Protected Species
International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently Gao ID: GAO-04-964 September 15, 2004International trade in wildlife is a multibillion-dollar industry that, in some cases, has taken species to the brink of extinction. To address the problem, several countries, including the United States, created an international treaty--the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora--that took effect in 1975. The United States also has domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, that protect species. The protections provided by the Convention and domestic laws can differ. For example, in some cases, U.S. laws afford more stringent protections to species than the Convention does; such stricter protections can prevent U.S. interests from participating in trade that is permitted by the Convention. The Convention's member countries meet periodically to discuss implementation of the Convention and are scheduled next to meet in Thailand in October 2004. In anticipation of this meeting, GAO was asked to report on (1) how implementation of the Convention has changed over the years, (2) U.S. funding and other resources spent on Convention-related activities, and (3) the relationship between the Convention and some domestic laws. The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration generally agreed with the information in the GAO report.
Implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has become increasingly complex and controversial since its inception. Complexity has increased in part because of the sheer number of member countries (166) and species protected (more than 33,000) and because the criteria for identifying protected species have become more scientific and specific, resulting in heavier data-gathering, permitting, enforcement, and reporting requirements for member countries. Controversy, in turn, has increased because the Convention membership has recently contemplated, and in some cases approved, protection of commercial species such as sharks and Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass)--species that in some cases are already managed under regional fisheries agreements. Over the 9-year fiscal period 1995 through 2003, the United States spent more than $50 million on Convention-related activities. As the agency primarily responsible for U.S. implementation of the Convention, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent the largest portion of these funds--about $37 million over the period. Other agencies have roles as well, including the Department of State, which makes U.S. contributions to help administer the Convention internationally. The Convention and the Endangered Species Act protect species differently. In some cases, the act prohibits imports that are allowed by the Convention. For example, the act generally prohibits the import of a popular exotic fish, the Asian arowana, although the Convention allows some commercial trade in the species. The Convention establishes mandatory requirements and recognizes countries' rights to establish stricter protections. However, such protections have generated heated debates among affected parties. Those in favor say that the United States should impose stricter protections than the Convention, when needed to protect endangered species or their habitats. Opponents say that U.S. actions should be consistent with the agreements reached by a majority of the Convention's members.
GAO-04-964, Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-964
entitled 'Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws
Protect Wildlife Differently' which was released on September 23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of
Representatives:
September 2004:
PROTECTED SPECIES:
International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently:
GAO-04-964:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-964, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
International trade in wildlife is a multibillion-dollar industry
that, in some cases, has taken species to the brink of extinction. To
address the problem, several countries, including the United States,
created an international treaty”the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora”that took effect in
1975. The United States also has domestic laws, such as the Endangered
Species Act, that protect species. The protections provided by the
Convention and domestic laws can differ. For example, in some cases,
U.S. laws afford more stringent protections to species than the
Convention does; such stricter protections can prevent U.S. interests
from participating in trade that is permitted by the Convention. The
Convention‘s member countries meet periodically to discuss
implementation of the Convention and are scheduled next to meet in
Thailand in October 2004.
In anticipation of this meeting, GAO was asked to report on (1) how
implementation of the Convention has changed over the years, (2) U.S.
funding and other resources spent on Convention-related activities,
and (3) the relationship between the Convention and some domestic
laws.
The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration generally agreed with the information in
the GAO report.
What GAO Found:
Implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has become increasingly complex and
controversial since its inception. Complexity has increased in part
because of the sheer number of member countries (166) and species
protected (more than 33,000) and because the criteria for identifying
protected species have become more scientific and specific, resulting
in heavier data-gathering, permitting, enforcement, and reporting
requirements for member countries. Controversy, in turn, has increased
because the Convention membership has recently contemplated, and in
some cases approved, protection of commercial species such as sharks
and Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass)”species
that in some cases are already managed under regional fisheries
agreements.
Over the 9-year fiscal period 1995 through 2003, the United States
spent more than $50 million on Convention-related activities. As the
agency primarily responsible for U.S. implementation of the
Convention, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent the largest portion of
these funds”about $37 million over the period. Other agencies have
roles as well, including the Department of State, which makes U.S.
contributions to help administer the Convention internationally.
The Convention and the Endangered Species Act protect species
differently. In some cases, the act prohibits imports that are allowed
by the Convention. For example, the act generally prohibits the import
of a popular exotic fish, the Asian arowana, although the Convention
allows some commercial trade in the species. The Convention establishes
mandatory requirements and recognizes countries‘ rights to establish
stricter protections. However, such protections have generated heated
debates among affected parties. Those in favor say that the United
States should impose stricter protections than the Convention, when
needed to protect endangered species or their habitats. Opponents say
that U.S. actions should be consistent with the agreements reached by
a majority of the Convention‘s members.
Intended Uses of Wildlife, 2003, per U.S. Import/Export Permit
Applications:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-964.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry Hill at (202) 512-
3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Convention's Implementation Has Become More Complex and
Controversial:
The United States Has Spent More than $50 Million on Convention-Related
Activities Since 1995:
The Convention and U.S. Laws Identify Protected Species Differently and
Allow Different Uses:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Scope and Methodology:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix II: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
Figures:
Figure 1: Intended Uses of Wildlife by U.S. Permit Applicants, Fiscal
Year 2003:
Figure 2: Special Vicuņa Management Allows for Limited Trade in the
Species:
Figure 3: Service Employee Recording Confiscated Wildlife Products:
Figure 4: Convention Membership Has Increased by 800 Percent Since
1975:
Figure 5: Species Listed in the Convention's Appendixes I and II in
1976 and 2004:
Figure 6: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Convention-Related Permitting
Workload, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Figure 7: Wildlife Shipments Reviewed by the Service Since Fiscal Year
1999:
Figure 8: Annotations Specify Circumstances for Allowable Trade in
Elephant Ivory:
Figure 9: Selected Information from the U.S. Proposal for the Humphead
Wrasse:
Figure 10: Selected U.S. Expenditures on Convention-Related Activities
from 1995 through 2003:
Figure 11: Service Employee Inspecting and Identifying a Wildlife
Shipment:
Letter September 15, 2004:
The Honorable Richard W. Pombo:
Chairman, Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
International trade in wildlife, including rare and endangered species,
is a multibillion-dollar industry involving items such as crocodile
leather products, beluga caviar, mahogany, and ivory. Such trade is
regulated through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Convention), an international
treaty designed to ensure that international trade does not threaten
species' survival. The Convention entered into force in 1975 with 18
member countries, including the United States, and originally protected
about 1,200 animal species. Some of these species, such as tigers and
elephants, were considered "charismatic megafauna"--species that many
people recognized and supported the need to protect. Currently, 166
countries are members of the Convention, which protects more than 5,000
animal species. (The Convention also protects more than 28,000 plant
species.) To implement the Convention, member countries are expected to
carry out programs to regulate the import and export of protected
species as well as contribute to a voluntary fund that finances the
Convention's management and administration worldwide. Although the
language of the Convention has changed little since its inception,
member countries have clarified or interpreted its implementation
through various decisions and resolutions at periodic conferences.
U.S. domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act, also protect certain species. In some cases, the
protections provided under domestic law are more stringent than those
provided under the Convention. For example, in 1983, the Convention
members voted to allow trade in Nile crocodile products from several
African countries. However, the United States did not allow imports of
such products until 1996 because of Endangered Species Act protections.
The Convention explicitly recognizes the sovereign right of member
countries to impose stricter domestic measures. Nevertheless, these
measures have caused concerns among regulated entities, such as the
aquaculture industry and big game hunters, that are unable to
participate fully in activities or trade allowed by other Convention
member countries.
In October 2004, the Convention's member countries will meet in
Bangkok, Thailand, to discuss several proposals to protect new species,
such as the humphead wrasse (a gourmet food fish), and to change the
level of protection afforded species, such as loosening restrictions on
trade in bald eagles. In addition, administrative aspects of the
Convention will be considered, such as options for using electronic
systems for processing import/export permits and trade reports. In
anticipation of the upcoming conference, you requested that we identify
(1) how implementation of the Convention has changed over the years
since its inception; (2) U.S. funding and other resources expended on
Convention-related activities; and (3) the relationship between the
Convention, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, including how each identifies species for protection
and affects use of those species. We obtained documents on
implementation of the Convention in the United States and budget data
from the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, which
is the agency with primary responsibility for implementing the
Convention. We performed a comparative analysis of the Convention, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and we
discussed the Convention and acts with numerous federal and nonfederal
officials involved in international trade and species protection. We
conducted our work from March 2004 through August 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In several ways, implementation of the Convention has become more
complex and controversial since 1975. First, permitting and enforcement
tasks related to the import and export of protected species are more
difficult, in part because workload has increased due to the sheer
number of species now protected by the Convention and the demand for
such species. Permitting and enforcement tasks are also complicated by
the evolving nature of the wildlife trade and the various stipulations
attached to the use of protected species. For example, a significant
portion of trade is now in wildlife parts and products--rather than
whole plants or animals--that are much more difficult to detect and
identify. Inspectors must be familiar with numerous wildlife products
such as plant pollen, roots, and seeds; animal hides; and wildlife
tissue; all of which may be subject to different levels of protection.
Second, the criteria for identifying species for protection under the
Convention have become more scientific. In the past, some species were
protected on the basis of very little field-collected data and,
instead, because scientists suspected--rather than deduced--that a
particular species was in decline. Today, the Convention places more
emphasis on obtaining biological evidence of decline when identifying
new species for protection. Lastly, some proposals for species
protection are broadening the historical reach of the Convention into
areas that generate considerable controversy, such as commercial
fisheries. Such proposals have spurred acrimonious debate among member
countries over the extent to which the Convention should intervene in
regulating trade in species that, in some cases, are managed by other
international or regional organizations. As a way forward, the
Convention membership is taking steps to proactively cooperate with
other resource management and oversight organizations.
The United States spent more than $50 million implementing the
Convention between fiscal years 1995 and 2003; data on expenditures
before this time were not available. The Fish and Wildlife Service (the
Service) spent the majority of these funds--approximately $37 million-
-for activities such as processing applications for import and export
permits and preparing for and participating in conferences of the
member countries. The Service spent additional funds for inspecting
wildlife shipments and carrying out enforcement actions. Other agencies
also expend resources implementing the Convention--including the
National Marine Fisheries Service, for providing expertise on marine
species, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, for
inspecting the import and export of plants. In addition, the United
States, through the Department of State, provided about $13 million
between 1995 and 2003 in voluntary contributions to support the
financing and operation of the Convention internationally. For 2003,
U.S. contributions were about $1 million--approximately 22 percent of
the total contributed by all member countries.
