[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58184-58200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21780]


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

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); Thirteenth 
Regular Meeting; Tentative U.S. Negotiating Positions for Agenda Items 
and Species Proposals Submitted by Foreign Governments and the CITES 
Secretariat; Announcement of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the tentative U.S. negotiating positions 
on agenda items, resolutions, and species proposals submitted by other 
countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration by the Conference 
of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) at its thirteenth regular 
meeting (COP13). The meeting will be held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 
2-14, 2004. With this notice we also announce a public meeting to be 
held after the conclusion of COP13 to inform the public of the results 
of COP13 and invite public input on whether the United States should 
take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices 
adopted at the meeting.

DATES: In further developing U.S. negotiating positions on these 
issues, we will continue to consider information and comments submitted 
in response to our notice of July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40411). We will also 
continue to consider information received at the public meeting 
announced in that notice, which was held on August 12, 2004. The public 
meeting to be held after COP13 will be held on December 13, 2004, at 
1:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Please 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]. Please 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 to: [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 the 
Division of Management Authority and the Division of Scientific 
Authority.

Public Meeting

    The post-COP13 public meeting will be held in the Rachel Carson 
Room, in the Department of the Interior at 18th and C Streets, NW., 
Washington, DC. Directions to the building may be obtained by 
contacting the Division of Management Authority (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, below).

Available Information

    Information concerning the results of COP13 will be available after 
the close of the meeting on the Secretariat's Web site at http://www.cites.org, or upon request from the Division of Management 
Authority, or via our COP13 Web site at http://international.fws.gov/cop%2013/cop13.htm. If you wish to contact the U.S. delegation to COP13 
during the meeting, you may send an e-mail to the following address: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information pertaining to 
resolutions, discussion papers, and agenda items, contact Peter O. 
Thomas, Ph.D., Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, tel. 703-358-2095; fax 703-358-2298; e-mail: 
[email protected]. For information pertaining to species proposals, 
contact Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of Scientific Authority, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, tel. 703-358-1708; fax 703-358-2276; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora, (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 due to trade. 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 Web site at http://international.fws.gov, or from 
the official CITES Secretariat (Secretariat) Web site at http://www.cites.org/. Currently, 166 countries, including the United States, 
are Parties to CITES. CITES calls for regular meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties (COP) to review issues pertaining to CITES 
implementation, make provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat 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 to improve the 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 submitted 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 by the meeting Chairman, but they may not vote 
or submit proposals. COP13 will be held in Bangkok, Thailand, October 
2-14, 2004.

[[Page 58185]]

    This is fourth 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 COP13. In this notice we announce the 
tentative U.S. negotiating positions on agenda items, resolutions, and 
species proposals submitted by other countries and the Secretariat for 
consideration at COP13. In our first Federal Register notice of June 
19, 2003 (68 FR 36831), we requested information and recommendations on 
species proposals, proposed resolutions and decisions, and agenda items 
for the United States to consider submitting for consideration at 
COP13. In our second Federal Register notice, published on January 12, 
2004 (69 FR 1757), we listed each issue that the United States was 
considering submitting for COP13. In that notice, we also invited 
public comments and information on these potential proposals, announced 
a public meeting to discuss them, and provided information on how 
nongovernmental organizations based in the United States could attend 
COP13 as observers. At the same time we posted an expanded document on 
our Web site (http://international.fws.gov/) that provided detailed 
background for proposed resolutions, proposed decisions, and agenda 
items that the United States was considering submitting for 
consideration at COP13, as well as for proposed amendments to the 
Appendices that the United States was considering submitting. On 
February 5, 2004, we held the public meeting announced in our second 
Federal Register notice; at that meeting, we discussed the issues 
contained in our January 12 Federal Register notice and in our Web site 
posting on the same topic. In our third Federal Register notice, 
published on July 2, 2004 (69 FR 40411), we announced the provisional 
agenda for COP13, solicited public comment on items on the provisional 
agenda, and announced a public meeting to discuss the agenda items. 
That public meeting was held on August 12, 2004.
    You may locate our regulations governing this public process in 50 
CFR 23.31-23.39. 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 COP13.

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. Documents submitted by the United States for consideration 
of the Parties at COP13 can be found on the Secretariat's Web site at: 
http://www.cites.org/eng/COP/13/docs/index.shtml. Those documents are: 
COP13 Doc. 41, COP13 Doc. 47, COP13 Doc. 48, COP13 Doc. 49, COP13 Doc. 
51, and COP13 Doc. 52. The United States, either alone or as a co-
proponent, submitted the following proposals to amend the Appendices I 
and II: COP13 Prop. 5, COP13 Prop. 10, COP13 Prop. 12, COP13 Prop. 14, 
COP13 Prop. 16, COP13 Prop. 18, COP13 Prop. 20, COP13 Prop. 21, COP13 
Prop. 23, COP13 Prop. 33, COP13 Prop. 47, and COP13 Prop. 48. In this 
notice, we will not provide any additional explanation of the U.S. 
negotiating position for documents that the United States submitted. 
The introduction in the text of each of the documents the United States 
submitted contains a discussion of the background of the issue and the 
rationale for submitting the document.
    In this notice, numerals next to each agenda item or resolution 
correspond to the numbers used in the agenda for COP13 and posted on 
the Secretariat's Web site. When we completed the notice, the 
Secretariat had not yet made available documents for a number of the 
agenda items on the COP13 agenda. For several other documents, we are 
still working with other agencies in the United States and other CITES 
Parties in negotiating the U.S. position. The documents for which we do 
not currently have tentative U.S. negotiating positions are: COP13 Doc. 
9.2.1, COP13 Doc. 17, COP13 Doc. 29.2, COP13 Doc. 29.3, and COP13 Doc. 
56.2.
    In the discussion that follows, we have included a brief 
description of each proposed resolution, agenda item, or species 
proposal submitted by other countries or the Secretariat, followed by a 
brief explanation of the tentative U.S. negotiating position for that 
item. New information that may become available at COP13 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 COP13. The United States is 
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. 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 COP13, Thailand will 
conduct an opening ceremony and make welcoming remarks.

Strategic and Administrative Matters

    1. Rules of Procedure:
    1.1 Use of secret ballots (Doc. 1.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. With Document COP13 Doc. 1.1, the Standing Committee 
proposes not making any changes to the Rules of Procedure of the 
Conference of the Parties relating to the use of secret ballots. The 
United States historically has not supported the use of secret ballots, 
believing that the process at a COP should be as transparent as 
possible, and that open voting encourages responsible voting by the 
Parties. The United States agrees that the Rules of Procedure should 
not be changed to facilitate the increased use of secret ballots, and 
would only support changes to decrease their use.
    1.2 Adoption of the Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1.2). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. The CITES Secretariat prepared document 
COP13 Doc. 1.2, the draft Rules of Procedure for COP13. The draft 
contains amendments to Rules 3.2, 3.5, and 15.1, and to the title of 
Rule 20 agreed to by the Standing Committee at its 50th meeting (SC50) 
in March 2004. As the concerns raised by the United States to these 
amendments were addressed by the Standing Committee, and are reflected 
in document CoP13 Doc. 1.2, the United States supports the draft Rules 
of Procedure.
    2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the meeting and of 
Chairman of Committees I and II (No document). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Undecided. According to tradition, the host 
country--in this case, Thailand--will provide the Conference Chair. The 
United States will support the election of Committee Chairs and a Vice-
Chair of the Conference who have the required technical knowledge and 
skills and also reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the 
CITES Parties.
    3. Adoption of the agenda (Doc. 3). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support.
    4. Adoption of the working programme (Doc. 4). Tentative U.S.

[[Page 58186]]

negotiating position: Support. Prior to a COP the working programme is 
provisional and changes may be made to it prior to the start of COP13 
or at the beginning of the COP. The United States supports the 
provisional working programme posted at the time this notice was 
prepared.
    5. Credentials Committee:
    5.1 Establishment of the Credentials Committee (No document). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
    5.2 Report of the Credentials Committee (No document). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The United States will follow the 
work of the Credentials Committee and intervene as appropriate.
    6. Admission of observers (Doc. 6). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Undecided. A document for this agenda item is not normally 
distributed prior to the start of a COP. In accordance with Article XI 
of the Convention, organizations technically qualified in protection, 
conservation or management of wild fauna and flora may participate in a 
COP. After being approved as an observer, a nongovernmental 
organization (NGO) is admitted to the COP, unless one-third of the 
Parties object. National 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. 
The United States supports admission to the meeting of all technically 
qualified NGOs, and the United States opposes unreasonable limitations 
on their full participation as observers at COP13. In addition, the 
United States supports flexibility and openness in the process for 
disseminating documents produced by NGOs to Party delegates, which are 
vital to decision-making and scientific and technical understanding.
    7. Matters related to the Standing Committee:
    7.1 Report of the Chairman (Doc. 7.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. 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 COP12 and COP13.
    7.2 Election of new regional and alternate regional members (No 
document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The U.S. term 
as North American regional representative to the Standing Committee 
will end at the end of COP13. Following consultation with Canada and 
Mexico, the North American region has reached a consensus decision 
concerning the Standing Committee representation following COP13. 
Canada will serve as the North American regional representative, and 
Mexico will serve as the alternate representative.
    8. Financing and budgeting of the Secretariat and of meetings of 
the Conference of the Parties. Tentative U.S. negotiating position on 
Agenda Items 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3: Undecided. These are comprehensive 
documents that require extensive review, internal discussion, and 
analysis of the financial implications for Parties and the impact on 
the work of the Secretariat and the Committees. The United States will 
review the documents carefully, bearing in mind the need to balance 
tasks with available resources. We advocate fiscal responsibility and 
accountability on the part of the Secretariat and the Conference of the 
Parties and plan to actively participate in the budget discussions at 
COP13. We further support a budget that represents zero-growth in 
Parties' voluntary contributions.
    8.4 External funding (Doc. 8.4). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. External funding is financial support provided by 
Parties and NGOs 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. The United 
States continues to support the efforts to identify appropriate sources 
of external funding, with the oversight of the Standing Committee.
    9. Committee reports and recommendations--
    9.1 Animals Committee:
    9.1.1 Report of the Chairman (Doc. 9.1.1). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support with exceptions. This report is largely a 
summary of activities conducted by the Animals Committee, or 
particularly by the Chairman, since COP12. Many of these activities are 
covered by other COP13 agenda items. There are several recommendations 
at the end of the report, many of which the United States supports. 
However, some of these carry financial implications for the Convention. 
Under his ``Recommendations regarding training,'' the Chairman suggests 
that the Parties adopt two decisions, one directing the Parties to 
provide financial support for the CITES Masters Course conducted by the 
University of Cordoba in Spain, and the second one directing the 
Standing Committee and the Secretariat to seek external funding to 
support students for the course from developing countries and countries 
with economies in transition. The United States believes that this 
CITES Masters Course is very worthwhile. However, due to current 
budgetary constraints, it must be clear that any funding for this 
course must come from sources other than the CITES Trust Fund, such as 
external sources, including voluntary contributions from Parties.
    The final recommendation of the Chairman is to provide US$30,000 
annually to assist the Chairman of the Animals Committee, if sufficient 
financial and technical support is not provided by the Chairman's own 
government or institution. Due to budget limitations and recent efforts 
by the Parties to contain costs for the Convention's operations, it is 
unlikely that a decision can be taken at this time to provide 
additional funding to support the Chairmen of the two scientific 
committees (assuming a similar amount should go to each). Based on 
discussions from the recent meetings of the scientific committees, we 
realize that this proposal may not be to provide funding for the 
current Chairman, but for future Chairmen of both committees if they 
come from developing countries or small institutions without the 
capability of providing the necessary support for the Chairmen to 
execute their duties. The United States suggests, therefore, that this 
issue be included in the review of the scientific committees proposed 
by Australia (CoP13 Doc. 11.1).
    9.1.2 Election of new regional and alternate regional members (No 
document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Following 
consultation with Canada and Mexico, the North American region has 
reached a consensus decision concerning the Animals Committee 
representation following COP13. Mr. Rodrigo A. Medellin of Mexico will 
serve as the North American regional representative, and Mr. Robert R. 
Gabel of the United States will serve as the alternate representative.
    9.2 Plants Committee:
    9.2.2 Election of new regional and alternate regional members (No 
document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Following 
consultation with Canada and Mexico, the North American region has 
reached a consensus decision concerning the Plants Committee 
representation following COP13. Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United 
States will serve as the North American regional representative to the 
Plants Committee, and Ms. Carolina Caceres of Canada will serve as the 
alternate representative until April 2005, after which time, Dr. 
Adrianne Sinclair, also of Canada, will serve as the alternate 
representative.

