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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; Tenth Regular

Meeting

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces resolutions and documents submitted by

the United States for consideration at the tenth regular meeting of the

Conference of the Parties (COP10) to the Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). A separate

Federal Register notice announces U.S. proposals to amend the CITES

Appendices, also submitted for consideration at COP10.

ADDRESSES: Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Operations Branch, Office of

Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, Room 430-C, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief, Operations Branch, Office of Management

Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone 703-358-2095;

electronic mail; [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora, TIAS 8249, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the

Convention, is an international treaty designed to control and regulate

international trade in certain animal and plant species that are or may

become threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the

Convention. Currently, 134 countries, including the United States, are

CITES Parties. CITES calls for biennial meetings of the Conference of

the Parties (COP), which review its implementation, make provisions

enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out its

functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I

and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make

recommendations for the improved effectiveness of the Convention. The

tenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP10)

will be held in Harare, Zimbabwe, June 9-20, 1997.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) hereby publishes the list

of resolutions and documents submitted to the CITES Secretariat by the

United States for consideration at COP10. At this time, the Service has

not been provided with all of the resolutions or species listing

proposals submitted by the other CITES Parties. Once this information

has been received from the CITES Secretariat, the Service will publish

it in another notice, and call for public comments on proposed U.S.

negotiating positions.

This is part of a series of notices that, together with public

meetings, allow the public to participate in the development of the

U.S. positions for COP10. A Federal Register notice published on March

1, 1996 (61 FR 8019): (1) Announced the time and place for COP10; (2)

solicited recommendations for amending CITES Appendices I and II; and

(3) solicited suggestions for resolutions and agenda items for

discussion at COP10. A Federal Register notice published on June 14,

1996 (61 FR 30255) announced a public meeting on July 19, 1996, to

discuss an international study of the effectiveness of CITES, and the

availability for public comment of a questionnaire as part of the

study. A Federal Register notice published on August 28, 1996 (61 FR

44332): (1) contained the provisional agenda for COP10; (2) listed

potential proposed resolutions and agenda items that the United States

was considering submitting for discussion at COP10; (3) invited

comments and information from

[[Page 14690]]

the public on these potential proposals; (4) announced a public meeting

to discuss species proposals and proposed resolutions and agenda items

that the United States was considering submitting for discussion at

COP10; and (5) provided information on how non-governmental

organizations based in the United States can attend COP10 as observers.

A separate, concurrent Federal Register notice published on August 28,

1996 (61 FR 44324), invited comments and information from the public on

possible U.S. proposals to amend the CITES Appendices at COP10. The

Service's regulations governing this public process are found in Title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.

What follows is a discussion of resolutions and documents submitted

by the United States for consideration at COP10 and a summary of

written information and comments received in response to the Federal

Register notice of August 28, 1996. Copies of resolutions and species

proposals submitted by the United States are available on request,

electronically or in paper form, by contacting the Office of Management

Authority at the address above. A separate, concurrent Federal Register

notice describes the species proposals that the United States submitted

for consideration at COP10.

Comments on the possible COP10 agenda items and resolutions that

the Service considered submitting were received from 16 organizations:

Nine wildlife conservation organizations, three commercial animal

exhibitors, one zoological association, one sport-hunting organization,

one pet industry association, and a bird hobbyist group. A summary of

public comment for each resolution or agenda item is presented below.

Those who would like to know in detail what was submitted on a given

question may consult the individual submissions, available from the

Office of Management Authority upon request at the above address. All

resolutions and documents submitted by the Service also took into

consideration the views and comments of other affected Federal

agencies.

Resolutions Submitted by the United States

1. Permits and Certificates

The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties adopted

Resolution Conf. 9.3, a consolidation of nine prior resolutions

pertaining to the standardization of permits and certificates.

Resolution Conf. 9.3 has turned out to be lengthy, difficult to use,

and unclear in parts. The differences in interpretation that have

resulted are creating problems with consistent implementation of the

Convention among Parties. To address this, the United States has

submitted a resolution that clarifies and reorganizes Resolution Conf.

9.3 using annexes. The U.S. draft resolution clarifies that most

provisions of the resolution apply to all permits and certificates

(other than certificates of origin), not just export permits and

reexport certificates. It also proposes a change in the text of the

current resolution to emphasize the need for the data on CITES permits

and certificates to be in the same format as used in CITES annual

reports. It redefines source code ``F'' to include animals born in

captivity (F1 or greater) that do not fulfill the definition of ``bred

in captivity'' in Resolution Conf. 2.12. The resolution also adds new

purpose and source codes to elicit additional information and to

conform with annual report data (``L'' for Law Enforcement and ``O''

for pre-Convention specimens); allows for the use of multiple source

and purpose codes when appropriate; and allows for the issuance of

permits and certificates for more than one type of activity, provided

the accompanying CITES document clearly indicates the type of activity

for each specimen. The August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice

referenced the recommendation of one organization that the Service

clarify the relationship of CITES permitting provisions with those of

other conventions relating to marine species, as regards paragraphs 4

and 5 of Article XIV. The Service agrees that the relationship of CITES

permitting provisions with those of other conventions relating to

marine species, as set forth in Article XIV of the CITES treaty, needs

further discussion. For this and many other reasons, the United States

also submitted a resolution recommending the establishment of a Marine

Fishes Working Group. (For a discussion of the Marine Fishes Working

Group, see item number 13 below.) During the comment period, one

wildlife conservation organization concurred in the need to reorganize

and clarify Resolution Conf. 9.3, and supported redefining source code

``F'' to distinguish ``born in captivity'' from ``bred in captivity.''

