not been devoted to

[[Page 66476]]

raising the funds necessary to address the needs of this genus, and 
other activities have been insufficient to advance the recommendations 
by the Parties specified in the Resolution and Decisions.
37. Conservation of and Control of Trade in Tibetan Antelope (Doc. 37)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose unless an alternative 
solution to address the ongoing illegal trade in some appendix I 
species is developed by the Parties.
    The Secretariat reported on Tibetan Antelope activities at SC46. At 
that time, the United States was already disappointed by the lack of 
real progress made on implementation of Resolution Conf. 11.8. As the 
current report indicates, little has been done since then. The 
Secretariat has assisted in the production of an identification kit, 
and requested China and India to inform it of any assistance they may 
need related to Tibetan antelope conservation (although the Secretariat 
just made contact with these two States almost two years after COP 11). 
There is no mention of activities undertaken by China, India, or Nepal 
for Tibetan antelope conservation. Because China is the principal range 
State for Tibetan antelope, its actions are critical to the long-term 
survival of the species. India, as the main destination for raw 
shahtoosh, is also a key player. This taxon deserves greater attention, 
but the United States suggests that the Parties might consider 
developing a more comprehensive approach to address this species and 
other appendix I species that continue to be traded illegally and 
commercially.
38. Controlled Trade in Specimens of Abundant Cetacean Stocks (Doc. 38; 
Japan)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    If adopted, this resolution would support trade in whale products 
originating from stocks transferred from appendix I to appendix II 
among those Parties that are also signatories to the International 
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and that have established DNA 
register systems to monitor such trade.
    The United States believes that CITES should continue to honor the 
request for assistance in enforcing the moratorium on commercial 
whaling, which was communicated by the IWC to CITES in 1978. This 
request was answered by the CITES Parties in Resolution Conf. 2.9, 
which call on the Parties to ``agree not to issue any import or export 
permit or certificate'' for introduction from the sea under CITES for 
primarily commercial purposes ``for any specimen of a species or stock 
protected from commercial whaling by the International Convention for 
the Regulation of Whaling.'' While the scientific committee of the IWC 
has developed the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for setting quotas 
if commercial whaling were to resume, the IWC has not completed the 
development of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for monitoring the 
catch of whales. The United States believes that any type of commercial 
whaling or trade should not resume until the RMS is completed and the 
current moratorium on commercial whaling is lifted for any stocks that 
enter into international trade.
39. Conservation of and Trade in Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises (Doc. 
39)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    The United States has been actively involved in, and supportive of, 
CITES efforts in recent years regarding the trade in tortoises and 
freshwater turtles, and associated conservation and management issues. 
The United States funded and participated in the technical workshop on 
tortoise and freshwater turtle trade and conservation hosted by China 
in March 2002, and we supported adoption of the workshop's 
recommendations and findings. For COP12 we have co-sponsored a number 
of appendix II species proposals for Asian freshwater turtles with 
China and India, and we support other proposals submitted by China and 
Germany.
40. Conservation of and Trade in Pancake Tortoise Malacochersus 
tornieri (Doc. 40; Kenya)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose because of budgetary 
concerns.
    The pancake tortoise ranges from central Kenya southward through 
central Tanzania. Within that range, the species is discontinuously 
distributed because of its strict habitat requirements; the species is 
found only where suitable rock crevices and outcroppings exist in 
thorn-scrub and savannah vegetation (Somalia-Masai floristic region). 
The pancake tortoise was listed in appendix II in 1975. Kenya enacted 
stricter domestic measures to prohibit commercial export of the species 
in 1981, although the United Republic of Tanzania permits the export of 
farmed specimens. The pancake tortoise is a desirable and valuable 
species in the pet trade, and although it is captive bred with some 
regularity, demand for wild caught specimens remains high.
    Kenya submitted a proposal to transfer the species from appendix II 
to appendix I at COP11. The COP11 proposal (Doc. 11.59.3, Prop. 11.39) 
was withdrawn by Kenya after the United Republic of Tanzania provided 
oral assurances that it would not permit the export of wild caught 
specimens. However, there appears to be ongoing illegal trade in 
pancake tortoises, although it is difficult to determine the origin of 
specimens that appear to have been collected in the wild; in 2000 and 
2001 the United States received several shipments of adult pancake 
tortoises with permits indicating that they were born in captivity.
    The Pancake Tortoise Working Group proposed by Kenya would be 
tasked to develop recommendations on measures to improve conservation, 
control trade in live specimens of the species, and analyze whether 
existing breeding operations for the species conform to certain 
conditions. Management of the trade in pancake tortoises has been 
problematic for many years, but we note that it might be more 
appropriate for the COP to authorize addressing this issue through an 
existing CITES mechanism, rather than through the formation of a 
species-specific working group. Two potential ways to address these 
issues in a cooperative setting, and develop consensus recommendations, 
are either through the Animals Committee significant trade review 
process in Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) (under which the pancake 
tortoise has previously been reviewed), or through the Animals 
Committee working group on the conservation of and trade in freshwater 
turtles and tortoises, which the United States hopes will be re-
authorized at COP12.
    The United States believes that either of these two Animals 
Committee mechanisms are appropriate, and could be productive venues to 
address and resolve the issues highlighted in Doc. 40. We note that the 
creation of new working groups is administratively and financially 
burdensome and it is preferable to take advantage of existing systems 
to address trade and implementation concerns when available.

[[Page 66477]]

41. Conservation of Sharks
(a) Conservation and Management of Sharks (Doc. 41.1; Australia)
(b) Conservation of and Trade in Sharks (Doc. 41.2; Ecuador)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support but have budgetary and 
workload concerns,
    Australia and Ecuador have submitted separate documents on the role 
of CITES in international shark conservation. Although slightly 
different in objective, both papers recite the history of how CITES 
Parties got engaged in shark conservation and prescribe a series of 
future initiatives to help promote adequate management for vulnerable 
stocks. The Australian document suggests that the CITES Animals 
Committee could, among other things, regularly review the conservation 
status of various shark populations and recommend listing priorities to 
the Parties. The Ecuadorean document recommends tighter cooperation 
between CITES and FAO to ensure that national management plans are 
developed and implemented. Both documents recommend an ongoing review 
of shark conservation by CITES bodies beyond COP12.
    A series of Decisions and Resolutions since COP9 have prompted 
international discussion on sharks in both CITES and FAO fora. The net 
result of this activity has been FAO's adoption in 1999 of an 
International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA-Sharks), and ongoing 
monitoring by the CITES Parties of FAO success in this endeavor. 
Although the IPOA lays out specific elements for National Plans of 
Action (NPOA's) to conserve sharks (data collection, monitoring, stock 
assessment, etc.), it is purely a voluntary measure that has met with 
limited success in FAO member nations. Out of 87 shark-fishing nations, 
most of which are CITES Parties, only two (the United States and Japan) 
have adopted NPOA's. Fifteen other member nations have committed to 
developing NPOA's, but often have made this contingent on external 
assistance and funding.
    We agree that national implementation of the IPOA for sharks has 
been thus far disappointing but the blame lies with the Parties, not 
FAO. However, we are reluctant to endorse the idea of increasing the 
workload of the Animals Committee to include intensive monitoring and 
review of non-listed species. However, it is completely within the 
terms of reference and the history of the Animals Committee for the 
Committee to review and promote listings for specific shark taxa and 
monitor and review the trade of listed shark species.
42. Conservation of Sturgeons and Labeling of Caviar
(a) Implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Rev.) on Conservation of 
Sturgeons (Doc. 42.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    This document is the report from the Animals Committee on the 
Implementation of Resolution Conf. 10.12 (Rev). At the time this notice 
was prepared, this document was not yet available from the Secretariat. 
Once we receive a document on this agenda item, we will review it 
closely and develop a tentative negotiating position for COP12.
    At COP11, Decision 11.59 was adopted by the Parties which requested 
that all Parties trading in sturgeon and paddlefish report to the 
Secretariat on the progress made in implementing Resolution Conf. 10.12 
(Rev.), Conservation of sturgeons, before the 18th meeting of the 
Animals Committee. Based on the information provided by the Parties, 
the Secretariat submitted a report to the 18th meeting of the Animals 
Committee. Decision 11.96 directs the Animals Committee to review the 
Secretariat's report, decide upon actions to be taken, and report at 
COP12.
(b) Consolidation of Resolutions Relating to Sturgeons and Trade in 
Caviar (Doc. 42.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, this document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the document, we will 
review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating position for 
COP12.
    Parties are just beginning to implement Conf. 11.13 requirements 
that are in addition to any domestic requirements. The proposed 
revisions to Conf. 11.13 presented at the 18th Animals Committee 
meeting include provisions covering the labeling of re-exported caviar. 
The United States maintains that there should be a system in place for 
exports that can be evaluated and modified as needed to ensure it is 
working effectively before moving forward with labeling of re-exports.
43. Conservation of Seahorses and Other Members of the Family 
Syngnathidae (Doc. 43)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    As per the requirements of Decisions 11.97 and 11.153, the 
Secretariat convened a technical workshop on the conservation of 
seahorses and other fishes in the family Syngnathidae (e.g., pipefish 
and sea dragons). This workshop was held May 27-29, 2002 (Cebu, 
Philippines), and the United States sent a representative. One aspect 
of the workshop was to evaluate a draft proposal written by the United 
States to include seahorses in appendix II of CITES (see Proposal 37, 
below). The workshop participants spent three days examining current 
trade data, evaluating national and regional management approaches for 
seahorses, and considering the efficacy of a potential appendix-II 
listing proposal. We expect Doc. 43 to summarize the workshop findings, 
which includes an endorsement of the U.S. listing proposal, 
recommendations for an 18-month delayed implementation of the listing 
if adopted, and suggestions for minimizing the impact on fishing 
communities that harvest seahorses. The United States is pleased to 
have our seahorse listing proposal endorsed by this body of scientists 
and trade experts, and will consider the other recommendations found in 
Doc. 43 once we have had a chance to fully review and evaluate the 
document.
44. Conservation of and Trade in Dissostichus Species (Doc. 44; 
Australia)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Australia submitted this draft resolution as a companion to its 
proposal to list Dissostichus spp. (both Patagonian and Antarctic 
toothfish) on CITES appendix II (see section 66, Prop. 39 of this 
notice). These species are currently managed under the Convention for 
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in 
designated waters surrounding the Antarctic continent. This draft 
resolution offers details on how an appendix-II listing for toothfish 
might be implemented. It recommends, among other provisions, that CITES 
Parties agree that the advice of the CCAMLR Scientific Committee