[[Page 58187]]

    9.3 Nomenclature Committee:
    9.3.1 Report of the Nomenclature Committee (Doc. 9.3.1). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The report contains numerous 
recommendations regarding the adoption of standard nomenclatural and 
taxonomic references, and we are still evaluating them and consulting 
with experts.
    9.3.2. Appointment of the members (No document). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. With the resignation of one of the two 
members of the Nomenclature Committee, a new member will have to be 
appointed. The United States supports the appointment of an individual 
with the appropriate expertise in the nomenclature of fauna to the 
Committee.
    10. Strategic Vision (Doc. 10). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. The Strategic Vision through 2005 presents an 
overview of the specific aims of the Convention, outlines seven 
specific goals to meet the Convention's mission, and identifies 
specific objectives to provide focus to the Parties in their 
implementation of the Convention, its Committees and the Secretariat, 
as well as to serve as an effective outreach and educational tool. At 
SC50, the Committee submitted a draft decision to the Secretariat, for 
adoption at COP13, to extend the time of validity of the Strategic 
Vision through 2005 and its Action plan, until the end of 2007. The 
decision would also establish a Strategic Plan Working Group as a 
subcommittee of the Standing Committee, which would develop a proposal 
for submission to COP14 for a Strategic Vision and Action Plan through 
2013. The United States supports the proposed extension and the 
establishment of a Strategic Plan Working Group.
    11. Review of permanent committees:
    11.1 Review of the scientific committees (Doc. 11.1; Australia). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Australia proposes that 
the Standing Committee conduct a review to determine whether the 
current Animals and Plants Committees are the most efficient and 
effective means of providing scientific advice to the Convention and 
the Parties. They propose that a working group develop terms of 
reference to conduct the review. We do not fully agree that the current 
two scientific committees have not provided information that informs 
the decisions of the Parties, or that the Parties are not consistent in 
heeding the recommendations of these committees. Currently, the review 
of the listing criteria, Significant Trade Review, and the Review of 
the Appendices are activities of the two technical committees that are 
anticipated to result in recommendations that will contribute 
significantly to important decisions and actions by the Parties. 
However, we agree that the Parties need to seek efficiencies, which 
should include an objective evaluation of the current committee 
structure, the overall effectiveness of the committees in dealing with 
all of the issues referred to them, the workload of each committee, and 
how the committees conduct their business.
    11.2 Improving regional communication and representation (Doc. 
11.2; Animals and Plants Committees). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. Although this document is not yet available, the 
United States has attended recent meetings of the Animals and Plants 
Committee where this issue was discussed. We anticipate that this 
document will contain a number of recommendations to improve regional 
communication and more effective representation and participation on 
the technical committees, particularly in large regions with many 
developing countries. The United States has supported these discussions 
and believes any efforts to improve the effectiveness of the Convention 
should be supported.
    11.3 Standard nomenclature and the operation of the Nomenclature 
Committee (Doc. 11.3; Mexico). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Support with exceptions. Because of recent controversy in the Animals 
and Plants Committees over nomenclatural changes that have been 
adopted, as well as a change in how standard references are adopted and 
incorporated for use by the Parties, Mexico has submitted this document 
in which it recommends various changes, including possible changes to 
the terms of reference and makeup of the Nomenclature Committee. We 
agree that these are important issues that have caused significant 
concern among the Parties at the meetings of the technical committees. 
However, we are unsure if all of the recommendations made by Mexico are 
warranted or may themselves cause additional difficulties. For example, 
expanding the membership of the Nomenclature Committee may incur more 
costs for the Convention and make the committee itself more inefficient 
due to the controversial nature of nomenclature and taxonomy. We note 
that overall the Nomenclature Committee has served the Parties well. 
However, the United States shares the concerns of Mexico and other 
Parties with regard to the change in the way standard references for 
taxonomy and nomenclature are being handled since COP12, and how 
changes to standard nomenclature can occur without input or review from 
the Conference of the Parties.
    12. Cooperation with other organizations--
    12.1 Synergy between CITES and CBD:
    12.1.1 Achieving greater synergy in CITES and CBD implementation 
(Doc. 12.1.1; Ireland).
    Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose with exception. 
Following an expert workshop on promoting cooperation and synergy 
between CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held on 
the Isle of Vilm, Germany, April 20-24, 2004, the Member States of the 
European Community endorsed in principle the overall objectives of that 
workshop and recommended a substantive discussion of its report at 
COP13 with a view to the adoption of some of the recommendations. While 
we find the intent behind the Vilm workshop supportive of moving 
forward a better and practical synergy between the two Conventions, we 
do not support Ireland's proposal to refer the recommendations of the 
workshop to the CITES Committees and the CBD Liaison Group. We believe 
that it is premature at this time to incorporate the findings and 
recommendations of the workshop into the Work Plan attached to the MOU. 
The workshop was not an official meeting of either CITES or the CBD, 
and few Parties had the opportunity to provide information and insight 
into the recommendations and conclusions. Recognizing the effort that 
went into this workshop, we suggest that a Standing Committee working 
group, if financial support can be secured, be formed to report to the 
Parties at COP14 on improving synergy between the two Conventions as 
recommended in this workshop report. We recommend that the CBD 
Secretariat and the CBD Liaison Group be invited to participate in the 
working group in order to ensure full participation and cooperation by 
both Conventions and their Parties.
    12.1.2 Sustainable use principles and guidelines (Doc. 12.1.2; 
Namibia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Namibia has 
submitted a draft resolution to promote collaboration between CITES and 
the CBD concerning the issue of sustainable use. In particular, the 
draft resolution asks CITES to adopt the definition of sustainable use 
contained in the Articles of the CBD, and seeks help from CITES in the 
dissemination of the CBD's Addis

[[Page 58188]]

Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of 
Biodiversity, including their application to making CITES non-detriment 
findings. We are evaluating the potential implications and relevance of 
adopting these principles and definitions to CITES operations.
    12.2 CITES listing of whale stocks and the International Whaling 
Commission (Doc. 12.2; Japan). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Undecided. This is a draft resolution that, if adopted, would call on 
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to complete a global plan 
for regulating and managing commercial whaling activities. The IWC has 
been developing the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for several years, 
and the United States continues to advocate its completion. Although we 
are inclined to support the short operative sentence of Japan's 
resolution, we disagree with the basic foundation and controversial 
remarks in the preamble. We plan to work bilaterally with Japan before 
COP13 to achieve a more neutral document that may be more acceptable to 
a majority of Parties.
    12.3 Revision of Resolution Conf. 12.4 on Cooperation between CITES 
and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living 
Resources regarding trade in toothfish (Doc. 12.3; Australia). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Australia's proposed 
amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.4 would make reporting by CITES 
Parties to the CITES Secretariat on their use of CCAMLR Dissostichus 
Catch Documents (DCDs), and the Secretariat's transmission of those 
reports to CCAMLR, an ongoing effort. They note that the decisions 
calling for such reports (12.57 and 12.58) applied only to 2003 and 
they see merit in continuing the practice on an annual basis. The 
proposal would also change references to ``illicit, unregulated and 
unreported fishing'' to ``illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 
(IUU)'' in order to explicitly recognize that IUU fishing poses a 
threat to toothfish populations. The United States supports continued 
cooperation between CITES and CCAMLR and Australia's proposed 
amendments to Resolution Conf. 12.4.
    12.4 Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations (Doc. 12.4; Japan). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Oppose. This document was submitted by Japan for consideration in the 
event that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CITES and the 
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has not 
been signed by COP13. If there is no MOU in place, Japan calls for a 
brief report from the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the 
negotiations with FAO and asks the Parties to extend the timeline for 
this process. The Chairman of the Standing Committee and the CITES 
Secretariat have developed draft MOU text guided by input from the 
Parties and discussion with FAO. We strongly support the negotiation of 
an MOU between CITES and FAO to facilitate cooperation on marine 
issues. The United States has worked with Japan and other Parties to 
promote establishment of this MOU. Negotiations between the Chairman of 
the Standing Committee and FAO to reconcile the two drafts are ongoing 
under a procedure established by the Standing Committee and we are 
hopeful that an agreement will be concluded by COP13. However, we find 
Japan's recommendations unnecessary from a procedural standpoint, since 
there is a process already under way to conclude the agreement, and we 
are concerned that taking it back to the Conference of the Parties 
before it is concluded undermines the intensive work of the Standing 
Committee.
    12.5 Statements of representatives of other conventions and 
agreements (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. 
The United States supports ongoing dialogue between CITES and other 
relevant and related conventions and agreements, and believes 
statements from them can be valuable at a COP.
    13. Economic incentives and trade policy (Doc. 13). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Oppose. This document provides a report of 
activities conducted under Decision 12.22 on Economic Incentives and 
Trade Policy and recommends further work on National Trade Policy 
Reviews and a second workshop on how Economic Incentives can be 
designed to further the specific implementation of CITES. This 
Secretariat-driven and low priority initiative, as compared to 
important CITES considerations on capacity-building, legislation 
development, and technical support to Parties, has rapidly expanded 
since COP12 and produced a massive output of activities and 
recommendations that requires the review of the Secretariat, the 
Parties, and the Committees. The United States opposes this initiative 
as it has great potential to continue to draw more and more of the 
already overburdened Secretariat's time and technical expertise away 
from other much more urgent and high priority needs. We are also 
concerned that this initiative will compete with high priority needs 
for limited international funds and the Secretariat's fundraising 
efforts.
    14. Financing of the conservation of and sustainable international 
trade in species of wild fauna and flora (Doc. 14). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support with exception. This document describes 
the analysis and evaluation of information received by the Secretariat 
in response to Decisions 12.25 and 12.26. The United States supports 
these efforts and the Secretariat's exploration of the feasibility of a 
designated financial mechanism for implementation of the Convention, 
provided that the Secretariat reports its findings to and requests 
advice from the Standing Committee between COPs.
    15. Report of the African elephant dialogue meeting (Doc. 15). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided until document is 
available for review. The African elephant dialogue meeting is 
scheduled to be held in Bangkok, Thailand, immediately prior to the 
start of COP13. When we receive the document, we will review it closely 
and develop our position. We note, however, that we support the range 
States dialogue process for debating multi-national species issues, and 
the United States provided funding for this meeting through a grant 
under the African Elephant Conservation Act.

Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention

Review of Resolutions and Decisions

    16. Review of Resolutions (Doc. 16). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support with the exceptions noted below.
    Review of Resolution Conf. 4.6 (Rev. CoP12). Support. The proposed 
change would establish the effective date of resolutions adopted by the 
Conference of the Parties as 90 days after the meeting, rather than the 
date on which the resolutions are sent to the Parties by the 
Secretariat. It would set a firm date for implementation of 
resolutions, and mean that resolutions and species listings generally 
become effective on the same date.
    Review of Resolution Conf. 5.11. Support. The proposed new 
resolution would resolve confusion surrounding the trade in pre-
Convention specimens by recommending that Parties use the date a 
species was first listed to decide whether to issue a pre-Convention 
certificate.
    Review of Resolution Conf. 9.21. Support. These proposed changes 
clarify that a Party that wants the Conference of the Parties to either 
establish or amend an export quota for an Appendix I species must 
submit a proposal, which includes details of the scientific basis for 
the proposed quota,

[[Page 58189]]

150 days before the meeting at which it is to be considered. These 
procedures would help Parties make sound decisions on export quotas.
    Consolidation of Resolution Conf. 10.6 on control of trade in 
tourist souvenir specimens and Resolution Conf. 12.9 on personal and 
household effects. Support. Combining these two resolutions would 
reduce the number of resolutions and provide one document that 
addresses the interpretation of personal and household effects. We 
believe the Parties might want to further consolidate duplicative 
paragraphs relating to the sale of Appendix I tourist souvenirs at 
international airports and borders.
    Review of Resolutions Conf. 10.16 (Rev.) and Conf. 12.10. Oppose 
with exception. The goal of the proposed changes is to harmonize the 
language in two different resolutions. We support the proposed change 
to the preamble of Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.) on animal species bred 
in captivity. We oppose the proposal to add a reference to Article III 
to the definition of the term ``bred for non-commercial purposes'' in 
Resolution Conf. 12.10. Article III contains the basic provisions on 
trade in Appendix I specimens and should not be included in the 
definition of an exemption under Article VII.
    Review of Resolution Conf. 11.11. Support with exception. The 
proposal is to delete the reference to the no-longer-used annotation 
[deg]608 on the CITES list and replace it with an example of ``see the 
annotation to Orchidaceae spp * * *'' The United States agrees that the 
reference to annotation [deg]608 needs to be deleted, but believes that 
the recommendation of the Plants Committee working group (see COP13 Doc 
51) to not use an example is a better approach. The use of 
``Orchidaceae spp.'' is misleading since the current exclusion from 
CITES controls applies only to artificially propagated hybrids of 
Phalaenopsis under specific conditions or to a few artificially 
propagated ``supermarket'' cacti hybrids.
    Review of Resolution Conf. 11.21. Support with exception. We agree 
that the new format used by the Secretariat to publish the CITES list 
after COP12 necessitates the revision of this resolution on 
annotations. We find, however, that the revised language in paragraph 
b) of the first agrees relating to export quotas to be confusing. 
Because of the importance of CITES-adopted export quotas, we suggest 
deleting the reference to export quotas from b)i) and b)ii) and adding 
a separate subparagraph ``and; iii) annotations that specify an export 
quota;''

Regular and Special Reports

    18. Reporting requirements (Doc. 18). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. In this document the Secretariat reports on the 
issues addressed by the Standing Committee's Working Group on Reporting 
Requirements and endorsed by the Standing Committee, and makes a number 
of recommendations including that the Parties adopt: the draft biennial 
report format provided in Annex 4 of the document; the draft revisions 
of Resolutions Conf. 11.17 (Rev. COP12) and 4.6 (Rev. COP12) provided 
in Annexes 1 and 2 of the document; and the two draft decisions 
provided in Annex 3 of the document. The United States supports 
adoption of the biennial report format and generally supports the other 
recommendations in this document.
    19. Appendix I species subject to export quotas:
    19.1 Leopard: export quota for Namibia (Doc. 19.1; Namibia). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Namibia seeks approval 
for the increase of its leopard export quota from 100 to 250 animals. 
The proposed new quota represents a take of less than 5% of an 
estimated 8,038 leopards in the country. Thus, it is unlikely that, if 
properly managed, the proposed new quota will have a negative impact on 
the species.
    19.2 Leopard: export quota for South Africa (Doc. 19.2; South 
Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. South Africa 
seeks approval for the increase of its leopard export quota from 75 to 
150 animals. However, according to the proposal, there is no nationwide 
leopard population estimate or trend information available. Thus, there 
is no clear justification for this increase. Unless there is additional 
information forthcoming from the proponent to support this proposal; 
the United States cannot support the proposed increase.
    19.3 Black rhinoceros: export quota for Namibia (Doc. 19.3; 
Namibia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Namibia seeks 
approval for the establishment of an export quota for 5 adult male 
black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis bicornis) hunting trophies. The 
proposed quota represents an annual take of less than 0.5% of the 
estimated current population of 1,134 black rhinos in the country. In 
addition, the quota would apply only to ``surplus'' male rhinos, 
primarily post-reproductive or problem animals, designated by Namibia's 
Management Authority. Thus, the proposed quota appears to be 
sustainable, based on an evaluation of the Namibian population. We note 
that the Namibian black rhino population is categorized as Vulnerable 
by IUCN (2003), instead of Critically Endangered as for the rest of the 
species. However, we are also aware that range countries still must 
take unusual measures to protect black rhinos due to continued poaching 
and demand for illegal trade. Therefore, we are still evaluating the 
potential impact that adoption of such a proposal may have on black 
rhino conservation, particularly as it may affect other range 
countries. We also note that under the United States Endangered Species 
Act, the black rhinoceros is listed as endangered. The historic 
practice under our stricter domestic measure is that the necessary 
findings to allow such imports into the United States have not been 
made, and pending any change in practice, the United States would not 
allow imports of sport hunted trophies.
    19.4 Black rhinoceros: export quota for South Africa (Doc. 19.4; 
South Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. South 
Africa seeks approval to establish an export quota for 10 adult male 
black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis minor) hunting trophies. The 
proposed quota represents an annual take of approximately 1.0% of the 
estimated current population of 1,200 black rhinos in the country. 
However, there are outstanding questions about the overall management 
program including the initial size of the quota, its effective 
allocation and monitoring within the private sector, individual trophy 
selection process, and transparency in the use of revenues generated 
for in-situ black rhino conservation. We also note that under the 
United States Endangered Species Act, the black rhinoceros is listed as 
endangered. The historic practice under our stricter domestic measure 
is that the necessary findings to allow such imports into the United 
States have not been made, and pending any change in practice, the 
United States would not allow imports of sport hunted trophies.
    20. Trade in vicu[ntilde]a cloth (Doc. 20). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. The Secretariat has submitted a report 
in accordance with Resolution Conf. 11.6 that includes information for 
each range country on vicu[ntilde]a cloth exports, numbers of animals 
sheared, and the local populations to which the animals belong. The 
Secretariat suggests that these trade data should be incorporated into 
the annual reports instead of reported separately. Therefore, the 
Secretariat recommends deleting paragraph (b) of Resolution Conf. 11.6, 
which requires these reports. In addition, because paragraph (a) of 
Resolution Conf. 11.6 is redundant to

[[Page 58190]]

the annotations for Appendix II vicu[ntilde]a populations, the 
Secretariat recommends the repeal of Resolution Conf. 11.6 entirely.
    21. Transport of live specimens (Doc. 21). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. The United States is a member of the 
Transport Working Group and supports the recommendation to encourage 
exchange of information on transport of live animals and plants between 
the Animals and Plants Committees, and to broaden the scope of 
Resolution Conf. 10.21 to include the transportation of live plants, as 
well as live animals. We also welcome the recommendation to revise 
requirements regarding the collection, submission and analysis of data 
on mortality and injury or damage to health during transport of live 
specimens.

General Compliance Issues

    22. National laws for implementation of the Convention (Doc. 22). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States 
supports the proposed decisions, which would continue and expand the 
current review of national laws. The United States strongly believes 
that the Convention's effectiveness is undermined when Party States do 
not have adequate national laws in place for implementing CITES.
    23. Enforcement matters (Doc. 23). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. The United States supports the proposed decisions, 
which would improve the flow of enforcement-related information among 
enforcement officials, and provide needed guidance to the public on how 
to submit enforcement-related information to the Secretariat.
    24. Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.3 on Compliance and enforcement 
(Doc. 24; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The 
United States supports the general issues of compliance and enforcement 
and supports the proposed decisions concerning these issues presented 
in Doc. 23. The United States does not support the use of limited 
Secretariat enforcement staff and resources to restore the creation of 
the infractions report that at past COPs proved controversial, 
inaccurate, and of limited use for actual enforcement efforts.
    25. Guidelines on compliance with the Convention (Doc. 25; 
Ireland). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The United 
States does not support the proposal to open discussion on this 
document. We also oppose the establishment of a Compliance Working 
Group pending the completion of the process currently underway in the 
Standing Committee. Pursuant to Decision 12.84, the Standing Committee 
is currently reviewing draft Guidelines on Compliance with the 
Convention, through an intersessional working group. The Committee also 
established a process for the working group to create a document for 
consideration at SC53. The United States believes this collaborative 
process should be allowed to continue and considers it premature to 
bring this issue to COP13.

Species Trade and Conservation Issues

    26. Conservation of and trade in great apes (Doc. 26; Ireland). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support the draft decision with 
exception, and oppose the draft resolution. Ireland, on behalf of the 
Member States of the European Community, has submitted a document that 
includes a draft resolution urging Parties to adopt and implement 
legislation protecting great apes, including prohibiting all 
international and internal commercial trade of wild-caught specimens 
and strengthening enforcement controls, including anti-poaching 
measures. The draft resolution directs the Secretariat to work with 
Parties, and as a member of the Great Ape Survival Project (GRASP) 
partnership, to develop measures to reduce and ultimately eliminate 
illegal trade in great apes. The document also includes a draft 
decision directing the Secretariat to prepare a consolidated Resolution 
concerning the enforcement of trade controls in all Appendix I species, 
to be considered at COP14.
    The United States supports the draft decision and believes a 
comprehensive process should be developed, possibly through a working 
group, whereby mechanisms from other processes (e.g., Significant Trade 
Review, National Legislation Project) might be used to develop a 
standardized approach for addressing enforcement of trade controls for 
all Appendix I species. The United States supports the principles and 
goals of the draft resolution on the conservation of and trade in great 
apes, but we do not support the draft resolution itself. While we 
applaud the efforts of GRASP, adopting the draft resolution included in 
this document would create yet another species-specific resolution. 
Many of the goals outlined in this draft resolution are already being 
addressed by the CITES Bushmeat Working Group and we believe that they 
should be addressed as part of the larger bushmeat issue.
    27. Conservation of and trade in bears (Doc. 27). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. This report was prepared by the 
Secretariat in response to Decision 12.27, which required the Parties 
that did not report to the Secretariat on the progress made in 
controlling illegal trade in bear specimens to submit the requested 
reports. The document lists the Parties that have provided reports and 
describes measures taken in attempting to get reports from those 
Parties that had not yet responded to Decision 12.27. The Secretariat 
will report at COP13 on any new reports or additional information 
relating to bears. The United States supports the Secretariat in its 
effort to obtain information from Parties relating to the trade in bear 
specimens and looks forward to the Secretariat's report at COP13. The 
United States also supports the Irish proposal (COP13 Doc. 26) to 
develop a holistic, rather than species-specific, approach to eliminate 
the illegal international commercial trade in all Appendix I specimens 
and assist Parties in mitigating or eliminating detrimental domestic 
trade in those same specimens.
    28. Conservation of and trade in Asian big cats (Doc. 28). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In this document, the 
Secretariat presents a progress report on activities regarding 
conservation of and trade in Asian big cats and non-commercial trade in 
specimens of Appendix I species. The United States supports continued 
work on the issues of Asian big cat conservation and is concerned that 
commercial trade in Appendix I species by professional dealers is 
continuing. We urge the relevant range States to implement the 
recommendations arising from the CITES Technical and Political Tiger 
Missions. The United States also supports the Irish proposal (COP13 
Doc. 26) to develop a holistic, rather than species-specific, approach 
to eliminate the illegal international commercial trade in all Appendix 
I specimens and assist Parties in mitigating or eliminating detrimental 
domestic trade in those same specimens.
    29. Elephants:
    29.1 Trade in elephant specimens (Doc. 29.1). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Undecided, pending outcome of the African 
elephant dialogue meeting. This document was submitted by the 
Secretariat to report on work accomplished under Resolution Conf. 10.10 
(Rev. COP12) and Decision 12.39. Decision 12.39 directed the 
Secretariat to assess countries with currently active internal ivory 
markets. The Secretariat has suggested that it may be more effective to 
develop sub-regional strategies to work with Parties in west and 
central Africa, where the majority of illegal ivory appears to 
originate, than to confine work to the 10 Parties identified in the 
original Decision 12.39. Toward

