U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85-178 PS 2003

TWELFTH REGULAR MEETING

OF COP12 OF CITES

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

February 25, 2003

Serial No. 108-1

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Tom Cole, Oklahoma

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Rob Bishop, Utah

Devin Nunes, California

VACANCY

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Rob Bishop, Utah

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on February 25, 2003 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from

American Samoa .......................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 1

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey ............................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Statement of Witnesses:

Lent, Dr. Rebecca, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce .................................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25

Manson, Hon. Craig, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks,

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE TWELFTH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF

THE PARTIES (COP12) OF THE CONVENTION

ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND

FLORA (CITES).

Thursday, February 25, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:10 p.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Bishop, Pombo, Pallone,

Faleomavaega and Bordallo.

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. Good afternoon, everyone. The Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. We

are here today to hear testimony from Judge Manson and Dr. Lent

on the most recent CITES meeting in Chile, Santiago. There are

a number of issues that we are interested in, a number that we are

concerned about. One of the questions among many that we will

ask is through your meetings, experiences, is CITES better now

than it was its first meeting? Do you see an ongoing relationship

between the Nation members and an understanding toward the

sustainable and the nature of restoring the natural prodigious

bounty of the Earth’s resources? Is there less disagreement because

there is better science, those kinds of questions.

Thank you for attending here this afternoon. We look forward to

your testimony. Mr. Pallone will be here in a few minutes.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Good afternoon, I am pleased to convene today’s hearing which will focus on the

final results of the twelfth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,

commonly referred to as CITES.

2

CITES is unique as the only international organization whose primary focus is the

protection of plant and animal species from unregulated international trade. CITES

parties meet every two years and the twelfth regular meeting of Conference of the

Parties was held last year in Santiago, Chile from November 3rd through November

15th.

I welcome our two witnesses, the Honorable Judge Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior, who attended the CITES conference as the head of the U.S. delegation. In addition, Dr.

Rebecca Lent the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries will discuss issues

under the purview of the Department of Commerce that were raised at the CITES

meeting.

I look forward to this important discussion and I recognize the ranking Democrat,

the Honorable Frank Pallone of New Jersey, for any opening comments he may have

in this matter.

Mr. GILCHREST. At this point I will recognize Mr. Faleomavaega.

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

your leadership in holding this oversight hearing today on the 12th

regular meeting of the Conference of Parties on international trade

of endangered species.

Mr. Chairman, since the establishment of CITES by the World

Conservation Union in 1975, the number of voluntary members has

doubled from the 80 original signing countries to over 160 participating parties today. As one of the largest of conservation agreements in existence, the convention has undoubtedly contributed to

the fact that a not a single species protected by CITES has gone

extinct as a result of trade since the convention went into effect

nearly 30 years ago.

CITES has proven itself as a worthwhile endeavor, and I believe

that most organizations and citizens concerned with protection and

conservation of the world’s natural resources support the establishment and continuation of such a global conservation agreement.

However, history has shown that all things change through time,

and the exploitation of animals and plants and their products has

proven to be a dynamic process. This is further confounded by the

fact that natural states of populations are inherently variable. In

addition, we continue to amass new scientific information on the biological state of our exploited natural resources.

Mr. Chairman, clearly the backbone of any effective conservation

program is the criteria used for listing species in need of protection.

As part of the oversight process, it is worthwhile to ensure that the

current criteria used for the listing of species is consistent with

current scientific evidence and conservation biology theory and is

subject to ongoing review processes. In this way, Mr. Chairman,

while looking through the current lists of protected species, I was

somewhat struck by the relative proportions of marine versus terrestrial animals included in the CITES appendices, where terrestrial plants and animals far outnumber marine ones. As a representative who is from a district whose borders are surrounded by

ocean and whose economic resources depend largely on the proper

management of marine resources, I would like to ensure that these

numbers accurately reflect the true status of marine populations.

3

I would like to personally welcome Judge Manson, the Assistant

Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and Dr. Rebecca Lent,

the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at NOAA. Thank

you for appearing today, and I look forward to hearing from your

testimonies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Delegate to

Congress from American Samoa

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in holding this oversight hearing

today on the 12th regular meeting of the Conference of Parties on International

Trade of Endangered Species.

Since the establishment of CITES by the World Conservation Union in 1975, the

number of voluntary members has doubled from the 80 original signing countries,

to over 160 participating parties today. As one of the largest of conservation agreements in existence, the convention has undoubtedly contributed to the fact that not

a single species protected by CITES has gone extinct as a result of trade since the

convention went into effect nearly 30 years ago.

CITES has proven itself as a worthwhile endeavor, and I believe that most organizations and citizens concerned with protection and conservation of the world’s natural resources support the establishment and continuation of such a global conservation agreement. However, history has shown that all things change through

time, and the exploitation of animals and plants and their products has proven to

be a dynamic process. This is further confounded by the fact that the natural states

of populations are inherently variable. In addition, we continue to amass new scientific information on the biological state of our exploited natural resources.

Clearly, the backbone of any effective conservation program is the criteria used

for listing species in need of protection. Mr. Chairman, as part of the oversight process, it is worthwhile to ensure that the current criteria used for the listing of species

is consistent with current scientific evidence and conservation biology theory, and

is subject to ongoing review processes.

In this vain, while looking through the current lists of protected species, I was

struck by the relative proportions of marine versus terrestrial animals including in

the CITES appendices, where terrestrial plants and animals far outnumber marine

ones. As a representative of a district whose borders are surrounded by ocean, and

whose economic resources depend largely on the proper management marine resources, I would like to ensure that these numbers accurately reflect the true states

of marine populations. Judge Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, and Dr. Rebecca Lent, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries

of NOAA, I thank you for appearing here today. I look forward to your testimonies,

and hope you can shed light on some of these concerns.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. I now recognize the Chairman of the full

Committee Mr. Pombo, who has been for a number of years very

interested in these issues. Mr. Pombo.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD W. POMBO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. I am

pleased that we are having this hearing today and would like to

warmly welcome my good friend Judge Manson.

CITES has the distinction of being the only multinational body

to govern the international trade in animal and plant species. As

such, CITES plays an important role in the conservation of plant

and animal species across the globe.

4

I have had the opportunity to closely witness the CITES process

by serving as a member of the U.S. delegation to the last three

CITES conferences. Being a member of the delegation and attending these meetings, I have developed a unique perspective on the

complexities of the CITES negotiations. I have witnessed firsthand

how the various delegations struggle to ensure equitable solutions

on a whole range of controversial issues. While the process is far

from perfect, every nation works hard to develop the best management solution for its species while coordinating with other affected

range states in developing the appropriate protections for literally

hundreds of CITES species.

My interest in CITES has come from concern with the growing

trend by protectionist groups and like-minded countries to use

CITES as a mechanism to prevent the use of plant or animal species by listing them in the CITES appendices without the necessary

scientific evidence. The primary role of CITES is to help sovereign

nations manage their endangered species and recover those species

to sustainable levels. CITES also plays an important role in educating the world community to the value of wildlife. While CITES

can be used as a tool to recover species, it should not be used as

a restrictive mechanism to limit or stop trade based on emotional

arguments. If nations use science to develop management decisions

and, when needed, use CITES as an additional conservation measure, then CITES is being used as it was designed.

Mr. Chairman, the dynamics of the CITES conference are quite

interesting. Some have likened it to Congress, although not in a

complimentary way. The process is viewed as too slow, with endless debate and little action. They may liken CITES to Congress,

but I would say that reference is more reflective of the deliberative

body on the other side of the Capitol complex.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing

and thank our witnesses for being here with us. In particular I

want to again compliment Secretary Manson for his truly outstanding and superb job as head of the U.S. CITES delegation this

year.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,

Committee on Resources

Good afternoon, I am pleased that we are having this hearing today and would

like to warmly welcome my good friend the Assistant Secretary of the Interior,

Judge Craig Manson.

CITES has the distinction of being the only multinational body to govern the

international trade in animal and plant species. As such, CITES plays an important

role in the conservation of plant and animal species across the globe.

I have had the opportunity to closely witness the CITES process by serving as

a member of the U.S. delegation to the last three CITES Conferences. Being a member of the delegation and attending these meetings, I have developed a unique perspective on the complexities of CITES negotiations. I have witnessed first hand how

the various delegations struggle to ensure equitable solutions on a whole range of

controversial issues. While the process is far from perfect, every nation works hard

to develop the best management solution for its species, while coordinating with

other effected range states and developing the appropriate protections for literally

hundreds of CITES species.

My interest in CITES has come from concern with the growing trend by protectionist groups and ‘‘like-minded’’ countries to use CITES as a mechanism to prevent

the use of plant or animal species by listing them in the CITES Appendices, without

5

the necessary scientific evidence. The primary role of CITES is to help sovereign nations manage their endangered species and recover those species to sustainable levels. CITES also plays an important role in educating the world community to the

value of wildlife.

While CITES can be used as a tool to recover species, it should not be used as

a restrictive mechanism to limit or stop trade based on emotional arguments. If nations use science to develop management decisions and when needed use CITES as

an additional conservation measure, then CITES is being used as it was designed.

Mr. Chairman, the dynamics of the CITES Conferences are quite interesting.

Some have likened it to Congress, although not in a complementary way. The process is viewed as too slow, with endless debate and little action. They may liken

CITES to Congress, but I would say that reference is more reflective of the deliberative body on the other side of the Capitol complex.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing and thank our witnesses for being here with us. In particular, I want to again compliment Secretary

Manson for his truly outstanding and superb job as head of the U.S. CITES delegation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Pallone, any opening statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to first

congratulate you again on your return as Chairman of what I consider a very important Subcommittee, and want to say we all look

forward to working with you and the Republican Members. Since

its inception in 1975, CITES has played a crucial role in regulating

the international trade of endangered species valued at billions of

dollars per year in its work to protect plant and animal species

from exploitation while safeguarding the interest of range states in

sustainable import and export of key natural resources.

Today CITES boasts 160 member countries and is a powerful

international regulatory tool providing varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000 species of animals and plants. This past

year the 12th Conference of the Parties met and tackled more than

100 proposals for amendments and resolutions that ranged in scope

from revised and new listings of various species of invertebrates,

birds, fish and plants to key administrative matters.

And I applaud the work of representatives from of the Federal

Government who performed tirelessly at the meeting in Santiago,

Chile. Their efforts resulted in several noteworthy achievements.

U.S. Proposals were passed to protect all species of seahorses. Also

I am pleased that after some early ambivalence at COP12, the Administration decided to continue U.S. Support of the transfer of

bigleaf mahogany to Appendix II protection. However, several highprofile issues that were debated at the meetings, such as an approved proposal that will allow a limited renewal in the legal trade

of African ivory, have raised considerable controversy. U.S. support

of a one-time ivory sale from the countries of Botswana, Namibia

and South Africa marks a dangerous approach that could ultimately back illegal ivory sales. Just yesterday wildlife authorities

in Kenya made their largest seizure of illegal ivory in the past 3

years. Clearly poaching remains a threat to African elephant populations, and without intensive regulatory efforts, I feel that ivory

derived from poaching could easily work its way back into the legally taken stockpile.