[[Page 66478]]

concerning annual catch limits be considered a non-detriment finding 
for Dissostichus spp. within the CCAMLR Convention Area for CITES 
purposes. It also asks that Parties accept that a Dissostichus Catch 
Document (DCD) is equivalent to, and an acceptable substitute for, a 
certificate of introduction from the sea or an export permit under 
CITES.
    Under Australia's proposal, Parties to CITES whose trade in 
Dissostichus is conducted using CCAMLR's Catch Documentation Scheme 
(CDS) within the CCAMLR Convention Area will be considered as having 
met the requirements of CITES. However, trade in toothfish harvested 
outside the CCAMLR Convention Area would be subject to CITES permitting 
requirements.
    If agreed to by the Parties, this would be the first appendix-II 
listing for a commercially-traded marine fish species. The effect of 
this listing proposal, if adopted, would combine the regulatory regime 
of a regional fishery management organization (RFMO) with that of 
CITES. The Parties would need to resolve a number of implementation 
issues, including how the two permitting systems might work side by 
side, and the difficulties in making scientific non-detriment findings 
for high seas species. These matters, and others related to potential 
listings of high seas marine fish species, have not been fully explored 
by the Parties. In addition to considering how the two regulatory 
regimes would work in concert, the United States has not yet determined 
how our position would affect or be affected by the proposed 
cooperation with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) regarding international trade in marine fish species. At this 
time, the United States is undecided as to our positions on issues 
related to CITES's role in international toothfish trade.
45. Trade in Sea Cucumbers in the Families Holothuridae and 
Stichopodidae (Doc. 45; United States)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    In our Federal Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207), we 
stated that we were seeking additional information (particularly on 
abundance, identification techniques, trade volumes, and other range 
country interest in CITES listing) while considering submitting an 
appendix-II listing proposal for sea cucumbers. Based primarily on our 
consultations with other range countries for these species, we believed 
the most appropriate approach for COP12 was to submit a discussion 
paper on the issue of trade in these species, similar to what has been 
done in the past for other taxa, such as Syngnathidae (seahorses and 
their relatives). Rather than submit a proposal while significant 
questions exist about the trade in these species and the impact on 
them, we believed it would be more prudent to submit a discussion paper 
containing the information we have been able to gather at this point in 
time. The Conference of the Parties can then decide how to proceed and 
whether to further consider the listing of these species in the CITES 
Appendices.
46. Biological and Trade Status of Harpagophytum (Doc. 46)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document we will review it closely and determine whether our tentative 
negotiating position for COP12 needs to be changed.
    The genus Harpagophytum, comprises two species, H. procumbens and 
H. zeyheri, native to southern Africa. The common name, devil's claw, 
is derived from the tough, thorny barbs, that grow on the woody fruits. 
Neither species is currently listed in the CITES appendices. The 
natural habitat of these perennial herbs are steppe-like arid zones of 
Angola, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa and, to a lesser extent, in 
Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Flowers and leaves of the plant can 
only be found during the short rainy season. To survive the dry period, 
the plant forms water-storing secondary root tubers branching off 
horizontally from the primary taproot. These secondary storage tubers 
contain chemical compounds which have medicinal applications. Devil's 
claw is used in western and traditional medicine as an analgesic and 
anti-inflammatory. European countries have used it for years to treat 
rheumatic problems. The tubers are collected and sliced into thin disks 
and dried before export. A main threat to H. procumbens is the large-
scale harvest of its secondary storage tubers using detrimental 
harvesting techniques, to meet international market demand.
    Germany proposed Harpagophytum procumbens and H. zeyheri for 
inclusion in appendix II at COP11. However, due mainly to the 
objections of the range nations of these species, the proposal was not 
adopted. Instead, the Parties adopted two Decisions (11.63 and 11.111) 
designed to gather and analyze biological and trade information on the 
genus Harpagophytum. The Plants Committee was tasked with preparing a 
report on the biological and trade status of the genus for COP12. As a 
result of these Decisions, Dr. John Donaldson, African Regional 
Representative on the Plants Committee, prepared a report summarizing 
the available information on the trade, management, and biological 
status of Harpagophytum, which he presented at the 12th meeting of the 
Plants Committee (PC12; Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2002). Also, a 
regional devil's claw conference was held in Namibia in February 2002. 
Participants included representatives of the various stakeholders in 
the range countries. A report on the outcome of the conference was 
presented at the PC12. Finally, Germany, a major importer of 
Harpagophytum, presented a report at PC12 on imports of the genus into 
Germany.
    The Plants Committee supported the recommendations made in the 
reports presented at PC12, and the Regional Representative on the 
Plants Committee from Africa was tasked with preparing a report on the 
issue for COP12. We expect the document (COP12 Doc. 46) to be this 
report. The United States supports the efforts of the Regional 
Representative for Africa, the Namibian devil's claw working group, and 
Germany in reviewing biological and trade data and improving regional 
cooperation to ensure the sustainable management of Harpagophytum, and 
anticipates tentatively supporting document COP12 Doc. 46.
47. Conservation of Swietenia macrophylla: Report of the Mahogany 
Working Group (Doc. 47)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with the exception of 
extending the group terms of reference through COP13 which would depend 
on the success of the appendix II listing proposal.
    Decision 11.4 regarding conservation of Swietenia macrophylla 
called for a mahogany working group to meet to consider, among other 
things, the effectiveness of the current and potential appendix-III 
listings, the status of the species, legal and illegal trade, and ways 
to increase the number of range states listing mahogany in appendix 
III. This meeting was convened as the Mahogany Working Group meeting in 
October 2001 in Bolivia. As a participant of the Working Group and a 
financial supporter of the meeting, the United States generally 
supports the conclusions and

[[Page 66479]]

recommendations of the Working Group.
48. Implementation of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) on Trade in Specimens 
of Appendix-II Species Taken From the Wild
(a) Revision of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) (Doc. 48.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) and Decisions 11.106 and 11.108 of the 
COP outline a process to review the implementation of Article IV of the 
Convention vis-a-vis appendix-II species that are traded in significant 
quantities. At AC17, the Secretariat introduced document AC17 7.4, 
drafted by the African Resources Trust (ART). The document highlighted 
problems with the Significant Trade Process, including discrepancies 
between Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) and Decisions 11.106 and 11.108, 
and suggested ways to correct such problems. Based on this document 
drafted by ART and discussions of a working group at AC17, the 
Secretariat prepared for AC18 document AC18 Doc. 7.3, which contained a 
revised draft version of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.). The revised draft 
resolution integrated all pertinent decisions dealing with the 
Significant Trade Process with Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.). At AC18, a 
working group, of which the United States was a member, reviewed and 
amended the draft resolution. This revised draft resolution was then 
forwarded to PC12 for further review and comment prior to its 
submission at COP12. As an active member of the working groups involved 
in the revision of Resolution Conf. 8.9 (Rev.) at AC18 and PC12, the 
United States supports the submission of this document by the 
Secretariat.
(b) Saiga tatarica: Summary of the CITES-sponsored Workshop in Kalmykia 
in May 2002 and Presentation of the Draft Conservation Action Plan 
(Doc. 48.2; United States)
    The United States withdrew this agenda item.
49. Nationally Established Export Quotas for Appendix-II Species: the 
Scientific Basis for Quota Establishment and Implementation (Doc. 49; 
United States)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This document focuses on the scientific basis for establishment and 
implementation of nationally established export quotas for appendix-II 
species (i.e., appendix-II export quotas established voluntarily by 
individual Parties to the Convention) reported to the CITES 
Secretariat. The purpose of this discussion paper is to outline these 
concerns, and provide a basis for further discussion and possible 
action. We have highlighted five principal issues of concern: (1) Lack 
of a common understanding of the relationship between non-detriment 
findings and nationally established quotas for appendix-II species; (2) 
lack of a common understanding of the relationship between non-
detriment findings and revisions to nationally established quotas for 
appendix-II species; (3) lack of a mechanism to review the biological 
basis of quotas; (4) lack of an agreed-upon mechanism for addressing 
quota overages; and (5) lack of specific requirements in reporting 
quotas. These issues are complex, particularly when viewed from a 
variety of perspectives, such as those of an exporting Party, importing 
Party, or from elsewhere. We believe they could best be addressed in a 
working group at COP12, potentially followed by an inter-sessional 
Export Quota Working Group, as proposed in Annex 3 of the companion 
document (Doc. 50.2).

Trade Control and Marking Issues

50. Management of Export Quotas
(a) Improving the Management of Annual Export Quotas and Amendment of 
Resolution Conf. 10.2 (Rev.) Annex 1 on Permits and Certificates (Doc. 
50.1; Germany)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, with the exceptions 
described below.
    We believe this document constitutes a positive contribution to 
discussions at COP12 on the establishment and implementation of 
appendix II export quotas. The United States has also submitted two 
documents in this area (Docs. 49 and 50.2). We believe the basic 
assumptions and findings underpinning this document and those submitted 
by the United States are very similar. While we believe that a 
modification to Resolution Conf. 10.2 (Rev.), as proposed in Doc. 50.a, 
could be part of a solution to address shortcomings in the current 
export quota system, the United States hopes that these issues will be 
openly discussed at COP12 in a working group so that an inclusive 
approach to this issue can be developed, one that can be implemented 
and enforced by all CITES Parties.
(b) Implementation and Monitoring of Nationally Established Export 
Quotas for Species Listed in Appendix II of the Convention (Doc. 50.2; 
United States)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This document discusses trade records for appendix II species 
covered by nationally established export quotas, and includes 
discussion of problems implementing these quotas, such as permit 
issuance, interpretation of reported quotas, and monitoring and 
reporting the use of export quotas. Doc. 50.(b) also includes a 
discussion of other types of export quota systems used in CITES, and 
contains text for two Decisions for the consideration of the Parties at 
COP12. The issues associated with the administration and implementation 
of nationally established export quotas are complex, particularly when 
viewed from the perspectives of affected stakeholders, such as that of 
an exporting Party, an importing Party, or from elsewhere. Due to the 
complexity of the issues involved, the variety of different 
perspectives and interests associated with these issues, and the 
submission of related documents by Germany (see Doc. 50.1, above) and 
the United States (Doc. 49, above), we believe it would be best to 
address them in a working group at COP12. Assuming that all issues 
could not be addressed and resolved at COP12, this working group could 
be followed by an inter-sessional ``Export Quota Working Group,'' as 
proposed in Annex 3 of this document (Doc. 50.2).
51. Trade in Time-Sensitive Research Samples (Doc. 51)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    The agenda item refers to the ongoing review of trade in biological 
samples by the CITES Parties. At COP11, Switzerland, Germany, and the 
United Kingdom submitted a draft resolution (Doc. 11.45.1) to amend 
Resolution Conf. 9.6 to exempt certain tissue samples as not readily 
recognizable parts and derivatives. The draft resolution was not 
adopted. Instead, a number of decisions were adopted that directed the 
Animals Committee (Decision Nos. 11.103-105) to identify and evaluate 
certain aspects of biological samples, and directed the Standing 
Committee (Decision Nos.

[[Page 66480]]

11.87-11.88) to consult with the Secretariat of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity and to make recommendations on enforcement and 
implementation of trade in these types of samples for COP12. The United 
States participated in a working group of the Standing Committee. We 
think it is important to find simplified permitting and inspection 
procedures to allow for the timely movement of biological samples, both 
for scientific research and for commercial trade in high-volume 
appendix-II specimens.
52. Movements of Collections of Samples
(a) Movement of Sample Reptile Skins and Other Related Products (Doc. 
52.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    This document proposes the establishment of procedures that would 
allow shipments of sample products, such as shoes or belts, to be moved 
across international borders for the purpose of displaying the samples 
at trade shows or exhibitions. The United States is interested in 
developing a system that would allow for easier movement of such 
samples in cases where the sample would be used to generate legitimate 
sustainable trade in appendix II species, where the sample is not for 
sale while outside of its originating country, and would be returned to 
the originating country at the conclusion of the trade show or 
exhibition.
(b) Use of Certificates for Movements of Sample Collections, Covered by 
an ATA or TIR Carnet and Made of Parts or Derivatives of Species 
Included in Appendices II and III (Doc. 52.2; Italy and Switzerland)
    Tentative negotiating position: Support, if changes can be made to 
adapt the system so it can be implemented in Parties like the United 
States.
    The United States recognizes the need to streamline the 
administrative procedures required for the cross-border movement of 
these sample products. In addition, adoption of this proposal could 
potentially be beneficial to exporting countries, and the United 
States, in terms of showcasing their products and fostering trade in 
products harvested from sustainable ranching or sound management 
practices, while still adhering to the conservation requirements for 
CITES-listed species. The current version of this draft document and 
resolution contains some proposed items that are not compatible with 
U.S. regulations and permitting and enforcement procedures. The United 
States intends to address these issues with the proposing Parties 
during a working group at COP12 in an attempt to find a workable 
solution and adopt a resolution that will meet the needs of all of 
those that can legally implement such a system.
53. Trade Regimes for Timber Species (Doc. 53)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, the document for this issue 
was not yet available from the Secretariat. Once we receive the 
document, we will review it closely and develop a tentative negotiating 
position for COP12.
    At COP11, the Parties directed the Secretariat in Decision 11.155 
to investigate the potential for silvicultural techniques to provide 
useful bases for establishing trade regimes for timber species. At its 
10th meeting (Shepherdstown, West Virginia, December 2000), the Plants 
Committee agreed that timber coming from managed natural forests should 
be regarded as ``wild,'' because the current CITES definition of 
``artificially propagated'' could not be applied, owing to the absence 
of ``controlled conditions.'' It was also agreed that the Secretariat 
should further explore the subject and consider the possibility of 
creating a special source code for timber from silviculturally managed 
forests. At the 11th meeting of the Plants Committee (Langkawi, 
September 2001), it was agreed that the Secretariat would collate 
information on the definition of different production systems, source 
codes for silvicultural techniques, and certification of sustainably 
managed forests and the certification's compatibility with the 
scientific approach to making a non-detriment finding. The United 
States did not support the Secretariat's proposal, and cautioned that 
Scientific Authorities should not consider certification or eco-
labeling as a substitute for conducting rigorous reviews of all 
available information in making non-detriment findings. At the 12th 
meeting of the Plants Committee (Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2002), 
TRAFFIC International presented a proposal to conduct a study to assess 
the existing schemes for certification of sustainably managed forests 
and their compatibility with the scientific requirements of making a 
non-detriment finding for trade in appendix-II tree species. The Plants 
Committee did not agree to fund the proposed study, concluding that the 
evaluation of certification schemes should be postponed until such 
schemes are better defined. We expect that Doc. 53 will be the report 
of the Secretariat on the progress of the issue of trade regimes for 
timber species since the eleventh meeting of the CITES Conference of 
the Parties.