No further comments were received. After reviewing the U.S. draft and

suggesting changes, the Secretariat indicated that, although they

support the U.S. recommendations, they would not have sufficient time

to incorporate the Permits and Certificates text into their

recommendations to the Parties; thus necessitating a U.S. resolution.

2. Implementation of Article VII, Paragraph 2: Pre-Convention

Article VII, paragraph 2 of the Convention provides an exemption

from Articles III, IV, and V for any specimen acquired before the

provisions of the Convention applied to that specimen. The resolution

currently in effect on this issue (Resolution Conf. 5.11) allows

Parties to consider accession dates and reservations in determining

whether a specimen was acquired before the Convention applied to that

specimen, with the result that sometimes the same specimen is

considered ``pre-Convention'' by one country, but subject to the

provisions of Articles II, IV, or V of the Convention by another. This

situation has increased the risk of infractions, created opportunities

for the laundering of specimens, particularly of Appendix-I species,

and placed an additional administrative burden on Management

Authorities when the exporting, re-exporting, and importing Parties

disagree over a particular specimen. To remedy this, the United States

submitted a draft resolution eliminating accession dates and

reservations as factors for consideration in the issuance of pre-

Convention certificates and establishing the date the species was first

included in the CITES Appendices as the pre-Convention date. Three

wildlife conservation organizations provided comments in favor of

standardizing the pre-Convention date for a species; however, one noted

their concern that this be done in a way that does not encourage

acceding countries to enter large numbers of reservations. The Service

consulted the Secretariat on a draft of this resolution, and

incorporated useful comments received from them prior to submission of

the proposed resolution.

3. Sale of Appendix-I Tourist Items at International Airports,

Seaports, and Border Crossings

Merchants in places of international departure such as airports and

seaports continue to sell tourist souvenirs of Appendix-I species,

despite the fact that these items cannot be legally exported or

imported by the traveler purchasing them. In addition, some of these

items are offered in ``duty-free'' areas beyond customs control points.

The resultant enforcement problem, either intentionally or

unintentionally, promotes trade in species listed on Appendix I. In an

earlier Federal Register notice, the Service stated that it had

originally believed that this issue could be addressed directly by the

Secretariat through its ongoing educational efforts. However, public

[[Page 14691]]

comment following the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice was

unanimous in the view that the United States should raise this issue at

COP10. Four wildlife conservation organizations submitted comment--

three urged the United States to reconsider submitting a resolution,

and one of those characterized the Service approach as ``a bit naive.''

The fourth organization felt the issue would be appropriately addressed

in a decision document. The Service agrees that this issue should be

brought to the attention of the Parties; based on further discussion

and the foregoing comments, the United States submitted a draft

resolution urging Parties to take all necessary steps to prohibit the

sale of tourist souvenirs of Appendix-I species in places of

international departure and in ``duty-free'' areas beyond customs

control points, including prominent displays of information in places

of international departure and inspection, and provision of information

to merchants.

4. Establishment of Committees

This proposed resolution was not mentioned in earlier Federal

Register notices because the question of committee membership did not

arise as an issue until very recently, with the result that public

comment was neither solicited nor received. However, after discussions

with other governments, the CITES Secretariat, and consultations with

the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce, the Service submitted a

draft resolution to amend the resolution that established the Animals

and Plants Committees (Resolution Conf. 9.1.). As currently written,

Resolution Conf. 9.1 establishes that the membership of the Animals and

Plants Committees shall consist of persons chosen by the major

geographic regions. In the view of the United States, it is more

appropriate that Committee members be Party governments because: (1)

States are members of the Convention, not individuals; (2) it is not

standard practice for non-governmental organizations to serve as a

members of official working committees of international treaties

(although, in some cases, regions have selected individuals who are

employed by or are representatives of non-governmental organizations);

(3) the work of the Committees has become more policy oriented,

requiring participation by representatives authorized to speak for an

accountable to Party States on critical issues; and (4) it is difficult

to replace an individual member without consulting an entire region or

waiting until the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The

U.S. draft resolution recommends that membership on the Animals and

Plants Committees be restricted to Parties to the Convention, as is

standard practice for the Standing Committee. These governments would

then select individuals as contact points for the routine work of the

Animals Committee or Plants Committee. The Service consulted the

Secretariat and some other Party governments on the draft test of this

proposed resolution prior to its submission, and incorporated their

useful comments.

5. Illegal Trade Working Group

In response to the March 1, 1996, Federal Register notice, five

organizations recommended that the United States submit a resolution on

enforcement. Four organizations submitted comments in response to the

August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice: One wildlife conservation

organization asked the Service to reconsider introducing a resolution;

three wildlife conservation organizations encouraged the Service to

submit a discussion paper. One wildlife conservation organization,

citing discussions held during the March 1995 Standing Committee

meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, offered detailed recommendations on

practical measures to improve enforcement. Although the Service had

originally thought a new resolution unnecessary, based on extensive

further discussions, the results of the CITES effectiveness study, and

persistent concerns reflected in the most recent public comments, the

United States submitted a resolution that would establish an Illegal

Trade Working Group to: (1) Assist the Secretariat in providing advice

and training on enforcement to Parties; (2) assist the Identification

Manual Committee in the development of training materials for

enforcement officers; and (3) facilitate international exchange of

illegal wildlife trade information through formal links with ICPO-

Interpol and the World Customs Organization. Representatives of the

Working Group would attend meetings of the Animals, Plants, and

Standing Committees to provide advice and technical assistance. At

COP9, a law enforcement working group was discussed, but not adopted,

for a number of reasons. The draft resolution submitted by the United

States addresses those concerns by limiting Working Group membership to

CITES Secretariat enforcement personnel and Party government

representatives, and by spelling out specific terms of reference that

clarify the Working Group's role.

6. Inspection of Wildlife Shipments

The inspection of wildlife shipments was not mentioned in earlier

Federal Register notices as a prospective subject for a resolution

because it did not arise as an issue until late in October 1996, when

the World Conservation Congress (IUCN) adopted Resolution CGR1.90-rev1

at its First Session, in Montreal, Canada. As a result of this timing,

the Service neither solicited nor received comment on this issue. The

IUCN resolution calls upon all governmental members of IUCN ``to take

whatever steps are necessary, including physical inspection of entering

and departing wildlife shipments, to curtail the illegal trade of

wildlife and wildlife products, and to dedicate the resources needed to

accomplish these goals.'' The United States submitted a resolution

virtually identical to that adopted by the IUCN, for consideration at

COP10, which basically supports and implements the IUCN recommendation

to increase the focus and attention on the need for inspection of

wildlife shipments.

7. Trade with Parties that Have Not Identified a Scientific Authority

The Service was originally considering submitting a resolution that

would recommend against allowing any wildlife trade with any Party that

has not provided the name and address of its Scientific Authority to

the Secretariat. Public comment from four wildlife conservation

organizations supported this general approach, although one wildlife

conservation organization thought Parties should accept imports from a

country not having a Scientific Authority, as long as that country was

able to demonstrate positive scientific evidence of non-detriment. One

sport-hunting organization opposed it. The United States submitted a

draft resolution: (1) Recommending that Parties not accept CITES export

permits from countries that have not identified their Scientific

Authorities to the Secretariat for more than one interval between

biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties; (2) encouraging

countries to designate Scientific Authorities separate from Management

Authorities; (3) directing the Secretariat to continue efforts to

identify the Scientific Authority(s) in each country; and (4)

recommending that neighboring Parties consider sharing their resources

by supporting common scientific institutions to provide the scientific

findings required under the Convention.

[[Page 14692]]

8. Regulation of CITES Shipments Traveling on a Customs Carnet

Many CITES Parties have acceded to the Customs Convention on the

A.T.A. (Admission Temporaire-Temporary Admission) Carnet for the

Temporary Admission of Goods, and to the Customs Convention on the

International Transport of Goods Under Cover of TIR (Transport

International Routier) Carnets. Both of these conventions created the

ability to temporarily enter certain goods without being subject to the

normal duty rates. Because of the temporary nature of these

transactions, Customs globally views these imports as different from

non-carnet imports. Infractions of the CITES Convention routinely

include shipments of CITES species traveling on a Customs Carnet which

have been allowed entry without meeting the applicable CITES

requirements. As a result, many shipments of CITES species traveling on

a Customs Carnet without CITES documentation have been refused entry

into either the importing country or the country of origin upon return.

To remedy this problem, the United States submitted a draft resolution

recommending that all Parties ensure that their Management Authority

issue appropriate documents for shipments traveling on a Customs

Carnet, and strongly urging all Parties to communicate with their

Customs and CITES enforcement officials to ensure all CITES shipments

traveling on a Customs Carnet comply with applicable CITES

requirements. Two wildlife conservation organizations commented in

support of such a resolution.

9. Coral Reporting and Identification

Due to the method in which coral is transported and difficulties in

species identification, coral reporting and identification for CITES

purposes have been problematic. There is both a need for the Parties to

agree on the use of standardized units for reporting coral trade

information in the annual report and a concern that species

identification of readily recognizable coral gravel or ``living rock''

cannot be accomplished at ports of entry. This issue was addressed by

the CITES Animals Committee, which requested that the United States

submit a draft resolution: (1) Amending the Guidelines for the

Preparation and Submission of Annual Reports (CITES Notification No.

788); and (2) amending Resolutions Conf. 9.3, 9.4, and 9.6. The draft

resolution would amend CITES Notification No. 788 to indicate that

trade in specimens of coral transported in water should be reported in

number of pieces, that trade in those coral specimens not transported

in water should be reported in kilograms, and that trade in specimens

of readily recognizable coral gravel or ``living rock'' should be

reported at the Order level (Scleractinia). The draft resolution would

also amend Resolutions Conf. 9.3, 9.4, and 9.6 to conform with the

proposed amendments to Notification No. 788, and would stipulate that

coral sand, its species being not readily recognizable, is not covered

by the provisions of the Convention. Five wildlife conservation

organizations submitted comment in support of the Service position. One

pet industry association supported the proposed changes in coral trade

reporting. One wildlife conservation organization urged the Service to

continue discussing with the Secretariat the possibility of including

in the CITES identification manual the U.S.-produced coral

identification manual.

10. Transport of Live Animals

In adopting Resolution Conf. 9.23, the ninth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties transferred to the Animals Committee issues

pertaining to the transport of live specimens, and recommended that all

live animals be shipped in accordance with the International Air

Transport Association (IATA) Live Animals Regulations, and that all

permits for live animals be conditioned upon compliance with those

regulations. These recommendations were a consolidation of

recommendations of earlier meetings of the Conference of the Parties.

During the first comment period (beginning March 1, 1996), five

organizations had recommended that the Service submit a draft

resolution to amend Resolution Conf. 9.23, providing draft text. At

their September 1996 meeting, the Animals Committee adopted a decision

document and a draft resolution to amend Resolution Conf. 9.23, both

prepared by the Working Group on the Transport of Live Specimens.

During the second comment period (beginning August 28, 1996), four

organizations generally supported the Animals Committee proposed

resolution; however, two expressed concern over the elimination of

language that would have enabled CITES to enact trade bans on species

that continue to be transported in an inhumane way, and one of those

organizations objected to the species-by-species approach, advocating

that ``species'' be changed to ``taxa.'' As Chair of the Working Group

and at the request of the Animals Committee, the United States

submitted this revised draft resolution for consideration at COP10. The

draft resolution directs the Animals Committee to conduct a systematic

review of the scope, causes, and means of reducing the mortality and

morbidity of animals during transport, and directs the Secretariat to

convey recommendations for improvement to the Parties concerned and to

monitor the implementation of those recommendations, reporting its

findings at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The

mortality information already required by Resolution Conf. 9.23 would

be submitted as part of a Party's annual report; failure to submit

these data would be noted in the Secretariat's Report to the Standing

Committee on Parties' Annual Reports. The Animals Committee requested

that the United States consult the Secretariat on its proposed text and

then circulate the draft resolution to members of the Animals Committee

before submitting it to the COP. Due to workload factors, the

Secretariat was unable to forward its comments to the United States

before the January 10 deadline. The Service accordingly proceeded to

submit its proposed resolution, subject to modification before COP10,

based on consultations with the Secretariat and members of the Animals

Committee.

11. Bred-in Captivity (revision of Conf. 2.12)

The question of whether and how to revise the criteria for

certifying specimens as bred-in-captivity for the exemptions provided

for in Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5 has been the subject to

considerable extensive discussion and debate for the Parties, non-

governmental organizations, commercial concerns, and technical experts.

The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties adopted Decision No.

22, which directs the CITES Secretariat, in consultation with the

Animals Committee, to prepare a draft resolution that will resolve

problems regarding the exemptions under Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5

for specimens bred in captivity, including: (1) Different

interpretations by Parties of the term ``for commercial purposes'' when

referring to the breeding of specimens of Appendix-I species in

captivity, in particular regarding the sale of specimens that often

results in income that, although perhaps not essential to the breeder's

livelihood, may be significant, and (2) different interpretations by

Parties of the criteria in Resolution Conf. 2.12 (Rev.) to determine

whether a captive-breeding operation is ``managed in a manner which has

been demonstrated to be capable of reliability producing second-

[[Page 14693]]

generation offspring in a controlled environment.''

Consultations were initiated at the 12th meeting of the Animals

Committee, which established a working group on specimens bred in

captivity, chaired by Canada, as well as a sub-group to discuss the

definition of ``commercial purposes,'' chaired by Indonesia. The

Secretariat then undertook the preparation of a resolution for

consideration by the working group. In December 1995, the Secretariat's

first draft resolution was sent to the chairman of the working group,

who undertook wide consultations. The chairman of the working group

provided the final results of his consultations to the Secretariat in

July 1996. The United States and the chairman of the sub-group, among

others, also provided comments to the Secretariat. The Secretariat's

second draft, a consolidation of three already existing resolutions (or

portions thereof), was provided for consideration at the 13th meeting

of the Animals Committee, in September 1996, where the draft was

discussed and revised.

The United States was not satisfied with the version that emerged

from the Animals Committee meeting, for the following reasons. First,

the Service believes that it may be reasonable to have a different

standard for what constitutes bred in captivity for Appendix-I versus

Appendix-II species, but that the criteria should minimally include

those in Conf. 2.12(Rev.), and sustainable production of F2 offspring

must be clearly demonstrated for Appendix-I species. Particularly

disconcerting to the United States was omission of the criterion

requiring that F2 offspring must be reliably produced (i.e., more than

a single offspring). Second, the Secretariat's draft resolution would

allow for the augmentation of breeding stock with nuisance animals,

with no definition of the term ``nuisance.'' The United States is

concerned that this would constitute a potential loophole for the

laundering of wild-caught animals through a captive-breeding operation.

The United States is also concerned that the Secretariat's draft

resolution would allow for the continued augmentation of breeding stock

from the wild rather than limiting augmentation to occasional additions

of wild-caught specimens only for the purposes of preventing

deleterious inbreeding, as specified in Conf. 2.12(Rev.).

The Service also did not support the establishment of a list of

species, as suggested in the Secretariat's draft, which would include

species whether or not they had reliably produced F2 offspring in

captivity. The addition of species to the list, to be accomplished

through a vote of the Conference of the Parties, would be based on

proposals developed by the Animals Committee in consultation with

appropriate experts. The Service believes that few animals--and no

Appendix-I species--are likely to qualify, that this provision would

allow specimens of such species to be designated as bred in captivity

when they do not otherwise meet the criteria, and that this provision

burdens the Animals Committee with additional responsibilities of

questionable value.

While the Service appreciated the Secretariat's efforts to try to

define ``commercial'' based on the number of specimens or the number of

shipments exported by a given operation, we do not agree with this

approach at this time due to the variability in breeding

characteristics and value among specimens of different species. The

Service also objected to provisions of the Secretariat's draft that

would make stock legal after two generations, even if the parental

stock was originally illegally acquired. Finally, the Service objected

to the omission of some of the requirements for registration contained

in Conf. 8.15, particularly descriptions of how stock is managed and

strategies for avoiding deleterious inbreeding. The Service believes

that this information is critical for determining whether an

operation's stock managed sustainably and without reliance on continued

augmentation from the wild at levels considered to be more than

``occasional'' (discussed below).

