Protected Species: International Convention and U.S. Laws Protect Wildlife Differently
Published: 2004-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: International trade in wildlife is a multibillion-dollar industry that, in some cases, has taken species to the brink of extinction. To address the problem, several countries, including the United States, created an international treaty--the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora--that took effect in 1975. The United States also has domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, that protect species. The protections provided by the Convention and domestic laws can differ. For example, in some cases, U.S. laws afford more stringent protections to species than the Convention does; such stricter protections can prevent U.S. interests from participating in trade that is permitted by the Convention. The Convention's member countries meet periodically to discuss implementation of the Convention and are scheduled next to meet in Thailand in October 2004. In anticipation of this meeting, GAO was asked to report on (1) how implementation of the Convention has changed over the years, (2) U.S. funding and other resources spent on Convention-related activities, and (3) the relationship between the Convention and some domestic laws. The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration generally agreed with the information in the GAO report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has become increasingly complex and controversial since its inception. Complexity has increased in part because of the sheer number of member countries (166) and species protected (more than 33,000) and because the criteria for identifying protected species have become more scientific and specific, resulting in heavier data-gathering, permitting, enforcement, and reporting requirements for member countries. Controversy, in turn, has increased because the Convention membership has recently contemplated, and in some cases approved, protection of commercial species such as sharks and Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass)--species that in some cases are already managed under regional fisheries agreements. Over the 9-year fiscal period 1995 through 2003, the United States spent more than $50 million on Convention-related activities. As the agency primarily responsible for U.S. implementation of the Convention, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent the largest portion of these funds--about $37 million over the period. Other agencies have roles as well, including the Department of State, which makes U.S. contributions to help administer the Convention internationally. The Convention and the Endangered Species Act protect species differently. In some cases, the act prohibits imports that are allowed by the Convention. For example, the act generally prohibits the import of a popular exotic fish, the Asian arowana, although the Convention allows some commercial trade in the species. The Convention establishes mandatory requirements and recognizes countries' rights to establish stricter protections. However, such protections have generated heated debates among affected parties. Those in favor say that the United States should impose stricter protections than the Convention, when needed to protect endangered species or their habitats. Opponents say that U.S. actions should be consistent with the agreements reached by a majority of the Convention's members.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: International trade in wildlife, including rare and endangered species, is a  multibillion-dollar industry involving items such as crocodile leather  products, beluga caviar, mahogany, and ivory. Such trade is regulated  through the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of  Wild Fauna and Flora (the Convention), an international treaty designed to  ensure that international trade does not threaten species’ survival. The  Convention entered into force in 1975 with 18 member countries, including  the United States, and originally protected about 1,200 animal species.  Some of these species, such as tigers and elephants, were considered  “charismatic megafauna”—species that many people recognized and  supported the need to protect. Currently, 166 countries are members of the  Convention, which protects more than 5,000 animal species. (The  Convention also protects more than 28,000 plant species.)  To implement  the Convention, member countries are expected to carry out programs to  regulate the import and export of protected species as well as contribute to  a voluntary fund that finances the Convention’s management and  administration worldwide. Although the language of the Convention has  changed little since its inception, member countries have clarified or  interpreted its implementation through various decisions and resolutions at  periodic conferences.
U.S. domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine  Mammal Protection Act, also protect certain species. In some cases, the  protections provided under domestic law are more stringent than those  provided under the Convention. For example, in 1983, the Convention  members voted to allow trade in Nile crocodile products from several  African countries. However, the United States did not allow imports of such  products until 1996 because of Endangered Species Act protections. The  Convention explicitly recognizes the sovereign right of member countries  to impose stricter domestic measures. Nevertheless, these measures have  caused concerns among regulated entities, such as the aquaculture  industry and big game hunters, that are unable to participate fully in  activities or trade allowed by other Convention member countries.
In October 2004, the Convention’s member countries will meet in Bangkok,  Thailand, to discuss several proposals to protect new species, such as the  humphead wrasse (a gourmet food fish), and to change the level of  protection afforded species, such as loosening restrictions on trade in bald  eagles. In addition, administrative aspects of the Convention will be  considered, such as options for using electronic systems for processing  import/export permits and trade reports. In anticipation of the upcoming  conference, you requested that we identify (1) how implementation of the  Convention has changed over the years since its inception; (2) U.S. funding  and other resources expended on Convention-related activities; and (3) the  relationship between the Convention, the Endangered Species Act, and the  Marine Mammal Protection Act, including how each identifies species for  protection and affects use of those species. We obtained documents on  implementation of the Convention in the United States and budget data  from the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the  agency with primary responsibility for implementing the Convention. We  performed a comparative analysis of the Convention, the Endangered  Species Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and we discussed the  Convention and acts with numerous federal and nonfederal officials  involved in international trade and species protection. We conducted our  work from March 2004 through August 2004 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Although it first entered into force in 1975, the Convention evolved from  years of discussions among several countries about conservation and  sustainable trade. For example, in 1963, the General Assembly of the  International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources  passed a resolution calling for “an international convention on regulations  of export, transit and import of rare or threatened wildlife species or their  skins and trophies.” A first draft of the Convention was produced in 1964,  and after subsequent discussions and drafts, the Convention was signed in  March 1973 in Washington, D.C. According to the Convention’s preamble,  the member countries recognized that the conservation of wild fauna and  flora was of global importance and that international cooperation was  essential for the protection of certain species against overexploitation  through international trade.
subsections: section_title: What Is Wildlife Trade?
paragraphs: Each year, wildlife (animals and plants) of all types are sold in the wildlife  trade. Some of this trade is regulated by the Convention; some is regulated  by domestic laws; and some is not regulated at all. In general, uses of  wildlife consist of trade in wildlife parts and products and trade in live  wildlife. Global trade in wildlife parts and products includes the following,  among other things:  exotic fur and leather such as fox and leopard fur coats, elephant and  ostrich skin boots, snake and shark skin shoes, kangaroo skin soccer  balls, and alligator and eel skin purses;  ornamental objects and curios such as sea turtle shell cases, snail shells,  elephant ivory jewelry, seahorses, and matted butterflies;  food such as monkey and ape bushmeat, turtle, bear paws, frog legs,  lobsters, shrimp, conch, fish, clams, and oysters; and   traditional medicine ingredients such as tiger bones, rhinoceros horn,  ginseng root, bear gall bladders, deer antlers, seahorses, and plant-based  powders and ointments.
Trade in live wildlife includes the following, among other things:  furnishing the exotic pet and plant trade with species such as tropical  fish, seahorses, parrots, iguanas, orchids, snakes, and geckos;  providing species for biomedical research and teaching, such as  monkeys, snakes, fish, and frogs;  stocking public or private game farms and hunting ranches with deer,  antelope, and wild sheep;  providing zoos and safari parks with species such as elephants,  rhinoceros, dolphins, large cats, monkeys, pandas, birds, and reptiles;  and  providing food such as reptiles, amphibians, and fish.
As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, the United States is the  largest importer and exporter of wildlife products and dominates an  estimated $5 billion annual world wildlife trade industry, according to the  Fish and Wildlife Service. The United States’ share of worldwide trade,  according to Service officials, is between $1 billion and $2 billion a year.   Figure 1 shows the intended uses of wildlife for which U.S. applicants  sought import or export permits from the Service in 2003.
section_title: How Is the Convention Structured?
paragraphs: The Convention provides a framework for cooperation and collaboration  among member countries to conserve species affected by international  trade. The membership is made up of all countries that have joined the  Convention; as of July 2004, 166 countries were party to the Convention.  Each member country, by its signature, ratification, or accession, agrees to  abide by and enforce the terms of the Convention. For example, the  member countries agree to monitor and regulate imports and exports of  certain species, as specified by the Convention, and to submit annual  reports on trade in species protected under the Convention and biennial  reports on implementation of the Convention. The member countries also  agree to enforce the terms of the Convention, typically through legislation  that incorporates Convention provisions, establishes requisite authorities,  and imposes penalties for noncompliance. Enforcement provisions  generally involve inspecting import and export permits, as well as the  shipments, to ensure their compliance with Convention requirements.