Exemptions and Special Trade Provisions

54. Trade in Personal Effects
(a) Trade in Personal Effects (Doc. 54.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    The United States would like to see the Parties address the issue 
of trade in personal effects. Currently, there is not a uniform 
approach to handling personal effects, even though Article VII, 
paragraph 3, of the Convention identifies an exemption for such items. 
The United States recognizes the personal effects exemption, as do many 
other Parties, but not every Party is implementing the exemption.
(b) Personal Effects Made of Crocodilian Leather (Doc. 54.2; Venezuela)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    This document identifies the problem of Parties implementing 
Article VII, paragraph 3, in an inconsistent manner, or not 
implementing it at all. The document points out that failing to allow 
the personal effects exemption may, in certain circumstances, have a 
negative effect on conservation efforts that have been put in place for 
crocodilian species. Venezuela has submitted a draft resolution that 
would define ``personal and household effects'' and stresses that 
Parties should amend their domestic laws and regulations to allow for 
the exemption outlined in Article VII, paragraph 3. The United States 
agrees with encouraging Parties to implement the exemption for personal 
effects. This document and Doc. 54.1 both address the same issue, 
however, this document focuses only on crocodilian products. The United 
States feels that if a resolution is adopted at COP12 it should address 
all personal

[[Page 66481]]

and household effects, not just crocodilian products.
55. Operations That Breed appendix-I Species in Captivity for 
Commercial Purposes
(a) Revision of Resolutions Conf. 8.15 and Conf. 11.14 on Guidelines 
for a Procedure To Register and Monitor Operations That Breed appendix-
I Animal Species for Commercial Purposes (Doc. 55.1)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    This document will probably consist of a report from the AC on its 
activities on preparation of Annex 3 of Resolution Conf. 11.14, which 
is to replace Resolution Conf. 8.15. At COP11, Parties adopted a 
resolution for the registration of commercial captive-breeding 
facilities for appendix-I animal species (Conf. 11.14 ). In addition, 
Decision 11.101 requested the AC to compile a list of appendix-I 
species that are critically endangered in the wild and/or known to be 
difficult to breed or keep in captivity (i.e., Annex 3).
    Under Conf. 11.14, facilities breeding appendix-I species for 
commercial purposes and included in Annex 3 must become registered with 
the CITES Secretariat, thus providing all Parties with an opportunity 
to comment on whether or not these operations should be registered. 
Facilities breeding appendix-I species not included in Annex 3 must 
register with their country's management authority, but are not 
required to be registered with the Secretariat or subject to 
consultation with other Parties, including range States. Once Annex 3 
is compiled, Conf. 11.14 will replace Conf. 8.15.
    At AC16, a working group produced by general consensus definitions 
for the terms ``critically endangered in the wild,'' ``difficult to 
keep,'' and ``difficult to breed.'' However, the members of the AC did 
not reach consensus about the proposed definition for ``critically 
endangered in the wild,'' so the matter was deferred to AC17.
    At AC17, the members of the AC agreed to conduct a pilot project to 
compile three alternative lists of appendix-I species that may be 
considered difficult to keep or breed in captivity, i.e., species that 
are categorized in the IUCN Red List 2000 as (1) critically endangered 
in the wild, (2) critically endangered or endangered in the wild, and 
(3) critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable in the wild. The 
AC decided to initially limit this exercise to the Reptilia, and to 
review the outcome of the project at AC18. The IUCN Crocodile 
Specialist Group (CSG) was later contracted by the Secretariat to 
conduct this review.
    At AC18, the CSG presented its report, which found that the 
alternative lists of Appendix-I reptiles difficult to keep or maintain 
in captivity would not differ significantly from the list of all 
reptile species currently listed in Appendix I. Furthermore, in a 
working group at AC18, most delegates agreed on the right of range 
States to place species in Annex 3. The working group concluded that 
further work was needed on the registration of Appendix-I breeding 
facilities for commercial purposes.
(b) Applications To Register Operations That Breed appendix-I Species 
in Captivity for Commercial Purposes (Doc. 55.2)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    This document may include a proposal from the United Kingdom to 
register a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) captive-breeding operation on 
Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands (United Kingdom). The Service is currently 
reviewing that application as requested by CITES Notification to the 
Parties No. 2002/039 (``Control of operations that breed Appendix-I 
species in captivity for commercial purposes'') issued by the 
Secretariat on June 24, 2002. We believe that the Parties may be asked 
to vote on this proposal at COP12 if any Party objects to the 
registration of the facility through the notification process, as 
described in Resolution Conf. 8.15.
56. Non-commercial Loan, Donation or Exchange of Museum and Herbarium 
Specimens (Doc. 56; United States)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Please see our Federal Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 
19207) for a discussion of why we submitted this document.
57. Traveling Live-animal Exhibitions (Doc. 57; Russian Federation)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    The document addresses concerns that the Russian Federation has 
about the current Resolution Conf. 8.16 and why this resolution does 
not cover all of the animals that the Federation would like to be 
covered by an exemption. The United States supported and continues to 
support the current resolution (Conf. 8.16). We believe that the 
resolution provides Parties with a mechanism to allow the international 
movement of animals that fall within the exemption provided by Article 
VII, paragraph 7, of the Convention. While there may be a need for 
better clarification of some aspects of the current resolution to 
assist Parties in the implementation of the resolution, we do not feel 
that any substantial changes are required. The revised resolution 
proposed by the Russian Federation goes beyond what is allowed under 
the Convention by giving an exemption to all animals within a traveling 
exhibition, including animals that were recently removed from the wild. 
The proposed revision would allow the exporting country to issue a 
document for any animal without addressing the no detriment criterion 
of Article III or IV. The United States could not support such a 
resolution.

Amendment of the Appendices

58. Criteria for Amendment of appendices I and II (Doc. 58)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    This document and its associated annexes were submitted by the 
Secretariat. This agenda item prompts the COP to decide on what should 
occur regarding review of Resolution Conf. 9.24, which contains the 
criteria for inclusion of species in appendices I and II. This document 
consists of five Annexes:
    Annex 1: Explanation of why the criteria review process concluded 
that the current Resolution Conf. 9.24 should be amended;
    Annex 2: The timeline for the review of the listing criteria from 
COP11 onwards;
    Annex 3: Explanation of the proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 
9.24;
    Annex 4: A ``clean'' version of the amended Resolution; and,
    Annex 5: The report on the review of Conf. 9.24 from the Chairmen 
of the Animals Committee and the Criteria Working Group (CWG) submitted 
to the Standing Committee (Annex 5a); and the report on the review of 
Conf. 9.24 from the Chairman of the Plants Committee (Annex 5b) 
submitted to the Standing Committee.
    The terms of reference for the review of the listing criteria 
(Decision 11.2)

[[Page 66482]]

specifically called for a consensus report to be developed by the 
Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees for COP12. However, the 
Chairs of the Animals and Plants Committees did not reach consensus on 
the appropriate revisions to the listing criteria. In Annex 5b, the 
Chair of the Plants Committee explains why she believes the terms of 
reference for the review of the listing criteria have been violated and 
why she, therefore, does not endorse the current revisions shown in 
Annex 4. The Chairs of the Animals Committee and the CWG provide their 
rebuttal to these arguments in Annex 5a.
    The terms of reference for the review of the listing criteria laid 
out a specific protocol for the Animals and Plants Committees to choose 
taxa (both listed and non-listed under CITES), evaluate them, and 
decide whether Conf. 9.24 was applicable and useful for analyzing their 
conservation status. This analysis was intended to guide the CWG in 
revising Annexes 1, 2, 5, and 6 to Conf. 9.24. The Chair of the Plants 
Committee claims that this process has largely been ignored, and is 
proposing that the COP advocate a process to continue the criteria 
review beyond COP12. The Animals Committee and CWG Chairs claim that 
the review complied with all the terms of reference. Their Chairs' 
rebuttal focuses largely on how Parties' comments were accommodated, 
timetable adherence, and the inclusion of the viewpoints of the 
fisheries experts in the final revisions. However, they do not discuss 
the issue of the missing taxon reviews.
    In our comments on CITES Notification to the Parties No. 2001/37 
and our interventions at the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee 
(SC46), we concurred with the Chair of the Plants Committee in that the 
taxon-specific reviews called for in the terms of reference had not 
occurred, excepting the standard review of the appendices (called for 
in Conf. 9.24) and the FAO work on marine species. In addition, 
Decision 11.2 specifically calls for examination of Annexes 1 and 2 
(appendix-I and appendix-II listing criteria), the definitions in Annex 
5, and the species proposal format shown in Annex 6. There is no 
mandate to the CWG for revision of the precautionary principle nor the 
``special cases'' described in Annexes 3 and 4 of Conf. 9.24. However, 
the Chairs of the CWG and the Animals Committee have twice proposed 
substantial changes to these Annexes. There has been no formal 
discussion in the Animals and Plants Committees of how the criteria and 
the terminology of Conf. 9.24 specifically apply to various taxa of 
plants and animals (except for one presentation on fisheries 
methodology made at the December 2000 joint meeting of the two 
committees in Shepherdstown, West Virginia). This places the Parties in 
the uncomfortable position of changing the criteria without an analysis 
of their current strengths and weaknesses.
    Nonetheless, the United States has invested significant amounts of 
time and money in the criteria review process, including participation 
in both CWG meetings, hosting the joint Animals and Plants Committee 
meeting, reviewing several taxa in the periodic Review of the 
Appendices, and critically evaluating Conf. 9.24 for marine species. We 
believe that the reports now available to the COP reflect significant 
effort and thought on behalf of the Chairmen and the Parties, and 
explore many important aspects of the current listing criteria. 
Furthermore, we believe that the fundamental principles and 
precautionary approaches laid down by the Parties in Conf. 9.24 remain 
intact in the final revisions. The current suggested revisions (with 
noted exceptions) serve mainly to clarify terminology and harmonize 
Conf. 9.24 with other resolutions. It is our position that the Parties 
should seek to retain the aspects of the review that appear to have the 
support of a majority of Parties, but consider continuing the review of 
Resolution Conf. 9.24 to fulfill the original terms of reference.
59. Amendment of the Appendices With Regard to Populations (Doc. 59)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
60. Annotations for Medicinal Plants in the Appendices (Doc. 60)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    Annotations of the listings of medicinal plants in the Appendices 
have been a topic of discussion at recent meetings of the Plants 
Committee, and we anticipate that this agenda item may be related to 
these proceedings. The focus of these discussions is the accuracy of 
terms used in the annotations and the lack of consistency of 
terminology used in the annotations. At the eleventh meeting of the 
Plants Committee, the United States prepared a document containing 
definitions of various terms used in medicinal plant annotations. This 
work was continued to the twelfth meeting of the Plants Committee, but 
was not completed. The United States will support any effort to ensure 
that annotations of medicinal plants listed in the Appendices are 
accurate as to the parts or products referred to, and will also support 
efforts to harmonize terms used for different plants when the same part 
or product is covered by annotations.