6

It is with this type of concern in mind that we welcome the testimony of Judge Craig Manson from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Dr. Rebecca Lent from NOAA Fisheries. And I look forward

to learning from you about these issues and hearing about future

plans for the upcoming standing committee meeting that takes

place, I guess, in the next couple months in Geneva. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Frank Pallone, a Representative in Congress

from the State of New Jersey

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be here this afternoon. Allow me

to first congratulate you on your return as Chairman of this important Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you.

Since its inception in 1975, the Convention on International Trade of Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) has played a crucial role in regulating

the international trade of endangered species, valued at billions of dollars per year.

CITES has worked to protect plant and animal species from exploitation, while safeguarding the interests of range states in sustainable import and export of key natural resources.

Today, CITES boasts 160 member countries and is a powerful international regulatory tool, providing varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000 species of

animals and plants.

This past year, the 12th Conference of the Parties met and tackled more than 100

proposals for amendments and resolutions that ranged in scope from revised and

new listings of various species of invertebrates, birds, fish, and plants to key administrative matters. I applaud the work of representatives from the Federal Government who performed tirelessly at the meeting in Santiago, Chile.

Their efforts resulted in several noteworthy achievements. U.S. proposals were

passed to protect all species of seahorses. Also, I am pleased that after some early

ambivalence at COP 12, the Administration decided to continue U.S. support of the

transfer of bigleaf mahogany to Appendix II protection.

However, several high profile issues that were debated at the meeting—such as

an approved proposal that will allow a limited renewal in the legal trade of African

ivory—have raised considerable controversy. U.S. support of a one-time ivory sale

from the countries of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa marks a dangerous approach that could ultimately back illegal ivory sales. Just yesterday, wildlife authorities in Kenya made their largest seizure of illegal ivory in the past three years.

Clearly poaching remains a threat to African elephant populations. Without intensive regulatory efforts, I fear that ivory derived from poaching could easily work its

way into the legally taken stockpile.

It is with this type of concern in mind that we welcome the testimony of Judge

Craig Manson, from U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Dr. Rebecca Lent from NOAA Fisheries. We look forward to learning from you about these issues and to hearing about

future plans for the upcoming Standing Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Anyone else have an opening statement?

Judge, welcome again to our hearing, and we look forward to

your testimony. You may begin, sir.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG MANSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. MANSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

this opportunity to report to you and the members of the Committee on the U.S. participation in the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties as you noted held in Santiago last November.

CITES continues to serve as an effective and dynamic tool for

protecting species affected by trade. At the meeting the parties continued their efforts to strike the balance between the need to

7

protect species and the desire to reward countries that have demonstrated a commitment to the sustainable use of wildlife resources. As the lead agency under CITES for the United States, the

Department of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service,

worked closely with Federal partners and non-Federal partners to

develop U.S. proposals and prepare for the meeting, and I must say

that rarely have I seen a level of cooperation between Federal

agencies such as I saw in the preparation and the execution of the

CITES meeting.

Representatives of the other Federal agencies were active in negotiations and consultations with other parties’ delegations, as well

as in the U.S. strategy development. Our close relationship with

the states on the CITES issues continued at the meeting with a

representative of the states serving as a member of the delegation.

In addition, nongovernmental organizations based in the United

States provided valuable input through our public consultation

process for the development of U.S. proposals and positions, and

throughout the meeting the U.S. delegation continued to build on

successes and good relationships developed over the last several

years. We achieved our goals on nearly every issue.

As head of the U.S. delegation, I worked actively with my counterparts from other countries on elephants, mahogany, whales and

other issues of importance to the U.S. U.S. leadership was recognized and are serving on and sometimes chairing various working

groups formed during the meeting.

At the meeting the parties dealt with 68 agenda items and 60

species proposals. I want to highlight a few of those decisions for

you today. A total of six proposals were submitted for consideration

at the meeting for African elephants. While recognizing the management successes of some of the range states, we were concerned

about the regular ivory trade, and we negotiated with Southern African countries to amend their proposals to allow a one-time sale

of ivory. Botswana, Namibia and South Africa will be permitted to

conduct a one-time sale of registered government stockpiles of ivory

not earlier than May 2004.

We went to the meeting officially undecided on a proposal to include bigleaf mahogany in Appendix II, and we took that position

quite deliberately so that we were in a position to facilitate a dialog

between the range countries. We used that undecided position to

encourage all of the parties to come to a consensus. We spent many

hours with the range state countries attempting that consensus,

but no broad consensus was reached. We then voted for the listing

proposal.

As a major importer of bigleaf mahogany, the United States is

committed to making that listing work. The Fish and Wildlife Service has coordinated an interagency effort to put into place an administrative plan on implementation for the listing, which comes

into effect on November 14, 2003.

Japan submitted two proposals to downlist virtually all the

Northern Hemisphere populations of minke whales and the western North Pacific population of Bryde’s whales. We are pleased

that the member nations of CITES did not approve those proposals.

We do not believe that the proposals qualify for downlisting to

Appendix II or that it would be appropriate to resume commercial

8

trade in whales at this time. We believe it is inappropriate to consider downlisting those two species under CITES until the International Whaling Commission completes its revised management

scheme for those species.

With the support of our State and territorial fisheries agencies,

the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries jointly developed a proposal to list all 32 species of seahorses in Appendix II.

The proposal was adopted by consensus, but with our suggested delayed implementation date of May 2004. During the 18-month

delay, we plan to work with our State partners and foreign governments to ensure that legal sustainable seahorse trade continues

smoothly under the Appendix II listing.

With strong support from other countries in our Pacific territories, we introduced a proposal to list the humphead wrasse under

Appendix II. Although that proposal failed with a simple majority,

we feel this voting pattern shows broad interest in this issue. We

plan to consult with other Pacific countries and pursue ways to

keep the live reef food trade and humphead wrasse at the forefront

of CITES discussions.

For the Patagonian toothfish, also known as Chilean sea bass,

the United States helped worked out an agreement between Australia and Chile that will improve international monitoring of harvest and trade of this deepsea fish. The resolution will improve

monitoring of harvest and international trade in the species.

At the meeting we negotiated a consensus document with Japan

to initiate and complete a Memorandum of Understanding between

CITES and the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organization. This

decision was accepted and will be considered by FAO through its

Committee on Fisheries in late February. Our colleagues in the Department of State played a critical role in the U.S. Delegation on

this issue, and we will reciprocate by working with them and

NOAA Fisheries while negotiating the MOU in the Committee on

Fisheries. With this exemplary interagency effort we hope to have

the agreement in place and functioning well before the next Conference of the Parties in Bangkok.

Last, the parties approved the proposal from Thailand to hold

the 13th Conference of the Parties in Bangkok in late 2004 or early

2005. We will begin our preparations for that next meeting later

this year by seeking public input on potential United States proposals. We intend to follow a similar strategy leading up to that

meeting with a primary focus on native species, collaboration at

home and abroad, and a science-based practical approach to the

conservation of species and trade.

May I add finally on a personal note that I have rarely had such

a personal or professional pleasure as being able to represent the

United States of America in an international forum on such important issues as trade, conservation and international diplomacy. It

is an experience that will remain with me all of my life.

I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have

with respect to U.S. actions at that meeting.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Judge.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Manson follows:]

9

Statement of The Honorable Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish

and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to

testify before you today and report on U.S. participation in, and the outcome of, the

Twelfth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP12 or COP) to the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),

which took place in Santiago, Chile, from November 3–15, 2002.

CITES continues to serve as an effective and dynamic tool for protecting species

of animals and plants affected by trade, and the number of countries that are parties to the treaty continues to grow. Just since the time of our previous testimony

in September 2002, two new Parties—Kuwait and Bhutan—acceded to the treaty,

becoming Parties during COP12 and bringing the total number of Parties to 160.

In addition, Libya recently acceded to the treaty and it will be the 161st party to

CITES in April 2003. At COP12, the Parties continued their efforts to strike a balance between the need to protect vulnerable species and the desire to reward countries that have demonstrated a commitment to the sustainable use of their wildlife

resources.

The U.S. lead on CITES matters rests with the Department of the Interior,

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service works closely with

the Departments of State, Commerce (NOAA Fisheries, in particular), Agriculture

(both the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] and the Forest Service), Treasury (Customs), Justice, the Agency for International Development, and

the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. All of these Federal agencies participated in the development of U.S. proposals and positions leading up to COP12, and

most were also represented on the U.S. delegation to the meeting. Mr. John Turner,

Assistant Secretary of State for International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,

was able to join the leadership of the U.S. delegation for part of the meeting. Representatives of other agencies were active in negotiations and consultations with

other Parties’ delegations as well as in U.S. strategy development at the meeting.

Our close relationship with the States on CITES issues continued at COP12, with

a representative of the States, Wayne Regelin of the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game, serving as a member of the U.S. delegation, as well as through representation as non-governmental observers by several regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies. We worked collaboratively with the States in the development of proposals, particularly those dealing with listings of native U.S. species and trade in

their products.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in the United States provided valuable input through our public consultation process for the development of U.S. proposals and positions for the COP. These organizations played an active role at the

COP by attending as observers who, while unable to vote, participate in the discussion of issues in the meeting and also serve as members of ad hoc working groups

during the meeting. The participation of NGOs as observers at CITES meetings is

advocated by the United States to ensure transparency of CITES processes. They

represent a spectrum of viewpoints and expertise that helps to inform delegates and

enrich meetings. To ensure that we remained accessible and open to communication

with the NGO community during the meeting, we held regular briefings for them

at the end of each day’s proceedings.

COP12 was one of the most successful CITES meetings ever for the United States.

We achieved our goals on nearly every issue, whether it was a species listing or addressing a particular problem with implementation of the treaty. As the head of the

U.S. delegation, I worked actively with my counterparts from other countries on elephants, mahogany, whales, and other issue of importance to the United States. U.S.

leadership was recognized in our serving on, and sometimes chairing, various working groups formed during the meeting. As Chair of the Standing Committee, the

United States was a member of the Bureau, which serves as the ‘‘Board of Directors’’ during the meeting for dealing with administrative matters and resolving disputes. These interactions provided opportunities to work with other countries and

NGOs to develop consensus solutions to shared problems.

A key outcome of COP12 were a number of advances for the conservation of marine species subject to international trade, including the listing of whale sharks,

basking sharks and seahorses; the development of a framework for collaboration between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living

Resources on Patagonian toothfish; the adoption of a decision drafted by the United

States and Japan to establish formal ties between CITES and the United Nations

Food and Agriculture Organization on fisheries issues; and a decision by the Parties

to review the trade in sea cucumbers, which are a highly traded, but unregulated,

marine resource.

