According to the Convention’s preamble,  the member countries recognized that the conservation of wild fauna and  flora was of global importance and that international cooperation was  essential for the protection of certain species against overexploitation  through international trade. What Is Wildlife Trade? In October 2004, the  thirteenth conference of the member countries will take place in Bangkok,  Thailand. 2). How Is the Convention Implemented in the United States? The Convention’s Implementation Has Become More Complex and Controversial

In several ways, implementing the Convention is currently more complex  and controversial than it was in 1975, when it took effect. Workload has increased along with increases in the Convention  membership. Such support includes information  on  the species’ distribution, habitat, population, and role in the ecosystem;  the nature, intensity, and extent of threats to the species, such as  competitors, pathogens, predators, toxins, and habitat loss;  the purpose and level of use, including trends if possible, as well as   the level and nature of national and international trade, along with the  source of statistics used, such as Customs statistics, Convention annual  report data, and industry reports;  national legislation related to the conservation of the species, the nature  of legal protection, and the effectiveness of this legislation;  measures in place to manage populations of the species in question,  such as captive breeding or artificial propagation, ranching, or quota  systems, including details such as planned harvest rates and planned  population sizes; and  consultation undertaken with, and comments received from, other  countries in which the species exists and any organizations that also  manage the species, such as intergovernmental bodies that act through  international agreements other than the Convention. 9). In these cases, Convention protection can make a difference. Although considerable tension and concern remain over the relationship  between the Convention and regional and international fisheries  organizations, discussions have recently moved toward rapprochement. The United States Has Spent More than $50 Million on Convention- Related Activities Since 1995

The United States spent more than $50 million, or about $6 million  annually, on Convention-related activities from 1995 through 2003; data are  not available for expenditures between 1975—when the Convention  entered into force—and 1995 because Convention activities were not  tracked separately from other species protection programs. The $50 million  spent since 1995 includes about $37 million spent by the Fish and Wildlife  Service on activities aimed at implementing the Convention and about   $13 million spent by the Department of State for voluntary contributions to  help administer the Convention internationally (see fig. In 2003, the U.S. contribution was about  $1 million. The Convention and U.S. Laws Identify Protected Species Differently and Allow Different Uses

The Convention and U.S. laws share a common goal of protecting species,  but they extend protection based on different criteria that reflect different  underlying purposes. For example, U.S.  laws sometimes afford stricter protections to species than the Convention  does; as a result, some U.S. interests such as small businesses, aquariums,  individual consumers, and big game hunters cannot participate in activities  allowed by other member countries in accordance with the Convention. The criteria for identifying a species for protection by the Endangered  Species Act are different from those employed by the Convention and  reflect the act’s intent to protect species that are at risk of extinction for  any reason—not just trade—and to conserve their habitats. Another species for which the United States imposes stricter trade  measures than the Convention is the Asian arowana, also known as the  Asian bonytongue. For example,  the European Union requires import permits for appendix II species. Concluding Observations

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild  Fauna and Flora has changed significantly since its inception in the early  1970s—in size, complexity, and the number and type of species it protects. With these changes have come an increase in member countries’ workload  pertaining to permitting, enforcement, and reporting. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration provided written comments on a draft of this report. The department noted, however, that the U.S.  “preference” to provide stricter protections is reflected in law and that the  department is required to implement the legislated responsibilities under  its jurisdiction, including the implementation of the Endangered Species  Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as written.
Why GAO Did This Study

International trade in wildlife is a multibillion-dollar industry that, in some cases, has taken species to the brink of extinction. To address the problem, several countries, including the United States, created an international treaty--the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora--that took effect in 1975. The United States also has domestic laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, that protect species. The protections provided by the Convention and domestic laws can differ. For example, in some cases, U.S. laws afford more stringent protections to species than the Convention does; such stricter protections can prevent U.S. interests from participating in trade that is permitted by the Convention. The Convention's member countries meet periodically to discuss implementation of the Convention and are scheduled next to meet in Thailand in October 2004. In anticipation of this meeting, GAO was asked to report on (1) how implementation of the Convention has changed over the years, (2) U.S. funding and other resources spent on Convention-related activities, and (3) the relationship between the Convention and some domestic laws. The Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration generally agreed with the information in the GAO report.

What GAO Found

Implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora has become increasingly complex and controversial since its inception. Complexity has increased in part because of the sheer number of member countries (166) and species protected (more than 33,000) and because the criteria for identifying protected species have become more scientific and specific, resulting in heavier data-gathering, permitting, enforcement, and reporting requirements for member countries. Controversy, in turn, has increased because the Convention membership has recently contemplated, and in some cases approved, protection of commercial species such as sharks and Patagonian toothfish (commonly marketed as Chilean seabass)--species that in some cases are already managed under regional fisheries agreements. Over the 9-year fiscal period 1995 through 2003, the United States spent more than $50 million on Convention-related activities. As the agency primarily responsible for U.S. implementation of the Convention, the Fish and Wildlife Service spent the largest portion of these funds--about $37 million over the period. Other agencies have roles as well, including the Department of State, which makes U.S. contributions to help administer the Convention internationally. The Convention and the Endangered Species Act protect species differently. In some cases, the act prohibits imports that are allowed by the Convention. For example, the act generally prohibits the import of a popular exotic fish, the Asian arowana, although the Convention allows some commercial trade in the species. The Convention establishes mandatory requirements and recognizes countries' rights to establish stricter protections. However, such protections have generated heated debates among affected parties. Those in favor say that the United States should impose stricter protections than the Convention, when needed to protect endangered species or their habitats. Opponents say that U.S. actions should be consistent with the agreements reached by a majority of the Convention's members.