Although the Convention, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act share a common goal of protecting species, they
offer protection for different reasons and in different ways. The
Convention seeks to ensure that international trade in wild animals and
plants does not threaten species' survival in the wild, while the
Endangered Species Act intends to conserve species that are at risk of
extinction for any reason and to conserve their habitats. The Marine
Mammal Protection Act goes further than both of the others: it seeks to
ensure that populations of all marine mammal species are maintained at
their optimum sustainable population levels, regardless of whether
species are at risk of extinction. Under the Convention, trade in a
protected species is restricted or monitored, depending on the species'
risk of extinction. The two U.S. laws, in addition to similarly
restricting trade, prohibit or restrict any activity that kills or
otherwise harms protected species; the Endangered Species Act also
prohibits or restricts activities that may adversely affect habitats
critical to the survival of protected species. While the Convention and
the U.S. laws all allow trade in protected species in certain
circumstances, some uses allowed by the Convention are not allowed by
the Endangered Species Act. For example, the Asian arowana, a
freshwater ornamental fish considered in some cultures to bring good
luck, is protected but may be traded commercially under the Convention
because of Convention-approved captive breeding programs. However, the
fish is also recognized as endangered under the Endangered Species Act,
so its import into the United States for purposes that do not enhance
the survival of the species is prohibited.
Some regulated entities and Convention member countries believe that
"stricter domestic measures," such as those imposed under the
Endangered Species Act, unnecessarily restrict U.S. citizens from
participating in trade allowed by other member countries and may
undermine some species conservation efforts. For example, some
exporting countries rely on revenue from trade in protected species to
generate funds for supporting conservation efforts such as protecting
species from poaching. In contrast, some species advocates believe that
all individuals of any species that has been identified as at risk for
extinction should be protected and that the additional protections
provided by the Endangered Species Act are necessary and appropriate.
We did not hear similar concerns or debate about stricter domestic
measures imposed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, although the
act currently protects a number of species in which the Convention
allows some trade. Some officials we interviewed speculated that the
act's provisions generate fewer concerns because there is not a large
demand for trade in marine mammals in the United States.
The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration generally agreed with the information presented in this
report. The department expressed concern, however, that the report
emphasizes the negative aspects of complexity and controversy and
implies that the Convention may be inappropriately duplicating the work
of other agreements. We intended our discussion to be merely
descriptive, rather than negative or positive, and we did not intend to
imply an inappropriate duplication of effort. Also, the department took
issue with our statement that there is no clear consensus on the
effectiveness of the Convention in conserving species.
Background:
Although it first entered into force in 1975, the Convention evolved
from years of discussions among several countries about conservation
and sustainable trade. For example, in 1963, the General Assembly of
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources passed a resolution calling for "an international convention
on regulations of export, transit and import of rare or threatened
wildlife species or their skins and trophies."[Footnote 1] A first
draft of the Convention was produced in 1964, and after subsequent
discussions and drafts, the Convention was signed in March 1973 in
Washington, D.C. According to the Convention's preamble, the member
countries recognized that the conservation of wild fauna and flora was
of global importance and that international cooperation was essential
for the protection of certain species against overexploitation through
international trade.
What Is Wildlife Trade?
Each year, wildlife (animals and plants) of all types are sold in the
wildlife trade. Some of this trade is regulated by the Convention; some
is regulated by domestic laws; and some is not regulated at all. In
general, uses of wildlife consist of trade in wildlife parts and
products and trade in live wildlife. Global trade in wildlife parts and
products includes the following, among other things:
* exotic fur and leather such as fox and leopard fur coats, elephant
and ostrich skin boots, snake and shark skin shoes, kangaroo skin
soccer balls, and alligator and eel skin purses;
* ornamental objects and curios such as sea turtle shell cases, snail
shells, elephant ivory jewelry, seahorses, and matted butterflies;
* food such as monkey and ape bushmeat, turtle, bear paws, frog legs,
lobsters, shrimp, conch, fish, clams, and oysters; and:
* traditional medicine ingredients such as tiger bones, rhinoceros
horn, ginseng root, bear gall bladders, deer antlers, seahorses, and
plant-based powders and ointments.
Trade in live wildlife includes the following, among other things:
* furnishing the exotic pet and plant trade with species such as
tropical fish, seahorses, parrots, iguanas, orchids, snakes, and
geckos;
* providing species for biomedical research and teaching, such as
monkeys, snakes, fish, and frogs;
* stocking public or private game farms and hunting ranches with deer,
antelope, and wild sheep;
* providing zoos and safari parks with species such as elephants,
rhinoceros, dolphins, large cats, monkeys, pandas, birds, and reptiles;
and:
* providing food such as reptiles, amphibians, and fish.
As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the United States is
the largest importer and exporter of wildlife products and dominates an
estimated $5 billion annual world wildlife trade industry, according to
the Fish and Wildlife Service. The United States' share of worldwide
trade, according to Service officials, is between $1 billion and $2
billion a year.[Footnote 2] Figure 1 shows the intended uses of
wildlife for which U.S. applicants sought import or export permits from
the Service in 2003.
Figure 1: Intended Uses of Wildlife by U.S. Permit Applicants, Fiscal
Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
How Is the Convention Structured?
The Convention provides a framework for cooperation and collaboration
among member countries to conserve species affected by international
trade. The membership is made up of all countries that have joined the
Convention; as of July 2004, 166 countries were party to the
Convention. Each member country, by its signature, ratification, or
accession, agrees to abide by and enforce the terms of the Convention.
For example, the member countries agree to monitor and regulate imports
and exports of certain species, as specified by the Convention, and to
submit annual reports on trade in species protected under the
Convention and biennial reports on implementation of the Convention.
The member countries also agree to enforce the terms of the Convention,
typically through legislation that incorporates Convention provisions,
establishes requisite authorities, and imposes penalties for
noncompliance. Enforcement provisions generally involve inspecting
import and export permits, as well as the shipments, to ensure their
compliance with Convention requirements.
The Convention's Secretariat, located in Geneva, Switzerland, provides
support to the member countries to implement the Convention. The
Secretariat organizes and facilitates each conference of the member
countries, helps members implement the requirements of the Convention,
undertakes scientific and technical studies regarding issues that may
affect the implementation of the Convention, and manages the fund that
is financed through member contributions. The fund supports the day-to-
day operation of the Convention, such as purchasing office supplies,
paying personnel, and facilitating Convention-related conferences.
Currently, the Secretariat has a full-time staff of 28. The membership
agreed to a system to provide a stable source of funding through
voluntary contributions by member countries in 1979 and implemented
that system in 1983. Prior to that time, Convention funding was
provided through the United Nations Environment Programme.[Footnote 3]
Members' annual contributions to the fund are determined through a
scale of assessment related to a country's gross domestic product. The
Convention does not provide a mechanism for enforcing the payment of
annual contributions. Although the Secretariat reported in 2003 that
the overall amount of contributions in arrears was not great, it also
indicated that several countries have not made contributions for years.
The membership convenes every 2 or 3 years at a conference of the
member countries, referred to as the "Conference of the Parties." The
conference is the primary forum at which the membership debates and
votes on proposals submitted by one or more members. Approval of
substantive proposals, such as species-related decisions or significant
procedural changes, generally requires a two-thirds majority of the
members present, although many decisions are still made by consensus.
Proposals are to be distributed to all members (through the
Secretariat) several months before the conference and are to include
the documentation necessary to explain or justify them (e.g.,
population surveys, scientific studies, discussion papers). In October
2004, the thirteenth conference of the member countries will take place
in Bangkok, Thailand.
A number of committees conduct business in between the biennial or
triennial conferences of the member countries. The standing committee
serves essentially as a steering committee; among its responsibilities
are providing policy and operational direction to the Secretariat,
overseeing the development and execution of the Secretariat's budget
and expenditures, coordinating and advising other committees, and
drafting resolutions for consideration by the Convention's membership.
Among the responsibilities of the animals and plants committees are
providing advice and guidance to the membership on all scientific
matters relevant to international trade in protected animal and plant
species and developing decisions and resolutions to implement the
Convention. For example, the committees may review and assess all
available biological and trade information on species considered to be
significantly affected by trade and, based on such assessments, form
appropriate conclusions and recommendations. The nomenclature
committee ensures clarity and consistency in the identification and
classification of species.
How Does the Convention Protect Wildlife?
The Convention membership protects wildlife by first identifying
species in need of protection and then regulating or monitoring trade
in those species, depending on the risk that trade poses to a species'
survival. The Convention regulates trade primarily through a system of
import and export permits that are sought by organizations and
individuals wishing to use protected species. Such consumers include
(1) zoos and circuses that use animals for display, entertainment, or
research; (2) furniture and clothing manufacturers, for selling raw
materials or finished goods to consumers in other countries; (3)
medical and scientific institutions, for biological samples for
research; (4) producers, for artificially propagated or captive-bred
species; and (5) individuals, for various items ranging from curios to
hunting trophies.
Species in need of protection are identified in one of three appendixes
to the Convention. The Convention extends the most stringent
protections to the species it has included in appendix I. These are
species that are considered at risk of extinction by virtue of meeting
at least one of several criteria and are, or may be, affected by trade.
Among the criteria are an observed, inferred, or projected decline in
(1) the number of individuals, (2) the area and quality of habitat, (3)
the area of distribution, (4) the number of subpopulations, or (5)
reproductive potential. The Convention generally prohibits commercial
trade in species included in appendix I but may allow trade in
household goods, hunting trophies, or live animals for purposes of
display, research, or breeding when such trade is not detrimental to
species in the wild. Species currently listed in appendix I include the
Ethiopian toad, the red-necked parrot, the short-nosed sturgeon,
Brazilian rosewood, the Burmese peacock turtle, the Asian golden cat,
the giant armadillo, living rock cactus, and the bowhead whale.
Appendix II to the Convention includes species that are not yet but may
become threatened with extinction at least in part due to trade; the
Convention regulates trade in these species. Among the criteria for a
species' inclusion in appendix II are a known, inferred, or projected
conclusion that (1) a species will meet at least one of the appendix I
criteria in the near future unless trade in the species is subject to
strict regulation or (2) the harvesting of specimens from the wild for
international trade has or may have a detrimental effect on the species
by exceeding, over an extended period, the level that can be continued
in perpetuity. Species currently listed in appendix II include the
strawberry poison-arrow frog, the crab-eating fox, the wrinkled
hornbill, yellow pencil coral, fragrant prickly-apple, queen conch, the
freckled monitor, Caribbean mahogany, the piebald dolphin, Himalayan
yew, and the king cobra. Another criterion for inclusion in appendix II
is that a species resembles another species listed in appendix I or
appendix II, such that a nonexpert, with reasonable effort, is unlikely
to be able to distinguish between them. In contrast to the generally
prohibited trade in appendix I species, trade in appendix II species is
generally allowed, although it is monitored and controlled to ensure
that it does not pose a threat to the continued existence of the
species. For example, the Convention requires that trade in appendix II
species be monitored through trade reports that members must submit
each year. These reports detail the number of species, parts, and
products the country imported, exported, and reexported during the
year.[Footnote 4] In some cases, limited populations of species found
in appendix I are put in appendix II to allow for some trade to occur.
