Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
The Convention on International Trade
|
| Appendix I | Appendix II | Appendix III | |
| IMPORT to United States | 1) original foreign export permit or re-export
certificate 2) original U.S. import permit |
1)original foreign export permit or re-export certificate | 1)original foreign export permit or re-export certificate, or Certificate of Origin |
| EXPORT/RE-EXPORT out of United States | 1) original U.S. export permit or re-export
certificate 2) copy of foreign import permit (if specimen is being re-exported) |
1) original U.S. export permit or re-export certificate | 1) original U.S. Certificate of Origin or re-export certificate |
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish & Wildlife Facts. 1993.
In certain situations, Certificates of Exemption may be issued, rather than permits. Certificates of Exemption are issued for pre-convention specimens or for species that are part of scientific exchanges. Pre-convention specimens are those specimens acquired before the Convention's application to the species. Scientific exchange is the non-commercial exchange of specimens between registered scientific institutions. Management Authorities may waive the permit or certificate requirement for specimens that are part of a traveling zoo, circus, plant exhibition, or other traveling exhibition.
Under CITES, species are listed in Appendices I, II, or III. Any species, subspecies, or geographically separate population can be listed. Article II of the treaty provides conditions under which species are to be included in each appendix. It states:
Appendix I shall include all species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade in specimens of these species must be subject to particularly strict regulation in order not to endanger further their survival and must only be authorized in exceptional circumstances.
Circumstances under which these species may be traded include: scientific exchange, breeding, or for educational programs. For example, trade in the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) might be permitted for captive breeding purposes, provided that the survival of the species would not be threatened by the trade.
Article II defines Appendix II species to include:
(a) all species which although not necessarily now threatened with extinction may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is subject to strict regulation in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival; and
(b) other species which must be subject to regulation in order that trade in specimens of certain species referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph may be brought under effective control.
Trade in Appendix II species is less restrictive than trade in species listed under Appendix I, and exchange is permitted for commercial purposes. For example, until 1989, when the African elephant was moved from Appendix II to Appendix I, African elephant products were traded fairly freely on the international market.
To list a species under Appendices I or II, information is required on population size, geographic range, habitat destruction, trade, or other possible conditions that could severely reduce its population or lead to extinction. In certain cases, CITES treats individuals or parts of Appendix I species as Appendix II species if they have been bred in captivity or artificially propagated.
Article II also states:
Appendix III shall include all species which any Party identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation, and as needing the cooperation of other parties in the control of trade.
It is important to note that while inclusion in Appendices I and II requires a vote of the Parties, inclusion in Appendix III does not. (See section below on Conference of the Parties.)
While listing a species may appear demanding, "down-listing" (either removing a species from the Appendices or moving it from Appendix I to Appendix II) is also difficult. A resolution adopted at the first CITES Conference of the Parties in 1976 provides that a species may be down-listed under one of two conditions:
(1) either the population has recovered sufficiently so that either protection under CITES is no longer necessary or less stringent trade restrictions would suffice, or
(2) the original data were incorrect and the species should never have been listed.
CITES has generally been cautious about down-listing species and it requires convincing scientific evidence before doing so. This evidence may include studies on population and analyses of the possibility for commercial trade and of its imports.
The administration of CITES is divided into the Secretariat, the Management and Scientific Authorities, and the Conference of the Parties. Originally the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took financial responsibility for administration of the treaty, but as CITES grew, the need for self-sufficiency became apparent. Eventually a Trust Fund was established, and CITES signatories may contribute to it. The Fund is still managed by UNEP.
The Secretariat, now located in Geneva, Switzerland encompasses the administrative staff of CITES as a whole, and is headed by a Secretary-General. Though the Secretary-General is hired through UNEP, he/she cannot be hired or fired without agreement of the Parties.
The Secretariat has a broad range of duties. It organizes meetings of the Parties, prepares reports for those meetings, publishes annual reports on the work and accomplishments of the Convention, and contracts for scientific and technical studies to aid CITES' implementation. The Secretariat is also responsible for directing the attention of the Parties to issues that may affect implementation, printing up-to-date editions of the Appendices, studying Party reports, making recommendations to members, and performing other duties that may be assigned to it by the Parties.