Other Themes and Issues

61. Establishment of a Working Group To Analyse Relevant Aspects of the 
Application of CITES to Marine Species (Doc. 61; Chile)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support but note budgetary 
concerns and possible duplication of effort if an implementation 
committee or sub-committee is formed.
    This draft resolution proposes that a Working Group on Marine 
Species be established by the CITES Animals Committee to provide 
technical procedures and recommendations to promote the effective 
application of CITES for marine species. Chile proposes that the group 
could develop a definition of ``introduction from the sea'' in 
accordance with provisions of international laws or agreements, 
including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 
(UNCLOS). This group would be a venue for discussion of technical 
questions from the FAO Committee on Fisheries, and could recommend a 
procedure for effective collaboration with other international 
organizations responsible for marine species.
    The United States recognizes the need for input into the CITES 
process from fisheries resource managers and has submitted a document 
(Doc. 16.2.2) asking the CITES Parties to suggest means for developing 
and finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CITES and 
FAO. Such an MOU would facilitate exchange of information and technical 
advice on CITES provisions and requirements related to any listed 
commercially traded fish species.
    The United States supports the goal of Chile's resolution, although 
we have not developed clear positions on all of the specifics and 
implications of such a group. The United States believes that such a 
Working Group should report to the Standing Committee, as did the

[[Page 66483]]

Timber Working Group, rather than to the Animals Committee. The United 
States believes that if such a working group were to be established, 
its subject matter should be limited to marine fish and invertebrate 
species only. Finally, the United States is concerned about the 
budgetary implications of such a Working Group and whether it would 
impose additional work burdens on the Secretariat.
62. Bushmeat (Decision 11.166)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This document was prepared by the CITES Secretariat, and summarizes 
the activities of the CITES Bushmeat Working Group (CBWG) since COP11. 
Decision 11.166 called for the establishment of a working group of 
interested range and donor States to examine issues raised by the trade 
in bushmeat, with the aim of identifying solutions that can be 
implemented by the range States. The CBWG consists of representatives 
from Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. Supported in part by 
grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the CBWG has met 
several times since COP11 to review the status of the bushmeat trade 
and develop a framework for implementing priority actions. The document 
contains a draft Decision calling for the maintenance of the CBWG until 
COP13. In light of the impressive accomplishments of the CBWG since 
COP11, the United States supports the maintenance of the working group 
until COP13.
63. The Rescue of Dependent Apes From War Zones (Doc. 63; Kenya)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support as long as the 
countries involved in such trade ensure such an exemption does not 
allow or encourage illegal trade of primates.
    The document proposes an exemption to CITES permitting requirements 
in order to evacuate captive great apes from war zones to other 
countries when no alternative refuges are available in the country 
where they are being kept. Evacuated apes would be transferred to the 
nearest available government-approved and professionally accredited 
sanctuary on a temporary basis until long-term welfare of the animal 
can be assured in the country of export. To be eligible for this 
exemption the animal must be in captivity and need human care that may 
become unavailable due to wartime conditions, the transfer must be 
completely non-commercial, and the transfer must be carried out under 
the direction of the CITES Management and Scientific Authorities of 
both countries under a system established by the CITES Secretariat. At 
this time, the proposal only directs the Secretariat to establish a 
system by which Parties could implement this procedure. This system 
would then be incorporated into a proposal to be presented at a later 
COP for final approval. The United States suggests that if a permanent 
implementation body is formed within the Convention that this issue be 
referred to that body for resolution.
    The United States agrees that great apes, which are all listed in 
appendix I of CITES, should be afforded the maximum protection 
available. The United States supports the proposed resolution to direct 
the Secretariat to establish a system, to be presented at a later COP, 
to temporarily transfer imperiled captive great apes out of war zones 
to nearby institutions. The United States suggests that the Parties 
have final approval to ensure that CITES safeguards are being enforced 
and that the specifications for transfer of specimens detailed above 
are met.
64. Trade in Traditional Medicines (Doc. 64)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, until documents are 
available for review.
    At the time this notice was prepared, a document was not yet 
available from the Secretariat. Once we receive a document on this 
agenda item, we will review it closely and develop a tentative 
negotiating position for COP12.
    Both the Plants and Animals Committees were directed to review the 
trade in CITES-listed species for traditional medicines. Neither 
committee was able to fully carry out this investigation, due to a lack 
of basic information on the many ingredients and uses of CITES-listed 
species parts and derivatives in traditional medicines, worldwide. 
Decision 11.165, adopted at COP11, directed the Secretariat to compile 
an inventory of operations where artificial propagation or captive 
breeding of CITES species is conducted for medicinal purposes, and to 
continue developing the list of species of plants and animals and their 
parts traded for medicinal purposes.
65. Publicity Materials (Doc. 65)
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This document provides a review of Decision 11.131 and actions that 
have been taken since COP11 to meet its requirements. This decision 
directed the Secretariat to develop a work plan to prepare publicity 
materials for animal and plant species included in the Appendices. In 
addition to serving in an advisory capacity to Parties wishing to 
develop outreach materials, the Secretariat has taken other actions to 
fulfill its duties in regard to this decision. The Secretariat has 
produced a brochure for public distribution and for use in workshops to 
create general awareness of the aims of CITES and animals and plants 
included in its Appendices. The Secretariat has also changed the focus 
of its newsletter, CITES World, to provide articles that highlight 
initiatives taken by Parties on issues of importance to all Parties. In 
future outreach materials, the Secretariat plans to highlight the 
positive effects of CITES on the conservation and sustainable 
utilization of wild species. The United States supports efforts by the 
Secretariat and all Parties to increase public awareness of the animals 
and plants listed in the CITES Appendices and the functioning of CITES.

Consideration of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II

66. Proposals to Amend appendices I and II (Doc. 66)
    Prop. 1. Amendment of Annotation 607 to read: ``The following are 
not subject to the provisions of the Convention: (a) synthetically 
derived DNA that does not contain any part of the original; (b) urine 
and feces; (c) synthetically produced medicines and other 
pharmaceutical products such as vaccines that do not contain any part 
of the original genetic material from which they are derived; and (d) 
fossils. Submitted by Switzerland.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    The United States was a member of a working group established by 
the CITES Standing Committee at its 45th meeting. The working group was 
charged, in part, with identifying types of samples that may be 
considered as not subject to the provisions of the Convention. This 
proposal from Switzerland reflects the agreement reached by that 
working group. We believe that exempting these four classes of 
specimens will have no impact on the conservation of CITES-listed 
species. However, we also believe that there may be a need to clearly 
define some of these terms, such as ``fossil,'' to ensure that such an 
exemption is uniformly applied by the Parties.
    Prop. 2. Annotation of taxa Agapornis spp. (lovebirds), Platycercus 
spp. (rosellas and parakeets), Barnardius spp. (rosellas and 
parakeets), Cyanoramphus auriceps (yellow-crowned parakeet),

[[Page 66484]]

Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (New Zealand parakeet), Psittacula eupatria 
(Alexandrine parakeet), Psittacula krameri (ring-necked parakeet), and 
Padda oryzivora (Java sparrow) with the following text: Color morphs 
produced by captive breeding are considered as being of a domesticated 
form and are therefore not subject to the provisions of the Convention. 
Submitted by Switzerland.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The species listed in this proposal are frequently bred in 
captivity to produce color morphs (i.e., mutations). Switzerland 
submitted a discussion paper at the first European Regional Meeting of 
the CITES Animals Committee (November 2001) noting that managing the 
trade in these birds requires significant resources and has little or 
no relevance to conservation of wild populations of these species. The 
United States seeks input on whether or not some color morphs in the 
proposed species might be difficult to distinguish from normal-colored 
wild stock as well as on whether the proposal is permissible given the 
definition of specimen in Article I of the Convention. We also question 
the rationale for referring to these as ``domesticated,'' since normal-
colored specimens of these species might actually have been bred in 
captivity for more generations than color morphs, but under this 
proposal would not be exempted as ``domesticated.''
    Prop. 3. Transfer of Black Sea bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 
truncatus ponticus) from appendix II to appendix I. Submitted by 
Georgia.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) were included in appendix 
II on June 28, 1979, and are distributed worldwide in temperate and 
tropical waters. The subspecies Tursiops truncatus ponticus is endemic 
to the Black Sea, isolated from other populations of bottlenose 
dolphins in the Mediterranean and other waters. Black Sea bottlenose 
dolphins look almost identical to those from other regions, and their 
genetic distinctness is unknown. At COP11, the United States withdrew a 
proposal to transfer the subspecies to appendix I when Georgia (co-
sponsor and range country) could not attend. It is believed that 
overall abundance of dolphins in the Black Sea has declined greatly due 
to over-exploitation into the 1980s for human consumption and 
industrial products. A large purse-seine fishery conducted by the 
former Soviet Union, Bulgaria, and Romania collapsed in the 1960s due 
to over-harvest, and large takes by rifle continued by Turkey until a 
ban in 1983. The proponents state that the population meets two of the 
biological criteria for inclusion in appendix I from CITES Resolution 
Conf. 9.24, Annex 1:
    Criteria B: The wild population has a restricted area of 
distribution and is characterized by (iii) a high vulnerability due to 
the species' biology or behavior, and (iv) an observed, inferred or 
projected decrease in the number of individuals, area or quality of 
habitat, and reproductive potential.
    Criteria C (iii): A decline in the number of individuals in the 
wild, which has been inferred or projected on the basis of levels of 
patterns of exploitation, and threats from extrinsic factors such as 
the effects of pathogens, competitors, parasites, predators, 
hybridization, introduced species, and the effects of toxins and 
pollutants.
    In our Federal Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207), we 
generally agreed with this assessment, noting the multitude of threats 
to wild Black Sea bottlenose dolphins. The exact size of the Black Sea 
population is unknown, and no estimates exist of sustainable levels of 
take. As signatories to the Bern Convention, range countries Bulgaria, 
Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine have all banned possession and internal 
trade in T. truncatus. In addition, the Parties to the Bern Convention 
adopted a resolution in November 2001 urging that this subspecies be 
transferred to appendix I of CITES. The Agreement on the Conservation 
of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Contiguous 
Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS) adopted a similar resolution at a meeting in 
February 2002, and both of these resolutions were forwarded to the 
CITES Animals Committee. The Animals Committee could not agree on the 
biological status of the Black Sea population, and has not endorsed or 
rejected the idea of listing in appendix I. Furthermore, the genetic 
distinctiveness of Black Sea bottlenose has yet to be determined. 
Geneticists with the National Marine Fisheries Service are currently 
working to obtain Black Sea bottlenose dolphin tissue specimens from 
range countries, and will make genetic comparisons between these 
samples and those from other bottlenose dolphin populations during the 
summer of 2003. Listing subspecies in any CITES appendix is discouraged 
by Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Criteria for amendment of appendices I and 
II), unless the taxon in question is highly distinctive and use of the 
subspecies name would not lead to enforcement problems.
    The United States will strive to obtain samples to complete genetic 
analysis on Black Sea bottlenose dolphins to help bolster the 
biological rationale for listing the population separately in appendix 
I. This issue notwithstanding, the other factors and criteria mentioned 
above suggest that the Black Sea bottlenose dolphin qualifies for 
uplisting to appendix I.
    Props. 4 and 5. Prop. 4: Northern hemisphere minke whale 
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata)--Proposal for transfer from appendix I to 
appendix II (except the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and Sea of Japan 
populations) with annotation. Prop. 5: Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera 
edeni)--Proposal for transfer from appendix I to appendix II of the 
western North Pacific population, with annotation. Both proposals 
submitted by Japan.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating positions: Oppose.
    Japan has proposed to downlist these populations of minke and 
Bryde's whales in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4. Japan 
has also submitted lengthy annotations for each downlisting, which 
would among other things: (1) restrict trade to International Whaling 
Commission (IWC) signatory governments that also have ``an effective 
DNA register system'' for whale products; (2) govern catch levels by 
using the International Whaling Commission Revised Management 
Procedure; (3) establish export quotas; and (4) require DNA profiles to 
accompany specimens in trade. The following discussion addresses both 
proposals.
    The United States opposes the downlisting of these populations of 
whales, which are subject to IWC moratorium on commercial whaling. The 
United States continues to believe that it is inappropriate to consider 
these species for downlisting until the IWC completes its revised 
management scheme in order to implement a monitoring and inspection 
program for commercial whaling, as discussed below. The United States 
also believes that these species do not qualify for transfer to 
appendix II. The discussion that follows relates to all four of these 
proposals.
    The United States believes that CITES should honor the request for 
assistance in enforcing the moratorium that the IWC communicated to the 
CITES Parties in a resolution passed at the Special Meeting of the IWC 
in Tokyo in December 1978. This request was answered by the CITES 
Parties in Resolution Conf. 2.9 (``Trade in Certain Species and Stocks 
of Whales Protected by the International Whaling

