Report of the CITES 29 th Animals Committee Meeting and Joint Meeting with the 23 rd Plants Committee 18-22 July 2017, Geneva Switzerland INTRODUCTION: Buddy Baker, (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), Carolyn Caldwell (MAFWA CITES Technical Work Group Representative), Jim devos (Arizona Game and Fish Department), Rick Jacobson (Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection) and Deb Hahn (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies) represented the state fish and wildlife agencies at the 29th Animals Committee meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland from 18-21 July, 2017 and the Joint Meeting held with the 23rd Plants Committee on July 22nd. SUMMARY OVERVIEW: The Animals Committee discussed 31 substantive agenda items, including but not limited to: non-detriment findings; the review of significant trade in Appendix II species; the periodic review of animal species included in the Appendices; snake trade and traceability; Appendix III listings; sturgeons and paddlefish; and formation of an intersessionsal working group on American eel.. Fifty-four countries were represented with nearly 300 participants at the meeting including a significant number of NGOs representing groups such as the Humane Society International, Species Survival Network, and the Animal Welfare Institute. These organizations participated in all of the working groups and were vocal concerning many of the matters before the Animals Committee. Invariably these organizations offered interventions that were pushing for greater restrictions in trade and additional species reviews. Following introductory comments by the CITES Secretariat and agreement on basic operating procedures, the Animals Committee was chaired by Mathias Lörtscher (Switzerland). Chair Lörtscher moved through the agenda items and established 11 working groups. On July 22nd, the Animals Committee met in a joint meeting with the Plants Committee. In cases where issues of importance to the state agencies were discussed more details have been provided below. Key outcomes: 1. No North American species were proposed for inclusion in the Review of Significant Trade; therefore, interventions by the CITES Technical Work Group were not needed. 2. A change in the definition of country of origin for caviar was not accepted but discussions will continue. 3. No additional wildlife traceability requirements were imposed. 4. Captive breeding discussions were monitoried to ensure they don t negatively impact captive bred species in the U.S. such as the American Alligator. 5. Three U.S. species were chosen for Periodic Review. They are the short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), and the Aleutian cackling goose (Branta canadensis leucoparei).periodic review could potentially lead to a recommendation from the Animals Committee for a downlisting or removal of these species from CITES Appendices at the next Conference of the Parties 6. An informal discussion on a Spanish proposal to develop a hunting trophy operator certification system in Africa was refocused on increasing communications between importers and exporters of trophies and also emphasized the need to avoid a one size fits all approach. 7. No list of candidate species for Appendix III was generated and the determination of species to be listed in Appendix III remains the discretion of the range country.
Review of Significant Trade (RST) in Specimens of Appendix II Species AC29 Doc 13 The Technical Work Group was part of the RST Working Group that met all day Wednesday. The importance of these discussions to the states is that the list of candidate species generated by WCMC for consideration for the RST list included about 13 U.S. native species such as paddlefish, river otter, American alligator, bobcat and black bear. Most of these U.S. species made the list due to recent spikes in trade levels. When a species enters RST its management, conservation and international trade information is reviewed to identify potential problems with implementation. We had interventions prepared for each of these species in the event that they be recommended for inclusion in the RST process. Five interventions (included below) were prepared in anticipation of proposals to include native U.S. species for inclusion in RST. Fortunately no North American species were proposed for inclusion and our interventions were not needed. Sturgeon and Paddlefish AC29 Doc 20 The sturgeon and paddlefish working group was chaired by Carolina Caceres (Canada). Participants considered the content of three documents (AC29 Doc 20.1, 20.1A, and 20.2). They considered a new proposed definition of country of origin of caviar. The definition being proposed is - country of origin of caviar: country in which a registered processing plant harvests roe of Acipenseriformes species to process caviar. Several participants expressed concerns over the proposed definition, citing cases in which fish are taken from the wild in one country and their caviar/roe harvested in another. Technical Work Group has concerns about changing the definition of country of origin for caviar. First, it sets a dangerous precedent within CITES to open the door to different definitions for different species. Second, it has potential to negatively impact to U.S. wild paddlefish caviar trade because it may impact pricing and traceability. Lastly, it could complicate the trade information for other species that are grown in aquaculture or ranched such as turtles and other reptiles. The Technical Work Group will continue to participate in this debate to mitigate negative impacts to the states. Snakes AC29 Doc 31 The Snake Working Group was chaired by AC Chair Mathias Lörtscher (Switzerland) and reviewed