Management and Scientific Authorities
The Management Authorities have been assigned the responsibility for granting or denying CITES permits. Parties have developed their Management Authorities along different lines. For example, some countries have divided responsibilities on the basis of the type of documentation needed, and other countries on whether the specimen being traded is plant or animal. Qualifications for granting or denying a permit vary according to the Appendix. In general, the Management Authority must determine that:
(1) the specimen was not obtained through the violation of any domestic laws,
(2) a living specimen will be prepared and shipped in a manner not detrimental to its health or welfare,
(3) an import permit has been granted for Appendix I species before an export permit can be granted, and
(4) import of specimens on Appendix I is not primarily for commercial purposes.
(5) the necessary advice from the Scientific Authority has been issued.
Management Authorities are also responsible for confiscated live specimens (plants and animals). The specimens are to be sent to the State of origin, a rescue center, or some other suitable site, such as a zoo. Furthermore, to help prevent forgery of documents, Management Authorities must supply copies of stamps, seals, etc. used on its permits to any Party that requests a copy.
The Scientific Authorities advise the Management Authorities about whether trade will endanger a species' survival. Management Authorities may not issue an import or export permit without first obtaining this information. In addition, the Scientific Authorities advise whether the person or entity receiving the specimen will be able to care for it properly. The Scientific Authorities also recommend to the Management Authorities measures to limit issuance of permits to avoid listing specimens on Appendix I. Advice is to be based on information on the population status, distribution, harvest, population trends, other ecological or biological information, and the possibility for trade. The Scientific Authorities are further directed to review the qualifications of scientific organizations pursuing registration for scientific exchanges.
CITES requires that a COP convene once every two years, unless more or less frequent Conferences are agreed upon by the Parties. At these Conferences, the Parties are to evaluate the implementation of CITES and make necessary financial provisions to enable the Secretariat to perform its duties. The Parties also deliberate and adopt amendments to the Appendices, review the recovery and conservation of listed species, review and consider reports presented by the Secretariat or any Party, and make recommendations for improving CITES implementation .
Attendance of the Conference of the Parties is not limited to Party members. There is an open invitation for the United Nations, its specialized agencies, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and non-member States to attend. Also, any international or national body (governmental or not), that is "technically qualified in protection, conservation or management of wild fauna and flora" may send observers.(3) The latter must obtain approval from their Management Authority and notify the Secretariat of intent to attend a Conference and may be excluded from attendance if one-third of the Parties protest a certain organization's presence. While all present may participate, only Party nations can vote.
There have been eight COPs since the Convention convened in 1973. The next is scheduled in the United States from November 7-18, 1994. (See Table 2.)
Table 2. Conferences of the Parties
| COP | Site | Date |
| COP1 COP2 COP3 COP4 COP5 COP6 COP7 COP8 COP9 |
Berne, Switzerland San Jose, Costa Rica New Delhi, India Gaborone, Botswana Buenos Aires, Argentina Ottawa, Canada Lausanne, Switzerland Kyoto, Japan Fort Lauderdale, Florida |
November 1976 March 1979 February 1981 April 1983 April 1985 July 1987 October 1989 March 1992 November 1994 |
The eighth COP was in Kyoto, Japan, in March 1992. It was attended by 101 Party nations, 5 non-party nations, UNEP, the European Economic Community, and 155 other international and national organizations. At the Conference, 23 resolutions were adopted, and the foremost topics were the wild bird trade, bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), and the African elephant (Lozodonta afrzeana). Conflicting views over criteria to decide on proposed listings, up-listings, down-listings, or de-listings were al so expressed.
Under CITES, living specimens are required to be shipped so as to minimize harm or injury to health, but there has been a continuing high mortality of some species, particularly birds, since the inception of CITES. The Parties agreed to seek information to minimize mortality and to submit records of mortalities for shipments of birds.
Sweden had proposed listing the bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic on Appendix II and those in the Western Atlantic on Appendix I. The United States opposed this proposal on the grounds that decreases in tuna fishing quotas and improvements in documentation of trade by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas would sufficiently promote the bluefin's recovery. Sweden eventually withdrew its proposal.
One proposal was submitted by Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. These five nations proposed to down-list their African Elephant populations from Appendix I to Appendix II. At COP7, all African elephants had been placed on Appendix I due to poaching for ivory. In Kyoto, the Parties agreed to leave all populations on Appendix I. As a result of the rejection, these African nations chose to take a reservation. The five nations will be permitted to trade African elephant products only with either non-party nations or with other nations that have taken a reservation on the African elephant, of which there are none outside of Africa. As of August 1993, the reservations were still in place. The practical benefit of these reservations to the five nations is speculative since the major markets for ivory products are outside their boundaries.