The Convention’s Secretariat, located in Geneva, Switzerland, provides  support to the member countries to implement the Convention. The  Secretariat organizes and facilitates each conference of the member  countries, helps members implement the requirements of the Convention,  undertakes scientific and technical studies regarding issues that may affect  the implementation of the Convention, and manages the fund that is  financed through member contributions. The fund supports the day-to-day  operation of the Convention, such as purchasing office supplies, paying  personnel, and facilitating Convention-related conferences. Currently, the  Secretariat has a full-time staff of 28. The membership agreed to a system  to provide a stable source of funding through voluntary contributions by  member countries in 1979 and implemented that system in 1983. Prior to  that time, Convention funding was provided through the United Nations  Environment Programme. Members’ annual contributions to the fund are  determined through a scale of assessment related to a country’s gross  domestic product. The Convention does not provide a mechanism for  enforcing the payment of annual contributions. Although the Secretariat  reported in 2003 that the overall amount of contributions in arrears was not  great, it also indicated that several countries have not made contributions  for years.
The membership convenes every 2 or 3 years at a conference of the  member countries, referred to as the “Conference of the Parties.” The  conference is the primary forum at which the membership debates and  votes on proposals submitted by one or more members. Approval of  substantive proposals, such as species-related decisions or significant  procedural changes, generally requires a two-thirds majority of the  members present, although many decisions are still made by consensus.  Proposals are to be distributed to all members (through the Secretariat)  several months before the conference and are to include the  documentation necessary to explain or justify them (e.g., population  surveys, scientific studies, discussion papers). In October 2004, the  thirteenth conference of the member countries will take place in Bangkok,  Thailand.
A number of committees conduct business in between the biennial or  triennial conferences of the member countries. The standing committee  serves essentially as a steering committee; among its responsibilities are  providing policy and operational direction to the Secretariat, overseeing  the development and execution of the Secretariat’s budget and  expenditures, coordinating and advising other committees, and drafting  resolutions for consideration by the Convention’s membership. Among the  responsibilities of the animals and plants committees are providing advice  and guidance to the membership on all scientific matters relevant to  international trade in protected animal and plant species and developing  decisions and resolutions to implement the Convention. For example, the  committees may review and assess all available biological and trade  information on species considered to be significantly affected by trade and,  based on such assessments, form appropriate conclusions and  recommendations. The nomenclature committee ensures clarity and  consistency in the identification and classification of species.
section_title: How Does the Convention Protect Wildlife?
paragraphs: The Convention membership protects wildlife by first identifying species in  need of protection and then regulating or monitoring trade in those species,  depending on the risk that trade poses to a species’ survival. The  Convention regulates trade primarily through a system of import and  export permits that are sought by organizations and individuals wishing to  use protected species. Such consumers include (1) zoos and circuses that  use animals for display, entertainment, or research; (2) furniture and  clothing manufacturers, for selling raw materials or finished goods to  consumers in other countries; (3) medical and scientific institutions, for  biological samples for research; (4) producers, for artificially propagated  or captive-bred species; and (5) individuals, for various items ranging from  curios to hunting trophies.
Species in need of protection are identified in one of three appendixes to  the Convention. The Convention extends the most stringent protections to  the species it has included in appendix I. These are species that are  considered at risk of extinction by virtue of meeting at least one of several  criteria and are, or may be, affected by trade. Among the criteria are an  observed, inferred, or projected decline in (1) the number of individuals,  (2) the area and quality of habitat, (3) the area of distribution, (4) the  number of subpopulations, or (5) reproductive potential. The Convention  generally prohibits commercial trade in species included in appendix I but  may allow trade in household goods, hunting trophies, or live animals for  purposes of display, research, or breeding when such trade is not  detrimental to species in the wild. Species currently listed in appendix I  include the Ethiopian toad, the red-necked parrot, the short-nosed  sturgeon, Brazilian rosewood, the Burmese peacock turtle, the Asian  golden cat, the giant armadillo, living rock cactus, and the bowhead whale.
Appendix II to the Convention includes species that are not yet but may  become threatened with extinction at least in part due to trade; the  Convention regulates trade in these species. Among the criteria for a  species’ inclusion in appendix II are a known, inferred, or projected  conclusion that (1) a species will meet at least one of the appendix I criteria  in the near future unless trade in the species is subject to strict regulation  or (2) the harvesting of specimens from the wild for international trade has  or may have a detrimental effect on the species by exceeding, over an  extended period, the level that can be continued in perpetuity. Species  currently listed in appendix II include the strawberry poison-arrow frog,  the crab-eating fox, the wrinkled hornbill, yellow pencil coral, fragrant  prickly-apple, queen conch, the freckled monitor, Caribbean mahogany, the  piebald dolphin, Himalayan yew, and the king cobra. Another criterion for  inclusion in appendix II is that a species resembles another species listed in  appendix I or appendix II, such that a nonexpert, with reasonable effort, is  unlikely to be able to distinguish between them. In contrast to the generally  prohibited trade in appendix I species, trade in appendix II species is  generally allowed, although it is monitored and controlled to ensure that it  does not pose a threat to the continued existence of the species. For  example, the Convention requires that trade in appendix II species be  monitored through trade reports that members must submit each year.  These reports detail the number of species, parts, and products the country  imported, exported, and reexported during the year. In some cases, limited  populations of species found in appendix I are put in appendix II to allow  for some trade to occur. In these cases, the downlisted populations are  managed in some way that ensures that trade will not be detrimental to the  survival of the species in the wild (see fig. 2).
Finally, appendix III to the Convention includes species that a member  country has identified as being subject to regulation to prevent or restrict  exploitation and as needing other countries’ cooperation in controlling  trade. Appendix III species are listed by individual member countries and  are not put to a vote for their inclusion. Although member countries may  trade in appendix III species, trade must be accompanied by an approved  export permit from the country that listed the species or by a “certificate of  origin” from a nonlisting country. The listing country can then monitor  trade in the appendix III species through review of issued export permits  and certificates of origin. Species currently listed in appendix III, and the  country that listed them, include the red-breasted toucan (Argentina), the  walrus (Canada), the Egyptian goose (Ghana), the ocellated turkey  (Guatemala), the dog-faced water snake (India), the water buffalo (Nepal),  the starry tree gecko (New Zealand), the Cape stag beetle (South Africa),  and the naked-tailed armadillo (Uruguay).
No clear consensus exists on the Convention’s effectiveness in conserving  species. In the opening session of the last conference of the member  countries, the Minister of Agriculture of Chile pointed to the fact that no  species protected by the Convention has become extinct, as a sign of the  Convention’s effectiveness. Others have highlighted the benefits of the  Convention in raising awareness of conservation issues and strengthening  wildlife legislation in member countries. According to the Fish and Wildlife  Service, the Convention has a long history of adopting successful measures  to support the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife species in trade.  However, it is difficult to directly link protections provided under the  Convention to improvements in a species’ status in the wild. The major  issues complicating such assessments are the lack of data and the fact that  typically numerous factors, in addition to trade, contribute to a species’  decline, such as habitat loss, overuse, and disease.
section_title: How Is the Convention Implemented in the United States?
paragraphs: In the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and  Wildlife Service, is responsible for implementing the Convention. One of  the Service’s responsibilities is to oversee the permitting process and  enforce compliance with the terms of the Convention within the United  States. Irrespective of the Convention, the United States requires that all  wildlife species that enter or exit the country be declared to and approved  by the Service. That is, wildlife shipments must be accompanied by the  appropriate permits and must be in compliance with not only the  Convention, but also other applicable wildlife laws. To enforce these laws  and the Convention, the Service (1) issues permits to entities and  individuals wishing to import, export, or reexport protected species,  products, or parts if the intended uses and the applications meet  Convention and U.S. regulation requirements; (2) enforces these permits at  U.S. borders by inspecting permits and shipments; and (3) investigates  cases of illegal trade.