10

In response to documents submitted by the United States, ad hoc working groups

were formed at the COP to address both scientific and implementation issues related to the use of export quotas by the CITES Parties. We chaired a working group

formed to consider ways to assist countries in improving the scientific basis for establishing quotas. The working group, which included importing and exporting countries, as well as NGOs, reached a conclusion that the existing training programs of

the CITES Secretariat were the most appropriate vehicle for providing technical assistance to Parties on the development of quotas. A decision was adopted to involve

the Animals and Plants Committees in the development of training materials, based

on sound scientific and management principles. We also submitted a document outlining problems related to implementation of quotas and were successful in getting

this issue referred to the Standing Committee for further deliberation.

The Parties also continued their efforts to find alternative approaches for dealing

with specimens of CITES-listed species that represent a low conservation risk. Since

COP11, we have participated in a working group assigned to investigate ways of

streamlining permitting procedures for time-sensitive biological samples for research, diagnosis of disease, and other scientific purposes. The Parties adopted a

resolution that simplifies procedures for these types of specimens while retaining

sufficient control to ensure that negative impacts on wild populations are avoided.

Two listing proposals also eliminated permitting requirements for certain CITESlisted species. Switzerland submitted a proposal to exempt certain artificially propagated cacti from CITES permitting requirements, and the United States submitted

a proposal to have certain artificially propagated orchid hybrids exempted. Both of

these proposals were adopted.

The Parties dealt with 68 agenda items and 60 species proposals at COP12; we

would like to highlight those that we feel are most significant.

RESOLUTIONS AND OTHER AGENDA ITEMS

Budget

The activities of the CITES Secretariat and the permanent committees (Standing,

Animals, and Plants) are funded through voluntary contributions of the Parties,

augmented by a trust fund. In recent years, expenditures have exceeded the Parties’

contributions, resulting in a draw-down of the trust fund. Therefore, a significant

amount of time was spent at COP12 on budget matters. Because the demands on

the Secretariat for assistance to the Parties and other activities continue to increase

and because the trust fund had been drawn down to agreed upon levels, the Secretariat was seeking an increase in the Parties’ voluntary contributions. However,

based on longstanding U.S. policy, we, with like-minded countries, opposed any increase in the Secretariat’s budget. Rather, we advocated seeking greater efficiency

in the way work is conducted and the curtailment of low-priority activities. In the

end, the parties approved a 6% increase in contributions, based on a desire to maintain capacity-building in developing countries and to assist developing countries to

participate in meetings. As Chair of the Standing Committee, we will continue to

work with other Parties to contain costs and control the CITES budget.

Consistency in CITES Implementation among Parties

The effectiveness of CITES is directly impacted by Parties’ ability to meet their

obligations under the treaty. The Parties continue to wrestle with ways to encourage

each other to improve their capacity for implementing the treaty and complying

with its requirements. Several decisions were taken to move the Parties forward toward more uniform implementation and enforcement of CITES. These included:

vesting the Standing Committee with a greater role in implementation; capacitybuilding initiatives for developing countries; efforts to improve the exchange of law

enforcement information to assist investigations; continuing progress on national

laws to implement CITES; and the exploration of mechanisms to aid Parties in

verification of the authenticity of CITES documents.

Review of the Listing Criteria

The CITES listing criteria form the foundation for all activities under the treaty,

since they determine which species are included in the Appendices and on what

basis. The criteria were last modified at COP9, in 1994, when a major revision was

undertaken. The Parties agreed at that time to review the criteria and make appropriate changes by COP12. Therefore, at COP11, a process was established for a review of the listing criteria through the establishment of a Criteria Working Group.

Unfortunately, the process established at COP11 did not result in consensus recommendations from the Criteria Working Group for revision of the criteria, and

many Parties adamantly opposed the adoption of any revisions at COP12. An ad hoc

working group at the COP, on which NOAA Fisheries participated for the U.S.

11

delegation, established a framework for continuing this review within the Animals

and Plants Committees, with oversight by the Standing Committee. Recommended

revisions to the listing criteria are to be submitted to COP13 for consideration by

the Parties. We will remain active in the review process to ensure that listing criteria are grounded in science.

SPECIES LISTING PROPOSALS

In preparing for COP12, we developed a strategy focused on native U.S. species

as our highest priority. We also gave consideration to foreign species, particularly

if the United States was significantly involved in the trade of a species or could play

a leadership role in the conservation of the species. However, particularly for species

outside our borders, all of our actions were grounded in collaboration with other

agencies or governments and consensus building.

We proposed or co-sponsored 16 species listing proposals for COP12. Of these, 7

were for native species; 5 were adopted, one was rejected, and one was withdrawn.

We worked closely with and consulted the States and other Federal agencies, including NOAA Fisheries, as well as other Departmental bureaus such as the Bureau of

Land Management and the National Park Service, on proposals for native species.

The results of the proposals for native species are summarized in the table below.

All of the U.S. proposals for non-native species were for Asian freshwater turtles

and tortoises, and each of them included a range country as a co-sponsor. All of

these proposals were prepared at the request of the Parties that attended a CITESsponsored workshop, hosted by China in May 2002, to address the trade in turtle

species in Asia. The workshop resulted in several recommendations by the participants, including specific recommendations to list species being threatened by overutilization for human consumption. Because the proposals were derived from the

workshop with the full endorsement of range countries, they were adopted by consensus at the COP with little debate. A similar workshop resulted in the U.S. submission of a proposal to include seahorses in Appendix II, also with broad support

of range countries, which was adopted by a 3-to–1 margin. We believe that the use

of such workshops to review the status of highly traded species can preclude contentious and time-consuming debate at a COP, and often result in recommendations

other than listings of species in the CITES Appendices to address the conservation

needs of the species.

African elephants

A total of six proposals were submitted for consideration at COP12: five that

would have allowed regular commercial trade in ivory by the proponent countries—

Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—and a proposal from

India and Kenya to return all African elephant populations to Appendix I, which

would prohibit any further commercial ivory trade. The U.S. delegation put substantial effort into negotiations with the proponent countries to reach a compromise on

the proposals. While recognizing the management successes of some of the range

countries, we were concerned about regular ivory trade and negotiated with the

southern African countries to amend their proposals to allow only a one-time sale

of ivory. We also worked with other delegations to ensure that the conditions of any

sale of ivory included effective safeguards to prevent adverse impacts on elephant

populations in other countries.

Three of the southern African nations, Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa, will

be permitted to conduct a one-time sale of registered government stockpiles of ivory,

no earlier than May 2004. Conditions for the sale include: the sale must be from

12

existing government stocks from elephants that died from natural causes (Botswana

20 tons, Namibia 10 tons, South Africa 30 tons); trade can occur only with qualifying importing countries that have effective internal law enforcement and controls

to prevent illegal trade or the re-export of ivory; revenues from ivory sales must be

used for conservation purposes or community development projects in areas within

or adjacent to elephant range; and the Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants

(MIKE) program, which is designed to provide a baseline of elephant populations

and ongoing monitoring, must be expanded and operational.

Zimbabwe’s proposal for ivory sales failed, as did Zambia’s proposal to downlist

its elephant population from Appendix I to Appendix II and to sell its governmentheld ivory stock. The United States led a majority of countries which did not support Zimbabwe’s proposal because of concerns over the current political situation in

the country and whether they could adequately control and enforce requirements for

a one-time sale of registered government stockpiles of ivory. A majority of the Parties, including the United States, did not support Zambia’s proposal because their

elephant population has not yet stabilized and they lack the internal mechanisms

for enforcement. However, we are reviewing ways to assist Zambia in rectifying

these problems through potential funding under the African Elephant Conservation

Act.

Mahogany

A proposal to include bigleaf mahogany in Appendix II was submitted by Guatemala and Nicaragua. This was the fourth time such a proposal had been submitted

to a COP, and two previous proposals had been co-sponsored by the United States.

We came into COP12 officially undecided on the proposal to list bigleaf mahogany

in CITES Appendix II. We came prepared to consult quietly with range States, listen to their views on the listing, and take a position that would best support range–

State efforts to achieve sustainable harvest and continued trade in mahogany

underpinned by implementation of broader sustainable forest management plans

across the range.

We facilitated a dialogue between the range countries, and we indicated our commitment, as the largest importer, to maintain healthy trade and our willingness to

cooperate with the range States as they seek to strengthen sustainable forest management and mahogany control efforts. We used our undecided position to encourage

all parties to come to a consensus on the most effective outcome for conservation

and sustainable use of the species.

When the proposal came to a vote, no broad consensus had been reached among

all the range countries on an Appendix–II listing. In this case, we were prepared

to, and did, vote for the listing proposal. We believe that our vote for Appendix II

is a vote for sustainable use and continued trade of bigleaf mahogany. An

Appendix II listing under CITES is not designed to discourage trade. Rather it is

intended to ensure trade is based on sustainable harvest.

As the major importer of bigleaf mahogany, the U.S. is committed to making this

listing work, both at our ports and for the U.S. consumer. We are also committed

to working with the range States to make it a success. The Service has coordinated

an interagency effort to put into place an administrative plan on implementation for

the listing, which becomes effective on November 14, 2003.

Whales

Japan submitted two proposals that would have downlisted virtually all the

northern hemisphere populations of minke whales and the western North Pacific

population of Bryde’s (pronounced ‘‘broodis’’) whales from Appendix I to Appendix

II of the convention. We are pleased that the member nations of CITES did not approve these proposals, which would have allowed new significant commercial trade

in whales for the first time since 1986 when virtually all whale populations were

placed in Appendix I.

Under CITES, a proposal to uplist or downlist a species requires a two-thirds majority vote. Neither of the Japanese proposals garnered even a majority. The United

States, under expert guidance from the NOAA Fisheries, strongly stated our position that we do not believe that the species qualify for downlisting to Appendix II

or that it would be appropriate to resume commercial trade at this time. We are

gratified that other nations agreed with our position and voted to reject the proposals. We also believe it is inappropriate to consider downlisting the two species

under CITES until the International Whaling Commission completes its revised

management scheme for the species. The IWC currently has in place a moratorium

on commercial whaling.

The decision to lower the protection status for species under CITES depends both

upon biological factors and whether effective management and enforcement plans

13

are in place. Currently there is no agreed-upon plan to regulate and enforce commercial whaling, so the two species do not qualify for downlisting.

Other Marine Species

Progress on marine conservation at COP12 was due in large part to unparalleled

interagency effort with the Service, NOAA Fisheries, and the Department of State.

Staff and leadership from all three departments worked consistently and tirelessly

to advocate our positions, develop international consensus, and plan future collaboration. I’d like to spend a few minutes highlighting some of their accomplishments.

Seahorses: With the support of our State and territorial fisheries agencies, the

Service and NOAA Fisheries jointly developed a proposal to list all 32 species of

seahorses in Appendix II of CITES, to require systematic permitting and monitoring

of all international trade in this taxon between CITES nations. Seahorses are vulnerable because of low reproductive potential, habitat degradation, and complex reproductive cycles. Overfishing or population declines are apparent in several nations

for at least six species. Other species of seahorses qualify for Appendix II because

they closely resemble the most threatened and heavily fished species. The proposal

was adopted by consensus, but with our suggested delayed implementation until

May 2004. During the 18-month delay, we plan to work with both our State partners and foreign governments to ensure that legal, sustainable seahorse trade continues smoothly under the Appendix–II listing. Issues that need to be addressed include: 1) exporting countries’ need for technical assistance in monitoring harvest

and restricting exports to sustainable levels; 2) consideration of a global minimum

size that will help ensure sustainable harvest; 3) consulting with U.S. State agencies to advise them on future permitting requirements for export; and 4) practical

means for addressing bycatch of seahorses. We have already approached seahorse

fishery managers in Florida to discuss possible bilateral technical exchanges with

other governments in 2003. We are also working with academia and experts in nongovernmental organizations to issue a new identification manual for all 32 species,

which will be distributed worldwide for use in law enforcement.