three documents (AC29 Doc 31.1, 31.2, and 31.3) on the conservation, sustainable use of, and standards for python traceability, including the proposed guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities concerning Non-Detriment Findings (a finding that is made by a country that says the harvest is not detrimental to the survival of the species) for snakes. The importance to the states of the Snake Working Group discussion is related to traceability. We have been following the traceability discussion closely to ensure it does not result in excessive requirements on tracing wildlife products beyond snakes particularly to American alligator. We continue to collaborate with the Crocodilian Specialist Group and American Fur Resources Council to protect the states interest in this issue. Captive-Bred and Ranched Specimens AC29 Doc 14 The Working Group on Captive-bred and Ranched Specimens was convened due to increasing concerns over the miss use of source codes (a code to identify the origin of the specimen such as w /wild caught or ranched) on exported shipments. Specifically in the case of countries exporting specimens reported to be "raised in captivity" when there is inadequate evidence of sufficient captive parent stock to support the number of individuals exported. The concern of course is the possibility of significant numbers of wild caught animals exported as captive bred. The World Conservation Monitoring Center identified Nile and Siamese crocs as candidates for review, however, the Animals Committee working group chose to overlook these species in favor other more egregious examples of source code abuse. We will continue to monitor shipments of these two species through the Louisiana funded IACTS report on crocodilian trade due to the potential trade implications to American Alligator in this highly competitive world market. Periodic Review Working Group AC29 Doc 33 The Periodic Review Working Group developed a list of species that would undergo Periodic Review a process that helps determine if a species is appropriately listed in the CITES Appendices. Three species were chosen for Periodic Review that are found within the U.S. They are the shorttailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), Guadalupe fur seal
(Arctocephalus townsendi), and the Aleutian cackling goose (Branta canadensis leucoparei (B. hutchinsii ). A review can be positive for species such as the Aleutian cackling goose. Their populations have rebounded from a low of less than 800 individuals in the mid-70s to over 150,000 individuals today. The species was removed from the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2001. Periodic review could potentially lead to a recommendation from the Animals Committee for a downlisting or removal of these species from CITES Appendices at the next Conference of the Parties. Intersessional Eel Working Group AC29 Doc 21 Following plenary discussion of Eels (Anguilla spp.) (AC29 Doc. 21) an intersessional Working Group was formed to move forward a study of the status of the European eel listed on CITES Appendix II as well as a separate study for all non-cites listed eel species. The USFWS asked to be authorized to coordinate among the American eel (Anguilla rostrata) range countries to conduct a workshop and produce a report for this non-cites-listed species. All information that is compiled for the American eel from a Regional Workshop could be incorporated into a potential overarching conservation plan, as envisioned in CITES Decision 17.188, for the sustainable trade in Anguilla species. We have joined the Eel Intersessional Working Group and have asked the USFWS that the appropriate State Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Fisheries Commission members be invited to participate in the workshop. Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles (Testudines spp.) AC29 Doc 32 One component of this document recommended the development of a guidance document for appropriate techniques to survey and monitor wild populations to assist in the development of Non-detriment Findings. Based on our discussions with a member of the CITES Tortoise and Freshwater Turtles Task Force and IUCN Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles Specialist Group, this guidance document would be a comprehensive list of existing survey and monitoring techniques accepted for freshwater turtles already available such as documents published by PARC. Appendix III Listings AC29 Doc 34 Individual countries determine whether one of their native species will be listed in Appendix III. Species are listed to help a country gather information on the level of international trade to determine if a CITES listing or some other action might be needed in the future. A recommendation was made that CITES develop a list of species that warrant Appendix III listing. Animal Rights oriented NGOs operating at CITES know fully well that Appendix III can and will be used as a trade impediment and can and will be used as a stepping stone to uplist species to Appendix II. Based on input from the Animals Committee, the Chair removed the component from the document that concerned generating a list of candidate species for Appendix III. This deletion was further supported by the North American and European members of the Animals Committee. The outcomes were positive. The Technical Work Group was prepared with an intervention but it was not necessary because a number of countries made a similar recommendation including the U.S. An intersessional Working Group was established with a more limited mandate that did not include the development of a list. The SEAFWA and MAFWA representatives joined the Intersessional Working Group to make sure this issue stays on track.
Side Events of Note Prior to the start of the Animals Committee, we met with USFWS on Monday to discuss species specific issues (E.g., Black Bear, River Otter, Paddlefish, and American Alligator) and to align position statements. During the Animals Committee meeting, we participated in two informal NGO group meetings to discuss possible methods to elevate the importance of sustainable use in CITES. We participated in an informal meeting lead by Spain to discuss a document they submitted to promote best practices/a certification system for trophy hunting in Africa. It was clarified that this was not a CITES mandate or effort. It was also refocused on increasing communications between importers and exporters of hunting trophies and emphasized the need to avoid a one size fits all approach. We met with USFWS about their new staff capacity to mine international trade data that could lessen the burden on the states that currently contract these efforts. We attended a Thursday side event addressing CITES legal acquisition findings. Among the presentations was a case study wherein the Center for Biological Diversity erroneously put forward tagging of bobcats and river otters as examples of conservation successes. Knowing that this type of information is being shared with delegates and Animals Committees members provides us, the Technical Work Group, the knowledge we need to present counter arguments, highlighting how tagging had no substantial effect on the conservation of these species that never were threatened with extinction. Five Species Interventions Prepared for Significant Trade Review (AC29 Doc 13) but Not Needed 1. My colleagues and I represent the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States. On behalf of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States, we do not believe that the black bear is a suitable candidate for review of significant trade. Recent scientific publication reported that primary and secondary ranges of American black bears (Ursus americanus) include 12 Canadian provinces and territories, 40 states in the U.S., and 6 states in Mexico totaled 10.5 million km 2, representing 65 75% of the species' historical range. The current status within IUCN is species of least concern. All states and provinces have both bear management and law enforcement programs that effectively conserve this species. In a 2015 survey of U. S. states and Canadian provinces, the total current population estimate for those states/provinces reporting was 477,525. In 78% of these reporting jurisdictions, American black bear populations, were stable to expanding. 56% of the respondent jurisdictions reported expanding populations. All state agencies within the black bear range have strict regulations and enforcement measures ensuring sustainable and legal harvest. In summary, there is substantial evidence that while trade in the American black bear does occur, the conservation of this species by state and provincial agencies is ensuring sustainable use as evidenced by the large percentage of occupancy within historical range, expanding populations in the majority of states and provinces and the IUCN ranking of species of least concern. Therefore we believe that the black bear should not be a candidate for review of significant trade. 2. My colleagues and I represent the 50 state wildlife agencies within the United States. We work in partnership with the national government. On behalf of the 50 state wildlife agencies we do not believe that the river otter is a candidate for the Review of significant trade. In the US the river otter is managed by the individual state wildlife agencies through intensive regulatory processes. The species is the subject of much research. A nationwide survey of state level populations is conducted approximately every 5 years. While river otters did decline during the 19th century due to water quality issues, the 2007 survey revealed that through the numerous state wildlife agency restoration and translocation efforts river otter inhabited more than 90% of their historical range. Based on population expansion since 2007, it s believed that river otter now occupy most of their historical range. In 2012 the nationwide survey no states reported a declining population. The states are currently engaged in conducting the nationwide population status survey update. At present 40 of the 48 contiguous states have responded. None of the states responding thus far indicate any significant concerns and all report stable or expanding populations. The states manage river otter harvest through intensive regulatory processes. While harvest levels do fluctuate based on demand, the harvest levels have not in any year exceeded sustainable harvest levels. Again Mr/Madam Chairman, we do not believe that river otters are a candidate for Review of significant trade.