Penalties for violating the import or export requirements of the Convention  or other wildlife laws are assessed based on the level of protection afforded  the species. For example, penalties for a shipment of appendix I species or  products that was not accompanied by the proper permits would generally  be more stringent than if the shipment contained appendix II species.  However, penalties for appendix II species could be severe if a shipment  included a large number of protected species. Penalties for shipments that  violate Convention requirements can range from monetary fines to criminal  charges. Additionally, as shown in figure 3, illegal shipments may be  confiscated.
Another Service responsibility is to prepare and coordinate U.S. proposals  for consideration by the Convention membership and advocate the U.S.  position at each conference of the member countries. For the upcoming  conference in October 2004, for example, the United States will propose  the inclusion of several species of Asian turtles in appendix II and the  downlisting of the bald eagle from appendix I to appendix II. In preparing  the United States’ positions and proposals, the Service coordinates with  other relevant federal agencies and holds public meetings, when  appropriate.
Although the Fish and Wildlife Service has the primary responsibility and  authority for implementing the Convention within the United States, other  agencies are involved as well:  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National  Marine Fisheries Service is involved in an advisory capacity. Although it  has no legal authority to carry out the terms of the Convention, the  National Marine Fisheries Service provides scientific advice and  assistance as needed to the Fish and Wildlife Service, such as in  assessing the status of marine species. In addition, the National Marine  Fisheries Service provides liaison to marine resource organizations,  such as the International Whaling Commission and regional fisheries  management organizations. The National Marine Fisheries Service also  organizes and carries out educational workshops and assists in law  enforcement by monitoring for potentially illegal trade in marine species  in areas other than designated ports of entry.
The Department of State is responsible for providing U.S. annual  contributions to the Convention and provides expertise and advice on  international issues such as implementing multilateral environmental  agreements and providing liaison with foreign governments. The  department also provides funds for educational programs on  Convention-related issues.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is responsible for  inspecting shipments of plants. The Customs Service inspects items  brought into the country by citizens and visitors and assists the Fish and  Wildlife Service in detecting items that consist of or contain wildlife or  wildlife parts or products.
The Department of Agriculture coordinates with the Fish and Wildlife  Service on Convention policy related to plants.
section_title: The Convention’s Implementation Has Become More Complex and Controversial
paragraphs: In several ways, implementing the Convention is currently more complex  and controversial than it was in 1975, when it took effect. First, permitting  and enforcement tasks have become more difficult, owing to increases in  both the workload and the complexity of the individual tasks. Another  change in the Convention is that the criteria for identifying species for  protection have become more specific and science based. Although this is a  positive step, it requires more resources for data gathering and reporting.  And finally, proposals for protection of some species have become quite  controversial because they address species that are subject to management  by other multinational organizations.
subsections: section_title: Permitting and Enforcement Tasks Are More Difficult
paragraphs: Since the Convention’s inception, the permitting and enforcement  workload has become larger, and the tasks themselves more difficult.  Workload has increased along with increases in the Convention  membership. The number of countries that are party to the Convention has  increased dramatically since 1975, reflecting increased global interest in  species protection and trade participation. Convention membership has  grown from the initial 18 countries, whose membership entered into force  in 1975, to 166 countries as of July 2004 (see fig. 4).
Along with the increase in membership has come an increase in the number  of species protected by the Convention. The number of protected species  has increased by about 20 percent since the early years of the Convention.  In 1976, about 28,000 species were listed in the Convention’s appendixes I  and II; currently, more than 33,000 species are protected. The biggest  change has been in the number of protected animal species, which has  increased by about 320 percent. Overall, though, plant species continue to  make up the vast majority of protected species (see fig. 5).
As the number of protected species has increased, so has the Service’s  workload. In just the past 5 fiscal years, the Service’s permitting workload  has increased by almost 9 percent. In total, over the 5-year fiscal period  1999 through 2003, the Service issued more than 28,000 permits for  Convention-protected species, parts, and products (see fig. 6). Over the  same period, the Service denied about 200 permit applications.
As the number of imports and exports has risen, so too has the Service’s  review and inspection workload. In many cases, according to several law  enforcement officials at the Service, only the paperwork (e.g., permits)  accompanying a wildlife shipment is reviewed to ensure compliance with  appropriate wildlife laws, as well as the Convention. Decisions about which  shipments are to be physically inspected are based on factors such as past  experiences with the exporting country, the importer’s or exporter’s record  and reputation, and the type and intended use of the item being shipped.  Over the 5-year fiscal period 1999 through 2003, the Service reviewed  import and export permits for nearly 600,000 wildlife-related shipments, of  which about 170,000 were at least partly composed of items protected  under the Convention (see fig. 7). According to law enforcement officials,  about 25 percent of all shipments are physically inspected.
The difficulty of the permitting and enforcement tasks has increased not  only as a result of the growth and change in Convention membership and  protected species, but also as a result of changes in the nature of trade in  wildlife. In the early days of the Convention, trade was primarily conducted  in whole animals or plants; currently, a significant portion of trade is in  wildlife parts and products. This change is significant because in most  cases it is more difficult to detect and identify parts and products. In  addition, permitting and enforcement tasks are more difficult because of  numerous resolutions and decisions that have added complexity to  provisions governing species’ identification, protection, and packaging.  Some resolutions, for example, have resulted in annotations (i.e.,  footnotes) to the appendixes that are intended to define the scope of a  species’ protection. For example, some annotations may indicate that  specific populations, parts, or products of a species are subject to different  protection levels than are other populations, parts, or products. Another  reason for many annotations (e.g., those about the vicuña) is to minimize  the scope of the Convention’s restriction on trade in a species by focusing  solely on trade resulting from wildlife harvesting methods that are  detrimental to the species. Although resolutions and decisions have  resulted in increased workload for member countries, the modifications  have generally been intended, at least in part, to make the provisions of the  Convention more workable and clear, according to Service officials.
One of the more complex situations, with regard to annotations, is that of  the African elephant. One annotation specifies the conditions under which  elephant hides, live elephants, and ivory may be exported from the  elephant population in Zimbabwe. Another annotation specifies the  conditions under which ivory may be exported from the elephant  populations in Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa (see fig. 8).
The expanded use of such annotations has made it increasingly difficult for  permitting and inspection officials to readily identify which species—and  parts and products thereof—are protected. Thus, inspectors are faced with  the difficult task of ascertaining whether shipments of elephant parts and  products meet all the cited requirements and are indeed from elephants  that came from the country listed on the permit. Service law enforcement  officials told us that inspectors encounter shipments with elephant  products daily and that headquarters frequently sends guidance to  inspectors on how to deal with these shipments and the annotations. A  similarly complex situation arises when annotations provide different  protections for species from wild populations and those that were bred in  captivity or artificially propagated. Such a distinction is often difficult for  inspectors to make. According to Service officials, one of the Convention’s  committees is working on ways to make it easier to identify the source of  protected species.