[[Page 66485]]

Commission from Commercial Whaling''), which calls on the Parties to 
``agree not to issue any import or export permit or certificate'' for 
introduction from the sea under CITES for primarily commercial purposes 
``for any specimen of a species or stock protected from commercial 
whaling by the International Convention for the Regulation of 
Whaling.'' Resolution Conf. 2.9 was overwhelmingly reaffirmed by the 
Parties at COP10, 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.'' Support for these requests of the IWC 
necessitate opposition to any proposal to transfer whale stocks to 
appendix II.
    Additionally, according to Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4, 
Precautionary Measures, paragraph 2.B. a. ``[e]ven if such species do 
not satisfy the relevant criteria in Annex 1, they should be retained 
in Appendix I unless * * * the species is likely to be in demand for 
trade, but its management is such that the Conference of the Parties is 
satisfied * * * with (i) implementation by the range States of the 
requirements of the Convention, in particular Article IV; and (ii) 
appropriate enforcement controls and compliance with the requirements 
of the Convention.'' Unfortunately, these ``appropriate enforcement 
controls,'' as part of a Revised Management Scheme, have not yet been 
adopted by the IWC. Therefore, these whale stocks do not qualify for 
transfer to appendix II under Resolution Conf. 9.24.
    The assumption in the downlisting proposal for these populations of 
minke and Bryde's whales is that there are discrete genetic differences 
within species and between individuals, and that species stocks and 
individuals can be readily differentiated by forensic DNA methods. The 
United States disagrees scientifically with the statement that the 
precautionary measures of Resolution Conf. 9.24 Annex 4 are fulfilled 
because DNA analysis techniques allow for the identification of whale 
stocks, and even individual whales. This is not the case, as the 
experts who have developed these methods will attest and the scientific 
literature reinforces. While clear markers differentiate species, 
finding forensic markers for all individuals within a population or 
stock is much more problematic. Doing so is usually possible only when 
the population distinctiveness approaches that of species. Thus, a DNA 
analysis would not distinguish between minke whales listed in appendix 
I and minke whales listed in appendix II. Appropriate safeguards to 
prevent trade in whales listed in appendix I would not exist, if some 
whales of that species could be traded under appendix II.
    Moreover, the use of Japanese and Norwegian DNA registers that are 
not available for scrutiny by other whale DNA experts is counter to all 
principles of forensic identification. Only when there is agreement on 
DNA markers, tested against adequate sample sizes of the whale stocks 
in question, could they be utilized for verification purposes. This 
research may show significant evolutionary units within some stocks, 
and it may also show significant gene flow between stocks, thus, making 
forensic identification of meat samples to particular stocks 
impossible. Full transparency, accuracy, and availability of all DNA 
markers is essential to the IWC, and the United States does not believe 
these are available at this time. The lack of public scrutiny of 
Japanese and Norwegian DNA registries renders them an ineffective tool 
for monitoring whale catches.
    The previous IWC management regime was not effective in managing 
the whaling industry. While it was in place, the whaling industry 
drastically depleted whale stocks until many became threatened with 
extinction. There has been illegal, unregulated, and unreported 
harvesting of whale stocks by certain IWC member nations. Since the 
establishment of the worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling, 
coupled with the CITES appendix-I listings, the Commission has 
continued to work on activities that the United States believes must be 
completed before commercial whaling can even be considered. This 
management regime must include devising an observation and monitoring 
program to ensure that quotas are not exceeded and whale products are 
legally obtained. Thus, the United States opposes even considering the 
downlisting of any whale species until the IWC has taken steps to 
create and institutionalize a revised management regime that brings all 
whaling under effective IWC monitoring and control.
    Prop. 6. Maintain the Botswana population of the African elephant 
(Loxodonta africana) in appendix II, with annotations for trade. 
Submitted by Botswana.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Botswana's African elephant population was transferred to appendix 
II at COP10, with an annotation that, among other aspects, allowed for 
a one-time sale of ivory stocks to Japan. Botswana has proposed to 
amend that annotation to allow for commercial trade in government-owned 
stocks of ivory to ``CITES-approved trading partners who will not re-
export ivory,'' with a one-off quota of 20,000 kg of ivory and an 
annual quota of 4,000 kg of ivory. Other amendments to the annotation 
include allowing export of hides, leather goods, and ivory carvings. We 
are continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the context of all 
proposals relevant to the African elephant (Proposals 6-11), and 
relevant documents (Documents 20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). All of the 
relevant documents to be evaluated at COP12 dealing with ivory trade 
have not yet been received, and we are continuing to evaluate the 
impact of decisions and proposals adopted at COP10 and COP11. Recent 
reports indicate that illegal trade in ivory is continuing and may pose 
a significant threat to some elephant populations. Because the 
monitoring systems have not yet provided significant data on the 
effects of this trade, we remain very concerned about the potential 
effects a legal trade could have on poaching in other countries in 
Africa and Asia.
    Prop. 7. Maintain the Namibian population of the African elephant 
(Loxodonta africana) in appendix II, with annotations for trade. 
Submitted by Namibia.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Namibia's population of African elephants was transferred to 
appendix II at COP10, with an annotation that, among other aspects, 
allowed for a one-time sale of ivory stocks to Japan. Namibia has 
proposed to amend that annotation to allow for commercial trade in 
government-owned registered stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and 
pieces), to ``trading partners that have been verified by the CITES 
Secretariat to have sufficient national legislation and domestic trade 
controls to ensure that ivory imported from Namibia will not be re-
exported and will be managed according to all requirements of 
Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.) concerning domestic manufacturing and 
trade,'' with a one-time export quota of 10,000 kg of ivory and an 
annual quota of 2,000 kg of ivory. The proposal also includes allowing 
trade in leather and ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes and 
trade in hides. We are continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the 
context of all proposals relevant to

[[Page 66486]]

the African elephant (12.6-12.11), and relevant documents (Documents 
20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). All of the relevant documents to be evaluated 
at COP12 dealing with ivory trade have not yet been received, and we 
are continuing to evaluate the impact of decisions and proposals 
adopted at COP10 and COP11. Recent reports indicate that illegal trade 
in ivory is continuing and may pose a significant threat to some 
elephant populations. Because the monitoring systems have not yet 
provided significant data on the effects of the ivory trade, we remain 
very concerned about the potential effects any legal trade could have 
on poaching in other countries in Africa and Asia.
    Prop. 8. Maintain the South African population of the African 
elephant (Loxodonta africana) in appendix II, with annotations for 
trade. Submitted by South Africa.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The South African population of African elephant was transferred 
from appendix I to appendix II in 1997, subject to Annotation 604. The 
latter allows for trade in live animals for reintroduction purposes, 
trade in hides and leather goods, non-commercial trade in hunting 
trophies, and a zero quota for government-owned raw ivory originating 
from Kruger National Park. This proposal allows for an initial sale of 
the Kruger National Park stockpile of ivory (30,000 kg of whole tusks 
and cut pieces) and a subsequent annual quota of two tons. We are 
continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the context of all proposals 
relevant to the African elephant (Proposals 6-11), and relevant 
documents (Documents 20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). All of the relevant 
documents to be evaluated at COP12 dealing with ivory trade have not 
yet been received at the time this notice was prepared, and we are 
continuing to evaluate the impact of decisions and proposals adopted at 
COP10 and COP11. Recent reports indicate that illegal trade in ivory is 
continuing and may pose a significant threat to some elephant 
populations. Because the monitoring systems have not yet provided 
significant data on the effects of the ivory trade, we remain very 
concerned about the potential effects any legal trade could have on 
poaching in other countries in Africa and Asia.
    Prop. 9. Downlist the Zambian population of the African elephant 
(Loxodonta africana) from appendix I to appendix II, with annotations 
for trade. Submitted by Zambia.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Zambia proposes to downlist its population of African elephant to 
appendix II with an annotation to permit trade in up to 17,000 kg of 
whole tusks owned by Zambia's Wildlife Authority and live sales under 
special circumstances. Revenue would be used for conservation purposes. 
We are continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the context of all 
proposals relevant to the African elephant (Proposals 6-11), and 
relevant documents (Documents 20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). All of the 
relevant documents to be evaluated at COP12 dealing with ivory trade 
have not yet been received, and we are continuing to evaluate the 
impact of decisions and proposals adopted at COP10 and COP 11.
    Prop. 10. Maintain the Zimbabwe population of the African elephant 
(Loxodonta africana) in appendix II, with annotations for trade. 
Submitted by Zimbabwe.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Zimbabwe's population of African elephant was transferred to 
appendix II at COP10, with an annotation that, among other aspects, 
allowed for a one-time sale of ivory stocks to Japan. Zimbabwe has 
proposed to amend that annotation to allow for commercial trade in 
stocks of raw ivory (whole tusks and pieces) ``to trading partners that 
have been verified by the CITES Secretariat to have sufficient national 
legislation and domestic trade controls,'' with a one-time export quota 
of 10,000 kg of ivory and an annual export quota of 5,000 kg of ivory. 
We are continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the context of all 
proposals relevant to the African elephant (Proposals 6-11), and 
relevant documents (Documents 20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). All of the 
relevant documents to be evaluated at COP12 dealing with ivory trade 
have not yet been received at the time this notice was prepared, and we 
are continuing to evaluate the impact of decisions and proposals 
adopted at COP10 and COP11. Recent reports indicate that illegal trade 
in ivory is continuing and may pose a significant threat to some 
elephant populations. Because the monitoring systems have not yet 
provided significant data on the effects of the ivory trade, we remain 
very concerned about the potential effects any legal trade could have 
on poaching in other countries in Africa and Asia.
    Prop. 11. Transfer to appendix I all populations of African 
elephant (Loxodonta africana) currently listed in appendix II. 
Submitted by India and Kenya.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    We are continuing to evaluate this proposal, in the context of all 
proposals relevant to the African elephant (Proposals 6-11), and 
relevant documents (Documents 20.1, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3). These issues are 
very complex. All of the relevant documents to be evaluated at COP12 
dealing with ivory trade have not yet been received at the time this 
notice was prepared, and we are continuing to evaluate the impact of 
decisions and proposals adopted at COP10 and COP11. We note that this 
proposal has a wider scope of effect than the other proposals (see 
Proposals 6-11, above), since it would return all African elephant 
populations to appendix I and obviate any of the extant annotations. 
Since its adoption would make the other proposals (Proposals 6-10) 
moot, and it has a wider scope of effect, we note that the COP should 
discuss this one prior to discussing the other African elephant-related 
proposals.
    Prop. 12. Transfer from appendix I to appendix II of the population 
of vicuna (Vicugna vicugna) of the Province of Catamarca, Argentina, 
for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in wool 
sheared from live animals, cloth, derived manufactured products, and 
other handicraft artifacts bearing the label ``VICUNA--ARGENTINA.'' 
Submitted by Argentina.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Although the United States has several concerns about this 
proposal, our tentative position is to support it. The United States 
has longstanding concerns about the so-called ``semi-captive'' 
management of vicuna in Argentina, and we are not particularly 
supportive of its proliferation. (Although the so-called ``semi-
captive'' populations of Catamarca Province were downlisted at a 
previous COP, the CITES community has never seen an actual list of all 
such populations in Catamarca or elsewhere in Argentina for that 
matter. It may be the first instance where CITES actually agreed to 
downlist a taxon without a complete description of what was actually 
being down-listed.) This concern notwithstanding, we believe that the 
best way to counteract the proliferation of this management approach is 
to encourage the management of wild vicuna populations. This proposal 
does that. We are also concerned with the piecemeal approach that 
Argentina has taken in approaching down-listing of its vicuna 
populations. While this approach may be considered ``precautionary,'' 
it is in conflict with Annex 3 of Resolution Conf. 9.24 with regard to 
split-listings. There are

