|
|
CONVENTION ON
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES |
|
|
|
OF WILD FAUNA AND
FLORA |
|
|
Dr J.A. Armstrong Deputy
Secretary General Telephone: (+41-22) 9178127 Confid. Fax:
(+41-22) 9178061 Mobile:
(+41) 79 4770805 E-mail: jim.armstrong@unep.ch |
TO: Roddy Gabel
Chief, Office
of the scientific Authority,
United States Fish
and Wildlife Service
DATE:
27 September, 2004
SUBJECT: Proposed Sturgeon Rule
_______________________________________________________________________
Dear Dr
GabelRoddy
Thank you for inviting the CITES Secretariat to comment on the proposed
Rule.
The Secretariat
supports all initiatives to enhance the conservation of species whose trade is
regulated by CITES. However, in the light of the
more comprehensive, multilateral CITES measures currently in place to regulate
the trade in Huso huso and all other sturgeon species, originating from any
shared population, the proposed rule appears unnecessary and
duplicative.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) argues that its
intention with the new Rule is to ‘build upon’ the CITES process. If this were so, we would welcome the U.S.
support for the CITES sturgeon programme that the Secretariat is now required
to manage. However, the Secretariat
believes that the new proposal, being unilaterally applied, provides little if
any support for the CITES sturgeon programme and in fact, may well serve to
undermine it.
The USFWS state that it intends to use the proposed
rule “to build upon the
progress already made by the range countries in CITES forums, while recognizing
that there are certain data gaps and information and management needs yet to be
filled”. However, the Secretariat would
expect a CITES Party to first move to strengthen where necessary any
inadequacies that it perceives exist in the current CITES Resolution before
moving to impose unilateral measures on the Parties of the Convention. In fact, the new Rule seems to impose only
one new substantive
requirement,
when compared to the existing CITES Resolution, namely the requirement for the
beluga range States to submit an annual report (detailing some six data items)
and to subject these reports to a formal review process conducted by the
USFWS. However, the Secretariat has already published on the
CITES web site in 2003, much of this information for beluga and has indicated
to all sturgeon range States that it plans to do so again in 2004 and in
subsequent years as part of its obligations under the Resolution. Consequently, the proposed new Rule is
duplicative and might in fact only serve to undermine the
Convention’s efforts to regulate the world’s sturgeon fisheries.
The The
stated reason for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) state that they are
proposinghaving proposed the new Rule is to
ensure that the current CITES regulations [in my view, CITES
regulates trade but does not have ‘regulations’ so I would prefer ‘regulatory
framework‘ as used later) for beluga sturgeon
continue after 2004[1]. In fact, CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7
provides the regulatory framework that the proposed Rule is seeking to
introduce and, importantly, the Resolution is not time bound in its
application. Clearly then, the proposed
Rule is un-necessary, superfluous and redundant. (Perhaps we could
say; The proposed Rule may well be unnecessary and may simply place additional burdens upon the USFWS.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that have already been
allocated to, and are being undertaken by, the CITES Secretariat.
It is clear that the proposed Rule provides no greater regulatory provisions
[regulatory coverage?] than
those [that?]
already available under the CITES Resolution [but it would be legally-binding, if that is needed. The
justification for unilateral action, i.e. to ‘impose requirements on the range countries’, sounds stunningly arrogant even if the US has the right to decide the
conditions under which it imports.] . CITES Resolution Conf. 12.7 arose directly from
the ‘Paris Agreement’ that had been negotiated with the Caspian Range States by
the CITES Standing Committee, when the United States chaired that
Committee. Importantly, the punitivenon-compliance
measures contained in the Resolution are far more extensive than those proposed
in the new Rule (which only applyies to Huso huso). The Resolution requires the establishment of a conservation
management plan and the provision annually of extensive stock assessment data
to support intended catch and export quotas.
Failure to provideed
these data (or to relate these data to the Management Plan) by any range State
within any of the specified sturgeon basins, for all harvested sturgeon species
within each basin, imposes [triggers? results in?] a
basin-wide trade suspension on all of the relevant range States for all of
their sturgeon species. The
USFWS should know about [be aware of?] these
provisions in the Resolution since, rather ironically, they
wereit
was informed recently that theyit
had failed to provide the necessary data
for their sturgeon stocks
this year. The Secretariat therefore
has not posted the U.S. or
Canada’s sturgeon catch and export quotas for 2004 on the CITES website. Under Resolution Conf. 12.7, Parties to
CITES are required not to accept the import of sturgeon products from Canada or
the U.S.
until the CITES Secretariat is satisfied that these States have complied fully
with the requirements of the Resolution.
The
USFWS argues that its intention with the new Rule is to ‘build upon’ the CITES
process and we welcome the U.S.
support for the CITES sturgeon programme that the Secretariat is now required
to manage. However, the Secretariat
believes that the new proposal, being unilaterally applied, provides little if
any support for the CITES sturgeon programme and in fact, may well serve to
undermine it. The USFWS state that theyit
intends to
use the proposed rule “to build upon the progress already made by the
range countries in CITES forums, while recognizing that there are certain data
gaps and information and management needs yet to be filled”. However, the Secretariat would expect a
CITES Party to first move to strengthen where necessary any inadequacies that
it perceives exists in the current CITES Resolution before moving to impose
unilateral measures on the Parties of the Convention. In fact, the new Rule seems to impose only one new requirement,
when compared to the existing CITES Resolution, namely the requirement for the
beluga range States to submit an annual report (detailing some six data items) and
to subject these reports to a formal review process conducted by the USFWS [again, stunningly
arrogant]. However, the CITES Secretariat has already
published on the CITES its web site in 2003,
much of this information for beluga and has indicated to all sturgeon range
States that it plans to do so again in 2004 and in subsequent years as part of
its obligations under the Rresolution. SoConsequently, the proposed new R?rule
is duplicative at best and serves only tomight
undermine the role of the CITES Secretariat in its regulation of [Convention’s efforts
to regulate] the world’s sturgeon
fisheries.
The CITES Secretariat believes that
the beluga fisheries are already well regulated under CITES, specifically
through the implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.7. It appears that the USFWS believes that more is needed to adequately
conserve and develop the world’s beluga stocks. Obviously more assistance to the Secretariat
would be appreciated since we are a chronically under-resourced Secretariat
with an [the] [ challengingimpossibly
huge]
responsibility for [to
assist 166 States Parties in] regulating
international trade in more than 30,000 species of plants and animals. Regrettably, the proposed Rule does not provide
the support that is needed but rather duplicates provisions already being
implemented under the sturgeon Resolution.
We
fear that itthe proposed Rule will serve only to confuse
and make more complex the implementation of Resolution Conf. 12.7. The requirements of the CITES Resolution are
already substantive
and the introduction of a stand alone system that hasd different
and additional reporting requirements cannot be in the best interest of the
conservation of beluga stocks or for for [ensuring] compliance with the
provisions of the CITES Convention.
Yours sincerely
Jim Armstrong