In these cases, the downlisted populations are managed in some way that
ensures that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Special Vicuņa Management Allows for Limited Trade in the
Species:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Vicuņas were being killed in the wild for their high-quality wool
and had consequently become critically endangered. The vicuņa was
listed in appendix I to the Convention, and trade in the species was
thus prohibited. Subsequently, however, several South American
countries developed programs for capturing and shearing vicuņas without
killing them. Accordingly, the Convention membership agreed to downlist
specific populations of vicuņas in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru
from appendix I to appendix II to allow for limited trade in vicuņa
wool.
[End of figure]
Finally, appendix III to the Convention includes species that a member
country has identified as being subject to regulation to prevent or
restrict exploitation and as needing other countries' cooperation in
controlling trade. Appendix III species are listed by individual member
countries and are not put to a vote for their inclusion. Although
member countries may trade in appendix III species, trade must be
accompanied by an approved export permit from the country that listed
the species or by a "certificate of origin" from a nonlisting
country.[Footnote 5] The listing country can then monitor trade in the
appendix III species through review of issued export permits and
certificates of origin. Species currently listed in appendix III, and
the country that listed them, include the red-breasted toucan
(Argentina), the walrus (Canada), the Egyptian goose (Ghana), the
ocellated turkey (Guatemala), the dog-faced water snake (India), the
water buffalo (Nepal), the starry tree gecko (New Zealand), the Cape
stag beetle (South Africa), and the naked-tailed armadillo (Uruguay).
No clear consensus exists on the Convention's effectiveness in
conserving species. In the opening session of the last conference of
the member countries, the Minister of Agriculture of Chile pointed to
the fact that no species protected by the Convention has become
extinct, as a sign of the Convention's effectiveness. Others have
highlighted the benefits of the Convention in raising awareness of
conservation issues and strengthening wildlife legislation in member
countries. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Convention
has a long history of adopting successful measures to support the
conservation and sustainable use of wildlife species in trade. However,
it is difficult to directly link protections provided under the
Convention to improvements in a species' status in the wild. The major
issues complicating such assessments are the lack of data and the fact
that typically numerous factors, in addition to trade, contribute to a
species' decline, such as habitat loss, overuse, and disease.
How Is the Convention Implemented in the United States?
In the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish
and Wildlife Service, is responsible for implementing the Convention.
One of the Service's responsibilities is to oversee the permitting
process and enforce compliance with the terms of the Convention within
the United States. Irrespective of the Convention, the United States
requires that all wildlife species that enter or exit the country be
declared to and approved by the Service. That is, wildlife shipments
must be accompanied by the appropriate permits and must be in
compliance with not only the Convention, but also other applicable
wildlife laws. To enforce these laws and the Convention, the Service
(1) issues permits to entities and individuals wishing to import,
export, or reexport protected species, products, or parts if the
intended uses and the applications meet Convention and U.S. regulation
requirements; (2) enforces these permits at U.S. borders by inspecting
permits and shipments; and (3) investigates cases of illegal trade.
Penalties for violating the import or export requirements of the
Convention or other wildlife laws are assessed based on the level of
protection afforded the species. For example, penalties for a shipment
of appendix I species or products that was not accompanied by the
proper permits would generally be more stringent than if the shipment
contained appendix II species. However, penalties for appendix II
species could be severe if a shipment included a large number of
protected species. Penalties for shipments that violate Convention
requirements can range from monetary fines to criminal charges.
Additionally, as shown in figure 3, illegal shipments may be
confiscated.
Figure 3: Service Employee Recording Confiscated Wildlife Products:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Another Service responsibility is to prepare and coordinate U.S.
proposals for consideration by the Convention membership and advocate
the U.S. position at each conference of the member countries. For the
upcoming conference in October 2004, for example, the United States
will propose the inclusion of several species of Asian turtles in
appendix II and the downlisting of the bald eagle from appendix I to
appendix II. In preparing the United States' positions and proposals,
the Service coordinates with other relevant federal agencies and holds
public meetings, when appropriate.
Although the Fish and Wildlife Service has the primary responsibility
and authority for implementing the Convention within the United States,
other agencies are involved as well:
* The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine
Fisheries Service is involved in an advisory capacity. Although it has
no legal authority to carry out the terms of the Convention, the
National Marine Fisheries Service provides scientific advice and
assistance as needed to the Fish and Wildlife Service, such as in
assessing the status of marine species. In addition, the National
Marine Fisheries Service provides liaison to marine resource
organizations, such as the International Whaling Commission and
regional fisheries management organizations. The National Marine
Fisheries Service also organizes and carries out educational workshops
and assists in law enforcement by monitoring for potentially illegal
trade in marine species in areas other than designated ports of entry.
* The Department of State is responsible for providing U.S. annual
contributions to the Convention and provides expertise and advice on
international issues such as implementing multilateral environmental
agreements and providing liaison with foreign governments. The
department also provides funds for educational programs on Convention-
related issues.
* The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for
inspecting shipments of plants. The Customs Service inspects items
brought into the country by citizens and visitors and assists the Fish
and Wildlife Service in detecting items that consist of or contain
wildlife or wildlife parts or products.[Footnote 6]
* The Department of Agriculture coordinates with the Fish and Wildlife
Service on Convention policy related to plants.
The Convention's Implementation Has Become More Complex and
Controversial:
In several ways, implementing the Convention is currently more complex
and controversial than it was in 1975, when it took effect. First,
permitting and enforcement tasks have become more difficult, owing to
increases in both the workload and the complexity of the individual
tasks. Another change in the Convention is that the criteria for
identifying species for protection have become more specific and
science based. Although this is a positive step, it requires more
resources for data gathering and reporting. And finally, proposals for
protection of some species have become quite controversial because they
address species that are subject to management by other multinational
organizations.
Permitting and Enforcement Tasks Are More Difficult:
Since the Convention's inception, the permitting and enforcement
workload has become larger, and the tasks themselves more difficult.
Workload has increased along with increases in the Convention
membership. The number of countries that are party to the Convention
has increased dramatically since 1975, reflecting increased global
interest in species protection and trade participation. Convention
membership has grown from the initial 18 countries, whose membership
entered into force in 1975, to 166 countries as of July 2004 (see fig.
4).
Figure 4: Convention Membership Has Increased by 800 Percent Since
1975:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Along with the increase in membership has come an increase in the
number of species protected by the Convention. The number of protected
species has increased by about 20 percent since the early years of the
Convention. In 1976, about 28,000 species were listed in the
Convention's appendixes I and II; currently, more than 33,000 species
are protected. The biggest change has been in the number of protected
animal species, which has increased by about 320 percent. Overall,
though, plant species continue to make up the vast majority of
protected species (see fig. 5).
Figure 5: Species Listed in the Convention's Appendixes I and II in
1976 and 2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As the number of protected species has increased, so has the Service's
workload. In just the past 5 fiscal years, the Service's permitting
workload has increased by almost 9 percent. In total, over the 5-year
fiscal period 1999 through 2003, the Service issued more than 28,000
permits for Convention-protected species, parts, and products (see fig.
6). Over the same period, the Service denied about 200 permit
applications.
Figure 6: The Fish and Wildlife Service's Convention-Related Permitting
Workload, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
As the number of imports and exports has risen, so too has the
Service's review and inspection workload. In many cases, according to
several law enforcement officials at the Service, only the paperwork
(e.g., permits) accompanying a wildlife shipment is reviewed to ensure
compliance with appropriate wildlife laws, as well as the Convention.
Decisions about which shipments are to be physically inspected are
based on factors such as past experiences with the exporting country,
the importer's or exporter's record and reputation, and the type and
intended use of the item being shipped. Over the 5-year fiscal period
1999 through 2003, the Service reviewed import and export permits for
nearly 600,000 wildlife-related shipments, of which about 170,000 were
at least partly composed of items protected under the Convention (see
fig. 7). According to law enforcement officials, about 25 percent of
all shipments are physically inspected.
Figure 7: Wildlife Shipments Reviewed by the Service Since Fiscal Year
1999:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The difficulty of the permitting and enforcement tasks has increased
not only as a result of the growth and change in Convention membership
and protected species, but also as a result of changes in the nature of
trade in wildlife. In the early days of the Convention, trade was
primarily conducted in whole animals or plants; currently, a
significant portion of trade is in wildlife parts and products. This
change is significant because in most cases it is more difficult to
detect and identify parts and products. In addition, permitting and
enforcement tasks are more difficult because of numerous resolutions
and decisions that have added complexity to provisions governing
species' identification, protection, and packaging. Some resolutions,
for example, have resulted in annotations (i.e., footnotes) to the
appendixes that are intended to define the scope of a species'
protection. For example, some annotations may indicate that specific
populations, parts, or products of a species are subject to different
protection levels than are other populations, parts, or products.
Another reason for many annotations (e.g., those about the vicuņa) is
to minimize the scope of the Convention's restriction on trade in a
species by focusing solely on trade resulting from wildlife harvesting
methods that are detrimental to the species. Although resolutions and
decisions have resulted in increased workload for member countries, the
modifications have generally been intended, at least in part, to make
the provisions of the Convention more workable and clear, according to
Service officials.
One of the more complex situations, with regard to annotations, is that
of the African elephant. One annotation specifies the conditions under
which elephant hides, live elephants, and ivory may be exported from
the elephant population in Zimbabwe. Another annotation specifies the
conditions under which ivory may be exported from the elephant
populations in Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa (see fig. 8).
Figure 8: Annotations Specify Circumstances for Allowable Trade in
Elephant Ivory:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Although trade in elephant parts and products is generally
prohibited under the Convention, one annotation to appendix II allows
trade in whole tusks and pieces of raw ivory from elephants that are
from Botswana or Namibia, as long as the ivory comes from registered
government-owned stocks originating in the country and excluding seized
ivory and ivory of unknown origin. If the elephant is from South
Africa, though, tusks and cut pieces of ivory are allowed to be traded
only if they are both 20 centimeters or more in length and 1 kilogram
or more in weight. Like the products from the other two countries, the
South African tusks must come from registered government-owned stocks,
but the South African products are further restricted-they can come
only from the Kruger National Park. Further, trade in these products
from any of the three countries is allowed only to trading partners
that have been verified by the Secretariat to have sufficient national
legislation and domestic trade controls to ensure that the imported
ivory will not be reexported and will be managed in accordance with all
requirements concerning domestic manufacturing and trade. Also, imports
may not occur until the exporting country has submitted the required
baseline information on issues such as elephant population numbers and
incidence of illegal killing. Further, a specified maximum of ivory may
be traded (20,000 kilograms from Botswana,10,000 kilograms from
Namibia, and 30,000 kilograms from South Africa), and it must be sent
in a single shipment under strict supervision of the Secretariat. And
finally, the proceeds of the trade are to be used exclusively for
elephant conservation and for community conservation and development
programs within or adjacent to the elephant range.