[[Page 66487]]

obvious enforcement problems associated with subnational split 
listings. We would encourage Argentina to pursue an approach and 
timetable that would allow the remainder of its national population to 
be down-listed at a future COP.
    Prop. 13. Transfer to appendix II of the Bolivian populations of 
vicuna (Vicugna vicugna) in appendix I, in accordance with Article II, 
paragraph 2 (a), of the Convention, with the exclusive purpose of 
allowing international trade in products made from wool sheared from 
live animals and bearing the label ``VICUNA--BOLIVIA.'' Submitted by 
Bolivia.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The United States has several concerns about this proposal. We note 
that 73% of Bolivia's vicuna population occurs in areas that have 
already been downlisted to appendix II. There has been very little 
growth in the vicuna population of other management units. In fact, 
only one other area has had a clear population increase, based on data 
in Table 2 of the proposal. Only 15,500 vicunas occur outside these 
three units. We further note that Bolivia has not yet exported any 
cloth produced from vicuna, although this has been legal for more than 
two years. This is not an encouraging sign. Finally, we note that 
Bolivia has established a so-called ``semi-captive'' population for 
investigative purposes. In its proposal submitted to COP 11, Bolivia 
stated that it would only manage its vicuna as wild populations. We 
would like Bolivia to clarify its intention with regard to this ``semi-
captive'' population. Finally, we have consistently received reports 
that poaching is a problem in Bolivia, and that poaching by Bolivian 
nationals is a problem in adjacent countries, especially Argentina and 
Chile. Our tentative position is that the proposal needs to be amended 
before it can be supported. Bolivia needs to establish a cautious 
national quota that emphasizes harvest from the three populations 
already in appendix II. Therefore, the U.S. negotiating position is 
currently undecided.
    Prop. 14. Transfer from appendix I to appendix II of the population 
of vicuna (Vicugna vicugna) in the Primera Region of Chile through a 
modification of annotations -106 and + 211. Submitted by Chile.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The United States also has concerns about this proposal. As with 
the Argentinian proposal, we are concerned about so-called ``semi-
captive'' management of vicu[ntilde]a, and we are not particularly 
supportive of its proliferation. The Chilean proposal does not 
adequately address how so-called ``semi-captive'' management will 
contribute to the conservation of wild vicuna populations in Chile. 
Without such an explanation, it is difficult to support this proposal. 
Therefore, the U.S. negotiating position is undecided at the time this 
notice was prepared.
    Prop. 15. Transfer of the Chilean populations of lesser rhea (Rhea 
pennata pennata = Pterocnemia pennata pennata) from appendix I to 
appendix II. Submitted by Chile.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This subspecies is found in southern Chile and southern Argentina. 
Based on survey data conducted since 1996, Chile estimates that around 
50,000 lesser rheas currently exist in the entire country. Density 
estimates have increased from 1.55 adults per square kilometer in 1997 
to 5.13 in 2000. Illegal trade in the subspecies does not constitute a 
threat to the subspecies. Under the Chilean Hunting Law, the ownership, 
transport, and trade of any part, product, or specimen of lesser rhea 
is prohibited, unless it originates from an authorized breeding 
facility. If its proposal is adopted, Chile would allow trade only in 
lesser rhea specimens originating from captive-breeding operations 
registered with Chilean authorities. All captive-bred animals will be 
individually identified with microchips. Other subspecies of the rhea 
appear to be distinguishable through physical traits. Therefore, the 
United States believes that this species qualifies for transfer to 
appendix II according to Resolution Conf. 9.24, as well as the 
precautionary measures of Annex 4, B.2.b. Argentina, the only other 
range state, with over 1.6 million wild specimens of this subspecies 
and whose lesser rhea population was downlisted to appendix II at 
COP11, supports Chile's proposal.
    Prop. 16. Transfer of the yellow-naped amazon (Amazona 
auropalliata) from appendix II to appendix I. Submitted by Costa Rica.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    This species is considered threatened or endangered by its six 
range countries (Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, 
and Costa Rica). Whereas international trade of the species is legally 
prohibited in all range countries, except Nicaragua where it is under a 
quota system, wild populations continue to decline due to intense 
habitat loss, illegal international pet trade, and domestic use as a 
popular pet species. In some areas, wild populations have been 
completely extirpated. The United States seeks range country input and 
additional data on the status of wild populations and trade before 
reaching a decision on this proposal.
    Prop. 17. Transfer of yellow-headed amazon (Amazona oratrix) from 
appendix II to appendix I. Submitted by Mexico.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This species is found in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico, 
with the largest segment of its range occurring along the southern 
coasts of Mexico. This species may number fewer than 7,000 birds and is 
considered endangered by IUCN. It may have declined by over 90% 
throughout its range since the 1970s. Over 70% of its subtropical 
habitat has been lost due to deforestation. Nestlings are usually 
captured for domestic and international trade, often resulting in the 
felling of trees that contain nest cavities. This species was the most 
confiscated parrot species between 1998 and 2000 at the U.S.-Mexican 
border. All of the range countries have either prohibited or restricted 
international trade. However, domestic and illegal trade of this 
popular pet species continues. Because its continued decline is linked 
to trade, and the proposal originates from the range country that 
contains the largest populations of this species, the United States 
supports this proposal. We also note that the United States has 
considered submitting a similar proposal in the past.
    Prop. 18. Transfer of blue-headed macaw (Ara couloni) from appendix 
II to appendix I. Submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany on 
behalf of the Member States of the European Community.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The species is distributed in Peru, western Brazil, and north-
western Bolivia. The last global population estimate was about 10,000 
birds in 1990. More recent reports indicate that the species is local 
and erratic in occurrence, but locally common, and perhaps expanding 
its range. However, the species does have a low rate of reproduction, 
and an increase in legal and illegal trade throughout the range may be 
contributing to its decline. Habitat destruction is also a threat in 
Bolivia. Brazil is evaluating this species to determine whether or not 
it qualifies as endangered fauna and, thus, should receive strict 
national protection. It is not protected in Peru and Bolivia. There 
appears to be little population monitoring and management in the range 
countries. The Brazilian

[[Page 66488]]

Management and Scientific Authorities and the Bolivian Scientific 
Authority support this proposal. The Brazilian Management Authority is 
also a co-proponent. Because of the support of the range countries and 
the increase in commercial trade, the United States may support this 
proposal, but would like more information on the status of the species 
to determine whether it qualifies for Appendix I biologically.
    Prop. 19. Transfer of the South African population of the Cape 
parrot (Poicephalus robustus) from appendix II to appendix I. Submitted 
by the Republic of South Africa.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    The Cape parrot is locally distributed in the Eastern Cape, 
KwaZulu-Natal, and Limpopo provinces of South Africa. It is dependent 
on afromontane yellowwood forest for feeding, breeding, and nesting. 
Due to logging pressure, afromontane yellowwood forests have become 
fragmented, reduced, or eliminated. Lack of nesting sites and foraging 
opportunities have resulted in population declines. An annual census 
throughout the range identified only 396 birds in 2000 and 358 in 2001. 
The birds are also vulnerable to capture and shooting when natural food 
abundance is low and birds move into pecan orchards. Domestic trade for 
pets and traditional medicines is greater than international trade in 
this species; there is no legal international trade from South Africa. 
There is, however, some illegal trade due to the value of the species 
to collectors because of its rarity. Poaching for the illegal trade may 
be a greater risk to the remaining flocks in the short-term than 
habitat loss. Because the population of this species is small and 
fragmented, habitat loss and illegal trade threaten the survival of the 
species, and the range country has issued the proposal, the United 
States supports this proposal.
    Props. 20-29, 31, and 32. Inclusion in appendix II of several 
species of Asian freshwater turtles: Prop. 20--Platysternon 
megacephalum (submitted by China and the United States); Prop. 21--
Annamemys annamensis (submitted by China and Germany); Prop. 22--
Heosemys spp. (submitted by China and Germany); Prop. 23--Hieremys 
annandalii (submitted by China and the United States); Prop. 24--
Kachuga spp., except K. tecta, (submitted by India and the United 
States); Prop. 25--Leucocephalon yuwonoi (submitted by China and 
Germany); Prop. 26--Mauremys mutica (submitted by China and the United 
States); Prop. 27--Orlitia borneensis (submitted by China and Germany); 
Prop. 28--Pyxidea mouhotii (submitted by China and the United States); 
Prop. 29--Siebenrockiella crassicollis (submitted by China and the 
United States); Prop. 31--Chitra spp. (submitted by China and the 
United States); and Prop. 32--Pelochelys spp. (submitted by China and 
the United States).
    In the Federal Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207), we 
indicated that we were considering proposals to list a number of Asian 
freshwater turtle and tortoise taxa in appendix I or II of CITES 
because of over-exploitation for the food and pet trades. We decided to 
defer a decision on these proposals until after a CITES-sponsored 
Workshop on Conservation of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises, which was 
scheduled for March 25-28 in Kunming, China. The Workshop was held, and 
many Asian range countries attended. The consensus recommendation from 
the Workshop was that 11 turtle taxa are top priorities for CITES 
listings at COP 12: Heosemys spp., Leucocephalon yuwonoi, Orlitia 
borneensis, Mauremys (Annamemys) annamensis, Kachuga spp., Playsternon 
megacephalum, Mauremys mutica, Chinemys spp., Chitra spp., Pyxidea 
mouhotii, Pelochelys spp., and Hieremys annandalii. Of these, Germany 
submitted proposals for the first four taxa, and the United States 
submitted the remainder, with the exception of Chinemys spp. (instead, 
the United States submitted a proposal for Siebenrockiella 
crassicollis). China is a co-sponsor of both the German and U.S. 
proposals.
    Prop. 30. Transfer of the population of hawksbill sea turtle 
(Eretmochelys imbricata) in Cuban waters from appendix I to appendix 
II, pursuant to Resolution Conf. 9.24, for the exclusive purpose of 
allowing the Government of Cuba to export its stockpile of shell plates 
(7,800 kg), accumulated legally from its national conservation and 
management program between 1993 and 2002, annotated as follows: (a) the 
export will not take place until the CITES Secretariat has verified, 
within 12 months of the decision, that the importing country has 
adequate internal trade controls and will not re-export and the CITES 
Standing Committee accepts this verification; and (b) the wild 
population in Cuban waters will continue to be managed as an appendix-I 
species. Submitted by Cuba.
    According to the CITES web site, Cuba withdrew this proposal on 
August 19, 2002.
    Prop. 33. Inclusion of the genera Hoplodactylus and Naultinus (New 
Zealand geckos) in appendix II. Submitted by New Zealand.
    Proposed U.S. position: Support.
    All gecko species are fully protected in New Zealand. They have 
been heavily impacted by human activity, including habitat modification 
and destruction, poaching, and most importantly, by introduced 
mammalian predators. Illegal trade in New Zealand geckos is occurring; 
the extent of which has yet to be fully known. This trade primarily 
supports the European and U.S. pet markets, where these species are in 
high demand and are fetching prices as high as $15,000 per individual. 
Recent information has shown that New Zealand gecko species are 
appearing on the international market at numbers far exceeding the 
breeding capacity of the captive population. Species are being 
advertised for sale for which there are no captive populations and no 
documented export from New Zealand. The ability of New Zealand gecko 
populations to recover is limited by their low reproductive potential. 
Even low levels of trade can have significant effects on wild 
populations. The species in these two genera satisfy the criteria of 
Annex II (2a and 2b) of Resolution Conf. 9.24. Within Hoplodactylus and 
 Naultinus, identification to species level can be very difficult. 
However, the genera are distinct from other geckos and each other.
    Prop. 34. Deletion of the orange-throated whiptail lizard 
(Cnemidophorus hyperythrus) from appendix II. Submitted by the United 
States.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Our proposed negotiating position is discussed in the Federal 
Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207). The United States will 
actively work towards adoption of this proposal at COP 12.
    Prop. 35. Inclusion of the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) in 
appendix II. Submitted by India and The Philippines.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    The whale shark is the largest fish and is a sluggish pelagic 
filter feeder often seen swimming on the surface. It occurs in tropical 
and subtropical waters worldwide. The United States unsuccessfully 
proposed the species for inclusion in appendix II at COP11. The primary 
threat to the species is directed commercial harvest, exacerbated by a 
vulnerable life history. Harvest is facilitated by seasonal 
aggregations in known areas and driven by a lucrative international 
market for fins and meat. Population size is unknown, but the species 
is considered to be rare. Local seasonal populations and catch per unit