Over the years, the Parties agreed that achieving CITES' goals required more than biennial meetings. Several Committees were created that meet more frequently. Five permanent committees exist: the Standing Committee, the Plant Committee, the Animal Committee, the Nomenclature Committee, and the Identification Committee.
The Standing Committee focuses on budget, administrative, and internal affairs, and is composed of six representatives (as elected by their respective regions), a representative from the depository government (Switzerland), and delegates from the host countries of the previous and upcoming COPs. The Plant and Animal Committees, each having six regional representatives, advise the COPs on plant and animal issues respectively, review Appendix II species trade data, and reassess the condition of listed species to determine if continued protection is warranted. Membership in the Nomenclature and Identification Committees is voluntary, and for each, a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson are elected. The Nomenclature Committee concentrates on developing and maintaining standardized nomenclature for all listed species. The Identification Committee gathers information to assist in identification of specimens and parts for customs officials.
Under Article VIII, Party nations agree to engage in a number of enforcement activities. Each Party is to establish legislation implementing CITES, including penalizing trade activities that violate the provisions of the treaty. Parties are also required to confiscate specimens (living or dead) which are being illegally traded. If the specimens are living, Management Authorities are responsible for their care, by sending them either to the State of origin or to some other suitable site for their care. Dead specimens may be sent to museums or to facilities that train enforcement officers in identification. Seized Appendix I specimens may not be put into commercial trade.
Under CITES each Party is to compile and submit a detailed annual record of exports and imports of listed species. Parties are further required to produce biennial reports on the regulatory, administrative, and legislative actions they have taken to enforce CITES.
The treaty also suggests Party nations specify special ports of exit and entry for all animal and plant specimens that pass through the nation. While few nations have actually implemented this recommendation, evidence from Party nations that have suggests it has been beneficial in curbing illegal trade. The United States has designated 13 ports: Baltimore, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, Chicago, Miami, Portland (OR), Dallas/Ft. Worth, New Orleans, San Francisco, Honolulu, New York/JFK, Seattle, and Boston. Additional ports for plants have also been designated, some specifically for ginseng, orchids, and timbers.
In the United States, the FWS Division of Law Enforcement, the Customs Service, and APHIS (for plants only) are responsible for enforcement.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) implements CITES in the United States. While there are similarities between CITES and the ESA, there are important differences. They are similar in that listed species are divided into groups based on relative threat of extinction to the species. CITES has three Appendices, while the ESA has two lists: endangered and threatened. However, CITES and the ESA differ in protective measures. CITES focuses only on regulating international trade, while the ESA considers additional threats, such as habitat loss. The standards for listing under CITES and the ESA also differ substantially. (See Article II of the treaty and section 4(a) of the ESA. The difference between a "threatened" listing and Appendix II status is particularly notable.)
Although there is no legal requirement connecting listing under CITES and the ESA, the lists overlap considerably among certain animal taxa. Even species listed under CITES but not under the ESA, such as the Northern Goshawk (Accipitergentilis) are protected in the United States to the extent that they are traded across U.S. borders. Many foreign species are listed under CITES Appendix I, but due to other pressing matters have not yet been subject to an ESA status review for possible listing under U.S. law.
IMPLEMENTATION: SUCCESSES AND PROBLEMS
CITES is one of the world's most widely accepted international treaties with 122 signatories. (See Appendix A for a list of signatories.) Many believe it has notably increased monitoring and control of animal and plant trade (estimated at over $5 billion a year) and awareness of the impact of international trade on wild populations.(4) Furthermore, many Parties recognize that continued trade in species depends on preventing over-exploitation. While it seems certain that many species would be in a worse state without CITES' protection, it is extremely difficult to point to the treaty and identify it as the sole reason for a species' continued existence. Some species may benefit from the attention and funding through inclusion in CITES. One success story is the stabilization of African elephant populations. The population began to level at approximately 600,000 in 1989, after falling from 1.2 million in 1979. The 1989 decision by Party nations to ban all trade in African elephant ivory and hides has been credited with helping populations recover.