[[Page 58191]]

that end, a draft work plan was attached as an annex to the report. The 
United States supports the development of sub-regional strategies and 
looks forward to the results of the African elephant range States 
dialogue.
    29.4 Illegal ivory trade and control of internal markets (Doc. 
29.4; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 
document submitted by Kenya provides background information on domestic 
ivory markets around the world and notes concerns that illegal ivory 
trade may present a threat to elephant populations. Kenya supports the 
Secretariat's draft work plan (SC50 Doc. 21.1, Annex) and proposes that 
it be incorporated into Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.COP12), except for 
an exemption for Zimbabwe. It also proposes additional amendments to 
Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev.COP12), including a 20-year moratorium on 
ivory trade, except for non-commercial trade in hunting trophies, 
following completion of sales approved at COP12. In addition to the 
amendments, Kenya has put forward three draft decisions regarding 
implementation of the amended resolution. While the United States can 
appreciate Kenya's position relative to conservation efforts for 
African elephants we believe that this issue is being addressed in a 
methodical and analytical way through the Standing Committee and the 
African Range States Dialogue meetings. We look forward to the 
consideration during the African Elephant Range States Dialogue of a 
work plan to address domestic trade problem in source range countries.
    29.5 Conditions for the export of registered stocks of ivory in the 
annotation to the Appendix II listing of populations of Loxodonta 
africana in Botswana, Namibia and South Africa (Doc. 29.5; Kenya). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. Kenya asks that the 
Parties re-examine the geographical scope and nature of Monitoring of 
Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) baseline data agreed at SC49 and 
the mechanism for determining detrimental impacts on elephant 
populations agreed at SC50. Kenya proposes two draft decisions. The 
United States supports the decisions of the Standing Committee and is 
opposed to reopening these discussions at COP13.
    29.6 Ivory stocks in Burundi (Doc. 29.4). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Oppose. The United States is sympathetic to the 
Government of Burundi's position, and will be interested in the outcome 
of any discussions on this topic at the African Elephant Range States 
Dialogue meeting. However, for the most part, the options presented in 
this paper appear either to involve trade in violation of existing 
resolutions and decisions or scenarios with little real chance for 
success.
    30. Conservation of and trade in rhinoceroses (Doc. 30). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Support. The Secretariat recommends the 
repeal of Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev.) because it believes that the 
value of the Resolution is doubtful and the administrative burden it 
places on the Parties is of little benefit. Additionally, as of the 
report submission deadline of April 2, 2004, the Secretariat had not 
received any reports from Parties on conservation of and trade in 
rhinoceroses. We sympathize with the Secretariat's frustration over the 
poor rate of report submission, and the United States also supports the 
Irish proposal (CoP13 Doc. 26) to develop a holistic, rather than 
species-specific, approach to eliminate the illegal international 
commercial trade in all Appendix I specimens and assist Parties in 
mitigating or eliminating detrimental domestic trade in those same 
specimens.
    31. Conservation of and control of trade in Tibetan antelope (Doc. 
31). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In compliance with 
Decision 12.40, the Secretariat undertook an enforcement needs mission 
to China and submitted a report to the Standing Committee (SC50 Doc. 
20), and this information will be relayed to COP13. Therefore, the 
Secretariat is recommending that paragraphs (b) and (c) under 
``DIRECTS'' in Resolution Conf. 11.8 (Rev. COP12) be deleted because 
the reporting requirements have been met. However, because legislation 
to prohibit processing and trade in Tibetan antelope wool in the State 
of Jammu and Kashmir, India, is not being enforced, the Secretariat 
also recommends that the following wording be inserted in the 
resolution at the end of paragraph a) under URGES, ``and, in 
particular, that the State of Jammu and Kashmir in India halts the 
processing of such wool and the manufacture of shahtoosh products.''
    32. Conservation of Saiga tatarica (Doc. 32; Ireland). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document contains a draft 
decision that, if adopted, would establish a framework of coordinated 
actions to be taken by all stakeholders to conserve and protect the 
saiga antelope. The United States has a longstanding interest in the 
saiga antelope and previously contributed financial support for the 
range State workshop on this species in May 2002 in Kalmykia. We also 
urged the Parties to consider further actions for this species at AC19.
    33. Conservation of and trade in tortoises and freshwater turtles 
(Doc. 33). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This is 
primarily a report by the Secretariat on activities related to these 
species since COP12. The document includes information from three range 
countries, China, Japan, and Malaysia, which was submitted to the 
Secretariat to comply with Decision 12.41. This information shows that 
the three range countries have made significant progress in meeting the 
recommendations of Resolution Conf. 11.9 on Conservation of and trade 
in tortoises and freshwater turtles. The United States concurs with the 
Secretariat's recommendations for range countries to continue their 
efforts for these species; to have the Animals Committee continue to 
provide scientific guidance to range countries on the conservation and 
management of these species, especially with regard to the 
recommendations from the 2002 Kunming workshop on turtle and tortoise 
trade; and to have Asian range countries for these species continue to 
report on progress in this area.
    34. Conservation of hawksbill turtle (Doc. 34). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Oppose. The CITES Secretariat has raised partial 
funding for a meeting of the wider Caribbean region on hawksbill 
conservation and management, as directed under Decision 12.46. However, 
full funding is not available for such a meeting, and there is 
currently no proposal to amend the Appendices or to take other actions 
with regard to this species at COP13. The United States suggests that 
the funding raised for the Caribbean hawksbill meeting could be 
redirected to support monitoring activities agreed to by the Parties at 
COP12 and to promote cooperation among CITES and other relevant bodies 
and multilateral agreements in the absence of such a regional meeting.
    35. Conservation and management of sharks (Doc. 35). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Undecided. Under Decision 12.47, the Chairman of 
the Animals Committee is to maintain a liaison with the Secretary of 
the Committee on Fisheries of the FAO to monitor progress in 
implementation of the International Plan of Action for the Conservation 
and Management of Sharks. This may be covered in the Report of the 
Chairman of the Animals Committee (Doc. 9.1.1), which was not available 
by July 1, 2004. There was also no separate document posted under this 
agenda item by July 1, 2004.

[[Page 58192]]

    36. Conservation of and trade in Dissostichus species (Doc. 36). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document represents 
the Secretariat's report on work performed under three decisions agreed 
on at COP12 pertaining to toothfish. Decision 12.57 asked Parties to 
report to the Secretariat on their use of CCAMLR Dissostichus Catch 
Documents. Information was received from 10 Parties, including the 
United States, and is summarized in this document. Copies of the full 
submissions were transmitted to CCAMLR, as recommended in Decision 
12.58, and the Secretariat attended CCAMLR's 22nd Commission meeting, 
as called for in Decision 12.59, to promote cooperation between the two 
organizations. The Secretariat considers that its obligations under 
these decisions have been met, but recommends that information exchange 
and cooperation between CITES and CCAMLR should continue under 
Resolutions Conf. 12.4. The United States agrees that the Secretariat 
has fulfilled its obligations under Decisions 12.57-12.59 and supports 
ongoing cooperation and information exchange between CITES and CCAMLR.
    37. Sea cucumbers:
    37.1 Trade in sea cucumbers in the families Holothuriidae and 
Stichopodidae (Doc. 37.1; Animals Committee). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Undecided. Under Decision 12.60, the Animals 
Committee was directed to prepare a discussion paper on the biological 
and trade status of sea cucumbers to provide guidance on actions needed 
for their conservation. This paper should be a reflection of 
recommendations resulting from a workshop on sea cucumber trade and 
conservation convened by the Secretariat in February 2004 in Malaysia.
    37.2 Implementation of Decision 12.60 (Doc. 37.2; Ecuador). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Decision 12.60 directed 
the Animals Committee to prepare a discussion document on the trade and 
conservation of sea cucumbers for COP13. Ecuador's paper notes that the 
Committee was unable to meet the required deadlines and proposes to 
extend the work until COP14. The United States proposed this work on 
sea cucumbers at COP12, and is therefore eager to see a meaningful 
output from the Animals Committee.
    38. Trade in stony corals (Doc. 38). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Oppose. This document was prepared by the Animals Committee 
and should be considered along with Prop. 36 on the amended annotation 
for fossil corals. The document proposes specific deletions from 
Resolution Conf. 12.3 to make it consistent with a proposed annotation 
that exempts several types of coral rock from the provisions of CITES. 
For reasons described below under Prop. 36, we have serious concerns 
about the Animals Committee's approach to fossil corals.
    39. Conservation of bigleaf mahogany: report of the Working Group 
(Doc. 39). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The second 
meeting of the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group (BMWG) was held October 
6-8, 2003, in Belem, Brazil. The recommendations from this meeting were 
circulated at PC14 (February 2004). The Plants Committee prioritized 
the recommendations and developed a list of the five most urgent ones. 
The Secretariat then forwarded these five priority recommendations to 
the BMWG so that they could be considered in the report to COP13. 
However, in the report it submitted to COP13 (Annex to CoP13 Doc. 39), 
the BMWG included the same long list of recommendations that were 
circulated at PC14, and did not take into consideration the priority 
list developed by the Plants Committee. In Document CoP13 Doc. 39, the 
Secretariat recommends that the Parties take note of the report of the 
BMWG and turn the five priority actions recommended by the Plants 
Committee into decisions directed to range countries. The Secretariat 
also recommends that the BMWG not continue after COP13 and that, if the 
Parties determine that bigleaf mahogany still requires special 
attention after COP13, such attention should be given under the 
auspices of the Plants Committee.
    The United States tentatively supports the recommendation of the 
Secretariat that the Parties adopt the five priority actions 
recommended by the Plants Committee as decisions directed to range 
countries. The United States believes that special attention should 
still be given to bigleaf mahogany after COP13, but tentatively 
supports the Secretariat's recommendation that the BMWG not continue 
after COP13 but that activities be undertaken under the auspices of the 
Plants Committee.
    40. Evaluation of the Review of Significant Trade (Doc. 40). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document presents 
the terms of reference developed by the Animals and Plants Committees 
for evaluating the process for the Review of Significant Trade. The 
purpose of this evaluation is to assess the efficacy of the Significant 
Trade Review process and make possible recommendations for its 
improvement. The United States has been actively involved in the 
development of terms of reference for this review, both as a member of 
a joint working group of the Animals and Plants Committees, and through 
discussions as an observer at meetings of the two committees. The 
United States believes an evaluation of the process will assist the 
Parties and the two scientific committees to ensure that the Review of 
Significant Trade is effective in improving the implementation of the 
Convention for Appendix II species traded in significant quantities.