[[Page 66489]]

effort have apparently declined drastically in some places, whereas 
fishing effort and price have increased. It is not known to what degree 
fishing in one area affects populations in other areas, although the 
fact that at least some of the sharks migrate long distances within 
ocean basins suggests that the effects may not be purely local. The 
proponents believe the species meets the criteria for appendix II as 
shown in Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 2a, B(i).
    Whale sharks are currently protected in Australia, the Maldives, 
Honduras, Malaysia, the U.S. Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico, India, 
South Africa, and the Phillippines, leaving Taiwan as the only 
jurisdiction with a significant legal commercial fishery. Illegal trade 
may be growing and compromises the domestic protection mentioned above. 
In our April 18, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 19207) notice, we 
expressed concern that only limited data were available on trade 
volumes and the impact of remaining fisheries. However, the proponents 
have provided additional trade and harvest data, and preliminary 
analysis suggests that the proposal is defensible.
    Prop. 36. Inclusion of the basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) in 
appendix II. Submitted by the United Kingdom on behalf of the member 
States of the European Community.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    The basking shark is widely distributed in coastal waters and on 
the continental shelves of temperate zones in the Northern and Southern 
Hemispheres. The species is currently listed in appendix III (fins and 
whole carcasses) by the United Kingdom. The main threat to basking 
shark populations is from fishing operations, both targeted on basking 
sharks and through incidental or by-catch in other fisheries. The 
biology of the species makes it especially vulnerable to exploitation: 
it has a slow growth rate, a long time to sexual maturity (ca. 12-20 
years), a long gestation period (1-3 years) and a similar interval 
between pregnancies, low fecundity (the only recorded litter was of 
just six very large pups), and probable small populations. There are a 
few well-documented fisheries for C. maximus (especially from the 
Northeastern Atlantic), and these suggest stock reductions of 50-90 
percent over short periods (typically a few decades or less). These 
declines have persisted into the long term, with no apparent recovery 
several decades after exploitation has ceased. Other data, based on 
sightings and less well-recorded fisheries, suggest similar declines. 
The proponents state that this species meets the criteria listed in 
Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 2a, (B)(i).
    In our April 18, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 19207) notice, we 
noted increasing demand for basking shark fins in international trade. 
Given the convincing biological data, excellent identification manuals, 
and trade documentation provided by the proponents, the United States 
intends to support this proposal at COP12.
    Prop. 37. Inclusion of seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) in appendix II. 
Submitted by the United States.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Our position is discussed in the Federal Register notice of April 
18, 2002 (67 FR 19207).
    Prop. 38. Inclusion of humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) in 
appendix II. Submitted by the United States.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Our position is discussed in the Federal Register notice of April 
18, 2002 (67 FR 19207).
    Prop. 39. Inclusion of the Patagonian and Antarctic toothfishes 
(Dissostichus eleginoides and D. mawsoni) in appendix II. Submitted by 
Australia.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) is the largest 
finfish with any economic importance inhabiting the Southern Ocean. The 
Antarctic toothfish (D. mawsoni) is a similar-looking species that 
partially overlaps the range of the Patagonian toothfish, and is 
occasionally harvested in conjunction with the latter species. 
Toothfish have been fished commercially for about 20 years, and 
management of the species is under the competence of the Commission for 
the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). There 
are several characteristics of the life history of D. eleginoides that 
make the species vulnerable to over-exploitation. The production of 
large yolky eggs implies that fecundity of Patagonian toothfish is 
comparatively low. In addition, D. eleginoides matures at a relatively 
late age, with age at first spawning from 8-10 years of age. The 
species is relatively slow growing and long lived, likely surviving to 
a minimum of 40-50 years old. In our April 18, 2002, Federal Register 
notice (67 FR 19207), we provided the latest harvest and trade data for 
toothfish, and restated our concerns about suspected high levels of 
illegal, unreported, or misreported landings.
    Given the available biological information, trade data, and 
regulatory regimes in CCAMLR, the proponents state that Dissostichus 
eleginoides (Patagonian toothfish) qualifies for listing in appendix II 
as per Resolution Conf. 9.24: it is known that the accumulated 
harvesting from the wild of this species for international trade (by 
illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing operations) has a 
detrimental impact on the species due to these activities, thus making 
the annual harvest continually exceed the level that can be continued 
in perpetuity. Australia proposes listing of the Antarctic toothfish 
(Dissostichus mawsoni) in appendix II in accordance with Article II 
2(b) (i.e., due to similarity of appearance) because the species 
resembles D. eleginoides so closely that a non-expert with reasonable 
effort is unlikely to be able to distinguish between them.
    CCAMLR adopted a conservation measure to track and monitor trade in 
Dissostichus spp. (Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish), known as the 
Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS), which became effective in May 2000, 
but has been implemented slowly. Since then, the United States and 
other countries have worked to improve the efficiency and coverage of 
the CDS among CCAMLR parties and non-Parties. Details of this work can 
be found in our April 18, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 19207) 
on COP12. In conjunction with the current listing proposal, Australia 
has offered a discussion paper on how the CDS and CITES permitting 
regimes may work together to monitor the international toothfish trade 
while minimizing duplicative paperwork (see section 44, above).
    The United States has seized 5 shipments of illegally caught 
toothfish since the summer of 2001, most recently in May 2002 with 
assistance from Australia. Given such successes under CCAMLR's regime 
and continuing improvements to its CDS system, the United States sees 
CCAMLR as a viable management institution for toothfish. However, the 
proponents describe innovative approaches to synchronizing CITES and 
CCAMLR documents, minimizing industry burdens under a listing, and 
expanding the coverage of CCAMLR's management regime. These warrant 
serious consideration. As in the case of all proposals concerning trade 
in Dissostichus spp., in order to determine a position on Australia's 
proposal, U.S. government agencies will evaluate the many complex 
aspects of this international trade and how CITES might be useful as an 
adjunct to traditional fisheries management. This

[[Page 66490]]

includes how our position would affect or be affected by the proposed 
cooperation with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) regarding international trade in marine fish species. At this 
time, the United States is undecided as to our positions on issues 
related to CITES's role in international toothfish trade.
    Props. 40 and 41. Prop. 40--Inclusion of the butterflies 
Atrophaneura jophon and A. pandiyana in appendix II (the latter 
included due to similarity of appearance with the former species); 
Prop. 41--Inclusion of the butterflies Papilio aristophontesis, P. 
nireus, and P. sosia in appendix II (the latter two included due to 
similarity of appearance with the former species). Both proposals 
submitted by Germany on behalf of the member states of the European 
Community.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Atrophaneura jophon is a swallowtail butterfly known only from the 
rain forests in south-western Sri Lanka. It is classified as critically 
endangered by the IUCN due to its extremely limited extent of 
occurrence and a decline in habitat availability. Papilio 
aristophontesis is a forest species endemic to the Comoros Islands and 
is classified as endangered by the IUCN due to a decline in habitat 
availability. A few specimens of both A. jophon and P. aristophontesis 
have been offered for sale at insect trade fairs in Central Europe. 
Whereas small-scale collection is not normally harmful to butterfly 
populations, for those already threatened by habitat loss even small 
amounts of collecting by individuals may cause harm and commercial 
collecting even greater harm still. Species that are demonstrably rare 
tend to be desirable and command high prices. With the apparent rarity 
of A. jophon and P. aristophontesis, existing small-scale trade is 
possibly unsustainable. Sri Lanka strongly supports the proposal for A. 
jophon and A. pandiyana.
    Prop. 42. Inclusion of the entire species Araucaria araucana in 
appendix I, replacing the annotation limiting the appendix-I listing to 
the populations of Argentina and Chile, and eliminating the annotation 
to include all other populations in appendix II. Submitted by 
Argentina.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    At COP11, Argentina had submitted a similar proposal, in which they 
had proposed to transfer the Argentine population of Araucaria araucana 
from appendix II to appendix I. This species has a restricted range and 
is highly threatened in Argentina. Over-collection of seeds is a 
serious threat to wild populations; inclusion of the species in 
appendix I assists in regulating trade in seeds. Because Chile's 
population was already included in appendix I, transfer of the 
Argentine population to appendix I was intended to provide greater 
protection to Argentina's population of this species, to harmonize 
trade controls for the species, and to eliminate the possibility of 
having appendix-I seed of the species traded as appendix-II. Placing 
the entire species in appendix I, which was the intent of Argentina, 
would have also conformed to the recommendation of Resolution Conf. 
9.24, which states that split-listings should be avoided wherever 
possible. Argentina's proposal on Araucaria araucana was adopted at 
COP11.
    Following COP11, the CITES Secretariat advised the Parties that the 
wording of Argentina's proposal only transferred the Argentine 
population of Araucaria araucana to appendix I, but that populations 
outside of Argentina and Chile remained listed in appendix II. This is 
contrary to the intent of Argentina, which was to include the entire 
species in appendix I. Based on discussions conducted in the Plants 
Committee at its tenth meeting in Shepherdstown (December 11-15, 2000), 
it was clear that the Chairman and members of the Plants Committee, as 
well as other Parties, also believed that was the purpose of the 
proposal. Subsequently, Argentina prepared another proposal to be 
submitted to the Parties for a vote by postal procedures, which was 
done in CITES Notification to the Parties No. 2001/080 (December 21, 
2001). However, this proposal failed due to a failure of the minimum 
number of Parties to vote.
    Argentina has submitted the current proposal for consideration at 
COP12 to redress the difficulties with getting the entire species 
included in appendix I. The United States is concerned about any 
interpretation of a listing that would consider populations outside of 
the range countries as separately listed entities, unless specifically 
considered and designated as such by the Conference of the Parties. An 
interpretation of the appendices to allow for separate treatment of 
populations outside of range countries undermines the basic intent of 
the Convention, which is to control global trade in listed species as a 
means of conserving wild populations in their range countries. We have 
discussed this issue with other Parties and believe it is universally 
understood that, unless otherwise specified by the Conference of the 
Parties, all populations worldwide are considered to conform to the 
listing status of the populations of the range countries. Therefore, in 
addition to supporting this proposal from Argentina, the United States 
proposes to include this issue in further discussions of the listing 
criteria and the possible revision of Resolution Conf. 9.24.
    Prop. 43. Amend annotation 608 to include all Cactaceae lacking 
chlorophyll and grafted on Harrisia ``Jusbertii,'' Hylocereus trigonus, 
or Hylocereus undatus. Submitted by Switzerland.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    This proposal expands the current exemption under annotation 608 
for grafted cacti. The three grafting stock species remain unchanged, 
but the grafted species have now been expanded to include all cacti, 
but only if they are specimens (cultivars) lacking in chlorophyll. We 
believe the rationale provided in the proposal provides a sound basis 
to support this proposal, since the types of specimens that would be 
exempted are not relevant to the conservation of the species from which 
they are derived. We understand that the current exemption contained in 
annotation 608 presents some difficulties in implementation, since the 
trade in grafted cacti usually involves mixtures of specimens, some 
covered by the exemption and some that are not. It is also our sense 
that some foreign enforcement officials may already treat all grafted 
cacti as exempt in practice, since they occur as mixed shipments, 
represent a negligible conservation risk, and are difficult to 
distinguish in large shipments.
    Prop. 44. Delisting from appendix II of prickly pear cacti: 
Cactaceae, Subfamily Opuntiodeae (all species). Submitted by 
Switzerland.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose.
    In this proposal, Switzerland proposes to delete opuntioid cacti 
from CITES appendix II. The United States has advised Switzerland, in 
writing and orally at the twelfth meeting of the Plants Committee 
(Leiden, The Netherlands, May 2002), that we are opposed to the 
delisting of these species at this time because of the documented 
illegal trade in Opuntia species between the United States and Mexico, 
and because the United States is a range country for over 80 species of 
Opuntia, with one species listed as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act. In its comments to Switzerland, the United States provided 
data on the extent of known illegal trade in these species, as 
evidenced through seizures. It is reasonable to assume that the actual 
level of illegal trade exceeds this