Difficulties with Implementation
While implementation of CITES has been successful in some respects, numerous obstacles and problems with the treaty have been noted. First, while Parties are obligated to establish Management and Scientific Authorities, many of the developing countries have had difficulty in staffing, training, and equipping these Authorities. Some Parties have yet to designate a Scientific Authority, and the Scientific Authorities in many countries lack independence. Even under good administration, obtaining the necessary biological information (some of the information needed to justify granting or denying a permit), such as population levels, can be impractical or even impossible.
Another serious problem is the ease with which shipments of legal and illegal specimens can be confused. Even the most highly qualified enforcement officers may have trouble distinguishing among similar specimens, especially in the form of handbags, wallets, shoes, etc. It is particularly easy to confuse legal and illegal shipments of reptile products. An estimated 30 percent of the total value of international animal trade is composed of illegally traded species.(5)
Many believe the mild penalties for violations are also an implementation obstacle. CITES does not provide any guidance on the level of penalties to impose, so there is substantial variation in how Parties penalize. In many countries the penalties are either nonexistent or so low that they may not even affect the illegal trader. However, confiscation, which is required under the treaty, can be a significant penalty.
Some feel that simply listing species on the Appendices may be counterproductive. Listing can be an advertisement for rarity and may actually increase trade. When two orchid genera, Asian tropical lady's slippers (Paphiopedilum spp.) and New World tropical lady's slippers (Phragmipedium spa.), were listed, interest and demand for the species actually increased. A similar phenomenon has been noted under the ESA, where the listing of certain cactus species, for example, has increased demand for those species.
Another dilemma concerns reports that are to be submitted by Parties. These reports are often late, incomplete, in the wrong format, or not submitted at all. Reasons for these problems range from difficulty in getting the data from customs to a lack of technical, financial, legislative, or administrative support, especially in developing countries. As a result, it is difficult for nations to establish the effect of trade on the status of a species.
Many critics believe a major threat to effective implementation of CITES is the ability of a Party to take a "reservation." Taking a reservation permits a Party to exempt itself from the CITES requirements in regard to species the Party objects to having listed on the Appendices. Once a Party has taken a reservation, it is treated as a non-party nation for the purpose of trade in that species. Therefore, a Party that takes a reservation on a species may trade that species with non-party nations or with other Parties taking a reservation on the same species. Though reservations must be taken when the Party accedes to the Convention or immediately after amendments to the Appendices have been adopted, they may be withdrawn at any time. It is possible for trade in certain species to continue practically unregulated, and become threatening to the species' survival. For example, if the Republic of Korea, which has taken a reservation on all bears listed under Appendix II, continues to trade in bear parts with non-parties, such as Taiwan, bear populations around the world could be threatened, especially if such trade is used as a cover for illegal trade. Supporters of the reservation provisions in CITES counter that a country's only alternative to a reservation would otherwise be dropping out of CITES entirely, and thereby possibly failing to protect or monitor any listed species.
Finally, and most broadly, many observers note the general lack of will in some nations to enforce CITES. There may be inadequate scrutiny of permits, acceptance of bribes, failure to fund adequate staffing, and a host of other problems. CITES has devoted relatively little attention to this problem, and the past COPs have considered the issue only sporadically. It generally arises only when it reaches high levels in a particular species. (See discussion of People's Republic of China and Taiwan certifications, below.)
Issues Not Covered by the Treaty
Complicating the issue of CITES' success is the lack of provisions in CITES to apply mandatory sanctions against a member who is failing to comply with the treaty. However, the Conference of the Parties and the Standing Committee have recommended sanctions on a number of occasions. These have usually been implemented by a small number of Parties.
The United States, for example, currently enforces a ban on Thai animal product imports. In the past, the United States has certified nations under authority of the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1978 (a)(4)). Certification results when the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce finds that nationals of a foreign nation are engaging in activities that diminish the effectiveness of an international program designed to protect endangered species. Certification can lead to a U.S. embargo on trade in certain animal products from that country. In the past, certification has always been enough to bring dissenting countries into line with international conservation efforts; an actual embargo has never been necessary.(6)
Certification was used most recently when the Secretary of the Interior certified the People's Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan in September 1993 for their continuing trade in rhino and tiger products. While the PRC is a signatory of CITES, Taiwan is not. In April 1994, the President announced his decision to impose trade sanctions against Taiwan, but not the PRC. Some observers felt his decision to forego trade sanctions against the PRC was based more on a hope of maintaining cooperation both on human rights and on U.S. efforts to persuade North Korea to open its nuclear facilities to international inspection than on Chinese animal protection efforts. On August 9, 1994, the Presidential memorandum announcing the implementation of the ban against Taiwan was published in the Federal Register (59 CFR 40463). Import restrictions are imposed on such products as reptile leather shoes, handbags, and other reptile leather products; live goldfish and tropical fish for the aquarium trade; bird feathers, down, and specimens; and jewelry made from coral, bone, and mussel shells. The ban, which was to have entered into force on August 19, 1994, will remain in effect until Taiwan makes "sufficient progress" in curbing illegal trade in tiger and rhino parts. (See CRS Reports 94-505 and 94-560 for further information on rhinos and tigers, respectively.)
