114 



(4) Evaluate, receive public comment, and approve or deny the country's 

 "scientifically-based management plan" that addresses biological and 

 humane issues. 



To qualify a foreign government's conservation management plan as 

 "scientifically-based," an exporting country would have to provide extensive amounts of 

 population, reproduction, nest site, clutch size, nest competition, diet and where the 

 species "forages" (at each life cycle), habitat (at each life cycle) and trade data. The 

 approval process would also require the status, current and future trends for the species, 

 as well as its habitat, including scientific references. Additional information on habitat 

 would also be required. 



Population data must be for "at least three separate years or one year with plans 

 for future years." Habitat data must cover the entire range throughout the country (with 

 scientific references and maps), status and trends of important habitats used by the species, 

 management activities relative to the habitat, and a list of management plans "planned, 

 developed, or implemented for the species' important habitats," "information on the role 

 of the species in its ecosystem," incentives for conservation including how utilization 

 "promotes the value of the species and its habitat by means of environmental education, 

 cooperative efforts or projects, development of cooperative management units, and/or 

 activities involving local communities," and a host of other information 



The management plan must provide for conservation of the species at "optimal 

 levels", even for pest species that are, in some instances, being exterminated or subject to 

 rigorous population reduction programs To be exported in trade, however, the species, 

 however, must be maintained at "optimal" levels. The regulations contain no definition of 

 "optimal" so one is left to the predilections of the FWS reviewer, a person who might be 

 totally opposed to pest management programs. 



Most of the information will take many people many years to gather, compile, and 

 report in a fashion that passes US peer review The proposa' clearly reflects the personal 

 positions of several Service staff members that long term studies spanning many years 

 must be submitted and that such studies must meet US perceptions of valid data and 

 scientific methodology. Not every species, especially pest species, warrants such a 

 commitment. Nor do most countries enjoy the luxury of making such commitments. They 

 are not flooded with doctoral candidates in this particular field and cleariy do not possess 



Requiring current filing of aruiual reports as a condition precedent to approving a Section 106 foreign 

 government's management plan or a Section 107 foreign captive breeding facility exceeds any 

 authority contemplated by the WBCA. While the Department is properly concerned about the status of 

 CITES Aiuiual Reports, this is not the appropriate vehicle to "blackmail" non-compliant parties. It is 

 also somewhat hypocritical to require "current" filings inasmuch as the United Slates' track record 

 leaves a bit to be desired in terms of aimuai report fiUngs, both in terms of timeliness aiul accuracy. 

 Sanctions for late or non-filings should be dealt with only in the CFTES arena - the WBCA was not 

 conceived to poUce CITES member states or to be a CITES' enforcement agent.. 