[[Page 66491]]

amount, since actual documented illegal trade is generally believed to 
be a fraction of the total illegal trade.
    The Swiss proposal recognizes that Chile, Mexico, and the United 
States all have species classified as rare or endangered (12 species in 
all). However, Switzerland attempts to negate the value of these 
classifications on taxonomic grounds, some of which are valid, although 
we believe that the questionable status of some of these species is 
grounds for being cautious until their actual status is resolved. The 
proposal also questions whether we should be concerned about the 
documented trade, because it is not documented to the species level, 
and therefore we cannot determine that rare species are actually being 
affected. Again, we believe this is reason for maintaining these 
species in the appendices until we can be certain that rare species are 
not being affected by collection for trade, rather than assuming that 
they are not.
    Prop. 45. Delisting from appendix II of leaf-bearing cacti 
(Cactaceae): Subfamily Pereskioideae (all species in the genera 
Pereskia and Maihuenia) and two genera in the subfamily Opuntioideae 
(all species in the genera Pereskiopsis and Qiabentia). Submitted by 
Switzerland.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    Like the previous proposal, this was submitted to the Plants 
Committee for its consideration at its twelfth meeting. Although we had 
voiced our opposition to this proposal at that meeting, we are 
reconsidering our position, and may remain undecided until COP12, where 
we will base our final decision on any additional information provided 
to us and the comments of the range countries. We will also be 
consulting with range countries in the interim, particularly Mexico. 
The United States is not a range country for these genera. However, two 
species in the genus Pereskia (P. aculeata, and P. grandifolia) have 
naturalized in Florida and Texas. We have observed only limited trade 
in the four genera covered by the proposal. However, we are uncertain 
as to what information range countries may have on trade impacts on 
their species.
    Props. 46 and 47. Transfer of Sclerocactus nyensis and S. spinosior 
spp. blaneii from appendix II to appendix I. Submitted by the United 
States.
    Our proposed negotiating position is discussed in the Federal 
Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207). The United States will 
actively work for adoption of this proposal at COP 12.
    Prop. 48. Transfer of the Santa Barbara Island dudleya (Dudleya 
traskiae) from appendix I to appendix II. Submitted by the United 
States.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Our proposed negotiating position is discussed in the Federal 
Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207).
    Prop. 49. Transfer of Aloe thorncroftii from appendix I to appendix 
II. Submitted by the Republic of South Africa.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Aloe thorncroftii is restricted in its distribution to the 
mountains of the Barbeton and Carolina districts in Mpumalanga 
Province, South Africa. The species grows predominantly on rocky 
outcrops in a grassland vegetation type known as Mountain Sourveld. 
Satellite images show that 48 percent of this habitat type has been 
converted to commercial forestry. Invasion by nonnative plant species 
is also a threat to the habitat of this plant. The total survey 
population for this taxon was 7,906 plants in 2000.
    According to a TRAFFIC analysis of CITES trade data, there was no 
trade in A. thorncroftii between 1981 and 1995, and there is no recent 
evidence of legal international trade in this species. Additionally, 
there is no evidence of illegal trade in this species. Given the small 
amount of horticultural interest in this species, it is considered 
highly unlikely that the proposed amendment will affect demand levels 
for this species. According to the proposal, it is much easier and 
cheaper to grow A. thorncroftii from seed than to collect plants from 
the wild.
    Prop. 50. Inclusion in appendix II of the neotropical populations 
of bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), including logs, sawn 
timber, veneer, and plywood. Submitted by Guatemala and Nicaragua.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    The proponents state that they are proposing this amendment to the 
appendices in accordance with Article II, paragraph 2.(a) of the 
Convention and Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 2a, which states that the 
harvesting of specimens from the wild for international trade has, or 
may have, a detrimental impact on the species by either: (i) exceeding, 
over an extended period, the level that can be continued in perpetuity; 
or (ii) reducing it to a population level at which its survival would 
be threatened by other influences. They further state that the purpose 
of the proposal is to promote sustainable management of S. macrophylla 
in order to help ensure its further conservation and trade.
    Bigleaf mahogany is currently listed in appendix III by several 
range countries, in the Americas only: by Costa Rica in November 1995 
(including its saw-logs, sawn wood, and veneer sheets, although other 
derivatives such as furniture are exempt from CITES requirements); by 
Bolivia in March 1998; by Brazil in July 1998; by Mexico in April 1999; 
by Peru in June 2001; and by Colombia in October 2001. Species listed 
in appendix III can be traded commercially. 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. The issuance of appendix-III 
documentation is dependent on legal findings and does not include 
biological determinations for export.
    Proposals to include this species in CITES appendix II were 
submitted at COP8 and COP10 with the United States as a co-sponsor with 
Costa Rica and Bolivia, respectively, and at COP9 by the Netherlands. 
In our April 18, 2002, Federal Register notice (67 FR 19207), we 
indicated that we did not plan to submit a proposal for this species, 
although we had received a recommendation to do so. This decision was 
taken after extensive discussion within the U.S. government, and in 
light of the previously unsuccessful efforts to list the species in 
appendix II. We would therefore be interested in comments regarding the 
usefulness of including bigleaf mahogany in appendix II, especially 
with respect to any advantages that might be gained beyond the current 
listing of the species in appendix III.
    Prop. 51. Annotation of Orchidaceae in appendix II to exempt the 
artificially propagated hybrids of six genera under certain conditions. 
Submitted by the United States.
    Tentative U.S. position: Support.
    As described in our April 18, 2002, Federal Register notice, our 
Division of Scientific Authority and the American Orchid Society 
prepared a draft proposal for consideration by the Plants Committee at 
its twelfth meeting in May 2002. This proposal is for the annotation of 
the listing of orchids in appendix II to exempt the artificially 
propagated hybrids of six genera: Cattleya, Cymbidium, Dendrobium, 
Oncidium, Phalaenopsis, and Vanda. The proposed annotation provides 
clear restrictions on this exemption so that it applies only to

[[Page 66492]]

large-volume commercial shipments that are highly uniform and otherwise 
characteristic of artificially propagated specimens. Exempted shipments 
also may not contain a mixture of genera, or even different hybrids, 
within a container. This proposal received strong support from the 
Plants Committee, as well as from other countries that attended the 
meeting, and the United States was asked to submit the proposal for 
COP12.
    Prop. 52. Deletion of the annotation to the desert-living cistanche 
(Cistanche deserticola) in appendix II. Submitted by China.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    At COP11, the Parties adopted a proposal from China to include the 
desert-living cistanche (Cistanche deserticola) in CITES appendix II 
with the annotation ``designates whole and sliced roots and parts of 
roots, excluding manufactured parts or derivatives such as powders, 
pills, extracts, tonics, teas and confectionary.'' However, after COP11 
it was discovered that the reference to roots in the annotation was 
incorrect because C. deserticola is a parasitic plant and does not have 
roots. The parts of the plant that are traded are the stems, which are 
harvested either subterranean or above ground. The proposal is to 
delete the current annotation for the listed species.
    Prop. 53. Deletion of Maguire's bitter-root (Lewisia maguirei). 
Submitted by the United States.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    Our proposed negotiating position is discussed in the Federal 
Register notice of April 18, 2002 (67 FR 19207).
    Prop. 54. Inclusion of Guaiacum spp. in appendix II, with 
annotation designating all parts and derivatives, including wood, bark 
and extract. Submitted by Germany on behalf of the member states of the 
European Community.
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
    The genus Guaiacum consists of 4-6 different species of New World 
evergreen trees and shrubs distributed throughout Mesoamerica and the 
Caribbean. The current taxonomy of the different Guaiacum species is 
still not unanimously accepted. However, the following species are 
discussed in the proposal: G. angustifolium, G. coulteri, G. 
guatemalense, G. officinale, G. sanctum, and G. unijugum. G. coulteri 
is most likely endemic to Mexico.
    Guaiacum sanctum and G. officinale, which are internationally 
traded for their wood and medicinal resin, are already listed in 
appendix II of CITES. The remaining species of Guaiacum are not 
regulated by CITES. Guaiacum sanctum (timber only) was listed in 
appendix II in 1975. In 1985, an annotation (1) was added to 
the listing of G. sanctum. In 2000, the species was proposed to be 
transferred from appendix II to appendix I at COP11. However, the 
proposal was later withdrawn. Since 2001, the Mexican CITES Authorities 
have significantly reduced exports of G. sanctum from Mexico. At PC12 
(Leiden, The Netherlands, May 13-17, 2002) the Mexico announced that an 
export quota for G. sanctum would be established in due course.
    There is no detailed species population information available. With 
the existing CITES trade controls for both G. sanctum and G. 
officinale, collection and export of G. coulteri may be expanding and 
thus its population decreasing. International trade data are usually 
only listed as ``lignum-vitae'' and usually do not distinguish among 
Guaiacum species. G. sanctum and G. coulteri look very similar in the 
wild and cannot be readily and clearly distinguished by non-experts. 
However, information on the ranges of the various species indicates 
that a control system could be instituted whereby species could be 
identified by their origin and tracked in trade. Guaiacum coulteri does 
have special legal protection in Mexico, and permission is required to 
harvest, use, possess, or export this species. Despite insufficient 
identification of Guaiacum species exported from Mexico, most exports 
from Mexico to the United States are likely to be G. coulteri or G. 
sanctum. The proposed listing of the remaining taxa of Guaiacum is 
supported by the Mexican authorities and would eliminate such problems 
as deliberate mislabeling of wood to avoid CITES permit controls.

Conclusion of the Meeting

67. Determination of the Time and Venue of the Next Regular Meeting of 
the Conference of the Parties (no document)
    The Secretariat does not normally circulate a document on the time 
and venue of the next regular meeting of the COP. We anticipate 
receiving information on this at COP12, at which time we will develop a 
negotiating position. The United States favors holding COP13 in a 
country where all Parties and observers will be admitted without 
political difficulties. The United States normally supports holding 
meetings of the COP on a biennial basis, or, as in the case of COPs 10, 
11, and 12, after an interval of approximately 2\1/2\ years.
68. Closing remarks (no document)

Future Actions

    Before COP12, we will announce any changes to the tentative 
negotiating positions contained in this notice and any undecided 
negotiating positions by posting a notice on our Internet website 
(http://international.fws.gov/). After the meeting of the COP, we will 
publish a notice announcing the amendments to CITES appendices I and II 
and resolutions and decisions that were adopted by the Parties at the 
meeting, and requesting comments on whether the United States should 
enter reservations on any of the amendments to the appendices.

Reminder of Extension of Comment Period

    We remind you that with this notice we have extended the comment 
period on tentative U.S. negotiating positions on species proposals, 
proposed resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted by other 
Parties and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at COP12 through 
October 31, 2002.

    Dated: October 23, 2002.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 02-27682 Filed 10-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P