In 1980, Japan signed CITES and at that time took reservations on several species of sea turtles. Japan continued rather high volumes of trade in sea turtle products and eventually was found to have been trading with countries that have export bans on sea turtle products. This meant that Japan was interfering with international and domestic efforts to save the sea turtles. As a result, Japan was certified by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce in March 1991. Japan announced in June 1991 that it would begin to reduce imports of the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), one of the species on which Japan had taken a reservation, and by December 31, 1992, it apparently stopped all sea turtle imports. As a result, trade sanctions were never imposed.
Another commonly cited problem is the lack of internal regulation in the treaty. CITES is only concerned with international trade and its effect on species. It makes no requirement for countries to address internal problems, such as habitat loss, which may often be a greater threat to a species than international trade. Moreover, CITES fails to address domestic trade, which may also be very threatening to a species' survival.
The ninth Conference of the Parties meeting is scheduled to take place November 7-18, 1994, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The United States has submitted its proposed resolutions and amendments to the Appendices. Proposed resolutions include new criteria for amending the Appendices and standardizing nomenclature. Proposed amendments to the Appendices include changing the Mongolian population of saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica) from Appendix II to Appendix I; adding all other populations of saiga antelope to Appendix II; including all species of tarantulas (Brachypelma spp.) in Appendix II; and including all North American box turtles (Terrapene spp.) on Appendix II, except for the aquatic box turtle (T. coahuila), which is already on Appendix I. The transfer of Urial sheep (Ovis vignei), except Ovis vignei vignei, from Appendix I to Appendix II will also be considered. The United States has also proposed discussing trade in whale and shark products.
As of July 20, 1994, 40 U.S. organizations have been granted approval to attend COP9. Included in this list is the African Wildlife Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthtrust, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Rifle Association of America, and World Wildlife Fund.
While the Secretariat has not yet received all proposals by the Parties, many have been submitted. For example, Ghana has submitted a resolution to establish a formal law enforcement consultation network to operate between COPs. The United Kingdom also offered a resolution to improve future law enforcement communications. Proposals from other Parties to amend the Appendices include three proposals to list "mahoganies" in Appendix II (submitted by Germany and the Netherlands). South Africa has proposed down-listing its population of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) from Appendix I to Appendix II, and the Sudan offered a similar proposal for its African elephant population.
APPENDIX A: List of Party Countries to
CITES
(As of 5/15/94)(7)
| Parties (Date of Entry) Afghanistan (1/28/86) |
| APHIS U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COP Conference of the Parties ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources NMFS U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service OMA Office of Management Authority OSA Office of Scientific Authority PRC People's Republic of China UNEP United Nations Environment Programme |
Endnotes
1. Under the supervision of M. Lynne Corn, Cynthia Mareum, B.Sc. candidate at Bowling Green State University, researched and contributed to this report.
2. Article X of the treaty states: "Where export or re-export is to, or import is from, a State not a party to the present Convention, comparable documentation issued by the competent authorities in that State which substantially conforms with the requirements of the present Convention for permits and certificates may be accepted in lieu thereof by any Party."
3. Article XI, section 7.
4. Balistrieri, Carlo. "CITES: The ESA and International Trade," Natural Resources & Environment, Summer 1993: 33-35, 74-76.
5. Misch, Ann "Can Wildlife Traffic Be Stopped?" World Watch, Sept.-Oct. 1992: p. 26-33.
6. The use of certification and other international trade restrictions is controversial, and has been attacked by some as a violation of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT). For a discussion of this issue, see CRS Rept. 91-666, Tuna and the GATT.
7. List obtained from the Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. There were 122 signatories as of August 10, 1994. Mali, in West Africa, is expected to become a Party shortly.
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |