Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Because of the documented growth of illegal commercial trade in wildlife and wildlife parts and products and the similarities in the work locations of FWS and Customs Service inspectors, the Chairman of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Representative Richard H. Lehman requested that we determine the (1) effectiveness of FWS’ wildlife inspection program, (2) potential impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on wildlife trade and the inspection of wildlife shipments, and (3) advantages and disadvantages of moving the wildlife inspection program from FWS to the Customs Service. Our review focused on the field activities of FWS wildlife inspectors. They believed that Customs’ larger, more dispersed inspection force and the automated system it has for assessing shipments and determining which ones to inspect would enable Customs to provide greater wildlife inspection coverage than does FWS. Disadvantages of a Transfer to Customs

In terms of the disadvantages that would come from a transfer of the inspection program, some officials from FWS, Customs, APHIS, the Public Health Service, and wildlife conservation and trade organizations, as well as some wildlife inspectors, were concerned that (1) Customs would not emphasize wildlife protection; (2) Customs inspectors lack wildlife identification expertise; (3) difficulties might arise in coordinating Customs’ inspection efforts with FWS’ efforts to protect wildlife, including the implementation of CITES—functions that would most likely remain at FWS; and (4) some costs would be incurred. They did not look favorably on the idea of shifting the wildlife inspection program to their agency. FWS’ difficulties in accomplishing its inspection mission have caused some to suggest that other alternatives be explored, such as transferring the program to Customs, an agency with a larger, more widely dispersed inspection force. Proceed with plans to increase the user fees charged by the wildlife inspection program and apply the increased funding to those areas where resource needs have been identified.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) wildlife inspection program, focusing on the: (1) effectiveness of the wildlife inspection program; (2) potential impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on wildlife trade and wildlife shipment inspections; and (3) advantages and disadvantages that might accrue from transferring the inspection program to the Customs Service.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) FWS has not fully met its wildlife inspection program mission of monitoring and intercepting illegal wildlife shipments despite recent budget increases; (2) the FWS inspection program needs more wildlife inspectors, safety equipment, and administrative support; (3) FWS does not have complete, accurate, and timely data on the inspection program; (4) FWS has proposed increasing user fees to produce additional program funding; (5) the government's failure to assess penalties, fines, and other punitive actions against violators does little to deter new offenses and lowers inspectors' morale; (6) budget cuts and downsizing efforts further jeopardize the program's inspection mission; (7) NAFTA is likely to increase wildlife trade among the treaty parties, which will increase the wildlife inspectors' workload; (8) FWS believes NAFTA will have the greatest impact at the Mexican border; (9) transferring the wildlife inspection program to Customs would provide greater inspection coverage due to Customs' larger, more dispersed inspection force and automated inspection system; and (10) the disadvantages of transferring the inspection program to Customs include Customs inspectors' lack of wildlife identification expertise, Customs' likely failure to emphasize wildlife inspection, difficulties in coordinating with FWS to protect endangered species, and potential increased costs.