According to a Service official, taking enforcement actions against illegal  trade is more complex when dealing with high-value commercial species  and products like mahogany and caviar. In some cases, such as for caviar,  the product is perishable, so the Service must ensure that the inspection  process goes quickly, lest the product spoil. In addition, the perishable  nature of some products makes their storage and handling more difficult.  Caviar is a high-value product, and international demand for it is high— caviar from the beluga sturgeon, found in the Caspian Sea, sells for more  than $1,500 per pound on the U.S. retail market. High-value products such  as these can be tempting targets for smugglers. For example, in January  2003, a Russian citizen was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment for  repeated violations of the Convention, including illegally importing into the  United States 44 kilograms of osetra caviar (derived from Russian  sturgeon) without the required permits.
section_title: Criteria for Identifying Species for Protection Are Increasingly Based on Science
paragraphs: Another change in the Convention is that the criteria for identifying species  that need protection have become more science based. In the early years of  the Convention, according to the Secretariat’s Deputy Secretary General, if  a country believed that a species was threatened and proposed its  protection, the membership nearly always approved it—if the species was  specific to that country. If, however, the species existed in other countries  as well, and those countries disagreed with the protection proposal, then  the protection was rarely approved. Over the years, though, the criteria for  identifying a species’ need for protection have become increasingly  rigorous and the associated information requirements more thorough.
Some species in need of protection had been identified long before the  Convention took effect in 1975. A first draft of the Convention appeared in  1964, and in 1969, a list of species in need of protection through trade  regulation was presented at the General Assembly of the World  Conservation Union. As a result, by 1976, when the Convention  membership met for the first time, many species had already been included  in the appendixes. At that first conference of the member countries, held in  Bern, Switzerland, the membership adopted scientific criteria to guide  countries’ listing proposals. These criteria, known as the “Bern criteria,”  required the submission of data such as scientific reports on the population  size or geographic range of the species. After a while, though, the Bern  criteria were considered too general and, in some cases, contributed to  some species’ being included in Convention appendixes with little or no  supporting information. Accordingly, in 1979, the membership made it  possible to delist species that had been included in an appendix without the  normally required population data.
In 1994, the Convention membership adopted standards for specific  biological and statistical criteria to replace the Bern criteria for identifying  species in need of protection. The 1994 criteria provided specific  requirements for including a species in an appendix, deleting a species  from an appendix, or uplisting or downlisting a species (i.e., moving a  species’ listing between appendixes I and II). With the more stringent  criteria provided in 1994, Fish and Wildlife Service and Secretariat officials  believe that the Convention now has a strong science base.
The 1994 criteria also defined key terms and specified the information to be  submitted in support of any proposal. Such support includes information  on  the species’ distribution, habitat, population, and role in the ecosystem;  the nature, intensity, and extent of threats to the species, such as  competitors, pathogens, predators, toxins, and habitat loss;  the purpose and level of use, including trends if possible, as well as   the level and nature of national and international trade, along with the  source of statistics used, such as Customs statistics, Convention annual  report data, and industry reports;  national legislation related to the conservation of the species, the nature  of legal protection, and the effectiveness of this legislation;  measures in place to manage populations of the species in question,  such as captive breeding or artificial propagation, ranching, or quota  systems, including details such as planned harvest rates and planned  population sizes; and  consultation undertaken with, and comments received from, other  countries in which the species exists and any organizations that also  manage the species, such as intergovernmental bodies that act through  international agreements other than the Convention.
In proposing inclusion of the humphead wrasse in appendix II, for example,  the United States submitted the required information for consideration by  the membership at the upcoming conference in Bangkok (see fig. 9).
Although Service and Secretariat officials believe that decisions should be  based on sound science, they also noted that the associated information  gathering and reporting require additional staff and time. For example,  Service staff spend more time collecting and analyzing species-specific  information and responding to requests from the Secretariat for  information on species or trade. Recent requests sought information on  U.S. controls over the elephant ivory trade and information about sturgeon  and the labeling of caviar. Complying with the increasingly rigorous  monitoring and reporting requirements is difficult for all countries but is  especially so for countries that lack the necessary capacity or resources to  accomplish them. Accordingly, the Secretariat assists such countries, to the  extent possible, in preparing their annual trade reports or conducting  population surveys to support proposals for listing or delisting a species.
section_title: Proposals for Protection of Some Species Are Becoming Increasingly Controversial
paragraphs: Although proposals to protect species have generated controversy and  debate in the past, controversy is expected to intensify as some proposals  broaden the reach of the Convention, especially proposals to protect  commercial fish species. In the past decade, extensive debate has occurred  over the appropriate role for the Convention in the regulation of  commercial fisheries. At the heart of the issue is whether the Convention  should regulate trade in marine fish species or whether such species should  be managed by other resource management or oversight organizations,  such as regional fisheries organizations. When a marine fish species is  already under the purview of such an organization, a proposal to manage  its trade under the Convention implies that the other management  structure has failed and could be considered an affront to those involved in  managing the species. In addition, any further trade prohibitions or  restrictions put in place as a result of a species’ listing in appendix I or II of  the Convention could damage local economies that are dependent on trade  in the species. Some commercial fish species have been put under the  protection of the Convention, while proposals for other fish species have  failed to achieve a two-thirds majority support. Opposition to such  proposals generally centered on the belief that fisheries should be managed  by regional or international fisheries organizations rather than by the  Convention.
Sharks: Past attempts to list shark species met with objections and were  rejected based on the argument that regulation of the commercial  fisheries trade should be outside the Convention’s purview. This  argument was instrumental in rejecting, for example, a proposal at the  1997 conference to list the whale shark, which is widely traded for its  meat. In 2002, however, global commitment to finding long-term  conservation solutions for shark fisheries was strengthened by the  member countries’ vote to list in appendix II whale sharks and basking  sharks—the world’s two largest species of fish. The vote was preceded,  however, by an intense debate over whether the Convention was an  appropriate instrument for regulating trade in commercially fished  marine species, even though neither of these shark species was subject  to management by international or regional resource management  organizations.
Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass): Citing  evidence of rapid declines in stocks of the toothfish, Australia proposed  at the 2002 conference of the member countries that the Patagonian  toothfish and Antarctic toothfish be listed in appendix II. However, the  Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources,  which governs South American fishing waters, and several Convention  members, argued that issues concerning marine fisheries resources  should be dealt with under the auspices of the relevant regional fisheries  organization (in this case, the commission), not under the Convention.  After heated debate, Australia withdrew the listing proposal, but the  membership voted to cooperate with the commission to strengthen  controls over international trade in toothfish products and to eliminate  illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
Humphead wrasse: The humphead wrasse was proposed by the United  States to be included in appendix II at the 2002 conference. After  considerable debate, the proposal was rejected by a vote of 65 to 42,  with 5 abstentions. Proponents of the proposal noted that inclusion of  the species in appendix II would help ensure sustainable fisheries  practices. Among the opponents’ arguments were that the Convention  should not be the entity responsible for commercial fish stocks; that the  proposal would be difficult to implement; and that it would not address  destructive fisheries practices, which were the major cause of the  decline in the species. The United States will introduce the proposal  again at the 2004 conference.
The United States’ position in this debate, according to National Marine  Fisheries Service officials, has been to consider the Convention as a useful  adjunct to traditional fisheries management when the species meet the  listing criteria, trade is of concern, and management is lacking or absent.  Most of the marine fish species considered for Convention protection are  not at this time managed by any resource management or oversight  organization. In these cases, Convention protection can make a difference.  For example, according to National Marine Fisheries Service officials, the  inclusion of the queen conch in the Convention’s appendix II, together with  the associated trade regulation and collection of trade data, have caused  the affected member countries to undertake discussions that will likely  lead to regional management of this species.
Clearly decisions about regulating trade in commercial fisheries are  controversial, and sometimes resource management organizations are  offended by the implication that they have failed. Yet the effectiveness of  fisheries management organizations in stemming the decline in various  commercial fish species is questionable, as politics and economics are  often the first considerations in making decisions on species’ management.  Concerns about declines in fish species are sparking many countries to  look to the Convention to regulate trade in some commercial species. As  we reported in February 2004, about one-third of the U.S. fish stocks  assessed by the National Marine Fisheries Service are overfished or are  approaching overfished conditions. This situation threatens the $28 billion  commercial fishing and fishing-related industries that rely on sustainable  catches.
The United States is not alone in facing this problem. According to the  Food and Agriculture Organization, about 28 percent of the world’s major  fish stocks are reported as overexploited, depleted, or recovering from  depletion. Another 47 percent are fully exploited and are producing catches  that have reached, or are very close to, their maximum sustainable limits.  Similarly, a Secretariat official said that numerous species of commercial  fish are being massively depleted by commercial fisheries and, in his  opinion, should be protected under the Convention, including European  cod, bluefin tuna, and the spiny lobster. However, he said, fisheries  organizations can be quite powerful in arguing against Convention attempts  to restrict commercial fisheries. Nevertheless, the Convention has the  authority to examine and place under its protection any species that is  threatened by trade, if a two-thirds majority of the member countries  present at a conference agrees to do so.
Although considerable tension and concern remain over the relationship  between the Convention and regional and international fisheries  organizations, discussions have recently moved toward rapprochement.  For example, the Convention membership and the Food and Agriculture  Organization have agreed to pursue development of a memorandum of  understanding to promote information sharing and collaboration in  deciding the appropriate and necessary management for commercial  fisheries. In addition, at the 2002 conference, Chile introduced a draft  resolution that outlined the main elements of cooperation needed between  the Convention and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic  Marine Living Resources to strengthen the commission’s management of  toothfish. Further, at the 2002 conference, much of the debate about the  individual fish listing proposals centered less on whether it is appropriate  to apply the Convention to protection of marine species and more on  whether the species in question met the listing criteria and what benefits  might accrue from collaboration. Such discussions are useful in light of the  need to resolve concerns about the health of the world’s commercial  fisheries, major fish stocks, and indeed the entire marine ecosystem. As we  reported in February 2004, greater competition for fewer fish increases the  likelihood that stocks will decline further and catches will decrease. If a  fishery cannot be sustained, the marine ecosystem could be transformed,  thus threatening the livelihood of fishermen and the way of life in many  communities.
Other commercial species that may be subject to resource management  organizations, such as timber species, are expected to generate similar  controversy as fear of overexploitation spurs proposals for their  protection. Proposals to protect mahogany and ramin under the  Convention in the early 1990s were met with arguments similar to those  presented for commercial fish species—that other resource organizations  should be responsible for managing them, not the Convention. For  example, arguments against protecting mahogany asserted that the  International Tropical Timber Organization is the appropriate body for  managing the species. Mahogany was, however, approved for listing in  appendix II at the last conference of the member countries. Controversy is  also expected as proposals are introduced for Convention protection of  other marine resources, such as sea cucumbers and pipehorses.
section_title: The United States Has Spent More than $50 Million on Convention- Related Activities Since 1995
paragraphs: The United States spent more than $50 million, or about $6 million  annually, on Convention-related activities from 1995 through 2003; data are  not available for expenditures between 1975—when the Convention  entered into force—and 1995 because Convention activities were not  tracked separately from other species protection programs. The $50 million  spent since 1995 includes about $37 million spent by the Fish and Wildlife  Service on activities aimed at implementing the Convention and about   $13 million spent by the Department of State for voluntary contributions to  help administer the Convention internationally (see fig. 10).
Service activities directed exclusively at implementing the Convention  include coordinating U.S. proposals that will be negotiated at conferences  of the member countries. Preparation for such proposals involves  requesting public input through the Federal Register and coordinating with  other federal agencies that have expertise in certain species. For example,  the Service turns to the National Marine Fisheries Service for advice on  marine species. Another Fish and Wildlife Service activity is issuing permits  for the import, export, and reexport of Convention species. The Service  ensures that each permit contains the information required under the terms  of the Convention, such as the purpose of the import or export (e.g.,  hunting trophies, education, zoos, or commercial), the nature of the  specimens being traded (e.g., live animals, skins, wallets, shoes), and the  source of those specimens (e.g., animals born in captivity, specimens taken  from the wild, specimens originating from a ranching operation). In fiscal  year 2003, the Service allotted 49 full-time-equivalent staff to accomplish  these tasks, among others.
The $37 million spent by the Service does not include funds expended by  the agency for activities, such as enforcement, that not only implement the  Convention, but also serve other purposes. For example, Service wildlife  inspectors review all the declaration paperwork for wildlife shipments,  inspect selected shipments at specified points of entry into the United  States, and investigate cases involving illegal trade. During the review and  inspection process, the inspectors enforce not only the Convention but also  U.S. laws and regulations that regulate the import or export of wildlife,  such as the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,  the Wild Bird Conservation Act, and the Lacey Act. Convention-related  enforcement expenditures cannot be broken out from the Service’s overall  budget of $49 million and 445 full-time-equivalent staff for law enforcement  activities in 2003. Figure 11 shows a wildlife inspector at work.
The $13 million spent by the Department of State was provided to the  Convention’s trust fund, as part of the United States’ voluntary  contributions to the Convention. In 2003, the U.S. contribution was about  $1 million. This amount was more than any other country contributed and  made up about 22 percent of the total contribution of the membership in  2003. Other top contributors were Japan, 20 percent; Germany, 10 percent;  France, 6 percent; and the United Kingdom, 6 percent.
Not included in the $13 million contributed to the Convention by the  Department of State are the funds the department has provided to the  National Marine Fisheries Service over the past 3 years to support  scientific, technological, or environmental initiatives for Convention  members addressing newly protected species. For example, the  department provided $130,000 to the National Marine Fisheries Service to  conduct, among other things, a technical workshop on seahorse  conservation in Mexico in February 2004. All seahorses came under  Convention protection in May 2004. As noted previously, the National  Marine Fisheries Service also advises the Fish and Wildlife Service on  decisions about marine species. The National Marine Fisheries Service sets  aside about $100,000 per year from its appropriations for general activities  to help implement the Convention.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also expends funds and technical assistance  for activities that are not intended to implement the Convention but  nevertheless help protect Convention-protected species. For example, the  Service spent nearly $4 million and utilized 14 full-time-equivalent staff in  2003 for international conservation efforts. It spent an additional $4.4  million to support acts such as the African Elephant Conservation Act, the  Asian Elephant Conservation Act, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation  Act, and the Great Ape Conservation Act. These funds are separate from  the funds appropriated for implementation of the Convention or the  Endangered Species Act.
section_title: The Convention and U.S. Laws Identify Protected Species Differently and Allow Different Uses
paragraphs: The Convention and U.S. laws share a common goal of protecting species,  but they extend protection based on different criteria that reflect different  underlying purposes. The purpose of the Convention is to protect species  endangered by international trade, while the purpose of the Endangered  Species Act is to protect species and their habitats that are threatened or  endangered for any reason. The level of protection for a species dictates  the allowable uses of that species, and uses allowed by the Convention  sometimes differ from uses allowed by domestic laws. For example, U.S.  laws sometimes afford stricter protections to species than the Convention  does; as a result, some U.S. interests such as small businesses, aquariums,  individual consumers, and big game hunters cannot participate in activities  allowed by other member countries in accordance with the Convention.  Stricter domestic measures, such as those imposed under the Endangered  Species Act, can also create conflict among countries that are party to the  Convention. There are arguments both for and against stricter domestic  measures, and there is no consensus on how they affect species protection,  member country economies and relations, individual consumers, or the  efficacy of the Convention.
subsections: section_title: The Convention and U.S. Laws Have Different Criteria for Identifying Species for Protection
paragraphs: As previously discussed, the Convention seeks to ensure that international  trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten species’ survival, and the  membership places species in appendix I or II, depending on the risk posed  by trade. Appendix I species are in danger of extinction, in part due to  trade; appendix II species are not now in danger of extinction but may be at  future risk if trade is not controlled. Appendix III is a list of species  included at the request of a member country that already regulates trade in  those species and needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent  unsustainable or illegal exploitation of the species.