Sea cucumbers: Colleagues in NOAA Fisheries developed for COP12 a discussion

document on the conservation of and trade in sea cucumbers. Harvest pressure on

these species has increased in recent years due to growing international demand.

The U.S. proposal, supported by others, requested an intersessional technical workshop to evaluate the conservation status of these species and consider appropriate

conservation measures, including regional management, domestic fisheries controls,

and possible future CITES listing. Japan, supported by Cuba, China, and Malaysia,

opposed any action by the CITES Parties, considering the topic to be under the jurisdiction of FAO and other fisheries organizations. However, the majority of CITES

nations accepted the U.S. proposal for a technical workshop and directed the CITES

Animals Committee to prepare a discussion paper for COP13 (tentatively scheduled

for late 2004) on biological and trade status and conservation needs.

We now plan to provide partial funding for this workshop, which should occur in

late 2003 or early 2004. We will also strive to confirm specific terms of reference

for this workshop at the next CITES Animals Committee meeting this summer. We

envision several key topics to address, including identification of dried specimens in

trade, appropriate monitoring protocols, and effective fishery management approaches. We will remain an active participant in this issue through final report

submission at COP13.

Humphead wrasse: With strong support from other countries and our Pacific territories, we introduced a proposal to list the humphead wrasse in Appendix II at

COP12. The humphead wrasse is one of the largest coral reef fishes, growing to

more than 2 meters in length and living more than 30 years. It is heavily exploited

for the live reef food fish trade, which supplies luxury restaurants in Hong Kong

and other Asian markets. The species can fetch up to $150 per kilogram, and demand is expected to grow with increasing human populations and affluence in

China. Declines or extirpations have been reported throughout the species’ range

from the Red Sea to the South Pacific shortly after commercial fisheries began. Our

Pacific territories have experienced this first-hand. Although the proposal failed

with a simple majority approval, we feel that this voting pattern shows broad interest in this issue. We plan to consult with other Pacific countries and pursue ways

to keep the live reef food fish trade and humphead wrasse at the forefront of CITES

discussions. We will also consider whether to re-propose a listing at COP13.

Toothfish: On the Patagonian toothfish issue, the United States helped work out

an agreement between Australia and Chile that will improve international monitoring of harvest and trade of this deep-sea fish, which is threatened by over-harvesting and illegal fishing. The resolution will improve monitoring of harvests and

international trade in the species, which is also known as Chilean sea bass. As a

14

result of the resolution, Australia withdrew a proposal to list the species in

Appendix II.

Once again, range states disagreed sharply over the need to protect a species: the

Australians wanted to list toothfish in Appendix II while the Chileans were strongly

opposed. We quietly conferred with both countries and with other range states to

come up with an acceptable proposal establishing a collaborative mechanism between CITES and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living

Resources (CCAMLR) that will lead to better conservation of the species.

Cooperation between FAO and CITES: For many years, the United Nations Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fisheries Program has been working with

CITES Parties on issues of mutual concern. These include the biological criteria for

listing marine species in the CITES Appendices and international shark conservation. This work has resulted in a strong desire among member States of both organizations for the two bodies to work more cooperatively on issues of mutual interest.

Such work could include scientific review of marine species listing proposals for

CITES. At COP12, we negotiated a consensus document with the Japanese asking

the Parties to approve the initiation and completion of a formal Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the two institutions. This decision was accepted, almost unanimously by the CITES Parties, and will be considered by FAO through

its Committee on Fisheries in late February. Our colleagues in the Department of

State played a critical role in the U.S. delegation on this issue at COP12, and we

will reciprocate by working with them and the NOAA Fisheries while negotiating

the MOU in the Committee on Fisheries. With this exemplary interagency effort,

we hope to have the agreement in place and functioning well before COP13.

COP13—WHEN AND WHERE

The Parties approved a proposal from Thailand to host COP13 in Bangkok in late

2004 or early 2005, with specific dates to be determined. We will begin our preparations for COP13 later this year by seeking public input on potential U.S. proposals.

We intend to follow a similar strategy leading up to COP13, with a primary focus

on native species, collaboration at home and abroad, and a science-based, practical

approach to the conservation of species in trade.

ATTACHMENTS

Attached are two tables, one listing all of the agenda items and a summary of

the outcome for each, and another listing all of the species proposals and the results

for each.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have about U.S. actions at

COP12 and the outcome of any agenda items or proposals not discussed in detail

here.

[Attachments to Mr. Manson’s statement follow:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Lent?

STATEMENT OF REBECCA LENT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE

Dr. LENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today to talk

about CITES. Also a good chance for me to congratulate Judge

Manson for his stellar leadership. It is a big delegation. The issues

are tough, and we really made a lot of progress.

In answer to your question, is CITES better, I would answer yes.

I think you are going to hear today why that is. As you have noticed, the marine species are getting more visibility at CITES.

Some of the same issues that are contentious here at home are contentious at CITES as well, whales, marine turtles and other species. At NOAA Fisheries we take these responsibilities very seriously. We work well with our partners at these meetings, as well

between the meetings, to make sure that CITES is being effectively

implemented.

At the most recent meeting, a lot of progress was made on marine species. As Judge Manson told you, Japan submitted two proposals to downlist whales. These were defeated. The U.S. opposed

it because there is no management measures—no revised management scheme in place for the management of these whales. The

IWC has asked us to keep them on Appendix I. The DNA registers

that were proposed would not be available for inspectors, whether

it is other nations or organizations, and there were a number of enforcement difficulties with the proposals. They were defeated. It

was a change from the previous meeting in Nairobi where Japan

was able to garner a simple majority.

So are things changing? We think so. For large-scale marine fisheries, one of the exciting areas of progress is that CITES is working

better with the regional fishery management organizations already

in place. That is the way it should be. The joint resolution by the

U.S. and Japan for an MOU with the FAO is a great way to get

all of the talents of FAO to help us at CITES with the marine species. As a collaborative process it is going to help us address issues

such as IUU, the illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing and building capacity in developing countries.

Also as you heard, the CCAMLR, the Antarctic Treaty Organization, we have got an agreement between CITES and CCAMLR to

use their catch documentation scheme and to encourage CITES

countries, 160 of them as opposed to, I think—CCAMLR is 40. I

will have to get the number for you—a lot more countries involved

in using that catch documentation scheme, which is basically the

same approach as CITES Appendix II listing getting the trade

tracked and monitored.

[Information submitted for the record by NOAA follows:]

NOTE: While Dr. Lent’s testimony states CCAMLR has 40 members, the

correct number is 24 members.

On the other marine species that were listed, what is important

to note here is that these are species that are not covered by a

regional fishery management organization. They are also species

25

for which trade is an important part of the incentive to harvest. So

it is really a good result to have an Appendix II listing for the 32

seahorses and historically first two ever whales on CITES

Appendix II.

The whale sharks and the basking sharks are easy to catch, they

are long-lived, it is easy to overfish them, and we are really pleased

that they made it on Appendix II.

We also had an agreement to work on a workshop on sea cucumbers, which is an important part of coral reef ecosystems. They act

like earthworms, helping to turn the soil over and therefore increasing productivity of the entire ecosystem. It is not just the cucumbers we are worried about.

So those are some of our very important measures of progress.

I should note, too, on sharks that we worked with the other countries to encourage preparations of the national plans of action so

that we can move from the international plan of action for sharks

to domestic national plan of action. We have one in the United

States. Just two other countries have them. So it is important for

us to get those plans of action in place.

We continue to work with CITES for improving the criteria for

Appendices I and II. This is another part of CITES getting better,

taking advantage of new science that we have in the marine world

and making sure that both criteria and guidelines are taking the

appropriate steps when listing marine species.

It will be another 2 years, I believe, before the parties meet

again. The work does not stop when we get home. In fact, the work

starts anew with new measures that we have to put in place, and

sometimes this involves rulemaking. We will continue to work on

that with our partners at DOI, State and others, and we will continue to make these efforts because it is only when we get home

and we implement these measures and enforce them that we are

really having an effect on these species. I believe that through general progress in marine science that we are making domestically in

the United States, and all of our partners at CITES, and through

the World Conservation Union, yes, indeed, the more we know, the

better we are in terms of figuring out what is going on with these

species, whether or not they are going to meet criteria and the

guidelines for listing.

I hope that addresses your questions, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Lent.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lent follows:]

Statement of Rebecca Lent, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to

testify before the Subcommittee on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). I am Dr. Rebecca Lent, Deputy Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). I

appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you some recent NOAA achievements in

the CITES arena. In my testimony, I will describe NOAA’s role in the successes

achieved by the U.S. government on marine species proposals, resolutions and agenda items at the 12th Meeting of the Conference of the CITES Parties (COP12) that

was held November 3–15, 2002.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of the Interior is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of CITES for animals,

26

and the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, is responsible for enforcement of CITES for plants. NOAA Fisheries

has actively participated in FWS’ inter-agency collaborative working group to develop United States policy on CITES for marine species.

In contrast to the past, an increasing number of highly visible marine species that

are listed in either Appendix I or II of CITES are within the domestic jurisdiction

of NOAA, in the Department of Commerce. Prior to COP12, these included the great

whales, dolphins, queen conch, giant clams, hard corals and five species of seals.

Whale sharks, basking sharks and seahorses were added to Appendix II at the most

recent meeting of the CITES Parties. In addition, all marine turtles, whose protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is shared by the two agencies, are listed in Appendix I of CITES. In NOAA, responsibility for protection of these marine

species has been delegated to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). In sum, while Interior’s trust resources were more at issue in past years, marine species issues under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction have become increasingly

more important.

Some of the most contentious issues discussed in CITES involve marine species.

Marine issues at COP12 ranged from efforts to reopen commercial trade in large

whales to considering how CITES might be used to promote the conservation and

management of marine fishes through regulation of their international trade in

CITES Appendix II. In short, NOAA Fisheries plays an integral role in CITES based

on our expertise in marine species.

In addition to our contribution to Meetings of the Conferences of the CITES Parties, NOAA has been effective in day-to-day activities to enhance international protection for such CITES species as hard corals, queen conch, marine turtles and

whales. One important CITES-related project that NOAA Fisheries initiated with

the Caribbean Fishery Management Council and the Department of State is the development of an International Queen Conch Initiative in the Wider Caribbean. This

initiative is dedicated to promoting a regional conservation regime for this species,

whose significant international trade is regulated by CITES. NOAA and FWS also

provided expertise to developing countries in both the Indo–Pacific and Caribbean

to assist them in developing sustainable management plans for exports of hard corals and have developed an identification guide that will be used internationally to

help countries ensure that their trade is legal and sustainable.

CITES BACKGROUND

CITES is an international wildlife trade regime which will be adding its 161st

member country. CITES, therefore, focuses on controlling trade in troubled species.

Species are listed in the CITES Appendices according to their conservation status.

In order to be listed under CITES, species must meet the test that their population

is, or may be, affected by trade. Species listed in CITES Appendix I (such as whales

and marine turtles), for which there is no international trade for primarily commercial purposes, are ‘‘threatened with extinction.’’ Appendix II species (such as queen

conch, sturgeon and stony corals) are ‘‘not necessarily threatened with extinction,’’

but may become so unless trade is strictly regulated. This regulation takes the form

of a requirement for documentation from the country of export or re-export, monitoring of trade and, in a few cases, national export quotas. Another form of regulation is listing in Appendix III (under which great white sharks from Australia are

regulated). A country may unilaterally (without a vote) list in Appendix III any species that is subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for which the cooperation of

other Parties is needed. Exporting range countries must issue export or country of

origin permits for Appendix III species.

COP12 ACHIEVEMENTS FOR MARINE SPECIES

NOAA Fisheries testified before this Subcommittee last year about the process

that we undertake to develop our contributions to the preparation for Meetings of

the Conferences of the Parties. We have, in our headquarters and regional offices

and in our science centers, the expertise necessary to contribute to United States

policy on CITES for marine species under our jurisdiction. At the most recent meeting of the COP, NOAA members of the United States delegation participated in efforts for the conservation of the following marine species:

Northern Hemisphere Minke and Bryde’s whales, Balaenoptera acutorostrata and

Balaenoptera edeni (Proposals of Japan)

Japan submitted two proposals to downlist 7 northern hemisphere stocks of minke

whales and the western North Pacific stock of Bryde’s whales from Appendix I to

Appendix II, in order to reopen commercial trade. The U.S. opposed the proposals

for several reasons: first, because the stocks do not meet the CITES criteria for

downlisting since no effective management regime, in the form of a Revised ManVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:38 Apr 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 85178.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
27

agement Scheme (RMS) under the International Whaling Commission (IWC), is in

place for commercial whaling; second, the IWC, which has management responsibility for whales, has requested that the parties maintain these species on Appendix

I; third, the DNA registers proposed by Japan were inadequate because they would

be accessible only to the trading countries and not subject to independent

verification by other countries or organizations; and fourth, there were noted enforcement difficulties with the proposals.

Both proposals were defeated in the Committee. These votes mark an erosion of

support for Japan’s whale proposals since COP11 in Nairobi in 2000, when Japan

was able to garner a simple majority, but not the necessary two-thirds of the parties.

In a final effort to gain support from the Parties, Japan raised the minke whale

downlisting proposal for reconsideration in the closing plenary session, and amended the proposal to include only one stock (Okhotsk–West Pacific stock). The proposal

was again defeated by a majority of CITES members.

Seahorses, Hippocampus spp. (Proposal of the United States)

The United States proposed to list all 32 species of seahorses in the genus Hippocampus on Appendix II to ensure that international trade does not contribute to the

decline and extirpation of seahorse populations. Seahorse populations are being

over-exploited to supply a rapidly growing trade for traditional Chinese medicine

(TCM) and its derivatives, aquarium pets, souvenirs and curios, with over 70 metric

tons (20 million animals)imported into Asia alone for TCM in 2000. Seahorse populations are at risk of localized extinction and some species exhibit a high degree of

fragmentation due to overfishing, habitat loss, and bycatch in shrimp and scallop

trawls, with threats compounded by their vulnerable life history traits including rarity of and limited reproductive potential. A CITES-sponsored workshop endorsed the

need for this listing. The listing passed by a two-thirds vote of the Conference, with

a provision for a delayed implementation to allow countries sufficient time to address implementation issues such as the identification of species in trade and making of non-detriment findings.

Whale shark, Rhincodon typus (Proposal of India, the Philippines and Madagascar)

This proposal sought to add the species in Appendix II. NOAA personnel have

gathered firsthand information on this extremely rare species, particularly information about the increasing international trade in the Indo–Pacific, with products destined for Taiwan. The species is rare and local, seasonal populations have declined

drastically in some areas. Fishing effort has greatly increased due to an increase

in price for this species. Sharks are more vulnerable to exploitation than are most

other fishes because of their longevity, delayed maturation, and relatively low fecundity. Total population size is unknown, but the species is considered to be rare. Take

of whale sharks in Atlantic Ocean waters of the United States is prohibited. The

proposal was passed by two-thirds majority of the Conference.

Basking shark, Cetorhinus maximus (Proposal of the United Kingdom on behalf of

the European Union)

The European Union proposed to list this species in Appendix II. The main threat

to basking shark populations is from fishing operations, both targeted on basking

sharks and through incidental or bycatch in other fisheries. The biology of the species makes it especially vulnerable to exploitation: it has a slow growth rate, a long

time to sexual maturity (ca. 12–20 years), a long gestation period (1–3 years) and

a similar interval between pregnancies, low fecundity (the only recorded litter was

of just six very large pups), and probable small populations. Take of basking sharks

in Atlantic Ocean waters of the United States is prohibited. This proposal gained

passage by a two-thirds vote of the Conference.

Black Sea bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus ponticus) (Proposal of the Republic

of Georgia)

Georgia proposed to transfer specimens of this species in their waters from

Appendix II to Appendix I. Threatened by direct hunting, pollution, habitat degradation and bycatch, there are indications that many populations in this region have

declined. Despite this, bottlenose dolphins from this area may potentially be taken

for export to public display facilities at unsustainable levels. Although the proposal

failed to attain the majority necessary for passage, it was amended to retain the

species in Appendix II with zero export quota for live specimens from the Black Sea

population. A subsequent vote on this amended proposal passed. It is believed that

this measure will assist in the conservation of this species by ceasing the international portion of this potentially damaging trade.

28

Humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus)(Proposal of the United States)

To begin addressing coral reef species that are being unsustainably harvested and

captured using destructive fishing techniques (cyanide), the United States proposed

the humphead wrasse for inclusion on Appendix II of CITES.

The primary global threats to humphead wrasse is over-harvest to supply for the

live reef food fish trade, along with high demand for small ‘‘plate-sized’’ immature

fish. Humphead wrasse are vulnerable to overfishing due to their slow growth, long

life late maturity, sex change and other biological characteristics. Due to documented declines and extirpations, export bans or minimum size restrictions have

been implemented in six countries, but illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries

are common and there is a lack of coordinated, consistent national and regional

management.

The U.S. proposal was defeated by a narrow margin.

Application of the United Kingdom, on behalf of the Cayman Islands, to register a

captive-breeding operation for the green turtle Chelonia mydas

This proposal, which would have allowed the export of green turtle shells from

the Cayman Islands, was opposed by the United States. The proposal failed to gain

the necessary two-thirds majority required for passage.

ACHIEVEMENTS IN RESOLUTIONS AND DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS

In addition to listing proposals, the following actions were taken on resolutions

and discussion papers concerning marine species:

Resolution on FAO Collaboration with CITES through a Memorandum of

Understanding (Joint proposal of the United States and Japan)

This resolution established a framework for cooperation between CITES and the

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for consideration of marine fish for listing in CITES and for implementation of species listed in Appendix

II. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) would facilitate the implementation

of recommendations concerning CITES regulation of international trade in marine

fish adopted at the Eighth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries’ Sub–Committee on Fish Trade, held in February 2002 in Bremen, Germany. The United

States recognized the contributions FAO has made in evaluating the CITES listing

criteria for marine fish and supported a formal MOU between CITES and FAO to

facilitate exchange of information and technical advice between the two bodies regarding commercially exploited fish species, increase the effectiveness of both organizations and build fisheries and CITES enforcement capacity in developing countries. The resolution passed by consensus.

Resolution on Cooperation between CITES and the Convention on the Conservation

of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regarding trade in the

Patagonian toothfish (Joint proposal of Chile and Australia)

This resolution was considered as a result of a proposal by the government of Australia to list Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides and D.

mawsonii) in Appendix II and a proposal of the government of Chile calling for all

countries engaged in the harvest, landing, transshipment, import or export of these

species to voluntarily comply with CCAMLR’s Catch Documentation Scheme. The

United States arrived at COP12 undecided about this issue. After a series of meetings between the proponent countries and the United States, a compromise resolution, which instructs the CITES Secretariat to compile information about the implementation of CCAMLR requirements and to further encourage cooperation between

the two bodies, was agreed to. This resolution establishing a mechanism for cooperation between the two bodies passed by consensus.

Resolution on Conservation of and trade in sharks (Joint Proposal of Ecuador and

Australia)

A series of Decisions and Resolutions since COP9 prompted international discussion on sharks in both CITES and FAO fora. The net result of this activity was

FAO’s adoption in 1999 of an International Plan of Action for Sharks (IPOA–

Sharks), and ongoing monitoring by the CITES Parties of FAO success in this endeavor. Although the IPOA lays out specific elements for National Plans of Action

(NPOAs) to conserve sharks (data collection, monitoring, stock assessment, etc.), it

is purely a voluntary measure that has met with limited success in FAO member

nations. Out of 87 shark-fishing nations, only two (the United States and Japan)

have adopted NPOAs. Fifteen other member nations have committed to developing

NPOAs, but often have made this contingent on external assistance and funding.

This resolution, which was adopted by consensus, directs the CITES Animals ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:38 Apr 29, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 85178.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
29

mittee to review progress of Member Countries and FAO towards implementation

of FAO’s International Plan of Action for Sharks.

Trade in sea cucumbers in the families Holothuridae and Stichopodidae (Proposal

of the United States)

A discussion document was submitted by the U.S. on the biological status of sea

cucumbers and conservation concerns arising from international trade. This document requested that the CITES Secretariat, through the Animals Committee and

with assistance from the Parties, evaluate the status of populations and the extent

of international trade, and determine whether a CITES Appendix II listing can contribute to their conservation.

Sea cucumbers have been harvested commercially for at least 1,000 years, but the

demand for this food item in Asian markets worldwide has led to a dramatic increase in international trade for food beginning in the late 1980s and early 1990s,

reaching a global annual volume of about 13,000 metric tons (mt) of dried sea cucumber (130,000 mt live) in 1995. Sea cucumbers are sedentary animals that are

especially susceptible to over-exploitation because they are large, easily collected,

and do not require sophisticated fishing techniques. They are important components

of the food chain in coral reefs and associated ecosystems at various trophic levels.

Sea cucumbers also play an important role as deposit feeders, ingesting large

amounts of sediment, turning over the top layers of sediment in lagoons, reefs, and

other habitats, and allowing oxygenation of sediment layers, much like earthworms

do on land. This process prevents the build-up of decaying organic matter and may

help control populations of pest and pathogenic microorganisms. Over-exploitation

has caused a hardening of the sea floor, eliminating habitat for other organisms.

COP12 took a decision which calls on the CITES Secretariat, subject to available

funds, to convene a workshop of experts on the biology of and international trade

in these species. The CITES Animals Committee will review the outcome of the

workshop and prepare a discussion paper for the 13th Meeting of the Conference

of the CITES Parties to provide scientific guidance on the actions needed to secure

their conservation status, including domestic and regional management provisions,

and a possible Appendix II listing.

Criteria for amendment of Appendices I and II

In 1994, CITES revised its criteria for listing species on the CITES Appendices,

and also called for an evaluation of whether the revised criteria are workable.

NOAA Fisheries has been actively involved in the review process; for marine species, NOAA Fisheries led an interagency task force to evaluate the criteria and participated as part of the U.S. delegation, in consultations on this issue hosted by

other organizations, such as the FAO and CITES itself. In fact, many of the recommendations of the interagency task force to refine the listing criteria and guidelines have been incorporated into proposals by FAO and the CITES Criteria Working Group. Although NOAA Fisheries’ focus has been on exploited and protected marine species, the interagency task force attempted to develop criteria that could be

adapted to all marine species. A resolution was passed by consensus calling for further review of the CITES criteria, based on revisions that have already been considered, including reviews of selected taxa and how the criteria apply to them.

NEXT STEPS

Although Meetings of the Conferences of the CITES Parties are only convened approximately every two years, implementation of their decisions is an on-going process. Many of the decisions taken at COP12 institute long-term processes or require

additional work in order to be implemented in the smoothest possible manner. An

example of the former will be the development of a collaborative process for CITES

and FAO to consider issues of interest to both bodies. NOAA Fisheries has been

working with the FWS and the Department of State on preparations for discussion

of an MOU to be considered at the 25th Meeting of FAO’s Committee on Fisheries

(COFI), which began their deliberations yesterday. NOAA Fisheries and FWS have

been considering issues to be discussed at the workshop on sea cucumbers and how

to convene a workshop to harness the expertise of fishers in Florida to ease the implementation of the Appendix II listing of seahorses. In addition, NOAA Fisheries

is committed to continuing to provide our expertise to inter-sessional meetings, such

as those of the CITES Animals and Standing Committee meetings.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued interest in this important issue. We

look forward to working with other U.S. agencies, partner countries and non-governmental organizations to turn the decisions of the COP12 into concrete conservation

accomplishments for marine species.

30

Mr. GILCHREST. You want to run the lights for the questions? We

may run the light for the questions, and we may have a second

round of questions, but that will keep us in a progressive, orderly

fashion, I think.

Judge, Dr. Lent, would you say that the consensus that you

reached as far as the sale of ivory stockpiles is concerned left all

the parties, particularly those African countries and India, feeling

good about the agreement that was reached? And can you comment

on the proposal by Kenya that was adopted by CITES to revise the

trade in elephant specimens; and what exactly does that mean, elephant specimens, and what type of specimens are a problem?

Mr. MANSON. Let me say first that I have submitted written testimony that goes into a great deal of detail on all of the issues here.

The African elephant decision, I thought, was a very good one for

the conservation of African elephants overall. We worked very hard

to come up with a proposal that was acceptable, obviously, to the

supermajority necessary to pass the proposal. I think that we consulted extensively with Kenya in particular and all of the range

states. We also consulted with India. We indicated our commitment

to continued conservation efforts in both Africa and Asia.

I think that in the end, Kenya and, to a lesser extent, India came

away with a number of concerns. I think that Kenya retains its

concern about poaching, and I think that Kenya obviously is

strongly against the proposals that were passed. Kenya, I think,

made it very clear what their position is on all of these topics;

India, as I said, I think to some lesser degree. Your question was

if they felt good about it. I don’t think the Kenyans felt good about

it.

Mr. GILCHREST. How does this work now? There was a consensus, so there is going to be this sale, one-time sale, of ivory

stockpiles. Are there ivory stockpiles in Kenya that they may or

may not sell then?

Mr. MANSON. Well, the Kenyans didn’t ask for permission to sell

any ivory that they may have stockpiled.

Mr. GILCHREST. They don’t have to?

Mr. MANSON. They don’t have to, and they are not authorized.

The Botswanans and the Namibians and the South Africans are

the only ones that are authorized. There were proposals from Zambia and Zimbabwe to sell government stockpile ivory. We voted

against both of those proposals from Zambia and Zimbabwe. Those

proposals did not pass because of concerns about the ability of both

of those countries, Zambia and Zimbabwe, to adequately manage

their elephant populations, and to conduct sales of ivory, and to

monitor ivory sales, and to monitor the illegal killing of elephants

in such a way that we could be assured that elephants would be

adequately conserved in those countries.

Mr. GILCHREST. So this is a one-time sale?

Mr. MANSON. It is a one-time sale.

Mr. GILCHREST. So they would have to sell these stockpiles in a

period of a year, so many months?

Mr. MANSON. Well, the standing committee will work out the

exact details of when the sale will take place and the conditions

under which it will take place. I will say this: The proposals call

for the proceeds of the sale to be put back into conservation efforts

31

and community development. The impact on elephants in these

countries is a very significant one. For example, in Botswana, it is

estimated that the carrying capacity of the land is something like

50,000 elephants, and there may be as many as 100- or 150,000

elephants in Botswana. The Botswana Land Minister told me that

the impact of living with elephants on the human populations is

extremely significant, and, in fact, it is so significant that the people are not allies of elephant conservation under those circumstances. And by putting this money back into elephant conservation efforts, we will make allies of people of elephant conservation.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Judge.

Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Manson, I think you are aware that there are many in the

conservation community who are wary of allowing any trade of

ivory because it will allow cover for possibly illegal trade, and there

is sort of a domino effect there that is of concern. I am wondering

on what basis the U.S. delegation determined that, you know, the

U.S. public or Congress would support U.S. involvement in facilitating commercialization of ivory. In other words, given that concern, why did the U.S. support, if you will, this one-time sale?

Mr. MANSON. I think it is important to understand we are not

supporting the general commercialization of ivory. We are supporting the one-time sale of ivory under limited circumstances,

with the proceeds targeted for very limited purposes.

Now, with respect to the overall issue of poaching of ivory and

the illegal trade in ivory, we have taken a very firm stand against

that, and we have committed to put resources into the various protocols, such as the monitoring of the illegal killing of elephants, the

elephant trade information system. And at the meeting we took a

very stern position with several countries, primarily Asian countries which have inadequate mechanisms for monitoring the ivory

trade in those countries. Some of those countries are allies of the

United States on a number of other issues and other trade issues,

but we both in public and in private took a very firm line with

them to let them know that they must improve their systems for

monitoring the illegal trade in ivory.

Mr. PALLONE. Isn’t there still a sense that maybe certain CITES

parties are trying to get around the opposition to an annual commercial ivory quote by just regularly submitting proposals for

stockpile sales instead? Isn’t there a danger of that happening?

Mr. MANSON. Well, of course it is certainly possible that at the

next COP there may be more proposals for the sale of ivory, but

we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mr. PALLONE. My concern would be that if you start getting

these stockpiles sales annually, they come to be almost the same

thing as an annual quota.

Mr. MANSON. Well, there is no such scheme in place at the

present time, and we were very careful and we negotiated very

firmly with the countries that were allowed the sales. Right up to

the moments before the vote, Assistant Secretary Turner of the

State Department and I had the ministers from the Southern African countries in private. They asked us a number of questions, and

32

we put a number of questions to them, and we crafted a very careful proposal, and that is the proposal that passed.

Mr. PALLONE. I have to be honest and again. I expect you are

going to say it is not the case, but there has also been some concern, because you mentioned trade, that on November 4, a few days

after the CITES meeting started, the U.S. Trade Representative

announced it was negotiating a new free trade agreement with five

Southern African nations, including Botswana, Namibia, South Africa. And, of course, those three countries, you know, just happen

to be the same three countries whose proposals to resume ivory

trade—you know, we supported it just a week later. Is there any

relationship between that? And I am sure you are going to tell me

no, but I am sure you are aware of fact that there is some concern

that that might be the case.

Mr. MANSON. I can tell you that there was no relationship between the free trade agreements and the issue of the one-time sale

of ivory. The discussions were conducted independently. The discussions were conducted by people who had no involvement in the

other discussions whatsoever, and the issues never came up in

the—I don’t know about the free trade discussions, but certainly in

the ivory discussions, the issue of the free trade agreements were

never raised.

Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate that.

You mentioned the Asian nations that you said you had some

concerns about. Are they going to be able to import ivory as a result of this one-time sale, those same countries you had concerns

about?

Mr. MANSON. I will be specific about the countries I am talking

about. We are mostly talking about Japan and China, and they

have some serious deficiencies in their schemes for monitoring the

illegal trade of ivory.

Mr. PALLONE. Will they be able to import?

Mr. MANSON. It may be that some ivory from the one-time sales

may find its way to China and Japan. That is one of the reasons

we were very stern with China and Japan about improving their

systems for monitoring the importation and trade of ivory.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you.

Just briefly, Mr. Secretary. I have had the opportunity to see the

a number of the stockpiles the countries in question have, and they

have a serial number that is imprinted on each piece of ivory. You

can trace where they got it, where it came from, the method that

it was obtained, and that is all legal ivory under CITES and under

the laws of those sovereign nations. What they requested was a

one-time sale of that legally obtained ivory to be sold and that

money to be funneled back into elephant conservation and aid into

areas where the elephants actually live.

You have two very different management schemes in Africa. One

has been successful. One, there have been increasing numbers. In

fact, as you pointed out, in Botswana and a couple of other countries, they are actually over population. They have more elephants

than what science tells us is the carrying capacity of those nations.

The other has been much more problematic, and that particular

33

country, Kenya, has had most of the poaching and most of the

problems. I believe it can be directly traced back to the management scheme that those countries have. I believe that that is the

biggest difference. But I know this will always be controversial.

There are always a lot of questions that people have. I do appreciate a great deal the way that you and the rest of the delegation

handled this. You guys actually sat down and talked to all of the

range states. You worked your way through and didn’t—and Mr.

Pallone brought up an annual sale. And a lot of these countries

wanted an annual sale. That was their proposal. That is not what

was approved. It was a one-time sale of legally obtained stocks, and

all of that money would be pumped back into elephant conservation

and AIDS. I think you guys handled this extremely well, and I salute you for doing that.

But I would like to move on to the issue of mahogany and the

decisions that were made in Chile. Since that time there has been

a number of questions that my office has fielded, and I guess the

bottom line is that there is a big desire on the part of U.S. businesses and people here to work with you and the Administration

in the implementation of this and how it is all going to play out,

because they are obviously very worried, and they really don’t

know what is going to happen in terms of regulation.

How do you intend on working with some of the end users in the

U.S. on this to formulate how it is going to be handled here?

Mr. MANSON. Let me say that I certainly appreciate the concern

about the uncertainty that some of the end users and importers of

mahogany have. Many of them have not been under this type of

scheme before, and they are naturally curious and interested and

concerned about it. I have met with some of the importers, and we

have made a commitment to them that we will involve them along

with other members of the public who are interested in helping to

create an implementation scheme. We will engage in a very public

process as we go down the road to implementation of this. We will

use time-honored public input processes, scoping sessions, public

meetings and other public devices to give them input. We will consider their input at every step of the process as we develop an implementation scheme, and we have got more than a year to do that.

And it is not effective until November 2004—or 2003, I am sorry.

We have got less than a year now to do it, and we are going to use

that time very productively to engage the public, especially those

who have an economic interest in this and those who are otherwise

interested in this matter, to help us create the implementation

scheme. We are simply not going to develop it behind closed doors

and then impose it on the public.

Mr. POMBO. As that meeting schedule is developed, I would appreciate if you would pass that along so I can notify these folks as

to exactly how you are going to do it and what the schedule is for

the meetings.

Mr. MANSON. We will be very pleased to keep you and the rest

of the Committee and all of the public informed of how that process

will unfold.

Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. Faleomavaega?

34

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask Judge Manson, since the establishment of this

treaty in 1975 and the participation of some 160 countries, approximately how many plant and animal species have been considered

by the CITES for all these years? Does it seem to be in bundles,

or do we have a congregate number of plants and species?

Mr. MANSON. The number that have been considered is in the

tens of thousands. The number that are actually affected is likewise in the ten of thousands. I think the total number is 32,000.

I would have to get to you an exact number, when you consider all

the plant and animal species.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That is a pretty hefty number for 160 nations to review and reassess and see what the situation is. I am

very curious of this. We have had some very serious problems;

Japan, as you know over the past couple of years, with the International Whale Commission. Can you explain—does CITES give a

better bearing on the control and conservation management of

whales in this regard than the Commission itself? I suppose you

want to work hand in hand with the Commission’s efforts, but it

seems that Japan is always seeking as much as possible—the idea

of killing whales—and, of course, it is a special delicacy among the

Japanese people to eat whales.

Mr. MANSON. There is an agreement presently between CITES

and the IWC, the bottom line of which is that at least until there

is a revised management scheme in place on the part of the IWC

for certain species, that CITES is not going to take any action that

would undercut the IWC’s management scheme. Dr. Lent may

know a little bit more about that, but that is the essential bottom

line. The Japanese, of course, wanted CITES to do an end run

around the IWC process, as they frequently have, and to its credit,

the parties declined to do that and stuck with the agreement between CITES and the IWC.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Lent, any comments on that?

Dr. LENT. CITES by its very nature can only monitor and some

cases regulate or restrict international trade. The IWC has the

tougher question of actual management schemes for whales which

we are working on actively with the other countries.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And every time Japan always comes up

with the idea that the stats and the data provided are not accurate

as far as they are concerned, so it should justify themselves in killing more whales. And every time IWC always comes up with the

short end of the stick, I suppose, when there is this contention.

You know, I eat sea cucumbers, but it is a delicacy among my

people. What is the status of sea cucumbers? Is it an endangered

species for consumption or commercial use or sales? I know the

countries in Asia, this is a very popular item for consumption.

Dr. LENT. It is a popular item for consumption and very much

a delicacy. I think the concern has to do with its role in the ecosystem. As I said, it is not just the critter itself, but the fact that

it plays the role of the earthworm of turning the soil over, the sand

over in the bottom of the sea and sustaining the ecosystem in its

entirety. But I understand the sea cucumbers are not in good

shape, and their stocks are not in good shape. Your consumption

alone is not making a difference.

35

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Couple of years ago we had a very controversial issues concerning sharks. As you know, shark fin soup

is the most expensive soup in any restaurant in Asia. And we have

gone through this that sharks are indiscriminately killed just for

the sake of cutting off their fins and then just destroy the carcass.

We passed legislation to put a little more teeth to this whole idea

of preventing people from killing sharks, but the killing still goes

on. Has CITES addressed this issue seriously in terms of exactly

the amount of sharks we have out there, because the controversial

issue of this problem is the accurate data in terms of how many

sharks are out there.

Dr. LENT. That is one of the good things about an Appendix II

listing is we can get a better idea—to the extent these species are

traded, once their product is on the market, we can get a better

idea how much harvest is going on out there.

One of our concerns is sharks, which is why we took it to the

FAO and pushed for an international plan of action or national

plans of actions—one of our concerns is that these species are not

covered right now under any regional fishery management organization. The Atlantic Tuna Commission doesn’t cover them except

for data collection. Even there it is difficult to get recommendations

on sharing data on shark bycatch. The Tuna Commission in the

Pacific is in the process of negotiating its convention, renewing its

convention, and trying to get sharks under that organization. It

has been a tough go.

The new convention in the Western Pacific I believe does cover

sharks. That is the new MHLC, which you know plenty about.

To the extent we can get these regional fishery management organizations to look at sharks, that is going to help us. So many of

these sharks are highly migratory. We can’t manage them alone in

the U.S., and a lot of high seas, bycatch and finning going on—finning is illegal in the United States now, and we are hoping to set

an example by taking that step under the guidance of Congress

and working through the FAO as well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Faleomavaega.

The gentlelady from Guam.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is

indeed an honor to be on this Subcommittee.

I have a couple of questions. One is closer to home. I am the Congresswoman from Guam. But one, I would like to ask a few questions on the fish, if I could, Judge Manson. With the introduction

of the proposal by Australia to list the Patagonia toothfish on

Appendix II, a strong ally on global warming and Iraq, the U.S.

had the opportunity to exert leadership in assisting their ally’s effort to get this fish listed. What effort was exerted by the U.S. on

Australia’s behalf internationally to gain greater support from

other countries for this proposal?

Mr. MANSON. We spent a lot of time consulting with the Australians and the Chileans, who were on opposite sides of this particular issue. We felt that it was in the best interests of all concerned to broker a compromise in this particular case, and that is

what we did. The real issue—the issue that Australia was really

interested in was finding a way to improve the international monitoring of harvests of the Patagonian toothfish, and we found a way

36

to do that without putting it on Appendix II. And the way we did

that was the agreement is essentially, as Dr. Lent was describing

earlier, that CITES countries will use the catch documentation

schemes of the CCAMLR convention, and that expands the use of

that catch documentation scheme from about 24, 25 countries to

160 nations, and it accomplishes the goal of better monitoring of

harvests of the Patagonian toothfish and does so without imposing

the trade restrictions or any of the other regulatory aspects of

CITES. So it is a good outcome for everybody.

Ms. BORDALLO. So all parties agreed?

Mr. MANSON. Absolutely. And we are quite proud of the fact that

we are able to broker that type of agreement.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much.

One other question I have has to do with fruit bats. I come from

Guam, and the fruit bat feeds on fruits and is a delicacy. I am sure

our Representative from Samoa knows about the fruit bats. But I

was wondering if this has ever been listed on the CITES list or if

we have ever discussed it in Fisheries. I am new, so I wouldn’t

know. But it is extinct on our island, and now we have to import

the fruit bats from neighboring islands.

Mr. MANSON. The fruit bat is—has kind of a split status. There

are some species of fruit bat that are in Appendix II and some that

are in Appendix I of CITES. So some have the most restrictive

trade regulation, and some have a less restrictive trade.

Ms. BORDALLO. So we are listed.

Mr. MANSON. They are.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, and welcome to the Subcommittee.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. I have a couple more questions, and some of us

up here may have a few more questions.

Dr. Lent, the Patagonian toothfish was proposed by Australia to

be in Appendix II or Appendix I.

Dr. LENT. II.

Mr. GILCHREST. And who was in collaboration to collect that data

to make that kind of a recommendation? Was the U.S. A part of

that data collection? What other parties were a part of that group,

and did the U.S. agree that the stock assessment of the Antarctic

toothfish was such that it probably should have been listed, but because of the controversy, a compromise was struck? Did we agree

with Australia that the stock is down?

Dr. LENT. Thank you. My understanding is that when the delegation left for Chile, we were still undecided. And Judge Manson can

provide more information on that. We were concerned—we are concerned about toothfish. We are concerned about its status.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who was collecting the data to determine—

Dr. LENT. Data and the science are currently conducted by

CCAMLR.

Mr. GILCHREST. So CCAMLR’s conclusion was in agreement with

Australia?

Dr. LENT. Actually CCAMLR met shortly before CITES, and they

passed a measure at their meeting urging that CITES take measures so that CITES members could use the CCAMLR documentation scheme. That was my understanding.

37

Mr. GILCHREST. Did that take effect?

Dr. LENT. That is indeed the compromise that ended up. So when

the delegation got to the meeting, I wasn’t there. There were a lot

of discussions with U.S., Australia and Chile to talk about a compromise, and the compromise that was reached was that the catch

documentation scheme would be used, endorsed and encouraged.

CITES members would be encouraged to use it. Take it from the

24 members of CCAMLR to the 161 members of CITES so it becomes much more of a tool.

The important thing about this toothfish, there is so much IUU

fishing going on, that to the extent we can track its trade, and it

is a heavily traded product, we will know how much fishing is

going on.

Mr. GILCHREST. This is the Chilean sea bass?

Dr.. LENT. Yes. Actually, we had a Fisheries bilateral with Chile

shortly before the CITES meeting, and they were very concerned

about the fact that the name Chilean is stamped on it. It was a

great marketing trick a few years ago, but now it is giving Chile

a bad name. They like to refer to it as toothfish.

We estimate twice as much illegal harvest is going on as opposed

to legal harvest. To the extent we can monitor the three main markets, which are U.S., EU and Japan, monitor the imports of

toothfish, then we really know how much toothfish fishing is going

on, and that contributes to the science in estimating total mortality

that is actually going on.

Mr. GILCHREST. The CCAMLR’s catch and document system for

the Patagonian toothfish will come under that regime, and it will

be the next CITES meeting in Thailand that will be discussed

again in 2004?

Dr.. LENT. That is my understanding.

Judge Manson, do you want to elaborate on that?

Mr. MANSON. It very well likely may be discussed there. I don’t

know that we have seen any firm proposals on that as of yet; but

I can’t imagine it will not come up.

Let me say that a lot of parties believe, as we do, that there are

threats, potential threats, of overharvesting and illegal fishing that

go on with the Patagonian toothfish. Whether or not that rises to

the level of threat necessary that would qualify it for an Appendix

II listing is another matter.

Mr. GILCHREST. So there is not enough data to make that determination?

Mr. MANSON. I have not seen any conclusion about that, but I

think what the outcome in Santiago did was put us in a position

to better monitor those potential threats.

Mr. GILCHREST. So there is no timeframe on this monitoring, but

it falls within the same regime protocol system that any other

species—if it is seen after a year that the Patagonian toothfish,

under this catch document system, their stock is dropping, then

other measures can be taken? If it is seen that stock is stable or

rising, it will just continue under this catch document system?

Mr. MANSON. That is certainly one of the possible outcomes of

the use of the catch documentation scheme.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the range of this fish? Where is it?

Mr. MANSON. It is largely in Antarctic waters.

38

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. We will have to go down there on a

boat.

In the catch document system, is there any place or system for

observers on fishing vessels?

Dr.. LENT. I believe CCAMLR does have an observer program.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. Pombo.

Mr. POMBO. Just to follow up on the questions that the Chairman was asking, one of the reasons that this was controversial was

that it was a species which was already regulated under an international fisheries body, and there was a great deal of concern

amongst the member nations and the outside groups that CITES

was pushing its way into regulating fish species that were already

regulated under fisheries management schemes.

Are you aware of any other species which have been proposed

that were already regulated like this, Dr. Lent?

Dr. LENT. The one that comes to mind is Atlantic bluefin tuna.

There was a proposal to list it on Appendix II, and that did not

happen. In fact, something similar to a catch documentation

scheme was implemented by ICCAT, the regional fisheries management organization, the same type of information, how much fishing

is actually going on as evidenced by trade, and ICCAT then

changes their science and their data for landings and mortalities

based on trade statistics, which ground truth the landing information. That is at least one example that I know of.

Mr. POMBO. Is that a more proper way of dealing with this under

these fisheries bodies, to monitor what is happening in that fishery?

Dr. LENT. I guess it would depend on a case-by-case basis. In the

case of Atlantic bluefin tuna, the countries that were fishing and

the countries that were trading were all members of ICCAT, if I

am not mistaken, or at least cooperating parties.

In this case for toothfish, with all of the illegal fishing going on,

there are a lot of non-CCAMLR members who might be affected by

the encouragement by CITES to use the catch documentation

scheme, so it packs a bigger wallop when it goes through CITES.

If this cooperative approach works, we take the numbers of

CITES and apply them to the catch documentation scheme of

CCAMLR and their science and their annual stock assessment, and

by just hooking up in that way, we are getting a bigger bang for

the buck, so to speak.

Mr. POMBO. Dr. Manson, we have the upcoming standing committee’s meeting. I believe the agenda came out yesterday or today.

Can you give us an idea what are some of the issues that are going

to be on the table, and the standing committee is chaired by a

member of your delegation, Ken Stansel, and he has done an outstanding job during the time he has been in that position. What

are some of the major issues that are going to come up?

Mr. MANSON. The standing committee will meet in Geneva the

week after Easter. The United States is the Chair of the standing

committee, and Ken Stansel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

occupies that chair. He has great confidence of all of the members

of the standing committee and of the Conference of the Parties and

the Secretariat as well. He has been an outstanding representative

39

of the United States of America, and has done much to advance the

cause of the United States in his position.

A lot of the things that we do and a lot of our successes are due

to Ken Stansel’s work on the standing committee. One of the things

that they are going to address there is the addition of NGO’s as

observers at standing committee meetings. Historically, the standing committee has not allowed NGO’s in as observers. Of course

they do participate as observers at the Conference of the Parties.

The standing committee voted to allow NGO’s in as observers at

their 47th meeting at Santiago, but they need to adopt further

rules of procedure with respect to that. The United States’ position

is in support of NGO participation in standing committee meetings.

Another issue will be the decision on trade on African elephant

ivory. The standing committee has to develop a process to ensure

that the conditions are met. They have to develop terms of reference for implementing the decision. They have to ensure that the

MIKE process, the monitoring of the illegal killing of elephants, is

properly implemented, and they have to make other determinations

necessary to allow the sale to go forward.

Also, a very important aspect to be discussed at the standing

committee meeting is revision of the MOU with the United Nations

environmental program. They are the program which provides administrative support to the CITES Conference of the Parties. Other

topics are a new MOU with FAO on marine species; the establishment of an export corridor working group; criteria for amendment

of the Appendix, that is an extremely important issue; development

of budget strategies, that is another issue that the United States

is very concerned about as well. Those are some of the important

issues that will be before the standing committee in Geneva during

the month of April.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pombo.

Mr. Pallone, any more questions?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question about

mahogany because I know that the United States has a history of

supporting Appendix II protection for bigleaf mahogany that goes

back more than 10 years. Despite that, the Administration seemed

to have a hard time making up its mind about this issue when it

came up at the COP12, and I know that caused concern amongst

our allies that were looking for our support since they had it for

a number of years.

I wondered why the Administration delayed so long in deciding

to support this listing when, based on our past policy and statements, it should have been a no-brainer. Why did we go into it not

taking a position and basically end up supporting it at the end, the

way I understand it?

Mr. MANSON. One thing that has not been understood well is the

issue of undecided positions that we went to Santiago with. We

went to Santiago with a number of officially undecided positions,

of which mahogany was just one. It was not a question of having

a difficult time making our minds up. We had a very specific strategy with respect to every issue as to which we were officially undecided. We had a set of instructions; we had a set of protocols that

we would go through.

40

With respect to mahogany, and let me say with respect to a number of the issues for which we were officially undecided, part of

that strategy was to enable us to play the role that we played in

a number of the issues; that is, one of being able to be the honest

broker of consensus solutions, and that was certainly true on the

mahogany issue as well.

Having an officially undecided position gave us entree to a number of parties that if we had a hard-and-fast position would not

otherwise speak to us. We know that from experience over a number of years that that would be the case. So we went down there

officially undecided on mahogany, not literally undecided on mahogany, with the notion that we could broker a consensus among

the range states. It gave us the ability to speak to all of the range

states, which we did.

And I have to say that the mahogany situation was one of the

most frustrating for me personally because we talked to every single one of the range states, some of which favored the Appendix II

listing for particular reasons, some of which, like Bolivia and

Brazil, objected to the Appendix II listing. We spoke to them individually and collectively. We had one particularly frustrating day

where we had all of the range states at a luncheon with the idea

that they would all talk to each other and develop consensus solutions for the protection of mahogany while allowing trade to go forward.

Mr. PALLONE. I understand what you are saying, but there is always the danger that the countries that expected us to be supportive of the listing may have misunderstood what we were saying. Did those countries that had traditionally supported Appendix

II listing know that we were sort of keeping quiet to the end, or

was that part of the strategy, too? As a country that has always

relied on the U.S.’s support, and if all of a sudden the United

States is taking a neutral position, that can have a counterproductive impact, too.

Mr. MANSON. I think it was clear that the role that we were

playing was one that was trying to bring folks together on a consensus approach. I think that that was clear as the processes unfolded. Ultimately we didn’t reach that consensus, and ultimately

we decided it was in the best interests of the United States to vote

for the Appendix II listing.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleague from Guam that we have passed very strict legislation in

Samoa to prohibit the killing of bats, or we call it flying foxes.

I remember in Guam they were selling flying foxes at $30 a pop.

I hope after we export some flying foxes to Guam, please advise the

local legislature of Guam to pass strict laws not to kill any more

flying foxes.

I am just curious, Dr. Manson, on the activities of CITES. Does

CITES have an enforcement arm in terms of seeing that countries

comply with its dictum?

Mr. MANSON. There are no CITES police, if you will, in the sense

that there is no international police force that goes around and acts

in that kind of capacity. However, the enforcement mechanisms of

41

CITES are like the enforcement mechanisms of other international

trade agreements in that it relies upon the good faith of all of the

parties to act in accordance with the obligations to which they have

agreed, and to enforce through their domestic legislation the trade

restrictions or prohibitions that accompany the various levels of

listing in CITES.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So countries tell on other countries that are

not adhering to the policy?

Mr. MANSON. Right. If something is imported without the proper

documentation, in our case it is incumbent upon the USDA or the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to not let it into the country.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Manson, you mentioned there are some

32,000 species of plants and animals that have come under the

purview of CITES.

Mr. MANSON. I don’t know that is the exact number.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Approximately.

Do we have some kind of a data base which indicates which species of plants and animals come under Appendix I, II and III whose

origin comes from our country?

Mr. MANSON. Yes, we do.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you have any idea what percentage

comes from us alone?

Mr. MANSON. I don’t know that as we sit here. If you are interested, we can provide it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested to

have that made part of the record.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How does CITES, with the important work

that they do, relate to our own enactment of the Endangered Species Act? Are there conflicts between the two? I guess your role is

as the enforcer of the Endangered Species Act?

Mr. MANSON. The Endangered Species Act specifically provides

for enforcement of CITES, but they are fundamentally different.

They have different purposes, and they are designed to be enforced

in different ways and administered in different ways. There are

species that are listed under our Endangered Species Act which are

not CITES species. There are CITES species which are not listed

under our Endangered Species Act, and then there are some that

are both. But they have fundamentally different purposes, and they

act in very different ways.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to pose a question to Dr. Lent.

Again, Mr. Chairman, it would be irresponsible if I did not express my congratulations for your continuing as the Chairman of

this important Subcommittee; and more importantly, the legislation that we passed in the last Congress to increase the authorization of our National Sea Grant Program, and I hope that we will

work closely with the Appropriations Committee to increase the

level of funding for this important program.

Dr. Lent, I realize that this question and concern is not related

to CITES, but I am always curious, we have just recently built new

NOAA research vessels, and I would like to propose a proposal,

why Dr. Sylvia Earle has not been considered seriously to have a

research vessel named after her. Has NOAA ever taken that under

consideration? I think she richly deserves the honor for the

42

contributions she has made over the years as one of our foremost

marine biologists in the world. Can you take that message back,

and maybe we can sign a petition on a bipartisan basis that Sylvia

Earle should be given full recognition and have a research vessel

named after her?

Mr. GILCHREST. Absolutely, and I can tell Members that I have

two canoes, and one of them plies the placid waters of the Sassafras River, and I refer to that canoe as Ms. Earle’s research

vessel.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we were

privileged to host her when she visited our island. What a dynamic

lady. She still manages to scuba dive, just to show not only her

heartiness, but also a very special person to those of us who deal

with fishery issues.

Thank you.

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, just one last question to follow up

on the question of the gentleman from American Samoa about the

monitoring.

I am curious with this many species on your listings, you said

that you depended, Judge Manson, on the respective governments

to be on the lookout, and I was wondering if you find any of the

nations, countries, islands, territories that are not adhering to the

rules and regulations of the CITES, then what do you do? What do

you do? Do you step in, and in what manner?

Mr. MANSON. If someone is not adhering to the CITES protocols,

then ultimately whatever species it is—for example, if it is a single

species or in general—they may find themselves isolated from an

international trade perspective.

Ms. BORDALLO. So that is the ultimate, they are reported?

Mr. MANSON. Right.

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to congratulate you. It is an

honor to be on the Committee, and I know that Guam and the

other Pacific islands will have a lot to say at your meetings.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I will have to say that I was congratulated on this continuing Chairmanship of the Subcommittee

while at a fishery and management meeting in Gloucester, and I

learned how to pronounce it while I was there, and during that period of time my membership as a Member of Congress, as I described it to the person that was congratulating me, describing it

was like having irritable bowel syndrome. So when we congratulate

each other on these appointments, we take the full ramifications of

its jurisdiction into consideration.

Judge Manson and Dr. Lent, Mr. Pallone asked me if we could

have some follow-up questions. Over the next few days we will

send them to you, and continue our conversation about this most

important international agreement and treaty, CITES.

Thank you both very much for coming here today. We look forward to working with you in the future. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