Trade Control and Marking Issues

    42. Commercial trade in Appendix I species (Doc. 42; Israel). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose with exception. The United 
States supports the principle behind this document and appreciates 
Israel's efforts on this issue. Israel proposes amending Resolution 
Conf. 5.10 to clarify that when making a determination of whether an 
import is for ``primarily commercial purposes,'' an importing Party 
should take into account the nature of the transaction between the 
exporter and the importer to ensure that a commercial transaction does 
not underlie the transfer of Appendix I specimens. The United States 
agrees that there appears to be a loop-hole in implementation of this 
resolution, and that some Appendix I specimens are being transferred 
for commercial purposes. This is contrary to the fundamental principles 
of Article II of the Convention that trade in Appendix I specimens ``* 
* * must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances.'' To close 
the apparent loop-hole, we encourage Parties to agree to a broader 
interpretation of ``to be used'' for primarily commercial purposes in 
Article III, paragraphs 3(c) and 5(c), whereby the importing Party 
would look at both the intended use in the importing country and the 
nature of the transaction between the exporter and importer. However, 
we believe that many transfers have some commercial aspects, which does 
not automatically mean the import is for primarily commercial purposes. 
Thus, we believe that the importing Party in making its determination 
should ensure that the commercial transaction is not the primary 
purpose of the transfer, rather than ``ensure that a commercial 
transaction does not underlie the transfer'' as proposed by Israel.
    43. Management of annual export quotas (Doc. 43). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. At COP12, the United States submitted 
the document that provided the basis for the formation of the Export 
Quota Working Group (EQWG). While we are

[[Page 58193]]

disappointed that further progress on this issue has not been achieved 
since COP12, the United States supports the approach outlined by the 
Secretariat and approved by the Standing Committee. The United States 
will remain engaged in this important process because export quotas for 
Appendix II species constitute one of the primary controls on the trade 
in Appendix II specimens under CITES, and the management and 
implementation of such quotas needs to be more consistent.
    44. Use of CITES certificates with ATA or TIR carnets (Doc. 44). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with exception. The United 
States supports this proposal, if it is amended to clarify that the 
official who is responsible for validating CITES documents would need 
to be the official to enter the carnet number on the CITES document at 
the first point of exit. The proposal would provide the appropriate 
level of monitoring of trade for CITES-listed sample collections that 
are being exhibited at trade shows in a number of countries before 
returning home. The first exporting country retains the responsibility 
of ensuring that specimens are legal and the trade is not detrimental, 
while cross-border movement of sample collections is facilitated by the 
CITES document being accompanied by an ATA carnet.
    45. Electronic permitting systems for CITES specimens (Doc. 45; 
Ireland). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. Ireland, on 
behalf of the Member States of the European Community, has submitted a 
proposed decision for the Secretariat to establish guidelines for an 
electronic permitting system for the Parties. This system would 
eventually create a paper-less permitting system that would allow 
Parties to use IT technology for the submission of applications, 
issuance of documents, clearance at the port of entry and reporting for 
all CITES specimens. At SC50, the Working Group on Reporting 
Requirements recommended that the Standing Committee address this issue 
in its report to COP13 and instruct the Secretariat, in consultation 
with UNEP-WCMC and interested Parties, to develop and test software and 
``internet-based modules'' for permit issuance and reporting. The 
United States welcomes discussion of this issue at COP13, but believes 
that the majority of recommendations in the document are premature. We 
believe that the Standing Committee should continue to work on this 
issue and that a Resolution on this issue is not appropriate at this 
time.
    46. Retrospective issuance of permits (Doc. 46; Ireland). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. Ireland, on behalf of the Member 
States of the European Community, has submitted a proposal to amend 
section XIII of Resolution Conf. 12.3 to expand the language concerning 
when a retrospectively issued permit or certificate could be accepted 
by Parties, giving greater leniency in accepting such documents for 
non-commercial shipments. The United States believes that the current 
language in section XIII fully addresses this issue and does not need 
to be expanded.
    50. Plant specimens subject to exemptions (Doc. 50; Switzerland). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Several exemptions allow 
international trade in live plant specimens without CITES permits until 
circumstances change and the plants no longer qualify for the 
exemption. For example, a plant grown from an exempt flasked seedling 
or tissue culture requires a CITES export permit to be traded 
internationally. The United States supports this proposal, which would 
help Parties use consistent information on CITES permits and, thus, 
help in the analysis of trade data.
    53. Revision of Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev.) on Disposal of 
illegally traded, confiscated and accumulated specimens (Doc. 53; 
Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States 
supports the proposal to replace language from Resolution Conf. 9.10 
that was omitted during the consolidation process. The United States 
does not object to the addition of language on disposal of Appendix III 
specimens and agrees that Parties have the right to not sell 
confiscated dead Appendix II and III specimens.
    54. Identification Manual (Doc. 54). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. This document is a report from the Secretariat on 
progress in the development of identification materials for listed 
species.

Exemptions and Special Trade Provisions

    55. Personal and household effects. Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position on Agenda Items 55.1, 55.2, and 55.3: Support with the 
exceptions noted below. The United States supports China's proposal to 
have the Secretariat maintain a list by country of specific specimens 
that require an export permit when traded as personal or household 
effects. Importing Parties would generally assume that an export permit 
is not required if the exporting Party had not notified the Secretariat 
of a requirement. Under the Lacey Act, however, the United States would 
require an export permit if the Party requires an export permit, even 
if that Party had not notified the Secretariat of the requirement. The 
United States also supports Ireland's and Australia's proposals to add 
specimens of certain coral, shells of giant clam, and seahorse to the 
current list of Appendix II species that do not require CITES permits 
for personal effects when the quantities do not exceed a specified 
number. We believe that the coral exemption needs to be discussed to 
clarify if it includes manufactured products. Both lists could assist 
enforcement personnel and help facilitate trade in personal and 
household effects when such trade is not of conservation concern. 
However, the United States hopes that over time the list of specimens 
does not become so long as to create a burden to enforcement personnel.
    56. Operations that breed Appendix I species in captivity for 
commercial purposes:
    56.1 Evaluation of the process for registration (Doc. 56.1). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document presents 
the conclusions and recommendations derived from a review of problems 
the Parties have experienced in implementing the registration 
procedures contained in Resolution Conf. 12.10 for commercial captive-
breeding operations for Appendix I species. The United States agrees 
with the Animals Committee that it is too soon to recommend changes to 
Resolution Conf. 12.10, since this resolution has been revised at both 
COP11 and COP12. However, the United States also agrees that the 
Standing Committee should examine the issue of trade in Appendix I 
species from non-registered commercial breeding operations.
    The United States notes that the consultation process contained in 
the current resolution has been valuable in precluding registration of 
operations--and preventing trade from them--when they were determined 
not to be producing specimens that meet the CITES definition of ``bred 
in captivity.''
    56.3 Relationship between ex situ breeding and in situ 
conservation:
    56.3.1 Report of the Animals Committee (Doc. 56.3.1). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The Animals Committee has spent 
considerable time and effort on the evaluation of the relationship 
between ex situ captive-breeding operations for Appendix I species and 
conservation of these species in situ. The United States concurs that 
further deliberation on this issue within the Animals Committee could 
be time-consuming, with

[[Page 58194]]

potentially no clear outcome. We agree that this issue is linked to 
other topics, such as the relationship between CITES and the Convention 
on Biological Diversity, but is not strictly related to implementation 
of the Convention. The United States believes the recommendations 
contained in the document from Mexico (Doc. 56.3.2) provide reasonable 
guidance to the Parties on this issue and should preclude the need for 
further deliberations on this topic. As an alternative, the United 
States would advocate that the Parties focus more broadly on measures 
that reduce trade threats to Appendix I species and encourage their 
conservation, with a goal of eventual downlisting or even delisting 
from the Appendices.
    56.3.2 Relationship between commercial ex situ breeding operations 
and in situ conservation of Appendix I species (Doc. 56.3.2; Mexico). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States has had 
a longstanding interest in issues related to the captive breeding of 
Appendix I animals. We are supportive of efforts to consider how 
conservation of these species in the wild can be encouraged, including 
through voluntary partnerships between range countries and captive-
breeding operations in non-range countries.

Amendment of the Appendices

    57. Criteria for amendments of Appendices I and II (Doc. 57). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support although the document was 
not available for review. The United States was an active participant 
in the process to review and revise the existing criteria, having 
served as chairman or co-chairman of the listing criteria working 
groups at PC13 (Geneva, August 2003), AC19 (Geneva, August 2003), and 
AC20 (Johannesburg, March-April 2004). Thus, we can anticipate the 
content of the document. The document will reflect a comprehensive 
evaluation of the applicability of the criteria to a wide range of 
taxa, which has served as a basis for recommendations to revise 
Resolution Conf. 9.24.
    58. Annotations for medicinal plants in the Appendices (Doc. 58). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document is a report 
on the Plants Committee's review of medicinal plant annotations to 
harmonize the terms used, so that they accurately refer to the parts 
and derivatives included in a listing and are consistently used across 
species. The United States has been actively involved in the Plants 
Committee's review and supports the continuation of this work to its 
completion.
    59. Standard nomenclature:
    59.1 Standard nomenclature for birds (Doc. 59.1; Mexico). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Support. Since COP12, at meetings of the 
Animals Committee, Mexico has raised concerns about the standard 
reference, Handbook of the Birds of the World (del Hoyo et al., eds., 
1997, 1999) adopted at COP12 for Psittaciformes (parrots and their 
relatives) and Trochilidae (hummingbirds). Mexico has raised questions 
about the scientific rigor behind the taxonomy presented in the new 
reference, noting that it has also complicated the listing of the 
yellow-headed amazon parrot (Amazona ochrocephala) and its subspecies. 
Mexico recommends that the Parties should return to using the reference 
by Sibley and Monroe (1990) as the standard reference for taxonomy and 
nomenclature for all birds. The United States believes that Mexico's 
recommendation has merit, to reduce confusion (i.e., by maintaining a 
single taxonomic reference for birds) and to be conservative with 
regard to the use of taxonomy that has had longstanding application in 
CITES.
    59.2 Recognition of Chamaeleo excubitor as a separate species (Doc. 
59.2; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Kenya has 
provided documentation and a rationale for treating this taxon as a 
separate and distinct taxon from C. fischeri, with which it is 
currently treated as a synonym. Kenya asks that this be considered by 
the Nomenclature Committee to assist in the regulation and monitoring 
of trade in this species. We agree that it is entirely appropriate for 
the Nomenclature Committee to evaluate the situation and provide a 
recommendation on whether or not to separate these two species of 
chameleon in the CITES checklist.
    60. Proposals to amend Appendices I and II (Doc. 60).
    Prop. 1. Exempt from the provisions of the Convention in vitro 
cultivated DNA, cells or cell lines, urine and feces, medicines and 
other pharmaceutical products, and fossils (Ireland). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Oppose. The proposal stipulates that the exempted 
DNA, cells or cell lines, and medicines and pharmaceutical products 
would not contain any part of the original organism from which it was 
derived. This proposal is similar to the next proposal (Prop. 2), but 
includes additional types of specimens to be exempted, which were not 
included in the recommendations of the Standing Committee working 
group. Furthermore, we have consulted with U.S. geneticists about the 
terminology used in this proposal and have concluded that the term ``in 
vitro cultivated DNA'' is not widely used in the scientific community, 
but that ``synthetic DNA,'' ``amplified DNA,'' or ``replicated DNA'' 
would be preferable. The United States also advocates the development 
of a clear definition of ``fossil'' so that, if this proposal is 
adopted, implementation problems can be avoided and so that the term is 
not interpreted so broadly as to be potentially detrimental to listed 
species.
    Prop. 2. Exempt from the provisions of the Convention in vitro 
cultivated DNA, urine and feces, synthetically produced medicines and 
other pharmaceutical products, and fossils (Switzerland as the 
Depositary Government, at the request of the Standing Committee). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with exception. A similar 
proposal was submitted to COP12, but was withdrawn for technical 
reasons. This proposal stipulates that the exempted DNA as well as 
medicines and pharmaceutical products would not contain any part of the 
original organism from which it was derived. The proposal reflects the 
outcome of deliberations of a working group, established by the 
Standing Committee, in which the United States participated. The United 
States already exempts synthetic DNA, feces, and urine from CITES 
requirements. As with the previous proposal, we have concerns regarding 
the term ``in vitro cultivated DNA'' and ``fossil'' (see Prop. 1 
above).
    Prop. 3. Transfer the Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) 
from Appendix II to Appendix I (Thailand). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Undecided. The Irrawaddy dolphin is widely distributed 
through bays and some rivers from Australia to the Philippines and into 
eastern India. The Standing Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans of the 
Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission recently 
reviewed the status of this species and reported that densities appear 
to be low in most areas and several populations are believed to be 
seriously depleted. The Sub-Committee expressed concern about reports 
of live capture from small populations of the species. Incidental take 
in fisheries and habitat degradation are also causes of concern. The 
proposal does not provide much information about the current extent of 
trade in these dolphins, or why a ban on international commercial trade 
would help conserve the species (which is protected in most range 
States). We will continue to investigate the information in the 
proposal and from other sources, with a view toward

[[Page 58195]]

understanding the current level of illegal trade and the vulnerability 
of the species to extinction in the near term.
    Prop. 4. Transfer from Appendix I to Appendix II the Okhotsk Sea--
West Pacific stock, the Northeast Atlantic stock, and the North 
Atlantic Central stock of the northern minke whale (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata) (Japan). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. As 
with past proposals to downlist whales under CITES, the United States 
opposes this proposal because of the need for IWC-CITES coordination 
(as repeatedly expressed in CITES Resolutions), the lack of an 
international management regime under the International Convention for 
the Regulation of Whaling, the lack of international consensus on 
tracking whale products with DNA registers, and the stipulations of the 
CITES downlisting criteria.
    Prop. 6. Transfer all Appendix I populations of lion (Panthera leo) 
to Appendix I (Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The 
African populations of the species are proposed for inclusion in 
Appendix I (the Asian subspecies, P.l. persica, is already listed in 
Appendix I) on the basis that all are declining, and those of West and 
Central Africa are fragmented, small, and isolated. Although African 
lions have experienced declines due to a number of factors, these are 
primarily related to loss of habitat, reductions in prey populations, 
and killing of lions as ``problem animals.'' International trade in 
lion specimens, primarily hunting trophies, is limited, but has the 
potential to exacerbate population declines if not managed at 
sustainable levels. We believe that listing of the species in Appendix 
I may be premature, and a more appropriate action would be to include 
the species in the Significant Trade Review of the Animals Committee, 
to review the basis for current trade levels, particularly since the 
proponent has indicated that hunting quotas could be considered even if 
the species were to be placed in Appendix I.
    Prop. 7. Amendment of the annotation regarding the Namibian 
population of African elephant (Loxodonta africana), listed in Appendix 
II, to allow an annual export quota of raw ivory, trade in worked ivory 
for commercial purposes, and trade in leather and hair goods for 
commercial purposes (Namibia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Oppose with exception. This and other elephant issues will be discussed 
at an African Elephant Range States Dialogue meeting just prior to 
COP13, and the United States intends to await the outcome of 
deliberations by the range countries. However, we particularly note 
that no determination has yet been made as to whether conditions have 
been met for the one-off sale of ivory from Namibia approved by the 
Conference of the Parties at COP12, so the consideration of additional 
ivory trade, especially a sustained annual quota, may be premature. The 
available information suggests that trade in elephant leather and hair 
products are not linked to poaching, and as such the U.S. has supported 
such trade in the past.
    Prop. 8. Amendment of the annotation regarding the South African 
population of African elephant (Loxodonta africana), listed in Appendix 
II, to allow trade in leather goods for commercial purposes (South 
Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. At COP12, the 
proposal by South Africa with regard to its elephant population (COP12 
Prop. 8) was to allow, among other things, commercial trade in leather 
goods. During debate on the proposal and subsequent amendments, this 
was inadvertently modified to refer to non-commercial trade in leather 
goods, which was adopted. South Africa has submitted the current 
proposal to reflect their original intent. This and other elephant 
issues will be discussed at an African Elephant Range States Dialogue 
meeting just prior to COP13. The United States intends to await the 
outcome of deliberations by the range countries and may adjust its 
final position on this proposal based on the outcome of that meeting.
    Prop. 9. Transfer of the Southern white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium 
simum simum) population of Swaziland from Appendix I to Appendix II for 
the exclusive purpose of allowing trade in live animals and hunting 
trophies (Swaziland). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. We 
understand that Swaziland has only two small but stable or increasing 
populations of this species (a total of approximately 60 animals in 
2003) in protected areas constituting a small proportion of the 
country's land area. However, the Southern white rhinos in Swaziland 
are considered to be part of the South African metapopulation of this 
subspecies (Swaziland previously having been part of South Africa, with 
the majority of its current border contiguous with South Africa). 
Because the South African population of this subspecies has already 
been downlisted to Appendix II, it makes biological sense to also 
transfer Swaziland's population to Appendix II. We note that the 
purpose of this proposal is to allow only limited trade in live animals 
and trophies, much of which would be allowed even if the species were 
to be retained in Appendix I, and is therefore precautionary.
    Prop. 11. Transfer of the lesser sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua 
sulphurea) from Appendix II to Appendix I (Indonesia). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. This species has long been a focus of 
international concern. The species is considered Critically Endangered 
by IUCN, and both Germany and the United States have considered 
submitting proposals for previous COPs to include this species in 
Appendix I. Illegal trade in the species continues to be a problem, and 
wild-caught birds may be traded as captive-bred specimens once they 
leave Indonesia. The species qualifies for Appendix I based on its 
biological status and the continued threat from trade.
    Prop. 13. Transfer of Finsch's amazon parrot (Amazona finschi) from 
Appendix II to Appendix I (Mexico). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. This species has experienced significant declines in 
Mexico, where it is an endemic species. This is a species that has been 
historically smuggled into the United States in significant numbers, 
and illegal shipments have also been seized elsewhere. Recent studies 
in Mexico indicate that the species cannot currently sustain harvest 
for commercial trade. The United States previously considered proposing 
this species for inclusion in Appendix I, but deferred to Mexico to 
take appropriate action.
    Prop. 15. Transfer of the spider tortoise (Pyxis arachnoides) from 
Appendix II to Appendix I (Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Oppose. This species is endemic to Madagascar and has been 
subject to increased demand for legal and illegal trade in recent 
years. Deterioration and loss of habitat are potential threats to this 
species, but actual relationship of these factors to the status of the 
species is not well documented in the proposal. The population is 
estimated at over 10,000 individuals, but the area of distribution and 
extent of population fragmentation is currently unknown and under 
discussion. At least through 2000-2001, trade in the species was not 
well regulated, and seizures of the species and anecdotal information 
point to ongoing illegal trade. Due to the country-wide review of trade 
in CITES-listed species, exports of this species from Madagascar may be 
better managed and regulated than in the past. Because of improvements 
in trade controls by the range country, combined with the lack of 
information to indicate an imminent threat to the species, it is

[[Page 58196]]

difficult to conclude that this species currently qualifies for 
Appendix I listing.
    Prop. 17. Include the Malayan snail-eating turtle (Malayemys 
subtrijuga) in Appendix II (Indonesia). This proposal is the same as 
Prop. 16. Due to wording discrepancies, the Secretariat considered this 
to be a separate proposal from Indonesia, whereas Indonesia had 
indicated to us that they had submitted a letter indicating their 
intent to co-sponsor the U.S. proposal. No actual proposal, other than 
the letter, was submitted by Indonesia.
    Prop. 19. Include the Malayan flat-shelled turtle (Notochelys 
platynota) in Appendix I (Indonesia). This proposal is the same as 
Prop. 18. See discussion in Prop. 17, above.
    Prop. 22. Include the Fly River turtle (Carettochelys insculpta) in 
Appendix II (Indonesia). This proposal is the same as Prop. 21. See 
discussion in Prop. 17, above.
    Prop. 24. Transfer of the Cuban population of the American 
crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) from Appendix I to Appendix II under the 
ranching provisions of Resolution Conf. 11.16 (Cuba). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. Based on 10 years of monitoring, as well 
as other information demonstrating general compliance with the ranching 
resolution, the population appears to qualify for downlisting as 
proposed. The proposal is endorsed by the IUCN Crocodile Specialist 
Group. We note that under the United States Endangered Species Act, the 
American crocodile is listed as endangered. The historic practice under 
our stricter domestic measure is that the necessary findings to allow 
commercial imports into the United States have not been made, and 
pending any change in practice, the United States would not allow 
imports of skins or products originating from ranched populations.
    Prop. 25. Transfer of the Namibian population of Nile crocodile 
(Crocodylus niloticus) from Appendix I to Appendix II (Namibia). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with exceptions. The 
population of this species in Namibia is limited in distribution, 
because of the arid conditions in most of the country, but where it 
occurs the population is considered to be stable or increasing and not 
subject to significant harvest pressures or other factors. The proposed 
downlisting is purported to be primarily to allow trade in hunting 
trophies, with no other planned exports. The Namibian population of 
this species may be considered part of the metapopulation of 
neighboring countries, and their populations are already listed in 
Appendix II. However, there are concerns that Namibia has not provided 
actual population information in the proposal, and the IUCN Crocodile 
Specialist Group has not provided an opinion on the proposal. Both of 
these may be forthcoming before or at the COP.
    Prop. 26. Maintenance of the Zambian population of Nile crocodile 
(Crocodylus niloticus) in Appendix II, with an annual quota of 548 wild 
specimens (Zambia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. It is 
the U.S. interpretation of Resolution Conf. 11.16 that such a proposal 
from Zambia is not necessary, but only that they should consult with 
the Secretariat when they modify exports of wild-origin specimens from 
levels established in their original ranching proposal adopted by the 
Parties. It can be expected that, if a ranching program is successful 
and results in the improved status of the ranched population, a higher 
level of sustainable harvest may ultimately be achieved. It is known 
that one population, that of the Luangwa River, increased by 63% 
between 1996 and 2003.
    Prop. 27. Include all species of leaf-tailed geckos (Uroplatus 
spp.) in Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Support. The proposal is to list U. alluaudi due to its restricted 
range and rarity, and the remaining species as look-alikes. U.S. trade 
data show that thousands have been imported in recent years. We also 
note that these species continue to be the subject of articles in 
reptile hobbyist magazines, which promote keeping them and state that 
they are available as wild-collected specimens.
    Prop. 28. Include all species of leaf-nosed snakes (Langaha spp.) 
in Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Oppose. The proponent states that these species should be included in 
the Appendices as a precautionary measure, due to their rarity. 
Although two of the species (L. alluaudi and L. pseudoalluaudi) have 
restricted distributions and all species are found infrequently, the 
proponent clearly states and documents that trade in the species is 
very limited. None of the species is listed by the IUCN (2004). Given 
that this proposal lacks any scientific information on population 
status or trends, and that there is no evidence of a substantial number 
of specimens in legal or illegal trade, an Appendix III listing would 
be more appropriate if Madagascar wishes to regulate and monitor trade 
in this endemic species.
    Prop. 29. Include a tree snake (Lycodryas [= Stenophis] citrinus) 
in Appendix II (Madagascar). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Oppose. Although L. citrinus appears to be restricted to two national 
parks and nearby areas, the proposal states that ``in the wild, the 
animal is rather plentiful locally.'' Furthermore, the proponent 
clearly states and documents that trade in the species is very limited 
(4 exported in 2001, 15 in 2002, and 0 in 2003). The species is not 
listed by IUCN (2004). Given that this proposal lacks any scientific 
information to indicate that the species is significantly affected by 
trade, an Appendix III listing would be more appropriate if Madagascar 
wishes to regulate and monitor trade this endemic species.
    Prop. 30. Include the Mt. Kenya bush viper (Atheris desaixi) in 
Appendix II (Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 
species is only found in Kenya. Despite a lack of any population 
surveys or monitoring, Kenya assumes the population is in decline due 
to habitat loss and increased removal of specimens for trade. The 
species is protected under Kenyan law. There has been illegal trade in 
the species, as evidenced by a confiscation of 27 specimens destined 
for the United States between 1999 and 2000. Although there are no data 
on the number of specimens in the global captive population, the 
proponent states that the number is presumed to be significant. This 
species is not listed by IUCN (2004). Given that this proposal lacks 
any scientific population status information and that there is no 
evidence of a substantial number of specimens in legal or illegal 
trade, an Appendix III listing would be more appropriate if Kenya 
wishes to regulate and monitor trade in this endemic species.
    Prop. 31. Inclusion of Kenya horned viper (Bitis worthingtoni) in 
Appendix II (Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This 
species is endemic to Kenya. Despite the lack of any population surveys 
or monitoring, Kenya assumes the population is in decline due to 
habitat loss and increased removal of specimens for trade. The species 
is protected under Kenyan law. There has been illegal trade in the 
species, as evidenced by a confiscation of 37 specimens destined for 
the United States between 1999 and 2000. Germany reported 19 specimens 
illegally imported between May and October 1999. Although there are no 
data on the number of specimens in the global captive population, the 
proponent states that the number is presumed to be significant. This 
species is not listed by IUCN (2004). Given that this proposal lacks 
any scientific