[End of figure]
The expanded use of such annotations has made it increasingly difficult
for permitting and inspection officials to readily identify which
species--and parts and products thereof--are protected. Thus,
inspectors are faced with the difficult task of ascertaining whether
shipments of elephant parts and products meet all the cited
requirements and are indeed from elephants that came from the country
listed on the permit. Service law enforcement officials told us that
inspectors encounter shipments with elephant products daily and that
headquarters frequently sends guidance to inspectors on how to deal
with these shipments and the annotations. A similarly complex situation
arises when annotations provide different protections for species from
wild populations and those that were bred in captivity or artificially
propagated. Such a distinction is often difficult for inspectors to
make. According to Service officials, one of the Convention's
committees is working on ways to make it easier to identify the source
of protected species.
According to a Service official, taking enforcement actions against
illegal trade is more complex when dealing with high-value commercial
species and products like mahogany and caviar. In some cases, such as
for caviar, the product is perishable, so the Service must ensure that
the inspection process goes quickly, lest the product spoil. In
addition, the perishable nature of some products makes their storage
and handling more difficult. Caviar is a high-value product, and
international demand for it is high--caviar from the beluga sturgeon,
found in the Caspian Sea, sells for more than $1,500 per pound on the
U.S. retail market. High-value products such as these can be tempting
targets for smugglers. For example, in January 2003, a Russian citizen
was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment for repeated violations of the
Convention, including illegally importing into the United States 44
kilograms of osetra caviar (derived from Russian sturgeon) without the
required permits.
Criteria for Identifying Species for Protection Are Increasingly Based
on Science:
Another change in the Convention is that the criteria for identifying
species that need protection have become more science based. In the
early years of the Convention, according to the Secretariat's Deputy
Secretary General, if a country believed that a species was threatened
and proposed its protection, the membership nearly always approved it-
-if the species was specific to that country. If, however, the species
existed in other countries as well, and those countries disagreed with
the protection proposal, then the protection was rarely approved. Over
the years, though, the criteria for identifying a species' need for
protection have become increasingly rigorous and the associated
information requirements more thorough.
Some species in need of protection had been identified long before the
Convention took effect in 1975. A first draft of the Convention
appeared in 1964, and in 1969, a list of species in need of protection
through trade regulation was presented at the General Assembly of the
World Conservation Union. As a result, by 1976, when the Convention
membership met for the first time, many species had already been
included in the appendixes. At that first conference of the member
countries, held in Bern, Switzerland, the membership adopted scientific
criteria to guide countries' listing proposals. These criteria, known
as the "Bern criteria," required the submission of data such as
scientific reports on the population size or geographic range of the
species. After a while, though, the Bern criteria were considered too
general and, in some cases, contributed to some species' being included
in Convention appendixes with little or no supporting information.
Accordingly, in 1979, the membership made it possible to delist species
that had been included in an appendix without the normally required
population data.
In 1994, the Convention membership adopted standards for specific
biological and statistical criteria to replace the Bern criteria for
identifying species in need of protection. The 1994 criteria provided
specific requirements for including a species in an appendix, deleting
a species from an appendix, or uplisting or downlisting a species
(i.e., moving a species' listing between appendixes I and II). With the
more stringent criteria provided in 1994, Fish and Wildlife Service and
Secretariat officials believe that the Convention now has a strong
science base.
The 1994 criteria also defined key terms and specified the information
to be submitted in support of any proposal. Such support includes
information on:
* the species' distribution, habitat, population, and role in the
ecosystem;
* the nature, intensity, and extent of threats to the species, such as
competitors, pathogens, predators, toxins, and habitat loss;
* the purpose and level of use, including trends if possible, as well
as harvest levels;
* the level and nature of national and international trade, along with
the source of statistics used, such as Customs statistics, Convention
annual report data, and industry reports;
* national legislation related to the conservation of the species, the
nature of legal protection, and the effectiveness of this legislation;
* measures in place to manage populations of the species in question,
such as captive breeding or artificial propagation, ranching, or quota
systems, including details such as planned harvest rates and planned
population sizes; and:
* consultation undertaken with, and comments received from, other
countries in which the species exists and any organizations that also
manage the species, such as intergovernmental bodies that act through
international agreements other than the Convention.
In proposing inclusion of the humphead wrasse in appendix II, for
example, the United States submitted the required information for
consideration by the membership at the upcoming conference in Bangkok
(see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Selected Information from the U.S. Proposal for the Humphead
Wrasse:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The humphead wrasse is traded in the live reef food fish market,
which serves luxury restaurants in Hong Kong, Singapore, and other
locations. As a rare species, the wrasse commands high prices-from $90
to $175 per kilogram, retail, in 1997. Although no global population
assessments exist for the species, which is distributed widely
throughout the tropical Indo-Pacific, reef surveys and other sources
indicate declines in local populations owing to increased fishing
activity. Threats to the species include (1) intensive and species-
specific removal for the live reef food fish trade, which itself is
ill-managed; (2) spear-fishing at night with SCUBA gear; (3) lack of
coordinated, consistent national and regional management; and (4)
illegal, unregulated, or unreported fisheries. The wrasse is
particularly vulnerable to fishing, because it grows slowly, matures
late, and prefers shallow water. Because they tend to hide in crevices
when chased, most humphead wrasse are caught using cyanide squirt
bottles, which are illegal in Indonesia and many other countries and
cause damage to the reef habitat. The species' essential coral reef
habitat is also seriously threatened by other human activity throughout
the Indo-Pacific region.
[End of figure]
Although Service and Secretariat officials believe that decisions
should be based on sound science, they also noted that the associated
information gathering and reporting require additional staff and time.
For example, Service staff spend more time collecting and analyzing
species-specific information and responding to requests from the
Secretariat for information on species or trade. Recent requests sought
information on U.S. controls over the elephant ivory trade and
information about sturgeon and the labeling of caviar. Complying with
the increasingly rigorous monitoring and reporting requirements is
difficult for all countries but is especially so for countries that
lack the necessary capacity or resources to accomplish them.
Accordingly, the Secretariat assists such countries, to the extent
possible, in preparing their annual trade reports or conducting
population surveys to support proposals for listing or delisting a
species.
Proposals for Protection of Some Species Are Becoming Increasingly
Controversial:
Although proposals to protect species have generated controversy and
debate in the past, controversy is expected to intensify as some
proposals broaden the reach of the Convention, especially proposals to
protect commercial fish species. In the past decade, extensive debate
has occurred over the appropriate role for the Convention in the
regulation of commercial fisheries. At the heart of the issue is
whether the Convention should regulate trade in marine fish species or
whether such species should be managed by other resource management or
oversight organizations, such as regional fisheries organizations. When
a marine fish species is already under the purview of such an
organization, a proposal to manage its trade under the Convention
implies that the other management structure has failed and could be
considered an affront to those involved in managing the species. In
addition, any further trade prohibitions or restrictions put in place
as a result of a species' listing in appendix I or II of the Convention
could damage local economies that are dependent on trade in the
species. Some commercial fish species have been put under the
protection of the Convention, while proposals for other fish species
have failed to achieve a two-thirds majority support. Opposition to
such proposals generally centered on the belief that fisheries should
be managed by regional or international fisheries organizations rather
than by the Convention.
* Sharks: Past attempts to list shark species met with objections and
were rejected based on the argument that regulation of the commercial
fisheries trade should be outside the Convention's purview. This
argument was instrumental in rejecting, for example, a proposal at the
1997 conference to list the whale shark, which is widely traded for its
meat. In 2002, however, global commitment to finding long-term
conservation solutions for shark fisheries was strengthened by the
member countries' vote to list in appendix II whale sharks and basking
sharks--the world's two largest species of fish. The vote was preceded,
however, by an intense debate over whether the Convention was an
appropriate instrument for regulating trade in commercially fished
marine species, even though neither of these shark species was subject
to management by international or regional resource management
organizations.
* Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass): Citing
evidence of rapid declines in stocks of the toothfish, Australia
proposed at the 2002 conference of the member countries that the
Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic toothfish be listed in appendix II.
However, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources, which governs South American fishing waters, and several
Convention members, argued that issues concerning marine fisheries
resources should be dealt with under the auspices of the relevant
regional fisheries organization (in this case, the commission), not
under the Convention. After heated debate, Australia withdrew the
listing proposal, but the membership voted to cooperate with the
commission to strengthen controls over international trade in toothfish
products and to eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
* Humphead wrasse: The humphead wrasse was proposed by the United
States to be included in appendix II at the 2002 conference. After
considerable debate, the proposal was rejected by a vote of 65 to 42,
with 5 abstentions. Proponents of the proposal noted that inclusion of
the species in appendix II would help ensure sustainable fisheries
practices. Among the opponents' arguments were that the Convention
should not be the entity responsible for commercial fish stocks; that
the proposal would be difficult to implement; and that it would not
address destructive fisheries practices, which were the major cause of
the decline in the species. The United States will introduce the
proposal again at the 2004 conference.
The United States' position in this debate, according to National
Marine Fisheries Service officials, has been to consider the Convention
as a useful adjunct to traditional fisheries management when the
species meet the listing criteria, trade is of concern, and management
is lacking or absent. Most of the marine fish species considered for
Convention protection are not at this time managed by any resource
management or oversight organization. In these cases, Convention
protection can make a difference. For example, according to National
Marine Fisheries Service officials, the inclusion of the queen conch in
the Convention's appendix II, together with the associated trade
regulation and collection of trade data, have caused the affected
member countries to undertake discussions that will likely lead to
regional management of this species.
Clearly decisions about regulating trade in commercial fisheries are
controversial, and sometimes resource management organizations are
offended by the implication that they have failed. Yet the
effectiveness of fisheries management organizations in stemming the
decline in various commercial fish species is questionable, as politics
and economics are often the first considerations in making decisions on
species' management. Concerns about declines in fish species are
sparking many countries to look to the Convention to regulate trade in
some commercial species. As we reported in February 2004,[Footnote 7]
about one-third of the U.S. fish stocks assessed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service are overfished or are approaching overfished
conditions. This situation threatens the $28 billion commercial fishing
and fishing-related industries that rely on sustainable catches.
