Botswana Canada Zimbabwe S. Africa Tanzania Zambia Namibia Ethiopia Unknown Other

STATEMENT OF GINETTE HEMLEY, DIRECTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE POLICY, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Ginette Hemley, Director of International Wildlife Policy with World Wildlife Fund. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the international provisions of the Endangered Species Act and their implementation by the United States.

I would like to address my comments today to two issues raised by the Committee: the relationship between the ESA and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the role of the ESA and CITES in conservation of threatened or endangered species outside the United States.

WWF has extensive experience with both the ESA and CITES, the principal vehicles through which the United States controls commerce in endangered and threatened species. Through TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring program of WWF and the World Conservation Union, WWF devotes significant resources to help ensure that wildlife trade is not detrimental to the species involved and done in accordance with domestic and international laws and agreements, including the ESA. WWF has also participated as a non-governmental observer in the CITES Conferences of the Parties over the last 15 years and regularly provides information and technical and financial support to the Convention. In addition to CITES, WWF supports field conservation programs in more than 70 countries worldwide, and we are privileged to be working in the two countries represented on the panel today.

The issues surrounding CITES and the ESA are broad and complex. I would like to stress three key points:

• The United States plays an important leadership role in the global effort to conserve endangered species, including, in particular, the control of illegal and detrimental wildlife trade.

• The ESA is essential to U.S. leadership, authorizing U.S. implementation of CITES, and providing broader support for endangered species conservation efforts around the world.

• The international provisions of ESA, including the listing of foreign species, should be retained unchanged. These provisions promote the conservation of species listed by CITES, authorize national and international enforcement activities, and help raise public awareness and support for conservation. In some instances, ESA also provides protections beyond those secured by CITES that are critical to the survival of endangered species.

INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE TRADE

The international wildlife trade is a huge global business, and one that is largely unregulated. TRAFFIC estimates the global value of wildlife commerce at a minimum $10 billion per year, excluding timber and fisheries products. The United States alone imports about $1 billion in wildlife annually, according to official trade records, and is probably the world's largest wildlife consuming nation.

Trade has been a major threat to many species. Unbridled commerce has driven some species to extinction, such as the passenger pigeon here in the U.S. It has caused the near collapse of populations of other species, such as rhinos and tigers. At the same time, in some countries wildlife use and trade plays an important role in the conservation of species. Namibia and Zimbabwe, for example, have been pioneers in wildlife conservation, relying in part on wildlife use and trade to provide important income for rural communities, particularly through controlled sport hunting. WWF recognizes the conservation value of these programs and we have actively supported them.

THE ROLE OF ESA AND CITES IN CONTROLLING TRADE

The vast majority of international wildlife trade involves species that are not listed by either CITES or the ESA. In fact, probably no more than 20 or 25 percent of this trade falls under CITES' purview, and only a tiny fraction of U.S. wildlife imports consists of species listed by the ESA. For example, more than 24,000 wildlife trophies have been exported to the U.S. from east and southern Africa in the past 2 years. Fewer than 1,500 of these trophies have been of species protected under the ESA, mostly leopard and elephant. Because of the high value of these two species, however, a disproportionate amount of attention has focused on ESA's re

strictions.

ESA establishes the U.S. Federal Government's authority to implement CITES. grants the U.S. Government broad powers to enforce the rules of CITES, including far-reaching authority and significant penalties for violations, which go beyond

U.S. borders. American citizens are bound by ESA's commerce restrictions everywhere in the world, and these measures have helped directly in international crackdowns on global wildlife smuggling, a black market industry valued at $2-3 billion per year. Such provisions have helped give teeth to CITES and reinforce wildlife protection laws of other countries.

U.S. IMPLEMENTATION OF CITES DECISIONS

Some have questioned whether the ESA unduly restricts trade in species allowed in commerce under CITES, and why the list of foreign species protected under the ESA differs from those listed under CITES. Historically, the ESA and CITES have evolved down parallel paths; many of the foreign species originally listed under the ESA were also listed by CITES at its inception. In recent years, the Convention has begun to selectively reduce trade restrictions for a few species, particularly those which are no longer considered endangered by trade. In general, the U.S. has followed CITES' lead.

The leopard was downlisted under the ESA from “endangered” to “threatened” in 1982 after sufficient evidence showed that the change was warranted. A special rule was adopted to allow hunters from the United States to import their own trophies, while at the same time prohibiting the import of leopard-skin coats or other commercial products. CITES has adopted a similar rule. In 1993 and 1994 over 625 leopard trophies were legally imported into the United States from at least 10 African countries, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service; these are tracked through the CITES permit system which allows for the trade to be monitored but does not impede it unless problems become evident.