5 Species Specific Interventions Prepared for Significant Trade Review (AC29 Doc13) but Not Needed (continued) 3. My colleagues and I represent the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States. We work in partnership with the national government. Paddlefish are managed by individual states through regulations that include restrictions on season length, harvest methods, minimum fish length limits and harvest reporting. For example, Mississippi has a highly regulated paddlefish fishery that includes significant fines and possible imprisonment for violations. They have minimum fish length limits that protect at least 30% of the mature female paddlefish in the Mississippi River from harvest. They also have mandatory a reporting and tagging system that provides documentation on harvested fish. A 2014 study of paddlefish populations indicated that populations in six of the seven states that allow commercial harvest were stable or increasing. Again Mr. Chairmen state fish and wildlife agencies continue to improve the conservation and management of paddlefish, adjust harvest regulations based on current data, conduct research, and enforce regulations to ensure that trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species. 4. My three colleagues and I are here representing the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States. We work in partnership with the national government. We participate in CITES meeting collectively as representatives of the four Regional Associations of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. On behalf of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States that we represent, we do not believe that the bobcat (Lynx rufus) is a candidate for significant trade review. The bobcat has never been threatened by trade. The species is listed solely as a look-alike species due to its similarity of appearance to other lynx species. The bobcat is an abundant species, occupying most of its historical range. It is managed sustainably by the individual states which are the competent authorities. A recent survey of bobcat population size indicates an estimate of between 1.4 and 2.6 million animals or approximately twice the estimate generated in 1981. 2015 State agency reports show that the populations are secure. The individual state wildlife agencies manage bobcat populations to insure that the level of harvest is not detrimental to the population. Harvest is regulated through various measures including individual harvest limits, season of take, mandatory reporting of harvest and regulation of harvest technique. Again Mr. Chairmen we believe that bobcat populations are stable and that harvest levels are not and never have been a threat to this species. The 50 individual state wildlife agencies collectively believe that the bobcat should not be a candidate for significant trade review. 5. My three colleagues and I are here representing the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States. We work in partnership with the national government. We participate in CITES meeting collectively as representatives of the four Regional Associations of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. On behalf of the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States that we represent, we do not object to a significant trade review of the American alligator. However, with limited resources within the Committee we question whether the species should be a priority for review. The alligator s high standards for research, monitoring, management, enforcement and compliance has established this species as a sustainable use model as described in the CITES Business Roundtable, Qatar, 2010. The American alligator is considered by most to be the most legal, sustainable and verifiable crocodilian species in trade. Alligators are only harvested in 6 of the 50 states. Those state fish and wildlife agencies have intensive research and monitoring programs to ensure that harvest levels remain within sustainable levels. In summary, we do not recommend the inclusion of American Alligator in significant trade review.
Intervention Prepared for Appendix III listings (AC29 Doc 34) but not needed My colleagues and I represent the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies within the United States and work in concert with the United States government on CITES matters relevant to the state agencies. Providing guidance and clarification for the purpose, intent, and implementation of Appendix III listings would be beneficial to Parties. But we do not support any mechanism that results in the creation of a list of species for Appendix III that is generated by a non-range country or outside entities. The best available scientific species data resides with the range country. Selecting species for inclusion in Appendix III should remain the decision of the range country as they determine appropriate and not be generated by non-range country or outside entities. If needed, species currently listed in APPENDIX III could be used as examples when developing guidance materials for countries. Within the United States the federal and state governments have worked together to identifying native species for which additional data would be valuable in evaluating the sustainability of trade. This process has also been helpful for state agencies to identify the appropriateness of regulations and management mechanisms for these species. Again, and on behalf of the state fish and wildlife agencies, we do not support compiling a list of species for possible inclusion in Appendix III. The decision to add species to Appendix III should rest entirely with the range Country based on their needs and capacities and not be influenced by non-range country or outside entities. Further we are concerned that a generated list of proposed species could be used to pressure range countries to list species for purposes unrelated to biological reasons to meet interests not directly related to the intent of an Appendix III listing. Thereby serving as an impediment to legal and sustainable trade. CITES Technical Work Group: Rick Jacobson - NEAFWA CITES Representative Carolyn Caldwell - MAFWA CITES Representative Buddy Baker- SEAFWA CITES Representative Jim devos- WAFWA CITES Representative Staff: Deb Hahn - Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Bob Broscheid- U.S. CITES Delegate for State Fish & Wildlife Agencies To learn more about the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, visit the CITES website at: http://www.cites.org/