The United States is not alone in facing this problem. According to the
Food and Agriculture Organization,[Footnote 8] about 28 percent of the
world's major fish stocks are reported as overexploited, depleted, or
recovering from depletion. Another 47 percent are fully exploited and
are producing catches that have reached, or are very close to, their
maximum sustainable limits. Similarly, a Secretariat official said that
numerous species of commercial fish are being massively depleted by
commercial fisheries and, in his opinion, should be protected under the
Convention, including European cod, bluefin tuna, and the spiny
lobster. However, he said, fisheries organizations can be quite
powerful in arguing against Convention attempts to restrict commercial
fisheries. Nevertheless, the Convention has the authority to examine
and place under its protection any species that is threatened by trade,
if a two-thirds majority of the member countries present at a
conference agrees to do so.
Although considerable tension and concern remain over the relationship
between the Convention and regional and international fisheries
organizations, discussions have recently moved toward rapprochement.
For example, the Convention membership and the Food and Agriculture
Organization have agreed to pursue development of a memorandum of
understanding to promote information sharing and collaboration in
deciding the appropriate and necessary management for commercial
fisheries. In addition, at the 2002 conference, Chile introduced a
draft resolution that outlined the main elements of cooperation needed
between the Convention and the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources to strengthen the commission's
management of toothfish. Further, at the 2002 conference, much of the
debate about the individual fish listing proposals centered less on
whether it is appropriate to apply the Convention to protection of
marine species and more on whether the species in question met the
listing criteria and what benefits might accrue from collaboration.
Such discussions are useful in light of the need to resolve concerns
about the health of the world's commercial fisheries, major fish
stocks, and indeed the entire marine ecosystem. As we reported in
February 2004, greater competition for fewer fish increases the
likelihood that stocks will decline further and catches will decrease.
If a fishery cannot be sustained, the marine ecosystem could be
transformed, thus threatening the livelihood of fishermen and the way
of life in many communities.
Other commercial species that may be subject to resource management
organizations, such as timber species, are expected to generate similar
controversy as fear of overexploitation spurs proposals for their
protection. Proposals to protect mahogany and ramin under the
Convention in the early 1990s were met with arguments similar to those
presented for commercial fish species--that other resource
organizations should be responsible for managing them, not the
Convention. For example, arguments against protecting mahogany asserted
that the International Tropical Timber Organization is the appropriate
body for managing the species. Mahogany was, however, approved for
listing in appendix II at the last conference of the member countries.
Controversy is also expected as proposals are introduced for Convention
protection of other marine resources, such as sea cucumbers and
pipehorses.
The United States Has Spent More than $50 Million on Convention-Related
Activities Since 1995:
The United States spent more than $50 million, or about $6 million
annually, on Convention-related activities from 1995 through
2003;[Footnote 9] data are not available for expenditures between 1975-
-when the Convention entered into force--and 1995 because Convention
activities were not tracked separately from other species protection
programs. The $50 million spent since 1995 includes about $37 million
spent by the Fish and Wildlife Service on activities aimed at
implementing the Convention and about $13 million spent by the
Department of State for voluntary contributions to help administer the
Convention internationally (see fig. 10).[Footnote 10]
Figure 10: Selected U.S. Expenditures on Convention-Related Activities
from 1995 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Service activities directed exclusively at implementing the Convention
include coordinating U.S. proposals that will be negotiated at
conferences of the member countries. Preparation for such proposals
involves requesting public input through the Federal Register and
coordinating with other federal agencies that have expertise in certain
species. For example, the Service turns to the National Marine
Fisheries Service for advice on marine species. Another Fish and
Wildlife Service activity is issuing permits for the import, export,
and reexport of Convention species. The Service ensures that each
permit contains the information required under the terms of the
Convention, such as the purpose of the import or export (e.g., hunting
trophies, education, zoos, or commercial), the nature of the specimens
being traded (e.g., live animals, skins, wallets, shoes), and the
source of those specimens (e.g., animals born in captivity, specimens
taken from the wild, specimens originating from a ranching operation).
In fiscal year 2003, the Service allotted 49 full-time-equivalent staff
to accomplish these tasks, among others.
The $37 million spent by the Service does not include funds expended by
the agency for activities, such as enforcement, that not only implement
the Convention, but also serve other purposes. For example, Service
wildlife inspectors review all the declaration paperwork for wildlife
shipments, inspect selected shipments at specified points of entry into
the United States, and investigate cases involving illegal
trade.[Footnote 11] During the review and inspection process, the
inspectors enforce not only the Convention but also U.S. laws and
regulations that regulate the import or export of wildlife, such as the
Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Wild Bird
Conservation Act, and the Lacey Act.[Footnote 12] Convention-related
enforcement expenditures cannot be broken out from the Service's
overall budget of $49 million and 445 full-time-equivalent staff for
law enforcement activities in 2003. Figure 11 shows a wildlife
inspector at work.
Figure 11: Service Employee Inspecting and Identifying a Wildlife
Shipment:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The $13 million spent by the Department of State was provided to the
Convention's trust fund, as part of the United States' voluntary
contributions to the Convention. In 2003, the U.S. contribution was
about $1 million. This amount was more than any other country
contributed and made up about 22 percent of the total contribution of
the membership in 2003. Other top contributors were Japan, 20 percent;
Germany, 10 percent; France, 6 percent; and the United Kingdom, 6
percent.
Not included in the $13 million contributed to the Convention by the
Department of State are the funds the department has provided to the
National Marine Fisheries Service over the past 3 years to support
scientific, technological, or environmental initiatives for Convention
members addressing newly protected species. For example, the department
provided $130,000 to the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct,
among other things, a technical workshop on seahorse conservation in
Mexico in February 2004. All seahorses came under Convention protection
in May 2004. As noted previously, the National Marine Fisheries Service
also advises the Fish and Wildlife Service on decisions about marine
species. The National Marine Fisheries Service sets aside about
$100,000 per year from its appropriations for general activities to
help implement the Convention.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also expends funds and technical
assistance for activities that are not intended to implement the
Convention but nevertheless help protect Convention-protected species.
For example, the Service spent nearly $4 million and utilized 14 full-
time-equivalent staff in 2003 for international conservation efforts.
It spent an additional $4.4 million to support acts such as the African
Elephant Conservation Act, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act, the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and the Great Ape Conservation
Act. These funds are separate from the funds appropriated for
implementation of the Convention or the Endangered Species Act.
The Convention and U.S. Laws Identify Protected Species Differently and
Allow Different Uses:
The Convention and U.S. laws share a common goal of protecting species,
but they extend protection based on different criteria that reflect
different underlying purposes. The purpose of the Convention is to
protect species endangered by international trade, while the purpose of
the Endangered Species Act is to protect species and their habitats
that are threatened or endangered for any reason. The level of
protection for a species dictates the allowable uses of that species,
and uses allowed by the Convention sometimes differ from uses allowed
by domestic laws. For example, U.S. laws sometimes afford stricter
protections to species than the Convention does; as a result, some U.S.
interests such as small businesses, aquariums, individual consumers,
and big game hunters cannot participate in activities allowed by other
member countries in accordance with the Convention. Stricter domestic
measures, such as those imposed under the Endangered Species Act, can
also create conflict among countries that are party to the Convention.
There are arguments both for and against stricter domestic measures,
and there is no consensus on how they affect species protection, member
country economies and relations, individual consumers, or the efficacy
of the Convention.
The Convention and U.S. Laws Have Different Criteria for Identifying
Species for Protection:
As previously discussed, the Convention seeks to ensure that
international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten
species' survival, and the membership places species in appendix I or
II, depending on the risk posed by trade. Appendix I species are in
danger of extinction, in part due to trade; appendix II species are not
now in danger of extinction but may be at future risk if trade is not
controlled. Appendix III is a list of species included at the request
of a member country that already regulates trade in those species and
needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent unsustainable or
illegal exploitation of the species.
The criteria for identifying a species for protection by the Endangered
Species Act are different from those employed by the Convention and
reflect the act's intent to protect species that are at risk of
extinction for any reason--not just trade--and to conserve their
habitats. Under the Endangered Species Act, a species is eligible for
protection if it meets at least one of five criteria spelled out in the
act. These criteria describe threats to survival such as disease,
predation, destruction of habitat, and overuse. Species are considered
either "endangered," if they are in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of their range, or "threatened," if they are
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. While most
of the act's protections apply to species found in the United States,
the act also recognizes foreign species that meet the requirements for
protection. Approximately 1,825 species are currently protected by the
act; of these, about 560 are foreign species. The vast majority of the
foreign species are mammals, birds, and reptiles.[Footnote 13]
The criterion for protection by the Marine Mammal Protection Act is
simply that a species is a marine mammal. The act seeks to ensure that
populations of all marine mammal species are maintained at their
optimum sustainable population levels, regardless of whether the
species are at risk of extinction. As a result, any marine mammal that
is protected by the Convention is also protected by the act. Marine
mammals currently protected by the Convention include whales, dolphins,
manatees, sea otters, and fur seals.
The Convention and U.S. Laws Allow Different and Sometimes Conflicting
Uses of Protected Species:
The Convention allows limited trade of some appendix I species and
requires permits for both import and export (and reexport) of these
species. Permits to use appendix I species may be issued if the
intended use is not primarily for commercial purposes and will not be
detrimental to the survival of the species. For example, permits have
been issued for giant pandas to be exported from China for scientific
or research purposes. The Convention allows broader trade in appendix
II species--generally allowing trade, although monitoring it. For
appendix II species, only export and reexport permits are
required[Footnote 14] and are issued if the species were legally
obtained and, as with appendix I species, only if their intended use
will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. For appendix
III species, the Convention imposes the least stringent requirements.
Trade in these species requires either an export permit showing that
they were legally taken or a certificate proving their origin.
The Endangered Species Act also allows some use of protected species,
which may include trade, but it regulates use more stringently than the
Convention. While the Convention is concerned with regulating trade
that may be detrimental to wild populations of protected species, the
Endangered Species Act goes beyond this standard and seeks to ensure
that trade or any other use of threatened or endangered species
contributes to the conservation of the species in the wild, unless the
use is for scientific purposes or is incidental to an otherwise lawful
use. Therefore, trade or other use of a protected species might not be
allowed under the act if the use does not contribute to the
conservation of the species in the wild.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is even more stringent than the
Endangered Species Act in that its conservation goals and provisions
apply to all marine mammals, regardless of their status. The act allows
the use of marine mammals only for specified purposes, including public
display and scientific research, and requires both import and export
permits for trade. The act also provides certain exemptions for the use
of marine mammals by Alaska Natives.
For a number of species, trade allowed by the Convention is restricted
by the Endangered Species Act. One example is trade in the cheetah,
which is protected as endangered under the act. Although cheetah
populations are protected under appendix I of the Convention, Botswana,
Namibia, and Zimbabwe have established quotas, as allowed by the
Convention, for the export of cheetahs hunted within their countries.
However, under the Endangered Species Act, the Service has not allowed
the import of sport-hunted cheetahs because it has not found that
current hunting and management programs enhance the survival of
cheetahs. Therefore, U.S. hunters may travel to those countries to
legally hunt and kill cheetahs, but they may not bring home cheetah
trophies such as skins, teeth, or mounted heads, while citizens of
other countries may do so. The Service has, however, allowed the import
of live cheetahs--both captive-bred and wild-caught--when it has
determined that their importation and subsequent use would benefit the
species.
Another species for which the United States imposes stricter trade
measures than the Convention is the Asian arowana, also known as the
Asian bonytongue. The arowana is a fresh-water ornamental fish that is
traded around the world and considered by some to bring good luck to
its possessor. Although the species is protected by appendix I of the
Convention, some exporting countries have arowana populations in
Convention-registered captive-breeding programs; these populations are
treated as appendix II species and thus may be traded. However, the
arowana is also protected as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act, and the Service has not determined that trade in captive-
bred arowana will contribute to the conservation of the species in the
wild. As a result, U.S. consumers cannot import Asian arowana and,
therefore, cannot participate in some activities allowed under the
Convention--activities in which citizens of other countries may
participate.
The Endangered Species Act accommodates Convention-approved trade in
threatened or endangered species when the trade meets the requirements
of section 10 or 4(d) of the act. Section 10 allows the Service to
issue permits for "take" of a protected species,[Footnote 15] as long
as the permitted action is incidental to carrying out a lawful
activity, is intended for scientific purposes, or can be shown to
enhance the survival of the affected species. Although section 10 of
the act is more frequently used than section 4(d) when foreign species
are involved, according to Service officials, the Service issues
section 10 permits for foreign species only for the enhancement
purposes allowed under the act (e.g., scientific research,
conservation, and education); it does not issue section 10 permits for
incidental take of foreign species. The Service has issued numerous
section 10 "enhancement" permits for Convention-allowed trade in
species that are protected as threatened or endangered under the act.
For example, it has issued permits for the import of endangered giant
pandas, cheetahs, and Asian elephants for the purpose of scientific
research. The Service has not, however, used section 10 permits for
some uses of endangered species, such as for the import of Asian
arowana for display purposes or for the import of sport-hunted cheetah
trophies, because--according to agency officials--the Service has not
been able to show that such activities would enhance or conserve the
species in the wild. The Service proposed a draft policy in August 2003
on the various circumstances under which the agency might be able to
conclude that uses such as these do enhance the status of endangered
species in the wild and would thus warrant a section 10 permit.
However, the Service received a significant amount of negative comments
on this proposal. In particular, several conservation groups indicated
that allowing trade in endangered species for uses other than display
and scientific purposes is contrary to the historical U.S. philosophy
on species conservation; some groups asserted that killing or capturing
wildlife is not the best way to protect endangered species. The
proposal has not been finalized and is still under deliberation within
the Department of the Interior.
Section 4(d) of the act, which is used less frequently than section 10,
provides another mechanism for allowing Convention-approved trade, but
only for species that are protected as threatened under the act.
Section 4(d) allows the Service to specify circumstances under which
use of a threatened species can occur, including uses that would be
prohibited if the species were endangered. The purpose of a "4(d) rule"
is to further the conservation of the species, in addition to allowing
otherwise prohibited activities to occur. Section 4(d) differs from
section 10 in that it allows the Service to make blanket determinations
about allowable uses of species, rather than requiring case-by-case
evaluations of permit applications for individual uses. The Service has
more than 60 "4(d) rules"--about one-third of which are for foreign
species--including one for the use of Nile crocodile products from
certain African countries and one for wool from live vicuņas from
certain South American countries; both of these rules involve appendix
II species in which member countries agreed to allow limited
trade.[Footnote 16] Most recently, the Service proposed a 4(d) rule for
beluga sturgeon--a species of fish best known for its expensive caviar.
In each of these cases, the Service determined that allowing some
commercial trade in the species would contribute to programs that
assist in the conservation of these species in the wild. For the beluga
sturgeon, for example, the 4(d) rule stipulates that, among other
things, countries wishing to export beluga sturgeon caviar and meat to
the United States must submit basin-wide beluga sturgeon management
plans for the Black Sea and Caspian Sea basins, national regulations
that implement the plans, and annual reports documenting management
measures in place and the status of the species.
As illustrated by sections 10 and 4(d), member countries' domestic laws
may provide greater protection for species than the Convention does.
Article XIV of the Convention explicitly recognizes member countries'
sovereign right to impose such stricter domestic measures. These
measures generally take on one of two main forms. One type imposes
stricter measures on the import, export, hunting, or transport of
specific species, regardless of the agreed-upon protections provided by
the Convention, such as in the cheetah and Asian arowana cases. The
other type imposes more stringent restrictions on the trade,
possession, or transport of protected species, such as requiring import
permits for appendix II or III species. While not enacted with the
purpose of restricting trade in species protected by the Convention,
certain protections of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal
Protection Act have that effect and go beyond the restrictions called
for under the Convention.
Other member countries--including both importing and exporting
countries--have also enacted stricter domestic measures. For example,
the European Union, Japan, and Namibia require import permits for trade
in some or all appendix II species. Australia generally bans the export
of live native wildlife species, regardless of whether the species may
be traded under the Convention; and Ecuador and Nigeria have banned all
commercial exports of wild flora and fauna. Costa Rica and Paraguay
prohibit all international trade in wildlife.
Merits of Stricter Domestic Measures Are Hotly Debated:
Stricter domestic measures can create heated conflict within and among
member countries. Although there are arguments both for and against
stricter domestic measures, there is no consensus on how these measures
affect species protection, member country economies and relations,
individual consumers, or the efficacy of the Convention. The following
arguments represent the opinions of a variety of individuals at U.S.
and international trade organizations, government agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and private businesses. We are
presenting the opinions as presented to us; we did not verify the
accuracy of the assertions.
Arguments Supporting Stricter Domestic Measures:
Those who support stricter domestic measures generally argue that they
are necessary to protect species, for several reasons:
* Stricter domestic measures can help draw attention to tragically
endangered species. For example, U.S. bans on trade in rhinoceros and
tigers have aided those species by increasing worldwide awareness of
their danger of extinction. U.S. decisions to provide additional
protection for species can influence other countries to do the same.
* Stricter domestic measures allow countries to protect species without
delay. Because the member countries to the Convention meet only every
few years, species in danger of extinction may be harmed beyond
recovery before the members meet to consider the species for
protection. Domestic measures can provide critical interim protection.
* Stricter domestic measures facilitate enforcement in member
countries. In the United States, for example, if the mere possession of
a protected species is illegal under the Endangered Species Act, then
U.S. law enforcement officials can prosecute the violator. Otherwise,
enforcement officials would have to show that the species had been
illegally imported, which, according to some officials we spoke with,
is difficult to prove.
* Stricter domestic measures allow major consumer countries to leverage
greater species protection efforts from other countries. For example,
by requiring import permits for appendix II species (for which the
Convention requires only export permits), a country can control the
conditions under which it will import protected species. For example,
the European Union requires import permits for appendix II species.
This extra step allows the European Union to help ensure the
sustainable management of species in the exporting countries.
* Stricter domestic measures allow countries to protect species for
reasons beyond the scope of the Convention. For example, the Endangered
Species Act protects species at risk of extinction for any reason--not
just trade--and conserves their habitats. By itself the Convention
cannot prevent the extinction of some species, let alone further their
recovery, because they may suffer from threats other than those posed
by trade.
Supporters of stricter domestic measures also argue that they allow
countries to prioritize species protection goals:
* Stricter domestic measures provide a mechanism by which countries can
display their philosophy regarding species protection. For example, the
United States has chosen a precautionary approach in implementing its
own Endangered Species Act, as indicated in the act's legislative
history. Given the potential benefits of some species to the human
race, such as offering possible cures for cancer, we should be careful
to protect the continued existence of species, according to the House
report associated with the act.[Footnote 17] A cautious approach is
also reflected in the act's extension of protections to not only
species that are endangered, but also those that are at risk of
becoming endangered.
* Stricter domestic measures can help focus attention on recovery of
wild populations. As previously discussed, some trade in appendix I
species is allowed if the intended use is not detrimental to the
species' survival. In the Asian arowana example, captive breeding is
the reason the species is not threatened with extinction due to trade.
However, captive breeding does nothing to help the declining wild
population. Enacting a stricter domestic measure that requires
documentation that some proceeds from the sale of captive-bred species
are funneled into conservation could aid in species recovery.
Arguments Opposing Stricter Domestic Measures:
Opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they can actually
harm species:
* Stricter domestic measures can discourage developing countries from
establishing programs to fund species conservation. Governments in
exporting countries that benefit from trade in protected species have a
vested interest in maintaining those species' survival. If a major
consumer country, like the United States, enacts a stricter domestic
measure preventing U.S. trade in a species, the incentive for the
exporting country to conserve the species may diminish. Loss of
revenues from trade may also decrease a country's ability to fund
enforcement efforts, such as those addressing poaching.
* If stricter domestic measures diminish trade in a protected species,
funding for existing conservation programs can decrease. Some countries
have programs that take a percentage of proceeds from the sale of
protected species and channel the funds into species conservation. For
example, the export of giant pandas, an appendix I species, has
generated $11 million for panda conservation projects in China.
Similarly, sport hunting of Namibian cheetahs generates revenue for
cheetah conservation. If China or Namibia were to implement a stricter
domestic measure barring the export of pandas or cheetahs, or if a
country that currently imports these species were to implement a
measure to prevent future imports, then the trade-based conservation
revenue for these species could decrease or even cease.
Another argument against stricter domestic measures is that they can
harm foreign economies and consumer interests:
* Stricter domestic measures can affect the economy of an exporting
country, particularly if export of a protected species is a major
source of income, and can restrict the ability of an exporting country
to benefit from its natural resources.
* Stricter domestic measures prevent some users from participating in
activities that are allowed by the Convention. In the Asian arowana and
cheetah examples, U.S. consumers and big game hunters are prohibited
from engaging in activities permitted by other member countries, in
accordance with the Convention--as noted previously, the United States
is the largest consumer of wildlife and wildlife products.
* Stricter domestic measures may act as trade barriers against the
exporting country. Countries that are also members of the World Trade
Organization[Footnote 18] may choose to resolve such issues through it
rather than continue to work within the Convention. To date, however,
no such resolution has been sought.
Some opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they provide
little benefit to the species:
* Stricter domestic measures provided under the Endangered Species Act
do little for foreign species because the Service cannot regulate
"take" or habitat destruction in foreign countries, nor does the
Service develop recovery plans for species that do not occur in the
United States.
Finally, opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they run
counter to the spirit of the Convention:
* Some member countries believe that stricter domestic measures,
although in accordance with the Convention, undermine the multilateral
goals the Convention espouses. The Convention is based on a
collaborative decision-making process; when one country contravenes a
decision made by the majority by disallowing trade that is allowed by
the Convention, that action undermines confidence in the majority's
decisions. For example, countries in southern Africa are outspoken in
arguing that the unilateralism represented by stricter domestic
measures is inappropriate in a multilateral agreement like the
Convention.
* Stricter domestic measures foster discord among the Convention's
member countries. Some member countries resent it when major consumer
countries (e.g., the United States) use stricter domestic measures
because doing so implies that those countries believe they know how to
manage a species better than the exporting countries and Convention
membership.
We heard support for and against stricter domestic measures under the
Endangered Species Act but not under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
even though the Convention allows some trade in marine mammals (that
would otherwise be prohibited under the Marine Mammal Protection Act).
Some officials we interviewed speculated that the act's provisions
generate fewer concerns because there is not a large demand for trade
in marine mammals in the United States.
The use of stricter domestic measures reflects the varying philosophies
around the world on species protection and stimulates intense and often
emotional debate among and within countries. At the last conference of
the member countries, for example, wide-ranging views were expressed
over a suggestion that the Convention be modified to encourage
countries to avoid the use of stricter domestic measures. In addition,
concerns have been expressed within the United States about a potential
change in the country's policy on international species protections.
The United States has historically taken a precautionary approach to
species protection, although recent actions, such as voting in support
of allowing limited trade in African ivory, have raised concerns among
conservation groups that these actions indicate a change in that
approach.
Concluding Observations:
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora has changed significantly since its inception in the
early 1970s--in size, complexity, and the number and type of species it
protects. With these changes have come an increase in member countries'
workload pertaining to permitting, enforcement, and reporting. Further,
protections called for under the Convention have become more
controversial, with some countries proposing the protection of
commercial species that other countries believe should be managed by
organizations or agreements other than the Convention. Accordingly, it
appears that implementing the Convention will entail a continuing
commitment of resources and that debating the merits of its application
to commercial species will continue to spark international and
organizational flashpoints in establishing an appropriate relationship
between the Convention and other resource management organizations.
Stricter domestic measures elicit intense opinions and debate. Given
the United States' strong laws and historically aggressive protection
of vulnerable species, it has received criticism from the Convention's
member countries, as well as from some of its own citizens and
businesses, when it goes beyond the protections to which the Convention
member countries have agreed, while at the same time it hears concerns
about any potential relaxing of protections afforded species under
current laws. Whether the United States continues with its preference,
as articulated in current law, to provide stricter protections for
Convention-protected species or changes its approach in deference to
Convention agreements, either approach will be met with a mixture of
concern and support. Making decisions about how to properly manage
species both at home and abroad will continue to be challenging,
particularly given the pressure to continue managing species with a
precautionary approach.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration provided written comments on a draft of this report.
(See app. I and II for the full text of these comments.) The Department
of the Interior said that it appreciated the spirit of the report in
examining issues that can help it improve the implementation of the
Convention. The department agreed that the complexity of work for port
inspectors and law enforcement personnel has increased along with
increases in the number and types of species, parts, and products
protected under the Convention. The department noted, however, that
Convention members, with strong U.S. support, have made a concerted
effort over the last decade to mitigate the effects associated with the
complexity of the Convention by creating a streamlined set of
resolutions and decision documents as well as developing practical
processes for implementation. The member countries, in considering
actions to be taken, have also been mindful of the need to reduce the
administrative and implementation burden on the members.
The department also agreed that new issues have brought new areas of
controversy for consideration by the Convention membership but noted
that controversy has accompanied every phase of the Convention's
evolution. The department was concerned, however, that the report
appears to highlight the negative and understate the positive effects
of the Convention. For example, the department was concerned that the
"Results in Brief" emphasizes the negative aspect of controversy and
implies that the Convention may be inappropriately duplicating the work
of other agreements. According to the department, an important impetus
for the Convention's involvement in species protection is the
continuing deterioration of the status of the various species in
question and the failure of other institutions and organizations to
deal with the deterioration effectively. Also, the department was
concerned that our discussion of increased complexity portrays it as a
negative aspect of the Convention, when in the department's view, the
growth in the number of parties and listings reflects widespread
support for the Convention and is a positive trend to which complexity
is a side effect. We did not intend to portray the increased
controversy or complexity associated with the Convention as either
negative or positive, but rather as descriptive characterizations of
the Convention's evolution. We also did not intend to imply that the
Convention duplicates the work of other agreements. Rather, we intend
to reflect the range of opinions among member countries about the
appropriate role for the Convention in managing some species. We have
changed the report to clarify our discussion and to include the
department's views.
Regarding our discussion of the Convention's recent involvement in
marine fisheries, the department noted that the Convention has helped
support other management bodies, such as the International Whaling
Commission, which requested the Convention's assistance. The department
also noted that the Convention regulates trade, while international
fisheries organizations and agreements regulate harvest; thus, the
Convention's involvement can as easily be complementary as competitive.
The department stated that the report accurately portrays the range of
views on the use of stricter domestic measures by Convention members,
including the United States. The department noted, however, that the
U.S. "preference" to provide stricter protections is reflected in law
and that the department is required to implement the legislated
responsibilities under its jurisdiction, including the implementation
of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as
written. We have clarified in the report that the United States'
"preference" to provide stricter protections is articulated in current
laws.
The department disagreed with the report's statement that "there is no
clear consensus on the effectiveness of the Convention in conserving
species." In the department's view, the Convention is effective and
highly functioning and has a long history of adopting successful
measures to support the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife
species in trade. In the department's opinion, the effectiveness of the
Convention is demonstrated by the high number of countries who are
party to the Convention, thereby endorsing the Convention's basic
principles, and by the overall success of the conferences of the member
countries in coming to agreement on very difficult issues concerning
species listing and Convention implementation. Although we appreciate
the department's view and note that it is shared by others, the
department did not provide information to show that there is consensus
among member countries about the Convention's effectiveness in
conserving species.
Finally, the department viewed our observation that there will be
continued flashpoints between the Convention and other multinational
agreements as too broadly stated, given that our study did not consider
the relationship of the Convention to other multilateral agreements.
Although our evaluation did not compare the Convention with other
multilateral agreements, we stand by our observation. Judging by the
controversy and spirited debates that have been the hallmark of the
Convention for a quarter of a century, it seems clear that these are
likely to continue. Nevertheless, our report recognizes that
cooperative efforts are under way to reconcile longstanding differences
of opinion about the Convention's appropriate role in managing marine
fish species. Additionally, the department notes that the Convention
has formed memoranda of understanding with the Convention on Migratory
Species, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations
Environment Programme.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration commended our
comprehensive look at how the Convention is implemented and how its
regulatory regime differs from domestic laws protecting wildlife
species. The administration agreed that one of the most controversial
issues before the Convention is the regulation of international trade
in marine fish species and noted that, for species under the
administration's jurisdiction, it has the expertise to participate
fully in implementing the Convention.
The administration recommended that we clarify the role of the Food and
Agriculture Organization and the difference between the Convention and
the Endangered Species Act, which we have done. In addition, the
administration recommended that we revise our discussion of the
controversy over regulation of commercial fisheries trade.
Specifically, the administration noted that most of the marine fish
species considered for listing in the Convention appendixes are not
managed by any resource management or oversight organization at this
time. We changed the report to reflect the administration's comments on
this discussion. The administration also noted that the position of the
United States has been to consider the Convention as a useful adjunct
to traditional fisheries management when the species meet the listing
criteria, trade is a concern, and management is lacking or absent.
In addition to their overall comments, the department and the
administration provided numerous technical and editorial suggestions,
which we appreciate and have incorporated in the report as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology:
We conducted our work primarily at the Department of the Interior's
Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the primary agency responsible for
implementing the Convention. We obtained documents on implementation of
the Convention in the United States and budget data from the Service.
We assessed the reliability of data on shipments inspected and permits
issued and determined that they were acceptable for our purposes. We
also contacted officials at the Department of Commerce's National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which advises the Department of
the Interior on marine mammal and fisheries issues. We performed a
comparative analysis of the Convention, the Endangered Species Act, and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act, to identify the relationships between
them. We also discussed the Convention and acts with numerous federal
and nonfederal officials involved in international trade and species
protection, including officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service, industry groups, and conservation
groups; and an individual business owner. We also obtained documents on
implementation of the Convention and the upcoming conference from the
office of the Secretariat for the Convention in Geneva, Switzerland. We
conducted our work from March 2004 through August 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 8 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send a copy of the
report to the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce and to
appropriate congressional committees. We will make copies available to
others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or my Assistant Director, Trish McClure,
at (202) 512-6318. Other key contributors to this report were Claire
Cyrnak, Cynthia Norris, Michelle K. Treistman, and Pamela Tumler.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
Washington, DC 20240:
SEP 03 2004:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office report titled, "Protected Species: International Convention and
U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently," GAO-04-964, dated August 11,
2004.
We have carefully reviewed the draft document. We appreciate the spirit
of the current report in examining issues which can help us improve the
implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). GAO focused its examination on
how implementation of the Convention has changed over the years since
its inception; U.S. funding and other resources expended on Convention-
related activities; and the relationship between the Convention, the
Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In
particular, GAO's report focused on the question of increases in
complexity and controversy in CITES implementation and the impact of
stricter domestic measures embodied in U.S. legislation. We note,
however, that the arrangement and selection of facts appear to
highlight the negative and understate the positive impacts of CITES.
Regarding the Results in Brief, the GAO maintains that the Convention
has become more complex and controversial since 1975. With respect to
controversy, it is true that new issues, which have brought new areas
of controversy and which the report accurately characterizes, are being
considered by the Convention. However, in general, controversy has
accompanied every phase of CITES' evolution as the Parties have
considered measures to control and regulate wildlife trade. The summary
emphasizes the negative - controversy - and implies that CITES may be
inappropriately duplicating the work of other agreements. An equally
important impetus to CITES' involvement is the continuing deterioration
of the status of the various species in question, and the failure of
other institutions and organizations to deal with that deterioration
effectively. This factor is addressed in the body of the report but
omitted from the one-page summary, the summary in the cover letter, and
the "concluding observations."
With regard to complexity, Convention implementation reflects the
reality that more species and more parts and products are listed,
increasing the complexity of the work for port inspectors and law
enforcement personnel, in particular. However, the Parties, with strong
U.S. support, have made a concerted effort over the last decade to
mitigate the effects associated with the complexity of CITES, by
reviewing the Resolutions and Decisions to create a streamlined set of
resolutions and decision documents as well as develop practical
processes. The Parties, in their consideration of actions to be taken,
have also been mindful of the need to reduce the administrative and
implementation burden on the Parties. These efforts have not been
detailed in the report. Additionally, the summary under "What GAO
Found" leads with the observation that implementation of CITES has
become more "complex and controversial." The report then notes that the
complexity results from several factors: the listing process has become
more scientific, more countries have become Parties, and the Parties
have listed more species. Stronger science is generally thought to be
important and appropriate in environmental regulation. The growth in
the number of Parties and listings reflects widespread support for a
Convention in which the United States has consistently been a world
leader, which also is a positive trend. We prefer that the report begin
with a positive statement of those major developments, followed by
noting complexity as a side-effect.
The report discusses CITES' recent involvement in marine fisheries and
recognizes that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and other
international management structures are in place to manage these
species. It should be noted that CITES is working more closely with FAO
on fisheries issues, including the current development of a Memorandum
of Understanding, and has helped support other management bodies, as
was the case with the International Whaling Commission, which requested
CITES assistance. The Parties have agreed not to list species when they
recognized that other management mechanisms were in place and were
sufficient to preclude a CITES listing. This was the case when the
Parties considered the Patagonian toothfish proposal. The CITES Parties
agreed not to list this species in deference to the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), which was
the relevant governing regional fisheries organization over this issue.
Unlike older regional fisheries' organizations, CCAMLR also imposes
trade regulation provisions on its members. With respect to the
humphead wrasse, there is no current effort by FAO or any other
international management structure to manage this species. Recently,
FAO convened a panel of experts to review the marine species proposals
for the thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 13) and the experts
endorsed the humphead wrasse proposal. The report also omits the fact
that the Convention regulates trade while international fisheries
organizations and agreements focus on the regulation of harvest, so
that the involvement of CITES can as easily be complementary as
competitive.
The report provides an accurate portrayal of the range of views on the
use of stricter domestic measures by CITES Parties and the United
States. While some groups and Convention member countries are
supportive of the use of stricter domestic measures, the United States
has received criticisms from other groups as well as other Convention
member countries for the existence of and use of stricter domestic
measures in the U.S. It should be clarified that the U.S. "preference"
to provide stricter protections is reflected in law and the Department
is required to implement the legislated responsibilities under its
jurisdiction, including the implementation of the Endangered Species
Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as written.
Although we have considered the issues GAO examined in their report, we
disagree with the statement that "there is no clear consensus on the
effectiveness of the Convention in conserving species." Our overall
view is that CITES is an effective and highly functioning Convention
which has a long history of adopting successful measures to support the
conservation and sustainable use of wildlife species in trade. The
United States has a long history of involvement in the Convention, has
been influential in shaping its decisions and activities, and has
consistently supported its decisions. The effectiveness of the
Convention is demonstrated in the high number of countries who are
Party to the Convention, thereby endorsing the Convention's basic
principles, and the overall success of its Conferences of the Parties
in coming to agreement on very difficult species listing and Convention
implementation issues. CITES has moved deliberately and thoughtfully in
areas of controversy. For example, mahogany, considered for over a
decade, was not put on Appendix II until the listing was supported by
the majority of exporting and importing countries. A CITES working
group on mahogany continues to work on the technical aspects of
implementation in a cooperative manner. We maintain that CITES has
significantly reduced the pressures on wild populations subject to
trade and that links to protections provided under the Convention to
improvements of a species' status in the wild can be made, beginning at
home with the example of the American Alligator. Two other examples
include the development of crocodilian conservation programs in
countries, such as Madagascar, formerly intent on eradicating such
species, and regional cooperation on vicuna management in some South
American countries resulting in subsequent economic benefits to local
communities and a related cessation of poaching by those same
countries.
Finally, in its concluding observations, the report states that there
will be continued flashpoints between the Convention and other
"multinational agreements." We believe this is overly broad. The GAO
study did not consider the relationship of CITES with other global
multilateral agreements. The study narrowly considered issues related
to regional fisheries management organizations which are a subset of
"multinational agreements." In fact, CITES trade provisions have not
been questioned by other global multilateral agreements, almost all of
which lack such trade provisions. FAO is the only global agreement of
this type referred to in the report and the report states that
cooperation between CITES and the FAO is being pursued. CITES also has
already formed memoranda of understanding with the Convention on
Migratory Species, Convention on Biological Diversity, and United
Nations Environment Programme.
Additional comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
enclosed. We hope our comments will assist you in preparing the final
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett:
Assistant Secretary:
Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
Washington. D.C. 20230:
AUG 30 2004:
Mr. Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office's draft report entitled "Protected Species:
International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently,"
GAO-04-964.
Enclosed are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
Enclosure:
NOAA Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled "Protected Species:
International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently"
(GAO-04-964/September 2004):
General Comments:
We commend the GAO for this comprehensive look at how CITES is
implemented and how its regulatory regime differs from domestic laws
protecting wildlife species. We agree one of the most controversial
issues before the CITES Parties is the regulation of international
trade in marine fish species. NOAA has the expertise to participate
fully in the implementation of CITES for species under NOAA's
jurisdiction.
We also recommend clarifying the difference between CITES and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in wildlife protection on the GAO
Highlights page and page 31 (under the heading "The Convention and U.S.
Laws Identify Protected Species Differently..."). The purpose of the
Convention is very specific - to protect species endangered due to
international trade and to regulate others in order to avoid
utilization incompatible with their survival. Thus, its implementing
mechanisms specifically focus on trade restrictions. The purpose of the
ESA is broader - to protect species and their habitats threatened or
endangered for any reason. See first comment under "Technical/Editorial
Comments" section.
Recommended Changes for Factual Information:
Page 24, Proposals for Protection of Some Species Are Becoming
Increasingly Controversial:
The GAO anticipates increased controversy regarding the regulation of
commercial fisheries trade pursuant to CITES. The report contends, "At
the heart of the issue is whether the Convention should regulate trade
in species that are typically managed by other resource management or
oversight organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization.
A proposal to manage such species implies that the other management
structures have failed, and could be considered an affront to those
involved in managing the species." Most of the marine fish species
considered for listing in the CITES Appendices are not managed by gay
resource management or oversight organization at this time. In fact,
none of the shark species now included in the CITES Appendices or
subject to other discussions in the CITES Animals Committee is subject
to management by any international or regional resource governance
regime. Past attempts to list shark species were rejected because
regulation of trade by CITES was not supported, irrespective of the
type of management organization.
The position of the United States in this discussion has been to
consider CITES as a useful adjunct to traditional fisheries management
where the species meet the listing criteria, trade is a concern, and
management is lacking or absent. In fact, we have seen in the case of
the CITES Appendix 11 listing queen conch, regulation and collection of
trade data by CITES has caused range states to undertake discussions
which will likely lead to regional management of this species.
Furthermore, although the role of the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization is to advise governments and regional
organizations on the management of marine resources, it does not
directly manage any marine fish species.
Technical/Editorial Comments:
Highlights page, What GAO Found, third paragraph:
In order to complete this description of the regulatory regimes, we
recommend adding a second sentence, "The purpose of the Convention is
to protect species endangered due to international trade, while the
purpose of the ESA is to protect species and their habitats threatened
or endangered for any reason."
Highlights page, What GAO Found, third paragraph, fifth sentence: After
"such protections," add "with regard to trade."
Highlights page, left column, Why GAO Did This Study, second paragraph:
Add to end of the sentence, "with regard to trade."
Page 3, Results in Brief, end of first paragraph:
We suggest adding the following sentence, to reflect the discussion on
pages 26-27: "As a way forward, the Convention membership is taking
steps to cooperate with other resource management or oversight
organizations."
Page 14, first bullet, last sentence:
For clarification, text from "not typically covered" to end of
sentence, should be changed to "other than designated ports of entry."
Page 31, second full paragraph:
We recommend adding after the second sentence, "The purpose of the
Convention is to protect species endangered due to international trade,
while the purpose of the ESA is to protect species and their habitats
threatened or endangered for any reason."
Page 37, Arguments Supporting Stricter Domestic Measures: We suggest
adding the following bullet:
* Stricter domestic measures allow countries to protect species for
reasons beyond the scope of the Convention. For example, the Endangered
Species Act protects species at risk of extinction for any reason - not
just trade - and to conserve their habitats. The Convention, alone,
cannot prevent the extinction of some species, let alone further their
recovery, because they suffer from threats other than those posed by
trade.
[End of section]
(360452):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Now known as the World Conservation Union, the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources is an organization
of scientists and experts from more than 180 countries with the mission
of influencing, encouraging, and assisting societies throughout the
world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and ensuring
that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically
sustainable.
[2] All of these estimates refer to the values declared at the point of
import or export, not to the retail or wholesale values, according to
Service officials.
[3] The United Nations Environment Programme acts as an advocate and
facilitator to promote wise use and sustainable development of the
global environment.
[4] Reexport means the export of any species, part, or product that has
previously been imported.
[5] A certificate of origin is intended to show that a species was
obtained legally.
[6] The Department of Homeland Security has taken over some of the
tasks formerly conducted by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and now oversees the Customs Service.
[7] GAO, Individual Fishing Quotas: Methods for Community Protection
and New Entry Require Periodic Evaluation, GAO-04-277 (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 24, 2004).
[8] The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations advises
governments and regional organizations on the management of
agricultural and fisheries resources. It does not, however, directly
manage any marine fish species.
[9] By comparison, in 2003 the Fish and Wildlife Service spent nearly
$132 million for implementing the Endangered Species Act.
[10] All dollars have been adjusted for inflation and are presented in
2003 dollars.
[11] The Customs Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service also expend resources on Convention implementation during their
import/export inspection duties. These expenditures are not included in
our tally of Convention-related expenditures because neither agency
tracks funds specific to the Convention.
[12] The Wild Bird Conservation Act was enacted to promote the
conservation of wild exotic birds. The Lacey Act (officially known as
the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981) was enacted to strengthen controls
over the smuggling of and trade in illegally taken fish and wildlife.
[13] In the mid-1970s, the United States extended Endangered Species
Act protections to all Convention appendix I species once the
Convention entered into force. These species were not subjected to the
normal regulatory process for identifying species in need of protection
and were not assessed against the act's listing criteria. About two-
thirds of the currently listed foreign species came under the
Endangered Species Act's protections at that time. Currently, the
Service reviews a foreign species' status against the act's listing
criteria and goes through the required regulatory and public comment
process before it protects a foreign species under the act.
[14] Although import permits are not required for appendix II species,
their import does require the presentation of either an export or
reexport permit.
[15] Under the act, "take" means to harass, harm, pursue, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, hunt, capture, or collect, or to attempt any such conduct.
[16] Some populations of these species are still protected under
appendix I.
[17] H.R. Rep. No. 93-412, at 5 (1973).
[18] The World Trade Organization is the only global international
organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. Member
countries agree to keep their trade policies within agreed limits, to
all members' benefit.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