Similarly, the "threatened" listing of the African elephant under ESA provides for a special rule that allows trophy imports from countries which have elephant conservation programs. The special allowance for elephant imports is based on a somewhat stricter finding than that for leopard because the elephant has been more susceptible to heavy poaching in the recent past. Under this special ESA rule, government trade records show that over 200 elephant trophies from at least eight African countries were imported into the United States in 1993 and 1994, the vast majority from Zimbabwe.

The United States has not yet implemented CITES' downlisting of the Nile crocodile from east and southern Africa, although CITES took such action some time ago. We agree with our southern African colleagues that the U.S. should implement this change and that the delay has not been justified. In our view, however, this problem can be remedied by administrative action, and does not justify any change to the Act itself.

IMPORTANCE OF ESA AUTHORITY TO LIST FOREIGN SPECIES

While the U.S. should generally defer to CITES decisions, WWF believes it is also important for the U.S. to retain authority to take stricter measures when circumstances warrant. What would happen if we did not provide protection to foreign - species under the ESA? Real protection for some species could suffer.

The authority to act for the protection of foreign species is important in emergencies. When a sudden increase in poaching or an epidemic threaten a species, or if export controls fail because of political instability or corruption, CITES often cannot act swiftly enough to meet the crisis. Prompt individual action by the U.S. and other countries is essential.

Often, the plight of a species is so dire that CITES listing is not itself enough. Such is the situation now facing tigers and most of the world's rhinos, an issue addressed just a few days ago in the House of Representatives. CITES has listed all tigers and rhinos on Appendix I and has banned their trade, yet their numbers continue to decline from illegal hunting for international commerce. In such cases, WWF believes it is incumbent on all nations to rely not only on CITES listing, but to enact all possible additional protection measures like those offered by the ESA, which include international enforcement actions and prohibitions on interstate com

merce.

The Act's protection of foreign species has also been important in catalyzing broad public support for their conservation. The importance of this aspect of the ESA's benefits is hard to quantify, but has in our view been crucial to raising public awareness both here and abroad about the conservation needs of critically endangered species and to building a financial basis for support of their conservation.

And, the ESA's provisions have helped secure more effective conservation efforts on the ground. The giant panda, WWF's own symbol and one of the world's most endangered creatures with as few as 1,000 in the wild. is a good example. Under the EŠA, pandas may be imported into the United States only if the import is di

rectly linked to projects enhancing the conservation of the species in the wild in China. CITES requires only a finding that the trade is "not detrimental," with no affirmative conservation obligation. The endangered listing of the giant panda under the ESA is helping to build a comprehensive program of support for the conservation of the species in the wild, among zoos, private organizations, and the U.S. and Chinese governments.

CITES explicitly authorizes all countries to take stricter measures for the conservation of species protected under the Convention. Many if not most parties have done so. Some nations, both developed and developing, have prohibited all wildlife imports and exports, going well beyond-the mandate of CITES. The European Union has implemented authority similar to that provided in ESA. The challenge for the U.S., in WWF's view, is to strike an appropriate balance. WWF believes the U.S. has generally met that challenge. Overall, trade records indicate that few, if any, well-managed species are unduly restricted from commerce in the United States by the ESA.

WWF believes that the Fish and Wildlife Service has effectively used the flexibility of the ESA to accommodate the unique conservation needs of threatened species by allowing imports under certain conditions on a country-specific basis. Wildlife conservation and trade control capabilities vary enormously among countries, and ESA provides the latitude to address these differences. From a global perspective it is critically important for the U.S. to retain that authority. We recognize, however, the concerns of some countries over the potential for U.S. import restrictions to undercut investments in conservation programs that depend on the U.S. market for their products and are sympathetic to these points. We urge the Secretary of Interior to take a hard look at these specific cases to ensure that conservation programs are not undermined by excessive U.S. regulation.

As the U.S. implements CITES and makes decisions on listings under the ESA, it is clearly important to consult regularly and fully with range States, to better understand their conservation programs, and to support these programs where appropriate. CITES has formally recognized the need for broad consultation with range States on listing decisions. The administration should implement this recommendation by making consultation with range States a higher priority by adopting it as formal policy in all matters related to foreign species. The U.S. should not, however, curtail its authority to protect species, and we support the listing of foreign species when the conservation status of the species calls for it.

In conclusion, WWF believes that the ESA is sufficiently broad but appropriately flexible to implement the requirements of CITES as well as to provide protections for foreign species not covered by the Convention. Implementation of the Act and its CITES provisions, including its accommodation of the conservation needs of some foreign countries and some species, could and should be improved through administrative actions.

Please enter the following 4 pages into the official record of the 7/20/95 hearing on the BSA. These four pages consist of two separate reviews of Gregg Easterbrook's book A Moment on the Earth, one by Dr. Jack Schultz, professor of entomology at Penn State University, and the other by Dr. David W. Orr, chair of the environmental studies program at Oberlin College. Both reviews appeared in the Angust 1995 issue of Natural History magazine. Basically, they indicate that Easterbrook's book is decidedly not based on science.

Thanks,

Jim Woohr