113 



Department wraps around its actions by characterizing proposed regulations as "tentative," 

 "conceptual," or "ideas" published simply for public comment, the underpinnings of those 

 proposals clearly reveal Departmental philosophy and intent, though it may be modified as a 

 result of public outcry, contempt, and increasing public disdain for intrusive federal 

 government. Later in my testimony I will comment in detail on several aspects of those 

 proposals to highlight concerns raised by PUAC at various levels of the legislative and 

 regulatory process. 



While the proposed regulations contain a perception that the U.S. supports and 

 encourages sustainable development pursuant to conservation management plans, a close 

 reading of the complex, often overbearing criteria, clearly indicates a patronizing, 

 sometimes high-handed, approach that will discourage, not encourage, the desired result. 

 Prohibiting imports to the U.S. will not affect exports to Europe or the Far East. 

 Therefore, the U.S. should consider working with developing countries in the same spirit 

 as the European Union to encourage the development of basic conservation management 

 programs that can be enhanced as the country gains experience. The EU approach 

 involves cooperation, funding, and technical assistance. Moreover, the EU works with 

 exporting countries in the development of acceptable quotas as a means of allowing 

 limited trade to support the program. A total ban while gathering data, as advocated by 

 some staff, sends a far different message and achieves an anti-sustainable use result. 



The proposed regulations go farther, however, by mandating what a country must 

 do to implement CITES rather than ask what they are doing. In essence, a sovereign 

 nation must implement CITES "the U.S. way" or such implementation is "inadequate" for 

 purposes of FWS regulations. Furthermore, the criteria set forth in the proposed 

 regulations go well beyond the statute by requiring detailed scientific data rather than 

 allowing the countries the opportunity to provide data they deem relevant to demonstrate 

 that export is non-detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild ~ the CITES 

 standard. 



For a foreign government's plan to qualify under the proposed regulations, the 

 FWS must ~ 



(1) Determine if the country has established a " functioning " Scientific 

 Authority" (even though the WBCA only requires the establishment 

 of a scientific authority or equivalent);^ 



(2) Pass judgment on whether the country has complied with CITES- 

 recommended "remedial measures" (apparently U.S. judgment can 

 supersede CITES determinations of compliance) ~ an indication of an 

 insidious form of eco-imperialism); 



(3) Pass judgment on the country's "establishment of legislation and 

 infrastructure necessary to enforce ..." CITES, and the submission of 

 annual reports^; and 



WBCA Secdons 106 and 107 do not address what constitutes a "functioning Authority." 