[[Page 58197]]

population status information, and that there is no evidence of a large 
amount of specimens in legal or illegal trade, an Appendix III listing 
would be more appropriate if Kenya wishes to regulate and monitor trade 
in this endemic species.
    Prop. 32. Inclusion of the great white shark (Carcharodon 
carcharias) in Appendix II with a zero quota (Australia, Madagascar). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with exception. Australia 
and the United States unsuccessfully proposed this species for listing 
in Appendix I at COP11. In March 2004, the CITES Animals Committee 
evaluated an Australian proposal to list white sharks in Appendix I and 
determined that the species appeared to qualify for Appendix II. The 
current proposal provides substantial information about the species' 
decline in various parts of its range, and presents some compelling 
reasons to list the species in Appendix II. We are concerned that the 
zero quota contained in the proposal is more restrictive than an 
Appendix I listing and would bar any international movement in 
scientific research samples or other non-commercial, non-detrimental 
trade. We note that the Fisheries Department of the FAO convened a 
panel of fisheries experts in July 2004, in part to review this 
proposal. The panel could not ascertain the global status for the 
species, but indicated that some regional and national populations 
appeared threatened by unsustainable catches in recent years. Catches 
in other regions appeared sustainable, while the status of some 
populations remained uncertain. Given these results, the expected 
continued demand for white shark products, the species' vulnerability 
to overexploitation, and the international scope of trade in its parts, 
we support the adoption of the proposal with some modification to its 
zero quota.
    Prop. 34. Deletion of the annotation ``sensu D'Abrera'' from the 
listings of Ornithoptera spp., Trogonoptera spp., and Troides spp. in 
Appendix II (Switzerland as Depositary Government, at the request of 
the Nomenclature Committee). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Support. This deletion would serve to bring this listing in line with 
the rules adopted by the Nomenclature Committee (i.e., that the choice 
of nomenclatural standard is not part of the listing process, but is a 
decision made by the Nomenclature Committee) and would not affect the 
status of the listed butterflies. More information on this will be 
presented by the Nomenclature Committee, as part of its report, which 
is not yet available.
    Prop. 35. Inclusion of the European date mussel (Lithophaga 
lithophaga) in Appendix II (Italy, Slovenia, on behalf of the Member 
States of the European Community). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: 
Support. Listing in Appendix II is proposed to help regulate 
international trade, document shifting international trade, prevent 
illegal trade, and promote sustainable harvest methods for the species 
that will help to conserve coastal limestone rock habitat. The 
proponents state that trade in the species is shifting from Western 
Mediterranean countries that limit or ban collection, utilization, and 
export of the species to northern and eastern European countries, where 
conservation of the species is limited. Discussions with the proponents 
indicate that illegal trade has increased, as evidenced by the 
confiscation of several tons of the species annually in Italy and 
Slovenia. Current harvest methods are considered unsustainable and 
destructive to the local habitat, and over-harvest is negatively 
affecting the population status of this late-maturing species.
    Prop. 36. Amendment of the annotation to Helioporidae, Tubiporidae, 
Scleractinia, Milleporidae, and Stylasteridae to exempt fossils, and 
specifically coral rock, except for live rock (Switzerland as the 
Depositary Government, at the request of the Animals Committee). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This proposal arose from 
discussions in the Animals Committee, which could not reach consensus 
on a scientific and geological definition of fossil corals. It instead 
endorsed a list of coral products that could be considered fossils, 
hoping to ease confusion among customs officers and law enforcement 
personnel about this issue. The list distinguishes ``fossil'' from 
``non-fossil'' coral rocks by their shipping method, size, and presence 
or absence of attached invertebrate organisms. The intent of this list 
is to retain ``live rock'' (as defined by CITES) in Appendix II while 
excluding all other coral rock specimens as fossils. Although we 
originally agreed with the Animals Committee proposal in March 2004, we 
have since conferred with our law enforcement personnel on this issue. 
These discussions have raised serious concerns about the precedent, 
ecological risk, and enforceability of the proposed annotation. U.S. 
wildlife inspectors indicate that many shipments of coral ``live rock'' 
are already packed in ways that would characterize them as fossils and 
thus exempt them from CITES controls under the proposed definition. 
Furthermore, inspections of coral rock shipments could become 
unacceptably burdensome and subjective if officials must decide whether 
the brief descriptions in the Swiss proposal apply to a given shipping 
method or a given type of commodity.
    Prop. 37. Inclusion of Hoodia spp. in Appendix II (with an 
exemption for certain materials produced by proponent countries that 
will bear a label stating that export is in compliance with the 
requirements of the CITES Management Authority) (Submitted by Botswana, 
Namibia, South Africa). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. 
Hoodia spp. is native to the proponent states, as well as Angola and 
possibly Zimbabwe. The proposal discusses the threat of over-harvest of 
wild populations in light of the recent increased popularity of H. 
gordonii, mainly in Europe and North America, due to its appetite-
suppressing qualities in dietary supplements.
    Despite legislation in the proponent countries to regulate the 
harvest and export of Hoodia spp., potential, although unquantified, 
illegal collection may threaten existing wild populations. Species are 
not clearly enumerated, nor are their ranges. The proposed exemption is 
problematic, and information from other range countries (i.e., Angola 
and Zimbabwe) is lacking. If the purpose of the listing is to ensure 
legal control, then an Appendix III listing would be more appropriate.
    Prop. 38. Annotate Euphorbiaceae in Appendix II to exempt 
artificially propagated specimens of Euphorbia lactea from CITES 
provisions if they are grafted on Euphorbia neriifolia, color mutants, 
or crested-branch forming or fan-shaped (Thailand). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support with exception. Although the United 
States agrees in principle with the proposal, as written, we are 
concerned that the proposal does not exempt the rootstock of E. 
neriifolia from CITES controls. Therefore, the rootstock of the grafted 
specimens proposed for exemption would still be regulated as an 
Appendix II species. We are unsure whether the term ``color mutant'' is 
adequately descriptive, which may lead to wild specimens traded under 
the exemption because the species is naturally dark green with whitish-
green bands (variegated) along the midrib of the plant. Modifications 
are needed to improve this proposal before it is adopted. The proponent 
should revise the proposal before the Parties take a decision on it.
    Prop. 39. Annotate Euphorbiaceae in Appendix II to exempt 
artificially propagated specimens of Euphorbia milii from CITES 
provisions if they are

[[Page 58198]]

traded in shipments of 100 or more specimens and are readily 
recognizable as artificially propagated specimens (Thailand). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The proponents state that the 
proposal is to exempt artificially propagated ``poysean'' cultivars of 
Euphorbia milii. However, the poysean is a hybrid of Euphorbia milii 
and Euphorbia lophogona, and should be referred to as Euphorbia x lomi. 
Both species and hybrid are popular ornamental plants. The species are 
endemic to Madagascar and have been reported to hybridize in the wild. 
Neither species is listed in the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened 
Plants. However, eight forms (varieties and subspecies) of Euphorbia 
milii have recently been assessed by IUCN as Vulnerable and two as 
Endangered.
    We are concerned that the proponent did not include Euphorbia 
lophogona in the proposal, nor any information on trade in wild-
collected specimens of these species and their wild forms, and the 
implications this exemption may have for enforcement and control of 
trade in wild specimens. Amending the proposal to include Euphorbia 
lophogona would expand the scope of this proposal. Therefore, the 
proponent should consider withdrawing the proposal to address these 
deficiencies and submit it to the next meeting of the Plants Committee 
for a more thorough review and discussion, and possible resubmission 
for consideration at COP14.
    Prop. 40. Annotation of Orchidaceae in Appendix II to exempt all 
hybrids from the provisions of the Convention (Thailand). Tentative 
U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This proposal was discussed at the 
PC14. The United States and other Parties advised Thailand at the time 
that this proposal was overly broad, could result in enforcement 
difficulties, and was premature given the lack of experience with the 
more limited exemption of Phalaenopsis adopted at COP12.
    Prop. 41. Annotation of Orchidaceae in Appendix II to exempt 
hybrids of seven genera when they are in flower with at least one fully 
open flower, and when they are potted and labeled, and professionally 
processed for commercial retail sale. Exempt specimens must also 
exhibit the characteristics of artificially propagated plants 
(Switzerland). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This 
proposal was discussed at PC14, where the Parties advised that such a 
proposal could be considered at COP13 if identification materials were 
provided with the proposal so that they would be available before the 
exemption would go into effect. The proponent has provided as an annex 
to the proposal extensive color images of the various types of hybrids 
that would be exempted. This proposal is similar to the original 
proposal submitted by the United States for COP12 (CoP12 Prop. 51) and 
includes most of the same genera, but includes a further requirement 
that the plants must be in flower, which would aid greatly in 
identification.
    Prop. 42. Amendment of the current annotation of Orchidaceae in 
Appendix II so that shipments of Phalaenopsis hybrids may qualify for 
an exemption to the provisions of the Convention when shipments contain 
a minimum of 20 rather than 100 specimens per container, with the other 
requirements remaining unchanged (Switzerland as the Depositary 
Government, at the request of the Plants Committee). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. At PC14 the United States reported that 
an informal survey of orchid importing and exporting countries, 
including the United States, had indicated that the annotation adopted 
at COP12 to exempt Phalaenopsis hybrids was not being applied, partly 
because the minimum number of plants per container, 100, was too high 
to be practical. It was agreed by the Plants Committee to have a 
proposal submitted to COP13 to reduce this number to 20, which is still 
a sufficient number to judge uniformity and consistency to evaluate 
whether the plants are artificially propagated.
    Prop. 43. Transfer the Christmas orchid (Cattleya trianei) from 
Appendix I to Appendix II (Colombia). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Oppose. This orchid species was included in Appendix I in 
1975; all other species of the genus Cattleya are listed in Appendix 
II. It is an epiphyte endemic to the Colombian Andes. In the late 19th 
and early 20th Centuries, the species was severely over-collected to 
near extinction. It is currently listed as Indeterminate (yet to be 
determined as Vulnerable or Endangered) in the 1997 IUCN Red List of 
Threatened Plants. The information provided in the proposal appears to 
represent preliminary findings on the current status of the species, 
but indicates that the majority of historically documented 
subpopulations have not been studied. The proposal to transfer the 
species to Appendix II is based on presumptions that the species will 
recover, not that it has recovered, and also on the fact that current 
trade consists of artificially propagated specimens that are well 
regulated. No recent illegal trade has been documented. The proposal 
does not provide sufficient information about the current status of the 
wild population to determine whether or not the species continues to 
meet the biological criteria for Appendix I, and therefore such a 
proposal seems premature.
    Prop. 44. Transfer the blue vanda orchid (Vanda coerulea) from 
Appendix I to Appendix II (Thailand). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Oppose. This orchid was severely depleted in portions of its 
range due to over-collection in the past, although, the proponent 
states that most range countries' populations are believed to have 
recovered and that export of wild-collected specimens is prohibited in 
all range countries by domestic legislation. The preferred specimens 
for trade in this species are artificially propagated specimens of 
select clones and hybrids, which are vastly superior in color and form 
to wild-collected specimens. This species is listed as Rare in the 1997 
IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, although currently the main threat 
to the species is forest conversion and not collection from the wild 
for international trade. There is still concern, however, that this 
species continues to be collected from the wild, particularly in India 
and Myanmar.
    Prop. 45. Annotation of Cistanche deserticola to include all parts 
and derivatives except seeds, spores, and pollen; flasked seedlings and 
tissue cultures; and cut flowers from artificially propagated plants 
(China). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Since its 
inclusion in Appendix II at COP11, there has been confusion and 
problems with properly annotating the listing to ensure that the 
correct parts are regulated. This proposal is intended to correct this 
longstanding problem.
    Prop. 46. Transfer Dypsis decipiens (syn. Chrysalidocarpus 
decipiens) from Appendix II to Appendix I (Madagascar). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. In 1995, the wild population of this 
slow-growing endemic palm species was estimated at 200 individuals. 
Because seed was excluded from the 1975 Appendix II listing, unchecked 
trade in wild seed continues. The proponents believe that uplisting is 
necessary to save this species from extinction. Biologically, this 
species qualifies for inclusion in Appendix I, although seeds of this 
species cannot be readily distinguished from other palms. Still, 
listing in Appendix I may prove useful by requiring non-range countries 
to clearly demonstrate the origin of seed used to grow artificially 
propagated plants. This will be especially important if the recommended 
changes to Resolution Conf. 11.11 are adopted (see agenda

[[Page 58199]]

item 51), since plants grown from exempt parts (e.g., seeds) would be 
treated as artificially propagated. An alternative to the current 
proposal would be to annotate the current listing so that seeds are 
included and no longer exempt.
    Prop. 49. Inclusion of Aquilaria spp. and Gyrinops spp. in Appendix 
II (except A. malaccensis, which is already listed) (Indonesia). 
Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. Immediately after listing 
of A. malaccensis Appendix II at COP9, the Parties recognized that 
several other genera in the family Thymelaeaceae (up to seven genera, 
all of which have species native to Indonesia) produce the resinous 
heartwood, known as agarwood, which is the commodity in trade. It is 
unclear why only two of these genera are included in this proposal and 
how the expansion of this listing (which does not propose including 
parts and derivatives) would improve the control of trade in agarwood. 
Trade in agarwood has been studied by the Plants Committee, which has 
not yet developed final recommendations for achieving sustainability in 
the harvest and trade of agarwood, or advised whether additional 
agarwood-producing species should be listed. Therefore, the proposal 
from Indonesia may be premature.
    Prop. 50. Inclusion of ramin (Gonystylus spp.) in Appendix II with 
an annotation to include all parts and derivatives except seeds, 
spores, and pollen; flasked seedlings and tissue cultures; and cut 
flowers from artificially propagated plants (Indonesia). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Undecided. The genus Gonystylus consists of 29-40 
species of tropical hardwoods, the vast majority of which are found on 
Borneo. All species have declined throughout their ranges, with 15 
species listed as vulnerable in the 1997 IUCN Red List of Threatened 
Plants. Of the six species known to be commercially valuable, G. 
bancanus is the dominant species traded as ramin wood. Gonystylus 
bancanus occurs in peat-swamp, lowland freshwater swamp, and coastal 
peat-swamp forests of Indonesia and Malaysia. The vast majority of 
ramin in trade is from Indonesia (Kalimantan) with smaller amounts from 
Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah). However, most of the ramin stocks in 
Indonesia and Malaysia have been depleted over the last 30 years. At 
COP8 and COP9, the Netherlands proposed Gonystylus bancanus for listing 
in Appendix II, only to withdraw the proposals at those meetings. In 
2001, Indonesia included all Gonystylus species in Appendix III with 
annotation 1 (same annotation as this proposal), and 
subsequently prohibited the export of all ramin logs and saw timber. In 
2002, Malaysia imposed a complete ban on the import of all ramin logs 
from Indonesia. Despite these measures, illegal logging of ramin for 
the international market still occurs in Indonesia and has resulted in 
deforestation in many of the country's national parks. We understand 
that Indonesia and Malaysia continue to negotiate over this proposal 
and which parts and products might be included if it is adopted. We are 
not certain of the position of other range countries, including 
Malaysia, on inclusion of these species in Appendix II and what such a 
listing might practically accomplish beyond the current Appendix III 
listing by Indonesia. We are consulting with the range countries, as 
well as experts and other importing countries to clarify that range of 
support for, and the anticipated effect of, this proposal.
    61. Inclusion of species in Appendix III (Doc. 61; Switzerland, the 
Secretariat). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In 1994, 
the Parties adopted criteria for inclusion of species in Appendix III 
in Resolution Conf. 9.25 (Rev.), which was later amended at COP10. If a 
proposal to amend the Appendices I or II is adopted at COP13 that 
includes an annotation to exempt certain types of specimens (e.g., 
feces), this document then proposes to revise the criteria for 
inclusion of species in Appendix III to include the same annotation 
unless otherwise noted by the listing Party. Additionally, this 
document calls for the repeal of Resolution Conf. 1.5 (Rev. COP12) 
since a species cannot be included in more than one Appendix. The 
United States supports the view that general exemptions that apply to 
species included in Appendices I and II also apply to species included 
in Appendix III. The United States also supports repealing Resolution 
Conf 1.5, since a species cannot be included in more than one Appendix.

Other Themes and Issues

    62. Bushmeat:
    62.1 Bushmeat Working Group (Doc. 62.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support the adoption of the draft resolution but oppose the 
adoption of the two draft decisions. This document reports on the 
progress of the Working Group since its establishment at COP11. It 
contains a draft resolution that incorporates the lessons learned to 
date and identifies issues the Group believes must be addressed in 
order to regulate bushmeat in a sustainable manner and combat illegal 
trade. The document also contains two draft decisions. The first draft 
decision encourages the Working Group, which it suggests be renamed the 
Central African Bushmeat Working Group, to continue its work and report 
to the Secretariat on its progress. The second draft decision 
encourages governments and other donors to support the implementation 
of national action/management plans and the development of a database 
of information on trade in bushmeat. Because bushmeat continues to be 
traded internationally, both regionally and on a larger scale, the 
United States believes that it is appropriate that the issue remain a 
focus within CITES and supports the adoption of the draft resolution. 
We recommend that the draft resolution also include a recommendation 
that the Working Group report to the COP as appropriate on its 
progress. We do not support the adoption of the first draft decision 
because we believe that the Working Group should retain its present 
name in order to encourage other regions facing similar issues to 
become involved in this work. Also, we believe that the reporting 
recommendation should be included in the draft resolution. We believe 
that the recommendations included in the second draft decision are more 
fully addressed in the draft decision included in document COP13 Doc. 
62.2.
    62.2 Bushmeat (Doc. 62.2; Ireland). Tentative U.S. negotiating 
position: Support. Recognizing that bushmeat trade is largely 
restricted to domestic markets and many of the species involved are not 
listed under CITES, Ireland believes that more needs to be done to 
encourage other international organizations to provide assistance in 
regulating the trade in bushmeat. The draft decision contained in the 
document directs the Secretariat to encourage increased involvement of 
the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), through 
the Secretariat of the CBD, and the FAO in this issue. It further calls 
on the FAO to convene a workshop of international organizations, 
subject to sufficient funding, to facilitate the development of an 
action plan to address the problems underlying the unsustainable trade 
in bushmeat.

Conclusion of the Meeting

    63. Determination of the time and venue of the next regular meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties (No document). Tentative U.S. 
negotiating position: Support. The Secretariat does not normally 
circulate a document on the time and venue of the next COP. We

[[Page 58200]]

anticipate receiving information on this at COP13, at which time the 
United States will develop a negotiating position. The United States 
favors holding COP14 in a country where all Parties and observers will 
be admitted without political difficulties.
    64. Closing remarks (No document):

Future Actions

    During our regular public briefings at COP13, we will discuss any 
changes in our negotiating positions. After COP13, we will host a 
public meeting to (see ADDRESSES, Public Meeting, above) to announce 
results of COP13 and invite public input on whether the United States 
should take a reservation on any of the amendments adopted to the CITES 
Appendices. While CITES provides a period of 90 days from the close of 
a COP for any Party to enter a reservation with respect to an amendment 
to Appendices I or II, the United States has never entered a 
reservation on any CITES listing. As discussed in the Federal Register 
notice of November 17, 1987 (52 FR 43924), entering a reservation would 
do very little to relieve importers in the United States from the need 
for foreign export permits because the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 
U.S.C. 3371 et seq.) make it a Federal offense to import into the 
United States any animals taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 
violation of foreign conservation laws. If the foreign nation has 
enacted CITES, and has not taken a reservation with regard to the 
species, part, or derivative, the United States would continue to 
require CITES documents as a condition of import. A reservation by the 
United States also would provide exporters in this country with little 
relief from the need for the U.S. export documents. Receiving countries 
that are party to CITES will require CITES-equivalent documentation 
from the United States even if it enters a reservation, because the 
Parties have agreed to allow trade with non-Parties (including 
reserving countries) only if they issue documents containing all of the 
information required in CITES permits and certificates.

    Authority: This Federal Register notice has been published under 
the authority of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 17, 2004.
Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-21780 Filed 9-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P