The criteria for identifying a species for protection by the Endangered  Species Act are different from those employed by the Convention and  reflect the act’s intent to protect species that are at risk of extinction for  any reason—not just trade—and to conserve their habitats. Under the  Endangered Species Act, a species is eligible for protection if it meets at  least one of five criteria spelled out in the act. These criteria describe  threats to survival such as disease, predation, destruction of habitat, and  overuse. Species are considered either “endangered,” if they are in danger  of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, or  “threatened,” if they are likely to become endangered within the  foreseeable future. While most of the act’s protections apply to species  found in the United States, the act also recognizes foreign species that meet  the requirements for protection. Approximately 1,825 species are currently  protected by the act; of these, about 560 are foreign species. The vast  majority of the foreign species are mammals, birds, and reptiles.
The criterion for protection by the Marine Mammal Protection Act is simply  that a species is a marine mammal. The act seeks to ensure that  populations of all marine mammal species are maintained at their optimum  sustainable population levels, regardless of whether the species are at risk  of extinction. As a result, any marine mammal that is protected by the  Convention is also protected by the act. Marine mammals currently  protected by the Convention include whales, dolphins, manatees, sea  otters, and fur seals.
section_title: The Convention and U.S. Laws Allow Different and Sometimes Conflicting Uses of Protected Species
paragraphs: The Convention allows limited trade of some appendix I species and  requires permits for both import and export (and reexport) of these  species. Permits to use appendix I species may be issued if the intended  use is not primarily for commercial purposes and will not be detrimental to  the survival of the species. For example, permits have been issued for giant  pandas to be exported from China for scientific or research purposes. The  Convention allows broader trade in appendix II species—generally  allowing trade, although monitoring it. For appendix II species, only export  and reexport permits are required and are issued if the species were  legally obtained and, as with appendix I species, only if their intended use  will not be detrimental to the survival of the species. For appendix III  species, the Convention imposes the least stringent requirements. Trade in  these species requires either an export permit showing that they were  legally taken or a certificate proving their origin.
The Endangered Species Act also allows some use of protected species,  which may include trade, but it regulates use more stringently than the  Convention. While the Convention is concerned with regulating trade that  may be detrimental to wild populations of protected species, the  Endangered Species Act goes beyond this standard and seeks to ensure  that trade or any other use of threatened or endangered species contributes  to the conservation of the species in the wild, unless the use is for scientific  purposes or is incidental to an otherwise lawful use. Therefore, trade or  other use of a protected species might not be allowed under the act if the  use does not contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act is even more stringent than the  Endangered Species Act in that its conservation goals and provisions apply  to all marine mammals, regardless of their status. The act allows the use of  marine mammals only for specified purposes, including public display and  scientific research, and requires both import and export permits for trade.  The act also provides certain exemptions for the use of marine mammals  by Alaska Natives.
For a number of species, trade allowed by the Convention is restricted by  the Endangered Species Act. One example is trade in the cheetah, which is  protected as endangered under the act. Although cheetah populations are  protected under appendix I of the Convention, Botswana, Namibia, and  Zimbabwe have established quotas, as allowed by the Convention, for the  export of cheetahs hunted within their countries. However, under the  Endangered Species Act, the Service has not allowed the import of sport- hunted cheetahs because it has not found that current hunting and  management programs enhance the survival of cheetahs. Therefore, U.S.  hunters may travel to those countries to legally hunt and kill cheetahs, but  they may not bring home cheetah trophies such as skins, teeth, or mounted  heads, while citizens of other countries may do so. The Service has,  however, allowed the import of live cheetahs—both captive-bred and wild- caught—when it has determined that their importation and subsequent use  would benefit the species.
Another species for which the United States imposes stricter trade  measures than the Convention is the Asian arowana, also known as the  Asian bonytongue. The arowana is a fresh-water ornamental fish that is  traded around the world and considered by some to bring good luck to its  possessor. Although the species is protected by appendix I of the  Convention, some exporting countries have arowana populations in  Convention-registered captive-breeding programs; these populations are  treated as appendix II species and thus may be traded. However, the  arowana is also protected as an endangered species under the Endangered  Species Act, and the Service has not determined that trade in captive-bred  arowana will contribute to the conservation of the species in the wild. As a  result, U.S. consumers cannot import Asian arowana and, therefore, cannot  participate in some activities allowed under the Convention—activities in  which citizens of other countries may participate.
The Endangered Species Act accommodates Convention-approved trade in  threatened or endangered species when the trade meets the requirements  of section 10 or 4(d) of the act. Section 10 allows the Service to issue  permits for “take” of a protected species, as long as the permitted action  is incidental to carrying out a lawful activity, is intended for scientific  purposes, or can be shown to enhance the survival of the affected species.  Although section 10 of the act is more frequently used than section 4(d)  when foreign species are involved, according to Service officials, the  Service issues section 10 permits for foreign species only for the  enhancement purposes allowed under the act (e.g., scientific research,  conservation, and education); it does not issue section 10 permits for  incidental take of foreign species. The Service has issued numerous section  10 “enhancement” permits for Convention-allowed trade in species that are  protected as threatened or endangered under the act. For example, it has  issued permits for the import of endangered giant pandas, cheetahs, and  Asian elephants for the purpose of scientific research. The Service has not,  however, used section 10 permits for some uses of endangered species,  such as for the import of Asian arowana for display purposes or for the  import of sport-hunted cheetah trophies, because—according to agency  officials—the Service has not been able to show that such activities would  enhance or conserve the species in the wild. The Service proposed a draft  policy in August 2003 on the various circumstances under which the agency  might be able to conclude that uses such as these do enhance the status of  endangered species in the wild and would thus warrant a section 10 permit.  However, the Service received a significant amount of negative comments  on this proposal. In particular, several conservation groups indicated that  allowing trade in endangered species for uses other than display and  scientific purposes is contrary to the historical U.S. philosophy on species  conservation; some groups asserted that killing or capturing wildlife is not  the best way to protect endangered species. The proposal has not been  finalized and is still under deliberation within the Department of the  Interior.
Section 4(d) of the act, which is used less frequently than section 10,  provides another mechanism for allowing Convention-approved trade, but  only for species that are protected as threatened under the act. Section 4(d)  allows the Service to specify circumstances under which use of a  threatened species can occur, including uses that would be prohibited if the  species were endangered. The purpose of a “4(d) rule” is to further the  conservation of the species, in addition to allowing otherwise prohibited  activities to occur. Section 4(d) differs from section 10 in that it allows the  Service to make blanket determinations about allowable uses of species,  rather than requiring case-by-case evaluations of permit applications for  individual uses. The Service has more than 60 “4(d) rules”—about one-third  of which are for foreign species—including one for the use of Nile  crocodile products from certain African countries and one for wool from  live vicuñas from certain South American countries; both of these rules  involve appendix II species in which member countries agreed to allow  limited trade. Most recently, the Service proposed a 4(d) rule for beluga  sturgeon—a species of fish best known for its expensive caviar. In each of  these cases, the Service determined that allowing some commercial trade  in the species would contribute to programs that assist in the conservation  of these species in the wild. For the beluga sturgeon, for example, the 4(d)  rule stipulates that, among other things, countries wishing to export beluga  sturgeon caviar and meat to the United States must submit basin-wide  beluga sturgeon management plans for the Black Sea and Caspian Sea  basins, national regulations that implement the plans, and annual reports  documenting management measures in place and the status of the species.