Rather than accepting the Animals Committee-passed draft, the

United States elected instead to prepare a draft resolution that would

revise Resolutions Conf. 2.12 and 8.15 simultaneously, while retaining

them as separate and distinct documents. Based upon discussions in the

Animals Committee, and taking into account extensive public comment

received on this issue, the United States submitted a draft captive-

breeding resolution that retains basic elements of Resolution Conf.

2.12 (Rev.), with the following enhancements: (1) It clarifies certain

relevant terms previously left undefined; (2) it elaborates on the

conditions necessary for a specimen to be considered ``bred in

captivity,'' and (3) it provides an annex containing illustrative

examples of specimens that do or do not qualify. Discussions continue

between the CITES Secretariat and the United States regarding how best

to address bred-in-captivity issues. Once the Secretariat has decided

on its final draft resolution, should that resolution address U.S.

concerns, the United States would consider withdrawing its own

resolutions related to captive-bred wildlife.

The volume of public comment addressing captive-breeding issues far

outstripped that for any other subject mentioned in the August 28,

1996, Federal Register notice. Thirteen organizations submitted

comments on the captive-breeding agenda item and/or the two resolutions

the Service was considering. A breakdown of the 13 organizations

follows: Six wildlife conservation organizations, one industry group,

three commercial animal exhibitors, a zoo association, one sport-

hunting organization, and a bird hobbyist group. The Service

appreciates the effort expended to produce these comments, which were

typically carefully thought-out and lengthy. While it is not possible

to summarize them here, some representative examples follow. The sport-

hunting organization recommended the United States define aspects of

captive breeding that foster a self-contained breeding population, and

use those factors as the criteria for issuance of Appendix-II export

permits (specimens of Appendix-I species bred in captivity for

commercial purposes) or captive-bred certificates (for species from any

appendix bred in captivity not for commercial purposes). One commercial

animal exhibitor suggested creation of an interim list of ``special

circumstance'' species that, while not yet capable of achieving F2

status as currently interpreted, are being managed in a way reliably

demonstrated to achieve a viable second-generation population, and

whose captive breeding has no detrimental effect on wild populations.

One wildlife conservation organization urged the United States to

advocate retention of Resolutions Conf. 2.12(Rev.) and 8.15, with minor

revisions, and develop a new resolution that would incorporate the

interpretation of Article VII, paragraphs 4 and 5 (exemption for

captive-bred Appendix-I specimens) as set out in Notification 913.

Another wildlife conservation organization urged the United States to

oppose efforts to weaken resolutions on trade in captive-bred

specimens, and to introduce a resolution similar to the one the U.S.

submitted to the Animals Committee. Readers desiring more detail are

encouraged to consult the individual submissions, available from the

Office of Management Authority upon request.

12. Appendix-I Species Bred in Captivity for Commercial Purposes

(revision of Conf. 8.15)

Recent discussions by the Parties of captive-breeding issues also

[[Page 14694]]

encompassed the subject matter covered in Resolution Conf. 8.15, with

the result that the public comment received on proposed revisions to

Resolutions Conf. 2.12 and 8.15 tended to be intertwined. For an

account of the development of the U.S. captive-breeding resolutions and

a general characterization of organizations that submitted comments,

please consult the preceding item (#11). To address Appendix-I Species

Bred in Captivity for Commercial Purposes, the United States submitted

a draft resolution which revises Conf. 8.15 in the following ways.

Parts of the original preamble and resolution that encouraged the

captive breeding and commercial exploitation of Appendix-I species,

particularly in range States, were deleted, since the Service does not

believe that such activities are always appropriate and should be

discouraged in some cases. Instead, Annex 3 of the draft resolution

recommends that the Secretariat encourage the establishment of captive-

breeding operations for Appendix-I species where appropriate. The draft

resolution would require notification of all Parties in cases where the

Party in which the operation is located has not previously registered a

captive-breeding operation for the species involved, even if other

Parties have registered breeding operations for that species. In Conf.

8.15, for a given species, only the first operation registered with the

Secretariat for any Party requires notification of the Parties. The

U.S. opinion is that the potential for using captive-breeding

operations for laundering wild-caught specimens as well as the

methodology for breeding a species in captivity can vary from country

to country due to differences in enforcement capability, climate, and

availability of technology, and therefore Parties should be evaluated

individually on their ability to control trade in captive-bred

specimens and of their operations' capabilities to actually breed the

species under consideration. Parts of the original resolution requiring

findings that the operation must have been established without

detriment to the survival of the species were deleted, since this is

already required by Resolution Conf. 2.12, which provides the basis for

Conf. 8.15. Otherwise, the resolution has not been substantially

modified from Conf. 8.15, since it is the United States' opinion that

the existing resolution is workable, has been in place for only a short

while and thus has not been widely used, and thus does not require

extensive modification. However, a significant change suggested by the

U.S. draft resolution would be to provide for a Party that has concerns

about aspects of an application to register a captive-breeding

operation to discuss those concerns with the Party in which the

operation is located, and perhaps seek a resolution to the concerns so

an objection to the registration and a full vote by the Conference of

the Parties can be avoided. A representative sample of the public

comment regarding proposed revisions to Resolution Conf. 8.15 follows.

One wildlife conservation organization recommended expanding the

definition of ``commercial purposes,'' generating a list of problem

species with long generational intervals (in the F2 context) requiring

CITES interpretation and assistance, and making the purpose for which

the animal is being exported the determining factor for deciding

``commercial purposes,'' rather than the nature of the breeding

facility. The three commercial animal exhibitors expressed concerns

that the Secretariat-drafted resolution then under consideration in the

Animals Committee would result in further restriction on acquisition of

new breeding stock, and cited conflicts with the interpretations of

``commercial purposes'' found in Resolution Conf. 5.10 and Article VII,

paragraph 4, and with domestic law. The sport-hunting organization felt

the United States should seek to streamline the system for registering

facilities breeding Appendix-I species for commercial purposes or

should advocate doing away with it because ``it is not serving its

purpose.'' Another wildlife conservation organization wanted to

maintain high standards for the production of Appendix-I specimens, and

believes the Secretariat should bear major responsibility for

registration of Appendix-I species breeding facilities.

13. Establishment of a Working Group for Marine Fish Species

The decision to propose establishing a Working Group for Marine

Fish Species was made late in the process, arising out of extensive

discussions between the Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. agency with

jurisdiction over marine fish species. These interagency discussions

have concerned the implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17--which calls

for the Animals Committee to report to the tenth meeting of the

Conference of the Parties on the biological and trade status of

sharks--an effort which has involved the active participation of the

United States, many other CITES Parties, the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other international fisheries

organizations. A discussion paper has been submitted for consideration

at COP10. This implements the first part of Resolution Conf. 9.17. The

second part requests that FAO and other international fisheries

management organizations establish programs to collect and assemble

additional biological and trade data on shark species, and that such

information be submitted to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of

the Parties. This remains to be accomplished. Further, many questions

have been raised regarding technical and practical implementation

concerns associated with inclusion on the CITES Appendices of marine

fish species subject to large-scale commercial harvesting and

international trade. A Marine Fish Species Working Group would provide

a framework for this and other activities to implement Resolution Conf.

9.17. Therefore, after extensive review of the available information on

the biological and trade status of shark species, both as part of the

Animals Committee process implementing Resolution Conf. 9.17 and in

evaluating the conservation status of numerous commercially harvested

shark species, the United States concluded that: (1) Several

internationally traded shark species qualify for inclusion in Appendix

II of CITES; (2) many serious implementation and enforcement challenges

would result from the inclusion in Appendix II of these and other

commercially traded marine fish species, although they qualify for such

inclusion; (3) the Parties and conservation of marine fish species

would benefit from a thorough evaluation of all aspects of

implementation of the Convention for marine fish species, including a

clarification of the relationship of CITES with other conventions

relating to marine fish species; and (4) the successful Timber Species

Working Group is a useful model for evaluating implementation issues

pertaining to marine fish species. The draft resolution submitted by

the United States directs the Standing Committee to: (1) Establish a

temporary working group for marine fish species subject to large-scale

commercial harvesting and international trade, which would coordinate

preparation of an analysis of technical and practical implementation

concerns associated with the inclusion of such species on the CITES

Appendices; (2) develop recommendations on approaches to address

identified issues; (3) begin to coordinate and advise regional fishery

treaty organizations on necessary marine fish species data

[[Page 14695]]

collection and consistency in reporting; and (4) report back to the

eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The United States

believes that such a working group should focus on technical and

practical implementation issues, rather than on whether or not

individual taxa of marine fish qualify for inclusion in Appendix II.

However, the United States does believe that there are commercially

harvested marine fish species traded internationally that qualify for

inclusion in CITES Appendix II, and that in such cases CITES is an

appropriate vehicle to regulate and monitor trade in those species, to

preclude their becoming threatened with extinction in the future. The

United States looks forward to discussion of this draft resolution at

COP10, to its adoption, and to the work of the Working Group between

COP10 and COP11.

Documents Submitted By The United States

14. Trade in Alien (Invasive) Species

The United States submitted a document for discussion at COP10,

dealing with the important conservation issue of the international

trade in invasive alien species. The document discusses the background

on this conservation issue, and the role that the CITES Parties can

play. The document defines an alien [nonindigenous] species as a

species, subspecies, or lower taxon, occurring as a result of human

activity in an areas or ecosystem in which it is not native. Alien

species that colonize natural or semi-natural ecosystems, cause change,

and threaten biodiversity are categorized as ``invasive.'' They have

been identified in the scientific literature as the second-largest

threat to biological diversity globally after habitat loss and

degradation. International conservation bodies have recently addressed

the issue of alien species and the problems associated with them. The

document submitted by the United States discusses recent progress on

this issue at: (1) The July 1996 Conference on Alien Species in Norway,

sponsored by the United Nations Environment Programme, the Secretariat

for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), UNESCO, and the

Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the

International Council of Scientific Unions; (2) the World Conservation

Congress in October 1996; (3) the IUCN/SSC Invasive Species Specialist

Group; and (4) the Third Conference of the Parties of the CBD in

November 1996, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The document submitted by the United States recommends discussion

of these issues at COP10 and that Parties: (1) Recognize that

nonindigenous species can pose significant threats to biodiversity,

that living specimens of flora and fauna species in commercial trade

are likely to be introduced to new habitat as a result of international

trade, and that awareness of these problems is needed in the business

and public sectors; (2) recognize that CITES can play a significant

positive role in this issue; (3) pay particular attention to these

issues when developing national legislation and regulations, when

issuing export or import permits for live animals or plants of

potentially invasive species, or when otherwise approving exports or

imports of live specimens of potentially invasive species; (4)

encourage management Authorities of exporting countries to consult with

the Management Authority of a planned importing country, if possible

and applicable, when considering exports of potentially invasive

species, to determine whether the importing country has established

domestic measures regulating imports, or whether the importing country

has concerns regarding importation of the species in question; (5)

consider the threats of introduction of alien species and the risks to

native biodiversity in the context of implementation of CITES and other

Conventions, including CBD; and (6) consider requesting that the

Animals and Plants Committee establish a formal liaison with the IUCN/

SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group to review species in

international trade, collaborate in the development of a global

database of invasive species, identify species that may pose problems

if they are introduced, and cooperate on this issue to recommend means

to ensure that unintentional introductions do not occur.

15. Illegal Trade in Whale Meat

Despite the adoption of Resolution Conf. 9.12, which calls for

further cooperation and information exchange by CITES and the

International Whaling Convention (IWC), illegal trade in specimens of

Appendix-I whale species remains a significant problem for some CITES

Parties. While the United States originally considered submitting

another resolution urging continued cooperation between CITES and the

IWC for consideration at COP10, after further deliberation the United

States decided to submit a document recounting the recent history of

efforts to control illegal trade in whale specimens and products and

asking that the issue be included on the agenda for COP10. Although

five organizations submitted public comment in favor of a U.S.

resolution, and one wildlife conservation organization urged the

Service to ensure that smuggling incidents are fully investigated by

Japanese and Norwegian authorities and the information forwarded to the

CITES Secretariat, it was felt that submitting a document for the

Parties' consideration presented a more effective strategy leading to a

more open discussion of the problem. The United States looks forward to

a useful discussion of problems of illegal trade in whale meat, and

implementation of previous resolutions of the Conference of the

Parties, to be considered in the evaluation of both this issue and of

any possible proposals to transfer any whale populations to Appendix

II.

16. Flora, Fauna, and the Traditional Medicine Community: Working with

People to Conserve Wildlife

Pursuant to the COP10 agenda item dealing with the use of wildlife

in traditional medicines, the United States submitted this document,

which follows up on two separate reports to the Standing Committee on

U.S. efforts in support of CITES Resolutions Conf. 9.13 and 9.14. Those

resolutions charge consumer states to work with traditional medicine

communities and industries to develop strategies for elimination of

tiger and rhino use and consumption. The document describes national

and international activities undertaken by the United States in the

areas of law enforcement, legislation, and education, highlighting

cooperative efforts to educate the U.S. traditional medicine community

in conservation strategies, and the development of cooperative ties

with the Ministry of Forestry in the People's Republic of China. A

detailed discussion of accomplishments offers insight into the outreach

education process. The document ends with three recommendations that

could be useful to consumer states. The United States strongly supports

such cooperative educational efforts, working with consumer communities

to increase understanding of the impacts of the wildlife trade and

wildlife conservation, and facilitating the use of substitutes and

alternatives to endangered species products, while respecting the value

of traditional medicines and the cultures and communities that use

them.

Resolutions Not Submitted By The United States

The following were discussed in the August 28, 1996 Federal

Register notice as possible topics for U.S. resolutions. A

[[Page 14696]]

discussion of the decision to not submit these resolutions follows:

Trade in Appendix-I Specimens

In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service

indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution

clarifying the treatment of Appendix-I specimens. Specifically, the

United States considered the issue of when Article III should be used

for export or import permits for Appendix-I specimens, and when the

Article VII (paragraphs 4 and 5) exemptions for specimens bred in

captivity for commercial and non-commercial purposes, respectively,

should be used. Subsequently, the Secretariat circulated an official

Notification (number 913) on this issue. Five organizations--ranging

from a commercial animal exhibitor to a wildlife conservation

organization--submitted comments, all in favor of the United States

submitting a resolution and/or in opposition to the draft resolution

presented at the Animals Committee meeting. However, based on

discussions with the Secretariat and other Parties, discussions at the

September 1996 meeting of the Animals Committee, and an evaluation of

comments received, the United States decided not to submit a draft

resolution on this issue. Instead, the United States believes that its

views on clarifying the use of Articles III and VII have been

sufficiently expressed, and that continued dialogue on a case-by-case

basis will be more productive. Furthermore, one source of confusion by

other countries has been the fact that the United States itself has

never registered a commercial facility (under Resolution Conf. 8.15)

that breeds Appendix-I specimens in captivity for commercial purposes.

The Service notes that few qualified facilities have applied, but the

Service is more than eager to register qualified facilities; to that

end, a future notice in the Federal Register is being drafter to

explain the process and encourage submission of applications for

registration.

Personal Effects/Live Animals

In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service

indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution

clarifying aspects of the personal effects exemption in Article VII of

the CITES treaty. Travelers experience some problems because the United

States recognizes the personal effects exemption under Article VII,

paragraph 3 of the treaty, whereas other countries either do not

recognize it or implement it differently. This also causes problems for

implementation of CITES at ports of entry. The four organizations

submitting comment in response to the August 28, 1996 Federal Register

notice either supported a U.S. resolution and/or made specific

recommendations concerning content. One wildlife conservation

organization recommended that the U.S. draft clarify whether live

animals are included in the personal effects exemption under Article

IV; another noted that not every country interprets properly Article

VII paragraph 3(a), which pertains to specimens acquired outside a

person's State of usual residence. The United States decided not to

submit a resolution, for the following reasons: (1) The Animals

Committee agreed to submit a resolution dealing with frequent

transborder movement of personally owned live animals; (2) the United

States agrees with the text of this proposed resolution, and views it

as dealing effectively with a major aspect of the broader personal

effects issues, for live animals; (3) the United States submitted a

resolution dealing with one aspect of this issue, specifically the sale

of Appendix-I tourist items at international airports, seaports, and

border crossings (discussed earlier in this notice); and 94) the United

States will ask the Parties to direct the Secretariat to survey the

Parties and prepare a document clarifying how each country implements

the personal effects exemption; such a request does not require a

resolution.

Circuses

In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service

indicated that it was considering submitting a discussion paper or

draft resolution to address several technical issues in Resolution

Conf. 8.16 (Traveling Live Animal Exhibitions), such as the requirement

of a separate certificate for each specimen. Six organizations--two

commercial animal exhibitors and four wildlife conservation

organization--submitted comments on circuses. One foreign commercial

animal exhibitor, communicating through counsel, endorsed the

``passport'' approach considered by the Animals Committee in the

context of frequent movement of personally owned live animals. One

wildlife conservation organization said Conf. 8.16 should continue to

require separate certificates--which should be valid for one year, not

three--and felt specimens that do not qualify as captive-bred under

Resolution Conf. 2.12 should not be eligible for coverage by a captive-

bred certificate. One wildlife conservation organization cautioned

against raising the issue at COP10, given the highly controversial

nature of any proposal concerning elephants in a meeting held in

Zimbabwe, and recommended instead that the United States work out this

problem within the North American region. At its September 1996

meeting, the Animals Committee decided that ``frequent transborder

movement of personally owned live animals'' should not apply to

circuses. Based on the comments received, discussions with other

countries, and the outcome of the Animals Committee meeting, the United

States decided to submit nothing to COP10, but rather to take up the

technical issues directly with the Secretariat and with the individual

countries involved.

Crocodile Tagging

In the August 28, 1996, Federal Register notice, the Service

indicated that it was considering submitting a draft resolution to

clarify some points in Resolution Conf. 9.22 (Universal Tagging System

for the Identification of Crocodilian Skins) by providing a description

of the parts tag and a method for the marking of product containers.

During the public comment period, one wildlife conservation

organization voiced its support of a U.S. resolution, noting that any

marking system must be standardized and that specifications for the

design of the tag must be fundamental and generally applied. No further

comments were received. At their meeting in September 1996, the Animals

Committee agreed upon the text of a Notification to the Parties,

resolving these points and obviating the need for a draft resolution.

Observers

Article XI, paragraph 7 of the Convention states:

Any body or agency technically qualified in protection,

conservation, or management of wild fauna and flora, in the following

categories, which has informed the Secretariat of its desire to be

represented at meetings of the Conference by observers, shall be

admitted unless at least one-third of the parties present object:

(a) International agencies or bodies, either governmental or non-

governmental, and national governmental agencies and bodies; and

(b) National nongovernmental agencies or bodies which have been

approved for these purposes by the State in which they were located.

Once admitted, these observers shall have the right to participate

but not to vote.

Persons wishing to be observers representing U.S. national non-

governmental organizations must receive prior approval of the Service.

[[Page 14697]]

International organizations (which must have offices in more than one

country) may request approval directly from the Secretariat. After

granting of that approval, a national non-governmental organization is

eligible to register with the CITES Secretariat and must register with

the Secretariat prior to the COP in order to participate in the COP as

an observer. All registrations must be received by the Secretariat no

later than 30 days prior to the meeting of the COP, and preferably much

sooner. Individuals that are not affiliated with an approved

organization may not register as observers. Requests for such approval

should include evidence of technical qualification in protection,

conservation, or management of wild fauna and/or flora, on the part of

both the organization and the individual representative(s).

Organizations previously approved by the Service (for prior meetings of

the COP) must submit a request but do not need to provide as detailed

information concerning their qualifications as those seeking approval

for the first time. Organizations seeking approval for the first time

should detail their experience in the protection, conservation, or

management of wild fauna and/or flora, as well as their purposes for

wishing to participate in the COP as an observer. Such requests should

be sent to the Office of Management Authority (OMA: see ADDRESSES,

above) or submitted to OMA electronically via E-mail to:

[email protected], prior to the close of business on April 1,

1997. That deadline will assure approval in time to submit registration

materials to the Secretariat in time. Organizations are encouraged to

submit requests for approval as soon as possible, however. Upon

approval by OMA, an organization will receive instructions for

registration with the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland, including

relevant travel and hotel information. Any organization requesting

approval for observer status at COP10 will be added to the Service's

CITES Mailing List if it is not already included, and will receive

copies of all future Federal Register notices and other information

pertaining to COP10. A list of organizations approved for observer

status at COP10 will be available from OMA just prior to the start of

COP10.

Future Actions

COP10 is scheduled for June 9-20, 1997, in Harare, Zimbabwe.

Through a series of additional notices in advance of COP10, the Service

will inform the public about preliminary and final negotiating

positions on resolutions and amendments to the Appendices proposed by

other Parties for consideration at COP10. The Service will also publish

an announcement of a public meeting to be held in April 1997 to receive

public input on its proposed negotiating positions for COP10.

AUTHORS: This notice was prepared by Dr. Susan S. Lieberman, Chief,

Operations Branch, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (703-358-2095).

Dated: March 19, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 97-7725 Filed 3-26-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M