As illustrated by sections 10 and 4(d), member countries’ domestic laws  may provide greater protection for species than the Convention does.  Article XIV of the Convention explicitly recognizes member countries’  sovereign right to impose such stricter domestic measures. These  measures generally take on one of two main forms. One type imposes  stricter measures on the import, export, hunting, or transport of specific  species, regardless of the agreed-upon protections provided by the  Convention, such as in the cheetah and Asian arowana cases. The other  type imposes more stringent restrictions on the trade, possession, or  transport of protected species, such as requiring import permits for  appendix II or III species. While not enacted with the purpose of restricting  trade in species protected by the Convention, certain protections of the  Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act have that  effect and go beyond the restrictions called for under the Convention.
Other member countries—including both importing and exporting  countries—have also enacted stricter domestic measures. For example, the  European Union, Japan, and Namibia require import permits for trade in  some or all appendix II species. Australia generally bans the export of live  native wildlife species, regardless of whether the species may be traded  under the Convention; and Ecuador and Nigeria have banned all  commercial exports of wild flora and fauna. Costa Rica and Paraguay  prohibit all international trade in wildlife.
section_title: Merits of Stricter Domestic Measures Are Hotly Debated
paragraphs: Stricter domestic measures can create heated conflict within and among  member countries. Although there are arguments both for and against  stricter domestic measures, there is no consensus on how these measures  affect species protection, member country economies and relations,  individual consumers, or the efficacy of the Convention. The following  arguments represent the opinions of a variety of individuals at U.S. and  international trade organizations, government agencies, nongovernmental  organizations, and private businesses. We are presenting the opinions as  presented to us; we did not verify the accuracy of the assertions.
subsections: section_title: Arguments Supporting Stricter Domestic Measures
paragraphs: Those who support stricter domestic measures generally argue that they  are necessary to protect species, for several reasons:  Stricter domestic measures can help draw attention to tragically  endangered species. For example, U.S. bans on trade in rhinoceros and  tigers have aided those species by increasing worldwide awareness of  their danger of extinction. U.S. decisions to provide additional  protection for species can influence other countries to do the same.
Stricter domestic measures allow countries to protect species without  delay. Because the member countries to the Convention meet only every  few years, species in danger of extinction may be harmed beyond  recovery before the members meet to consider the species for  protection. Domestic measures can provide critical interim protection.
Stricter domestic measures facilitate enforcement in member countries.
In the United States, for example, if the mere possession of a protected  species is illegal under the Endangered Species Act, then U.S. law  enforcement officials can prosecute the violator. Otherwise,  enforcement officials would have to show that the species had been  illegally imported, which, according to some officials we spoke with, is  difficult to prove.
Stricter domestic measures allow major consumer countries to leverage  greater species protection efforts from other countries. For example, by  requiring import permits for appendix II species (for which the  Convention requires only export permits), a country can control the  conditions under which it will import protected species. For example,  the European Union requires import permits for appendix II species.  This extra step allows the European Union to help ensure the  sustainable management of species in the exporting countries.
Stricter domestic measures allow countries to protect species for  reasons beyond the scope of the Convention. For example, the  Endangered Species Act protects species at risk of extinction for any  reason—not just trade—and conserves their habitats. By itself the  Convention cannot prevent the extinction of some species, let alone  further their recovery, because they may suffer from threats other than  those posed by trade.
Supporters of stricter domestic measures also argue that they allow  countries to prioritize species protection goals:   Stricter domestic measures provide a mechanism by which countries  can display their philosophy regarding species protection. For example,  the United States has chosen a precautionary approach in implementing  its own Endangered Species Act, as indicated in the act’s legislative  history. Given the potential benefits of some species to the human race,  such as offering possible cures for cancer, we should be careful to  protect the continued existence of species, according to the House  report associated with the act. A cautious approach is also reflected in  the act’s extension of protections to not only species that are  endangered, but also those that are at risk of becoming endangered.
Stricter domestic measures can help focus attention on recovery of wild  populations. As previously discussed, some trade in appendix I species  is allowed if the intended use is not detrimental to the species’ survival.  In the Asian arowana example, captive breeding is the reason the  species is not threatened with extinction due to trade. However, captive  breeding does nothing to help the declining wild population. Enacting a  stricter domestic measure that requires documentation that some  proceeds from the sale of captive-bred species are funneled into  conservation could aid in species recovery.
section_title: Arguments Opposing Stricter Domestic Measures
paragraphs: Opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they can actually harm  species:  Stricter domestic measures can discourage developing countries from  establishing programs to fund species conservation. Governments in  exporting countries that benefit from trade in protected species have a  vested interest in maintaining those species’ survival. If a major  consumer country, like the United States, enacts a stricter domestic  measure preventing U.S. trade in a species, the incentive for the  exporting country to conserve the species may diminish. Loss of  revenues from trade may also decrease a country’s ability to fund  enforcement efforts, such as those addressing poaching.
If stricter domestic measures diminish trade in a protected species,  funding for existing conservation programs can decrease. Some  countries have programs that take a percentage of proceeds from the  sale of protected species and channel the funds into species  conservation. For example, the export of giant pandas, an appendix I  species, has generated $11 million for panda conservation projects in  China. Similarly, sport hunting of Namibian cheetahs generates revenue  for cheetah conservation. If China or Namibia were to implement a  stricter domestic measure barring the export of pandas or cheetahs, or if  a country that currently imports these species were to implement a  measure to prevent future imports, then the trade-based conservation  revenue for these species could decrease or even cease.
Another argument against stricter domestic measures is that they can harm  foreign economies and consumer interests:   Stricter domestic measures can affect the economy of an exporting  country, particularly if export of a protected species is a major source of  income, and can restrict the ability of an exporting country to benefit  from its natural resources.
Stricter domestic measures prevent some users from participating in  activities that are allowed by the Convention. In the Asian arowana and  cheetah examples, U.S. consumers and big game hunters are prohibited  from engaging in activities permitted by other member countries, in  accordance with the Convention—as noted previously, the United States  is the largest consumer of wildlife and wildlife products.
Stricter domestic measures may act as trade barriers against the  exporting country. Countries that are also members of the World Trade  Organization may choose to resolve such issues through it rather than  continue to work within the Convention. To date, however, no such  resolution has been sought.
Some opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they provide  little benefit to the species:   Stricter domestic measures provided under the Endangered Species Act  do little for foreign species because the Service cannot regulate “take”  or habitat destruction in foreign countries, nor does the Service develop  recovery plans for species that do not occur in the United States.
Finally, opponents of stricter domestic measures argue that they run  counter to the spirit of the Convention:  Some member countries believe that stricter domestic measures,  although in accordance with the Convention, undermine the multilateral  goals the Convention espouses. The Convention is based on a  collaborative decision-making process; when one country contravenes a  decision made by the majority by disallowing trade that is allowed by  the Convention, that action undermines confidence in the majority’s  decisions. For example, countries in southern Africa are outspoken in  arguing that the unilateralism represented by stricter domestic  measures is inappropriate in a multilateral agreement like the  Convention.
Stricter domestic measures foster discord among the Convention’s  member countries. Some member countries resent it when major  consumer countries (e.g., the United States) use stricter domestic  measures because doing so implies that those countries believe they  know how to manage a species better than the exporting countries and  Convention membership.
We heard support for and against stricter domestic measures under the  Endangered Species Act but not under the Marine Mammal Protection Act,  even though the Convention allows some trade in marine mammals (that  would otherwise be prohibited under the Marine Mammal Protection Act).  Some officials we interviewed speculated that the act’s provisions generate  fewer concerns because there is not a large demand for trade in marine  mammals in the United States.
The use of stricter domestic measures reflects the varying philosophies  around the world on species protection and stimulates intense and often  emotional debate among and within countries. At the last conference of the  member countries, for example, wide-ranging views were expressed over a  suggestion that the Convention be modified to encourage countries to  avoid the use of stricter domestic measures. In addition, concerns have  been expressed within the United States about a potential change in the  country’s policy on international species protections. The United States has  historically taken a precautionary approach to species protection, although  recent actions, such as voting in support of allowing limited trade in  African ivory, have raised concerns among conservation groups that these  actions indicate a change in that approach.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild  Fauna and Flora has changed significantly since its inception in the early  1970s—in size, complexity, and the number and type of species it protects.  With these changes have come an increase in member countries’ workload  pertaining to permitting, enforcement, and reporting. Further, protections  called for under the Convention have become more controversial, with  some countries proposing the protection of commercial species that other  countries believe should be managed by organizations or agreements other  than the Convention. Accordingly, it appears that implementing the  Convention will entail a continuing commitment of resources and that  debating the merits of its application to commercial species will continue  to spark international and organizational flashpoints in establishing an  appropriate relationship between the Convention and other resource  management organizations.
Stricter domestic measures elicit intense opinions and debate. Given the  United States’ strong laws and historically aggressive protection of  vulnerable species, it has received criticism from the Convention’s member  countries, as well as from some of its own citizens and businesses, when it  goes beyond the protections to which the Convention member countries  have agreed, while at the same time it hears concerns about any potential  relaxing of protections afforded species under current laws. Whether the  United States continues with its preference, as articulated in current law, to  provide stricter protections for Convention-protected species or changes  its approach in deference to Convention agreements, either approach will  be met with a mixture of concern and support. Making decisions about how  to properly manage species both at home and abroad will continue to be  challenging, particularly given the pressure to continue managing species  with a precautionary approach.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration provided written comments on a draft of this report. (See  app. I and II for the full text of these comments.) The Department of the  Interior said that it appreciated the spirit of the report in examining issues  that can help it improve the implementation of the Convention. The  department agreed that the complexity of work for port inspectors and law  enforcement personnel has increased along with increases in the number  and types of species, parts, and products protected under the Convention.  The department noted, however, that Convention members, with strong  U.S. support, have made a concerted effort over the last decade to mitigate  the effects associated with the complexity of the Convention by creating a  streamlined set of resolutions and decision documents as well as  developing practical processes for implementation. The member countries,  in considering actions to be taken, have also been mindful of the need to  reduce the administrative and implementation burden on the members.
The department also agreed that new issues have brought new areas of  controversy for consideration by the Convention membership but noted  that controversy has accompanied every phase of the Convention’s  evolution. The department was concerned, however, that the report  appears to highlight the negative and understate the positive effects of the  Convention. For example, the department was concerned that the “Results  in Brief” emphasizes the negative aspect of controversy and implies that  the Convention may be inappropriately duplicating the work of other  agreements. According to the department, an important impetus for the  Convention’s involvement in species protection is the continuing  deterioration of the status of the various species in question and the failure  of other institutions and organizations to deal with the deterioration  effectively. Also, the department was concerned that our discussion of  increased complexity portrays it as a negative aspect of the Convention,  when in the department’s view, the growth in the number of parties and  listings reflects widespread support for the Convention and is a positive  trend to which complexity is a side effect. We did not intend to portray the  increased controversy or complexity associated with the Convention as  either negative or positive, but rather as descriptive characterizations of  the Convention’s evolution. We also did not intend to imply that the  Convention duplicates the work of other agreements. Rather, we intend to  reflect the range of opinions among member countries about the  appropriate role for the Convention in managing some species. We have  changed the report to clarify our discussion and to include the  department’s views.
Regarding our discussion of the Convention’s recent involvement in marine  fisheries, the department noted that the Convention has helped support  other management bodies, such as the International Whaling Commission,  which requested the Convention’s assistance. The department also noted  that the Convention regulates trade, while international fisheries  organizations and agreements regulate harvest; thus, the Convention’s  involvement can as easily be complementary as competitive.
The department stated that the report accurately portrays the range of  views on the use of stricter domestic measures by Convention members,  including the United States. The department noted, however, that the U.S.  “preference” to provide stricter protections is reflected in law and that the  department is required to implement the legislated responsibilities under  its jurisdiction, including the implementation of the Endangered Species  Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as written. We have clarified in  the report that the United States’ “preference” to provide stricter  protections is articulated in current laws.
The department disagreed with the report’s statement that “there is no  clear consensus on the effectiveness of the Convention in conserving  species.” In the department’s view, the Convention is effective and highly  functioning and has a long history of adopting successful measures to  support the conservation and sustainable use of wildlife species in trade. In  the department’s opinion, the effectiveness of the Convention is  demonstrated by the high number of countries who are party to the  Convention, thereby endorsing the Convention’s basic principles, and by  the overall success of the conferences of the member countries in coming  to agreement on very difficult issues concerning species listing and  Convention implementation. Although we appreciate the department’s  view and note that it is shared by others, the department did not provide  information to show that there is consensus among member countries  about the Convention’s effectiveness in conserving species.
Finally, the department viewed our observation that there will be continued  flashpoints between the Convention and other multinational agreements as  too broadly stated, given that our study did not consider the relationship of  the Convention to other multilateral agreements. Although our evaluation  did not compare the Convention with other multilateral agreements, we  stand by our observation. Judging by the controversy and spirited debates  that have been the hallmark of the Convention for a quarter of a century, it  seems clear that these are likely to continue. Nevertheless, our report  recognizes that cooperative efforts are under way to reconcile longstanding  differences of opinion about the Convention’s appropriate role in managing  marine fish species. Additionally, the department notes that the Convention  has formed memoranda of understanding with the Convention on  Migratory Species, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United  Nations Environment Programme.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration commended our  comprehensive look at how the Convention is implemented and how its  regulatory regime differs from domestic laws protecting wildlife species.  The administration agreed that one of the most controversial issues before  the Convention is the regulation of international trade in marine fish  species and noted that, for species under the administration’s jurisdiction,  it has the expertise to participate fully in implementing the Convention.
The administration recommended that we clarify the role of the Food and  Agriculture Organization and the difference between the Convention and  the Endangered Species Act, which we have done. In addition, the  administration recommended that we revise our discussion of the  controversy over regulation of commercial fisheries trade. Specifically, the  administration noted that most of the marine fish species considered for  listing in the Convention appendixes are not managed by any resource  management or oversight organization at this time. We changed the report  to reflect the administration’s comments on this discussion. The  administration also noted that the position of the United States has been to  consider the Convention as a useful adjunct to traditional fisheries  management when the species meet the listing criteria, trade is a concern,  and management is lacking or absent.
In addition to their overall comments, the department and the  administration provided numerous technical and editorial suggestions,  which we appreciate and have incorporated in the report as appropriate.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We conducted our work primarily at the Department of the Interior’s Fish  and Wildlife Service, which is the primary agency responsible for  implementing the Convention. We obtained documents on implementation  of the Convention in the United States and budget data from the Service.  We assessed the reliability of data on shipments inspected and permits  issued and determined that they were acceptable for our purposes. We also  contacted officials at the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration, which advises the Department of the Interior  on marine mammal and fisheries issues. We performed a comparative  analysis of the Convention, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine  Mammal Protection Act, to identify the relationships between them. We  also discussed the Convention and acts with numerous federal and  nonfederal officials involved in international trade and species protection,  including officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine  Fisheries Service, industry groups, and conservation groups; and an  individual business owner. We also obtained documents on implementation  of the Convention and the upcoming conference from the office of the  Secretariat for the Convention in Geneva, Switzerland. We conducted our  work from March 2004 through August 2004 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 8 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send a copy of the report to the  Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce and to appropriate congressional  committees. We will make copies available to others on request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-3841 or my Assistant Director, Trish McClure, at (202) 512- 6318. Other key contributors to this report were Claire Cyrnak, Cynthia  Norris, Michelle K. Treistman, and Pamela Tumler.
section_title: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and  investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its  constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and  accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO  examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;  and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost  is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs