[Senate Hearing 107-594]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-594
HEARING TO CONSIDER 6 TREATIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 7, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-051 WASHINGTON : 2002
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JESSE HELMS, North Carolina
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota BILL FRIST, Tennessee
BARBARA BOXER, California LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia
BILL NELSON, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Virginia
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Patricia A. McNerney, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Barker, Dr. David Read, president, Monitor International,
Annapolis, MD.................................................. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Grasso, Thomas V., U.S. director, Marine Conservation Program,
World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC............................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Turner, Hon. John F., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Responses to additional questions for the record............. 31
(iii)
HEARING TO CONSIDER 6 TREATIES
TREATY DOC. 106-32, An amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the ``Montreal Protocol''), adopted at
Beijing on December 3, 1999, by the Eleventh Meeting of the Parties to
the Montreal Protocol (the ``Beijing Amendment``);
TREATY DOC. 106-10, An amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the ``Montreal Protocol''), adopted at
Montreal on September 15-17, 1997, by the Ninth Meeting of the Parties
to the Montreal Protocol;
TREATY DOC. 103-5, A Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and
Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, done at Kingston on
January 18, 1990;
TREATY DOC. 105-32, An Agreement Establishing the South Pacific
Regional Environment Programme, done at Apia on June 16, 1993;
TREATY DOC. 105-53, A Treaty Between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of Niue on the Delimitation of a
Maritime Boundary;
TREATY DOC. 107-2, A Protocol to Amend the 1949 Convention on the
Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, done at
Guayaquil, June 11, 1999, and signed by the United States, Subject to
Ratification, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, on the same date.
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-419, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, presiding.
Present: Senators Sarbanes, Chafee and Allen.
Senator Sarbanes. The committee will come to order.
We meet this morning to consider 6 treaties, amendments,
and protocols dealing with the Montreal Protocol, the Caribbean
Region, and the Pacific Ocean.
We have two amendments to the Montreal Protocol on
Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Protocol, which
entered into force in 1989, has been ratified by the United
States and 182 other countries. It identifies substances that
contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer and, therefore,
need to be subject to international control.
The Protocol also authorized member countries to recommend
additional chemicals for inclusion on the list of controlled
substances and also to recommend a schedule of reductions in
their production and use. Four amendments have emerged from
these recommendations. Two have already been ratified and the
other two are before the committee this morning.
The first is the Montreal Amendment to the Montreal
Protocol, which bans the export or import between a party and a
nonparty of the fumigant known as methyl bromide. This
amendment also establishes a licensing system for controlled
substances to combat illegal trade in these substances.
The second amendment, the Beijing Amendment, phases out,
with certain exceptions, a controlled substance called
bromochloromethane, which has been used as a flame retardant
and solvent. In addition, the amendment also creates a
production freeze for HCFC, hydrochloroflorocarbon, which has
been widely used as a refrigerant, and bans the trade of HCFC's
between parties and nonparties.
In addition to the two treaties bearing on the Montreal
Protocol, we will also consider this morning the following four
treaties.
The Protocol for the 1983 Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region Convention, frequently referred to as the SPAW
Protocol, which establishes both a regional framework for
cooperation on biodiversity conservation and also guidelines
for creation and management of protected areas.
The Protocol to Amend the 1949 Convention on the
Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission,
which allows the EU to represent individual European countries
at this Commission.
Third, an agreement establishing the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme, which is designed to assist the small
island nations of the Pacific in establishing environmental
programs.
And fourth, the Treaty between the Government of the United
States and the Government of Niue on the Delimitation of a
Maritime Boundary, which simply draws a boundary line in the
Pacific Ocean between American Samoa and the island nation of
Niue.
Often the apparently small steps we take to protect the
environment carry with them broad and far-reaching
implications. We know that international cooperation and
coordination are essential. Pollution of the air and the oceans
is no respecter of national borders. The complex issue of ozone
is obviously a case in point.
The Montreal Protocol addresses the increasingly urgent
problem of depletion of the stratospheric ozone level, which
has increased the penetration of harmful ultraviolet rays in
the Earth's atmosphere. One consequence, of course, is the rise
in the number of cases of skin cancer reported in recent years.
Ozone depletion has other numerous and serious adverse effects,
and it poses a threat to numerous ecosystems. It also affects
our weather, sometimes in apparently contradictory ways.
To address the amendments to the Montreal Protocol and the
other issues before the committee, we are fortunate to have
several expert and distinguished witnesses. We will first hear
from John Turner, the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, and
subsequently we will have a panel of witnesses, Tom Grasso, the
U.S. director for Marine Conservation Program of the World
Wildlife Fund, and Dr. David Read Barker. Dr. Barker is
president of Monitor International, an environmental NGO based
in Annapolis, Maryland.
John Turner is the State Department's senior official on
environmental matters. He has come to the State Department from
an impressive career in the environmental field. He was
president and chief executive officer of the Conservation Fund.
Between 1989 and 1993 he served as Director of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, which of course is a very important
Agency of the Government. So, we are very pleased to have
Secretary Turner here.
Before turning to you, John, for your statement, I will
yield to my colleagues for any opening comments they may have.
First, Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I look forward to listening to the
testimony of all our witnesses.
I would like to make a few statements here as we examine
these treaties today. As technical but also very useful
advancements in our continuing effort to protect people from
harmful substances that may occur in the air or in our water,
the 1990 Protocol to the 1983 Caribbean Marine Environment
Initiative I think will increase the degree of protection that
will be afforded in the Caribbean area, which is clearly of
interest to American citizens. With the reservation and
understanding included in the transmission, the Protocol
appears to strike a reasonable balance worthy of favorable
consideration.
The 1997 Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol
expands trade controls to cover methyl bromide and provide for
licensing, as you stated, Mr. Chairman, for the import and
export of these controlled substances with special
dispensations for underdeveloped states.
The Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Protocol establishes
controls over trade in and production of
hydrochloroflorocarbons, or HCFC's, and adds methyl bromide to
the list of these substances controlled by the Protocol. Now,
these amendments were posited as steps in a methodical
establishment of controls over substances which have legitimate
uses but pose an apparent danger to the stratospheric ozone
layer.
There are two points I would like to make, as we go forward
with this. Point No. 1 is I think it is desirable for us to
know what the impact of these agreements or protocols or
treaties are. Do we have some scientific data that would
indicate how the air or the water has been improved since the
production and use of these substances have been lessened?
The second point that I think would follow from any
scientific data we could demonstrate would be that in future
negotiations, I would like to encourage advancing of the
compliance provisions for underdeveloped states which currently
do not fall under the Beijing Amendment until the year 2016, at
which point the time table for decreasing use and production
will apply. The benchmark for that time table is the level of
production and consumption in the year 2015, which seems to be
a far distant point if we are engaged in serious and deliberate
efforts to control these substances which are threats to our
ozone layer.
And I hope that the action by the United States will
encourage the ratification by other states of the Montreal,
Beijing, and earlier amendments. The number of states that have
ratified these amendments is lagging significantly behind the
number that have ratified the basic Montreal Protocol. And I
think that wider acceptance of the full package of amendments
is required if the advantages sought by this effort are to be
fully recognized.
I want to close by thanking all of our witnesses, Mr.
Chairman, for appearing today, in particular Secretary John
Turner. Working with the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Secretary Turner is doing
a tremendous job, heading up programs concerning HIV/AIDS and
other infectious diseases, the environment, the study of
climate change, ocean affairs, and science and technology. The
Bush administration is very fortunate to have his outstanding
leadership. He has a terrific track record in wildlife
conservation, outdoor recreation, and natural resources
policies. He is also an asset to Secretary Powell.
I will close with a personal note. Secretary Turner, I note
you are from Moose, Wyoming. I am going to try to bring my 11-
year-old son to Moose this summer so he can go to the Chuck
Wagon, not to the bar, but he likes to eat a lot and they have
a great--I would not call it a buffet, but just a good feed
there. So, anybody who is from Moose, Wyoming clearly
appreciates our natural beauty and the protection thereof. So,
thank you, Secretary Turner.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you, Senator Allen. And I am sure
the Chamber of Commerce of Moose, Wyoming is greatly heartened
by your comments here this morning.
Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing, first of all.
I note that these treaties we will be discussing already
exist under statutory authority and no new costs will be
incurred, and that generally they are noncontroversial. So, I
do not know if we will be hearing any dissenting voices here
this morning, but I am certainly interested in their swift
passage also.
Senator Sarbanes. Secretary Turner, we are happy to hear
from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. TURNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,
BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Turner. Senator Sarbanes, Senator Allen and Senator
Chafee, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear
before the committee on six important international agreements.
All of us in the administration appreciate the hectic and
demanding schedule that you have, so we greatly appreciate your
consideration of these six measures which we think are
important to the United States. I am, indeed, pleased to join
Tom Grasso and David Barker here before you this morning.
I have submitted a written statement, Mr. Chairman, for the
record and so I would just like to briefly describe each of the
six treaties before you.
Senator Sarbanes. The full statement, without objection,
will be included in the record.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, as you noted, the first measure
before you is the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas
and Wildlife, called the SPAW Protocol, which is, of course, an
outgrowth of the Cartagena Convention. We believe this is an
important cooperative effort to protect and improve the marine
environment and the living systems of the Caribbean Sea and the
Gulf of Mexico, very important to the territories of the
Caribbean and those ecosystems around the southeast coast of
the United States.
A focus on the Caribbean area is a high priority for the
Bush administration. We can recall that President Bush recently
called this backyard area our Third Border because of its
importance to the people of the United States.
The members will note that we are suggesting two
reservations and a clarification, which I am happy to answer
any questions on, if the committee is interested.
The second provision has to do with the South Pacific
Regional Environment Program, called SPREP. This organization,
Mr. Chairman, has been around for a couple of decades. It just
recently in 1995 became an independent body, and of all the
participating nations in this important organization, all have
ratified this except for the United States. So, we appreciate
your consideration.
We feel this organization is important to our interests
simply because the U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are
located there, and of course, the region also interrelates with
the State of Hawaii. We feel this organization is the best
forum for the United States to influence, cooperate, and help
the people in the region deal with environmental programs and
sustain their development opportunities. Also this forum allows
us to cooperate with Australia, New Zealand, France, and the 22
island nations in the region. We are going to utilize this
particular forum as a model where territories are allowed to be
participants in the discussion, along with the nation states.
Mr. Chairman, the third provision is a treaty with Niue on
the Delineation of the Maritime Boundary. This is a standard
maritime agreement which will delineate the boundary in the
waters between American Samoa and Niue.
The fourth and fifth important provisions are the Montreal
and Beijing Amendments to the Montreal Protocol, which as you
noted, was ratified in 1988 and is an important international
effort to control some 96 substances which deplete the ozone
layer and toxic chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons, CFC's.
These two particular amendments before you we consider fine
tuning. They are logical steps, taking advantage of science and
experience as the world community continues efforts to repair
the ozone layer which screens us from a high incidence of skin
cancer, cataracts, and even abnormalities in animals.
The Montreal Amendment, the first one, entered into force
in the year 2000, and as of mid-April of this year, 79 other
countries have gone ahead and ratified. The Montreal Amendment
addresses two important trade matters.
The first bans trade of methyl bromide between parties and
nonparties. This avoids giving a competitive advantage to
noncomplying nations. It is the same provision that we have
applied to other identified chemicals.
Second, it calls on the Protocol parties--all of us who are
members--to implement an import and export system so we can
track the flow of these controlled substances.
The second amendment to the Montreal Protocol is the
Beijing Amendment. That entered into force in February of this
year. It has been ratified by 30 other countries. The Beijing
Amendment adds bromochloromethane as a controlled substance to
ensure its phaseout before it becomes used in a widespread
manner, especially in developing countries.
Second, it establishes a trade and production control on
hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFC's, and it will freeze their use
in 2004 and will again ban trade between parties and
nonparties.
And No. 3, the Beijing Amendment will require parties to
report on the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and
preshipment purposes.
The last provision before you, Mr. Chairman, is a Protocol
amending the 1949 Convention of the IATTC, the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission. This will allow the European
Commission to become a member of this 50-year-old organization,
which traditionally only states have been party to. The EC has
become a competent body to regulate fishing vessels, and it is
our belief that it is important to have the EC a member in the
conservation and management of the tuna fisheries and the
fishing fleets of the eastern Pacific Ocean. We want vessels
flying the EC flag to comply with the provisions of IATTC.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, these proposals share some
common elements and themes which I hope the Senate will find
favorable. First, all these agreements will work under existing
statutory authority. There is no need for legislative action
with our own laws.
No. 2, all these forums operate on a consensus-based
decisionmaking process, the best forum to be sure that we
protect U.S. interests.
The third theme, none of these proposals will incur
additional budgetary expenses.
And I am pleased to report to date we have had general
support from both public and private stakeholders for all six
agreements before you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, many thanks for taking the time to consider these
provisions, and I am happy to try to answer any questions that
members might have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Prepared Statememt of Hon. John F. Turner, Assistant Secretary of
State, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here
today to discuss six important international agreements that have been
submitted to the Senate for Advice and Consent--the Protocol Concerning
Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) to the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention), or the ``SPAW Protocol;'' the
South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) Agreement; the Niue
Boundary Treaty; an amendment to the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission; and two amendments to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the ``Montreal Amendment'' and the
``Beijing Amendment.'' Because these agreements serve important U.S.
foreign policy interests, we favor their early ratification.
While these agreements address different situations in different
parts of the world, they share several common elements. First, any
obligations set forth in these agreements can be undertaken through
existing statutory authority. No changes in law are required. Second,
consensus-based decision-making is the modus operandi for the governing
bodies of these agreements, even for those agreements that formally
provide for voting. This means that in matters affecting the lives of
American citizens--whether it concerns protecting the ozone layer or
conserving marine resources--the United States can adequately protect
American interests. Third, no new costs will be created. And fourth, we
understand that U.S. ratification of these agreements is not
controversial and is generally supported by the public and private
stakeholders.
the protocol concerning specially protected areas and wildlife to the
convention for the protection and development of the marine environment
of the wider caribbean region
Turning to a brief description of each agreement, the SPAW Protocol
serves to protect the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean sea, including the areas surrounding the U.S. mainland off
the coast of Florida and the Gulf States and territories in the
Caribbean region. This Protocol is an outgrowth of the Cartagena
Convention, and is one of three Protocols anticipated by the Cartagena
Convention. The Convention establishes general legal obligations for
the protection and preservation of the marine environment of the
Caribbean region. Geographically, it covers the marine environment of
the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and areas primarily within 200
nautical miles of the Atlantic coasts of 20 countries and island
territories. Twenty-eight countries of the Wider Caribbean Region are
eligible to become Parties to the Cartagena Convention and its
Protocols. Currently, ten countries are Parties to the SPAW Protocol,
while eleven others are non-Party Signatories.
The SPAW Protocol also encompasses internal waters extending in the
case of watercourses up to the fresh water limit, and any related
terrestrial areas (including watersheds) that a party may wish to
designate. It requires parties to establish protected areas and to take
specified protection and management measures therein, as necessary and
appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Protocol, and in
conformity with national laws and regulations and international law.
U.S. participation would demonstrate our political interest in
protecting the environment of the wider Caribbean Region. We feel so
strongly about the need to do so, that we have identified the Caribbean
as a focus for the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Strengthening our support for the Cartagena Convention by ratifying the
SPAW Protocol will allow us to better protect the marine resources of
the Wider Caribbean region--our backyard and, as President Bush has
dubbed, our Third Border. Many non-governmental organizations, such as
Monitor International, the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy,
and the Humane Society of the United States, support U.S. ratification
of the SPAW Protocol.
Were the United States to ratify the SPAW Protocol, we would issue
two reservations and an understanding along with our ratification. One
of the reservations is needed to ensure that our application of Article
11 of the Protocol is consistent with provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that allow
for the limited taking of species listed in Annex I and II for the
purpose of public display, scientific research, rescue and
rehabilitation, or as incidental catch related to fishing operations.
The second reservation is to Article 13, which could be interpreted to
require environmental assessments for non-Federal activities not
covered by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
(NEPA). The Understanding would state that the provisions of the
Protocol do not apply to non-native species.
There are three Annexes that contain the lists of 481 endangered
and threatened species of flora and fauna covered by Article 11 of the
Protocol. The United States plans to notify the depositary at the time
it accepts the Annexes that the Protocol will not apply to six species
of fauna and flora that do not require the protection provided by the
Protocol in U.S. territory. It is envisioned that the Annexes will be
treated separately as an Executive Agreement.
south pacific regional environment program (sprep) agreement
The South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) has existed
for nearly twenty years to protect and improve the South Pacific
environment and to ensure sustainable development in that region. The
U.S. territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, are located within the SPREP region. The
State of Hawaii is also closely linked to the Pacific basin by
geography, history, economics and politics. SPREP provides for
increased cooperation among the United States, Australia, New Zealand,
France and twenty-one island States and territories of the South
Pacific region in addressing issues affecting the environment and
development in the region.
SPREP is the best opportunity for us to both influence regional
Pacific environmental policies and encourage coordinated approaches on
environmental and sustainable development issues. With greater
commercial development, the region's unique wildlife and plants are at
risk. U.S. participation in SPREP sends a strong signal that the
Pacific region is a priority for us.
Negotiations to conclude the agreement ended in 1993. Prior to the
agreement, SPREP had the status of an informal institution housed
within the South Pacific Commission. The agreement simply accords SPREP
formal status as an intergovernmental organization. It will not change
our costs or the manner of our participation. The United States as well
as its territories, American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands believe that U.S. interests would be best
served by moving rapidly to become a Party to the Agreement, which
entered into force on August 31, 1995. With the exception of the United
States, all 18 remaining active members that participated in the
negotiations are Parties to the agreement.
treaty with niue on delimitation of a maritime boundary
On May 13, 1997, in Wellington, New Zealand, the Governments of the
United States and Niue signed a treaty delineating a maritime boundary
between their respective territories in the South Pacific. The purpose
of the U.S. Treaty with Niue on Delimitation of a Maritime Boundary, is
to create a maritime boundary in the waters between American Samoa and
Niue. Niue is an island in the South Pacific Ocean about one and a half
times the size of Washington D.C. It is in our interest to establish
limits of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around American Samoa to
give certainty to U.S. jurisdiction over the water column and sea
floor, which allows the U.S. to manage properly the fisheries resources
in these areas. The boundary is based on an equidistant line,
calculated from all relevant territories. American Samoa supports U.S.
ratification of the agreement.
montreal and beijing amendments to the montreal protocol on substances
that deplete the ozone layer
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
was ratified by the United States in 1988 to strengthen international
efforts to reduce the effects of ozone depleting chemicals, such as
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Scientific evidence showed that more steps
were needed to protect human health from the debilitating effects of
ozone depletion. Increased UVB radiation associated with ozone
depletion is linked to serious health and environmental effects
including higher incidences of skin cancers and eye cataracts and
ecosystem disruption.
A multilateral regime such as that provided in the Montreal
Protocol is necessary to control emissions of ozone-depleting
substances because such emissions occurring anywhere could affect the
ozone layer globally. The Montreal Protocol established schedules and
timetables for reducing CFCs and other ozone depleting substances based
on sound science. Since the Protocol's entry into force, four
amendments have been adopted to quicken the pace of repairing the ozone
layer. The London Amendment, which sped up the phase-out schedule for
CFCs and other major ozone depleting chemicals, was adopted in 1990 and
ratified by the United States in 1991. The 1992 Copenhagen amendment,
which provides for controls on three new substances, including methyl
bromide, was ratified by the United States in 1994.
Montreal Amendment
The 1997 ``Montreal'' Amendment, which entered into force in 2000,
is designed to address two important trade-related matters. First, the
amendment bans the trade in methyl bromide between a Party and a non-
Party. This provision is identical to trade provisions that have been
included in the Montreal Protocol for other controlled chemicals. It is
designed to protect the environment by ensuring that countries that
have not agreed to the Montreal Protocol's production and consumption
rules for methyl bromide do not have unfettered access to this ozone
depleting compound. In addition, the Protocol's trade provisions ensure
that non-Parties do not gain a competitive advantage over Parties that
do comply with these reduction provisions. Second, the amendment calls
on each Party to put in place a system for licensing the import and
export of all new, used, recycled and reclaimed controlled substances
under the Montreal Protocol. Finally, the amendment makes it illegal
for non-complying producers to export ``recycled'' substances. It is
important to note that the last two provisions (both the licensing
system and the restriction on exports of recycled substances) will
support law enforcement efforts to prevent the illegal trade in
controlled substances.
Beijing Amendment
The 1999 Beijing Amendment, which entered into force in February
2002, further fine-tunes the Montreal Protocol. The amendment adds
bromochloromethane, an industrial solvent and flame retardant to the
control regime. This action will ensure the phase-out of this new ozone
depleting chemical before it can come into widespread use, possibly in
developing countries. The Beijing Amendment also establishes trade and
production controls on hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), similar to
those which already exist for other controlled substances. The trade
provisions ban trade in HCFCs between Parties and non-Parties, while
the production controls limit the amount of HCFCs that can be produced
as they are gradually phased out over the next two decades. Finally,
the amendment requires Parties to report on their use of methyl bromide
for quarantine and preshipment purposes.
U.S. ratification of the Montreal and Beijing Amendments would send
a clear signal that the Administration is committed to strengthening
international environmental standards on chemicals that degrade the
global environment. In addition, because these amendments have both
already entered into effect, ratification would allow the United States
to fully participate in Montreal Protocol decisions related to these
two agreements.
protocol amending 1949 convention of inter-american tropical tuna
commission
Finally, I would like to mention briefly the Protocol amending the
1949 Convention on the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission (IATTC). The Protocol amends the Convention to allow the
European Commission (EC) to become a member of the IATTC. The original
Convention, adopted in 1949, only allows States to be members of the
Commission. Today, however, it is the EC, not the Member States, that
has the competence to regulate fishing vessels of EC Member States
fishing in the Convention area. The Protocol includes language that has
become standard in regional fishery conventions to allow membership by
``regional economic integration organizations.'' This would be the
first time the Convention has been amended since its entry into force
in 1950.
The current members of the IATTC are the United States, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Vanuatu and Venezuela. Collectively, the members of the IATTC
review research conducted by the IATTC scientists and adopt
conservation and management measures for the tuna fisheries of the
eastern Pacific Ocean, which the members are then legally bound to
implement. In recent years, these measures have included catch quotas
for yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna, measures to reduce bycatch in tuna
purse seine fisheries, and other measures.
Allowing the EC to accede to the Convention serves important U.S.
interests. EC membership in the IATTC is the only way to ensure that
vessels flying the flag of any BC Member State are bound by the
conservation and management measures adopted by the IATTC for the
fishery resources of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Although the BC
participates in the meetings of the IATTC and has generally complied
with the conservation and management measures adopted by the
organization, it is currently not legally bound to do so. If vessels
operating under EC jurisdiction are to be legally bound by such
measures, the EC must be allowed to accede to the Convention.
conclusion
In conclusion, we strongly request your favorable consideration of
these agreements. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Secretary Turner.
First of all, as I understand it, the administration,
obviously since you are here, supports all of these treaties
and is asking us to ratify them. Is that correct?
Mr. Turner. The administration is in strong support of
ratification of these six measures.
Senator Sarbanes. Second, you mentioned it in a couple of
instances but you did not do it with each one, I would be
interested in how far along we are on the path of having these
various treaties approved by other countries. Could you just
give us a rundown on that if you have it there?
Mr. Turner. I believe I can, Mr. Chairman. On the SPAW
Protocol, there are 11 signatories and all have ratified except
for the United States. The treaty with Niue, of course, that is
bilateral, and both countries still need to ratify that. On the
SPREP agreement, 17 of the 18 signatories have ratified pending
approval of the United States to make it 18. On the IATTC,
there are 8 signatories to that and only France has ratified to
date.
Senator Sarbanes. That's the tuna----
Mr. Turner. The tuna one, it is my understanding that the
only one to ratify that to date has been France.
Senator Sarbanes. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Turner. And I will clarify these if I am mistaken, for
the record.
On the Montreal Amendment, 79 countries have ratified it,
and 30 countries have ratified the Beijing Amendment.
Senator Sarbanes. That is out of 184? Is that correct?
Mr. Turner. I believe that would be correct.
Senator Sarbanes. Why is the Beijing one not as far along?
Do you know?
Mr. Turner. Well, the Beijing Amendment entered into force
February of this year. Sufficient countries had ratified it.
Senator Sarbanes. How many were needed to put it into
force?
Mr. Turner. We will supply that answer for the record,
Senator.
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
A total of 20 Parties.
In February 2002, the Beijing Amendment entered into force
following its ratification by 20 Parties to the Montreal Protocol that
had either previously or simultaneously submitted their instruments of
ratification for the Montreal Amendment. Thus far, 30 instruments of
ratification have been deposited.
Senator Sarbanes. You say only 30 have approved it.
Mr. Turner. Yes, 30 have approved it.
Senator Sarbanes. Out of 184? There are 184 countries that
have ratified the Montreal Protocol. Is that correct?
Mr. Turner. It is my understanding 183 countries have
ratified the Montreal Protocol.
Senator Sarbanes. OK, and 79 of those have approved the
Montreal Amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Is that correct?
Mr. Turner. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and that went into effect in
November 1999.
Senator Sarbanes. When it had how many signatories, do you
know?
Mr. Turner. I will have to supply for the record the number
needed to----
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
Only countries that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol, not
signatories, are eligible to approve amendments to the Protocol. To
become a Party to the Montreal Protocol, an instrument of ratification,
accession, approval or acceptance must be submitted to the Depositary.
Each amendment to the Protocol must be ratified individually. The
Montreal Amendment entered into force upon the deposit of 20
instruments of ratification by Parties to the Montreal Protocol.
Senator Sarbanes. Now, 30 have done the Beijing Amendment.
Mr. Turner. Correct.
Senator Sarbanes. Out of 183. And that is enough to put it
into effect?
Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. It went into effect in February.
Senator Sarbanes. Do we know how many countries it takes to
put an amendment to the Protocol in effect?
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that it
took 20 to ratify the Beijing Amendment for it to go into
effect. So, if it went into effect in February 2002----
Senator Sarbanes. How many did it take for the Montreal
Protocol itself to go into effect?
Mr. Turner. We will supply that for the record, Senator. It
took 20 countries to modify the two amendments under
consideration this morning.
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
The entry-into-force requirement of the Montreal Protocol
stipulates that it will enter into force on January 1, 1989, provided
that 11 instruments of ratification have been submitted by States or
regional economic integration organizations representing at least two-
thirds of the 1986 estimated global consumption of controlled
substances and provided that the Vienna Convention had entered into
force.
The Protocol, indeed, came into force, on January 1, 1989, by which
time 29 countries and the EEC, representing approximately 82% of world
consumption, had ratified it.
Senator Sarbanes. The thrust of my question is obviously a
process question. I do not know that it directly has anything
to do with the substance because I do not have a problem with
the substance. But it is interesting that only 20 countries out
of 183 countries that have ratified the treaty can amend the
treaty and put that amendment into effect. If you could work
that up for us, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Turner. We will get you some additional information. I
think it might be worth noting that it is important that those
developing countries that are in a leadership position in the
chemical arena--certainly the standard has been in the Montreal
Protocol that countries like the United States taking a lead
and helping developing countries with their phaseout of their
production and their research. So, I think it is important that
the United States be a leader in this effort.
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
The number of ratifications that are required for an amendment to
an international environmental agreement to enter into force varies
from agreement to agreement. The Montreal Protocol parties decided to
allow amendments to enter into force with 20 ratifications, in part to
allow controls on ozone depleting chemicals to become effective in a
timely manner. However, if the concern is that only a small number of
countries can amend the treaty, it also must be agreed by consensus or,
after every effort to reach consensus has been made, by 3/4 majority as
a last resort.
Senator Sarbanes. I do not differ with that. It sort of
makes me pause for a minute that you have a treaty that has 183
signatories to it and that only 20 of the 183 can put an
amendment into effect with respect to that treaty.
Mr. Turner. I think it is a worthwhile observation, and we
will get back with some further explanation of why that was so.
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
This process has worked well in practice and a significant number
of countries have ratified the four Montreal Protocol amendments. The
1990 London Amendment has now been ratified by 163 countries, the 1993
Copenhagen Amendment by 141 countries, the 1997 Montreal Amendment by
79 countries, and the 1999 Beijing Amendment by 30 countries. Since it
is not unusual for some countries to take five years or more to
complete their ratification process, this demonstrates the willingness
of the Montreal Protocol parties to adhere to new amendments. U.S.
ratification is particularly important because it encourages other
countries to ratify quickly.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you have any other treaties pending,
or does this cover your agenda, what we are doing here this
morning?
Mr. Turner. Senator Sarbanes, I believe on Thursday we will
have a hearing on the POP's Treaty. Certainly we have the Law
of the Sea.
Senator Sarbanes. I think that is before another committee,
as I understand it. That is the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants?
Mr. Turner. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And we have the PIC, the
Prior Informed Consent.
Senator Sarbanes. Yes. I think you have just sent that up,
as I understand it.
Mr. Turner. And the POP's just recently was sent. The
President just recently signed that. The holdup on that one has
been legislation accompanying that was prepared by EPA.
Senator Sarbanes. Do you have any other treaties?
Mr. Turner. We have the Law of the Sea before the Senate.
And there may be some others that we will notify the committee
of that might be before the Senate.
Senator Sarbanes. I think it would be helpful if you could
send us a letter about the balance of your agenda, if any, as
it relates to this committee beyond the six treaties on which
we are holding this hearing this morning.
Mr. Turner. And then, Senator Sarbanes, I know we have some
others in the works on fisheries, polar bears, but whether they
come before your committee, I will get that to you. Thank you
for the question.
[The following answer was subsequently provided.]
The following treaties of particular interest to the OES Bureau are
pending in the Committee:
Treaty Doc. 103-39: United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, with Annexes, done at Montego Bay, December 10, 1982
and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December
10, 1982, with Annex, adopted at New York, July 28, 1994.
Treaty Doc. 106-21: Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade, with Annexes. Done at
Rotterdam, September 10, 1998.
Treaty Doc. 98-10: Amendment to the 1973 Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora. Adopted at Gaborone, April 30, 1983.
Treaty Doc. 103-20: Convention on Biological Diversity. Done
at Rio de Janeiro, June 6, 1992.
Treaty Doc. 107-5: Stockholm Convention on Persistent
Organic Pollutants, with Annexes. Done at Stockholm, May 23,
2002.
Below are treaties that we have negotiated that are not yet before
the Committee, but may be submitted to the Senate before the end of the
107th session of Congress:
1996 Protocol to the Convention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972, with Annexes. Done at
London, November 7, 1996.
Protocol of 1997 to Amend the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by
the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto [to add Annex VI--
Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships].
Done at London, September 26, 1997.
Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-based Sources and
Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development
of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, with
Annexes. Done at Oranjestad, October 6, 1999. Signed by the
U.S. October 6, 1999.
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.
Done at Honolulu, September 4, 2000. Signed by the U.S.
September 5, 2000.
Agreement with Russia on the Conservation and Management of
the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population. Signed at
Washington, October 16, 2000.
Amendment to the 1981 Treaty Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of Canada on
Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges. Done
at Seattle, April 24, 2002.
1987 Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain
Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States
of America. Done at Christmas Island, Kiribati, May 24, 2002.
Senator Sarbanes. Good.
Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask
some questions on this.
First, let me followup on the process----
Senator Sarbanes. George, let me just intervene for a
second. I am informed that the POP's Treaty would actually be
referred to this committee, but that the hearing that you are
referring is on the implementing legislation and I think that
will be before the Environment and Public Works Committee, just
to be clear on that point.
Senator Allen. I want to get into some of the merits and
science, but let me just followup on the chairman's questions
on jurisdiction and effectiveness I guess in process.
Clearly if a country votes and ratifies the Montreal
Protocol, it applies to them, the 183. Assume it can be amended
with 20 countries, and 30 countries have agreed to an
amendment. Is that amendment binding only on those 30
countries?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Senator Allen. All right, it is. So, you still have a long
way to go on some of these amendments. It is just like a new
treaty. Granted, it is an add-on or it is an amendment to the
basic one. But there are many countries, some of which may be
larger producers or users of the substances, but still have to
ratify these amendments.
Mr. Turner. Senator, it is my understanding that the
provisions only apply to those that are parties that have
ratified it. But certainly the nonparties would be impacted by
the prohibitions on trade.
Senator Allen. Well, let me ask you on the trade then, to
the substance of this. Clearly illegal trade in substances
controlled under the Protocol applies. Is illegal trade
extensive, and if it is, if this illegal trade is extensive,
could you share with us who the major violators are?
Mr. Turner. Senator, I would like to get back to you on the
levels of trade. It certainly is a focus for this
administration, and I think we have had some real success
stories in reducing the trade on several of these chemicals.
Certainly we had a problem with Russia as it went through the
breakup and they were still in the production of some of these
chemicals, and working positively with Russia, we were able to
change that. So, what the actual flow of many of these
substances--perhaps we can submit to the committee some more
information.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
The United States and the international community have recognized
and worked to address the problem of illegal smuggling of ozone
depleting substances (ODS). Significant action has been taken by
calling on countries to combat illegal imports, and providing training
and assistance to government and customs officials to prevent these
illicit activities. Estimates of the levels of illegal trade are highly
speculative by their nature. Illegal smuggling of CFCs in the mid-1990s
was estimated based on government and industry information to be in the
range of 16,000 to 38,000 tons of CFCs annually, representing
approximately 6 to 15% of global production. In the United States, the
Department of Justice has taken strong action on CFC smuggling, seizing
nearly 2.5 million pounds over the past decade and securing numerous
convictions resulting in fines and jail sentences. Illegal traffic is
believed to have peaked in the mid-1990s and decreased since that time
due to (1) the deterrent effect from enhanced efforts and convictions
achieved by law enforcement and customs officials, and (2) the
reduction in demand for CFCs as obsolete equipment is replaced or
retired. The provision included in the Montreal Amendment establishing
a licensing system for controlled substances is particularly important
because it will assist law enforcement in efforts to track and prevent
illegal smuggling.
Senator Allen. The reason I ask this, obviously, the
effectiveness of any of these treaties is based upon
compliance, and if we are going to try to stop illegal trade,
we need to know who the violators are, if there are any. There
are many things that will come before the Foreign Relations
Committee in our dealings with certain countries where this
sort of compliance, while it may have to do with, say, foreign
aid, it may have to do with various types of assistance to
these countries, that we might be able to use compliance with
these environmental concerns as one of the conditions precedent
for them receiving that aid.
I do not know the extent of it, but there are times--and I
am not going to bring up any country because I am not going to
cast any aspersions without knowing what the evidence and the
facts are. But nevertheless, there are treaties, there are
arrangements, there is assistance from our country that we
provide to many, many nations around the world, and to the
extent that we want to be reducing some of these dangerous
substances in the air that affect our ozone layers, it seems to
me that maybe there are ways to leverage that or just make that
one added concern.
For example, we always care about nuclear proliferation
when we are looking at countries and if they have nuclear
capabilities and they are exporting arms or possibly nuclear
substances to countries that should not be getting them, that
ends up affecting a whole lot of other areas as far as our
dealings with those countries. So, maybe this would be another
one where we can have some influence in maybe an indirect way
to get compliance.
Mr. Turner. Senator, I think it is an important
observation. I appreciate the question. And not only is it
important that these toxics be controlled because of ozone
depletion, but also we have to be vigilant on illegal trade
because it puts American business at an unfair advantage,
whether you are in the chemical processing business or you are
in the agriculture business. Our industry is trying to comply
in the phaseout, and we do not want unfair business
competitors, those that are violating the standards of the
Protocol.
Senator Allen. I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I
mentioned in my opening remarks the importance of getting the
so-called under-developed countries to abide by this as well,
because if our country is abiding by it and others are
producing, say, in agriculture or other manufacturing,
products, if they are not complying with the same rules, not
only are they harming the environment, but it is also harming
jobs here in this country because those countries end up being
more desirable possibly for those companies to operate in
rather than in the United States or, for that matter, in France
or Germany or other countries that are complying with it.
As far as the Montreal Protocol--I mentioned this in my
opening comments, and if you could share with the committee--
has the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer been
reversed in any measurable respect since the implementation of
the original Montreal Protocol? If not, if you could share that
with us, or has the rate of depletion slowed, maybe not
reversed, but is there any measurable data that shows at least
the rate of depletion has slowed? Of course, it would be more
desirable if it were returning, getting better, but do you have
any evidence of that?
Mr. Turner. Senator, certainly I think the Montreal
Protocol has been successful on several fronts, and we can get
you additional information on that. Certainly we have seen the
science of the ozone is a complex one, but in certain areas of
the world, we have seen some restoration. But scientists at
least tell me that without the reductions in the phaseout that
we have experienced to date, that the ozone levels would be 10
times in four decades what they are going to be if we did not
have the efforts going on today which would be like 20 million
incidents of skin cancer.
So, it certainly has helped negate where we would be
without the Potocol. How much we have done to restore those
areas that have been depleted, perhaps I can find some
additional information. It has been an extremely important
international effort, and as Senator Sarbanes' and your
comments have pointed out, we need to do better with it. But
the control of some 100 substances has made a difference in
what we would experience in ozone depletion if we had not had
it.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
It is expected that the ozone layer will slowly recover over the
next 50 years, assuming that the Montreal Protocol and its amendments
are fully implemented.
Senator Allen. That is a good, broad summary of it. I think
it would be helpful to get the specific objective data to show
that. Obviously, everything you say is very logical, but I
think that as we move forward, the more empirical scientific
data we can get, the better. I think the citizens of this
country deserve it, and I think it also will help us as well in
the future in making determinations and also sharing that
objective data. Especially if you have a country that has a
relative democracy, the people of those countries will demand
their leaders to act as well. If you have objective data rather
than sentiments, it usually bolsters people's instinctive
sentiments to have that evidence.
Mr. Turner. I think it is important that the committee have
that objective data, and I will look forward to reviewing it.
[The following information was subsequently provided.]
The Montreal Protocol Scientific Assessment Panel has found that
the combined concentration of all ozone-depleting chemicals in the
lower atmosphere peaked in 1994 and is now slightly declining.
Senator Allen. Finally, Senator Sarbanes, if I may.
Senator Sarbanes. Certainly.
Senator Allen. Do you foresee any additional substances
that might be subject to the Montreal Protocol?
Mr. Turner. Senator, I do not know of any other materials
that are under consideration at the moment that would be coming
before you.
Senator Allen. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Turner. Senator, on a personal note, we look forward to
welcoming you to Wyoming, welcoming you and your son to Moose.
If I can be any help in seeing that that is an enjoyable visit
whether it is at the Chuck Wagon next to the Snake River or
whatever, we look forward to welcoming you to Jackson Hole
country.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Secretary, could you turn to page 4
of your statement please? I want to ask you about the meaning
of the paragraph at the top of page 4 with respect to the
Caribbean Protocol, the SPAW.
You say there: ``There are three Annexes that contain the
lists of 481 endangered and threatened species of flora and
fauna covered by Article 11 of the Protocol. The United States
plans to notify the depositary at the time it accepts the
Annexes that the Protocol will not apply to six species of
fauna and flora that do not require the protection provided by
the Protocol in U.S. territory.'' I would like an explanation
of that.
And then I would like an explanation of the last sentence.
``It is envisioned that the Annexes will be treated separately
as an Executive Agreement.''
Mr. Turner. Senator, what we had envisioned was because the
list of species changes, as does the list of our own Endangered
Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, as it does with
the CITES list of species, and animal parts come on and off
Appendix 1, 2, and 3, we thought that a good way to handle
this, so we would not have to come before the committee with
each species change, we would handle it as an annex like we do
in CITES.
Certainly the United States shares the interest and effort
to protect rare plants and mammals, fish, and birds in the
Caribbean region, which we share. These six species, we wanted
to be sure we are in compliance with how we handle it under the
Endangered Species Act. For example, they list wood storks.
They just list it under the Annex in the Caribbean. Well, under
United States law and program provision, we only list wood
storks in one region of the United States, and the wood storks,
as I recall, in Louisiana and Texas are plentiful and we do not
list that population.
So, I see this as a clarification, first of all, to be sure
that the United States' adherence will be based on our programs
and laws that you all have passed. So, I see it as a
clarification, and it will also allow us the flexibility as we
change our approach to specific species, or as this list
changes, we can handle it on an annex basis.
But we would appreciate any thoughts on that from the
committee. It seemed like a reasonable way. And any changes to
the Annex will be handled through the ``Federal Register'' and
public comment as we do on the CITES list.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, does the last sentence mean that
the executive branch can add to the list or take off the list
as it sees fit?
Mr. Turner. Yes, Senator. In a procedure, whether it is the
CITES list, as we go through the process under CITES, as we do
under the Endangered Species Act, as we propose and have
hearings and do biology, and list through the ``Federal
Register,'' it would have the same kind of transparency and
involvement of the public, public notice. It did not seem
convenient for this committee or the Congress to be coming back
and submitting lists of specific species to you.
Senator Sarbanes. I am not cognizant. How does the
Endangered Species Act work? Can the Executive add to or take
off of that of its own volition?
Mr. Turner. The Endangered Species Act, as I recall, gives
the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce--they
go through a rigorous procedure of findings and public notice
and biology, but in fact they can list, remove, down-list
species in peril based on biology, based on the laws that the
Congress has passed and that we have adhered to for years.
There are several hundred domestic and international species on
those lists. So, as they change and we find more biology and
people comment, those lists do change.
Senator Sarbanes. And is the procedure you are suggesting
here parallel with that procedure?
Mr. Turner. We feel it is in compliance with--we simply
wanted to clarify that this particular Protocol would not
dictate to the United States the handling of species different
than we are already required to do under existing law. I do not
see a major conflict----
Senator Sarbanes. No. That is the part that says that it
will not apply to six species that do not require the
protection provided by the Protocol in U.S. territory. Right? I
understand that part of it. Well, I think I understand both
parts of it, but that is not the part that I am asking about
now.
I am asking about the provision that the Annexes will be
treated separately as an executive agreement and whether that
means that the Executive--let me take an extreme example. Could
the Executive add 481 additional endangered and threatened
species?
Mr. Turner. Senator, highly unlikely. As species are
nominated under our own domestic laws and the Endangered
Species Act or the Migratory Birds, those are identified--the
Marine Mammal Protection Act--species go on and come off those
lists according to procedures, court cases established by the
United States. So, those change. Of course, over decades in our
country, the history of wildlife protection, as you are aware
of--we are now up to several hundred, maybe over 1,000 species,
now domestically and international species as the biology
shows.
So, I see it that we would handle this list, as the
Caribbean countries come together and identify in peril lists,
we would say that is fine, but we just want to be sure we are
in compliance with the list that we now have in the United
States. So, doing it as an executive agreement allows us to
prevent the application of the Annex list out of the Caribbean
intruding on the sovereign decisions that the United States
makes through its own laws and----
Senator Sarbanes. I understand the defensive strategy. We
are looking here whether to approve this. You give us a list of
481 items that will be covered. Now, presumably there will be
some Member of Congress who is interested in that list, since
it may have an impact. Can the Executive now in the future add
to the 481 of its own volition?
Mr. Turner. They certainly could not add on--the Annex
could not dictate to the United States the additional
protection of species. The Annex under this Protocol could not
do that. We could only do it in accordance with the laws of the
United States that you have already adopted.
And the reason we do it on an annex, we only have 90 days
to file our reservations to an annex. So, this seemed to be the
most expedient and the most flexible manner so as not to have
to bring it to your attention.
But no, this Annex--nor could the administration just pick
481 species in the Caribbean and somehow impose those on the
protection and the rigors of the law that the United States now
has. Those will be handled separately under laws that this body
has already provided and court law has established these
sideboards.
And the 481 are relatively comparable to species and
populations we already have listed under United States law. We
wanted to clarify these six to be sure that this Annex would
not impose any outside regulations against U.S. interests.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, we may submit some followup
questions to you on this issue.
Also, there have been a number of matters that have come up
in the course of the hearing where you have indicated you will
be providing us additional information. If you could do that
promptly, it would help in terms of consideration of these
treaties.
Do you have anything else?
Senator Allen. No, I do not. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Turner. Senator, thank you again for your indulgence
and consideration. We will get that information back to you
expediently.
Senator Sarbanes. OK, very good.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. If we could ask the follow-on panel to
come forward and take their places, we will continue here.
Our panel consists of Thomas Grasso, the U.S. director for
Marine Conservation Program of the World Wildlife Fund. Mr.
Grasso is an environmental attorney. He has worked for the
National Wildlife Federation, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund.
And he will be followed by Dr. David Read Barker. Dr.
Barker is president of Monitor International, an environmental
NGO based in Annapolis, Maryland. Dr. Barker actually has spent
more than three decades promoting sustainable development
through partnerships among governments, community groups, and
businesses, and is an expert on the Caribbean. I think we will
focus most of his attention on the Protocol to the 1983 Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region Convention.
Mr. Grasso, we would be happy to hear from you and then we
will go to Dr. Barker.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS V. GRASSO, U.S. DIRECTOR, MARINE
CONSERVATION PROGRAM, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Grasso. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Allen.
It is a pleasure to be here today and it is a privilege as
well.
With your permission, I would like to dispense with the
reading of my written testimony and just make a few brief
comments.
Senator Sarbanes. Your full statement will be included in
the record.
Mr. Grasso. Thank you.
On behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, as the director of
the U.S. Marine Conservation Program, it is a pleasure to be
here today to testify about these two very important treaties
that the United States is considering moving forward on.
Today the world's living oceans are under stress from a
number of human-induced threats. The U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization estimates that 70 percent of the world's fisheries
are considered in an overfished state or approaching being
overfished. And 25 percent of the global fish catch is
considered unintentional bycatch, or wasted as dead discards.
Very dramatic. And if you can imagine explaining that to a
Chesapeake Bay waterman that a quarter of his crab catch would
be disposed of as dead or dying, he would be taken aback I
think dramatically.
Habitats in the marine environment are under stress as
well. Some 58 percent of the world's coral reefs are at risk
from some sort of human activity, whether it is pollution,
dynamite fishing, or other destructive fishing practices. In
Indonesia alone, 80 percent of the coral reefs are threatened
by dynamite fishing, and this is the type of fishing practice
that is seen in much of the developing world.
Climate change is having an impact on the marine
environment as well. In 1997 and 1998, as a result of climatic
changes, coral bleaching hit the Indian Ocean very hard with 80
percent of the reefs dying as a result of coral bleaching
around the Maldives and other islands.
So, clearly international cooperation and strong
conservation action are needed to address these threats. The
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has been around for
close to half a century. They have faced a number of daunting
challenges, but no more daunting than the challenges they face
today. The two that I am speaking of are over-capacity of the
fishing fleet in the region and the problem of massive bycatch
with ceratin types of fishing practices.
Why do I bring these issues up in the context of the
discussion of whether the EU and other regional economic
integration organizations should be a party to this treaty? The
European Union's member state, Spain, currently has the third
largest fishing fleet in the region. All of those boats that
the Spanish own, whether they are flagged in Spain or locally,
use something called FAD fishing, which is a type of fishing
that is based around floating objects. It attracts fish that
feed. That type of fishing method has very destructive bycatch
as a result, catches of small tuna, sharks, rays, and sea
turtles as well.
If the EU decides to join as a party to the IATTC, we fully
expect that they will work vigilantly to promote a limit on the
capacity of the fishing fleet in the region and address the
serious bycatch problems that their fleets, as well as other
fleets in the region, poses to the health of the tuna fishery.
I mention this because this committee will likely be
considering later in the year a treaty that was recently
adopted to manage the tuna fisheries of the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean. The EU participated as an observer in those
negotiations. The United States provided a true leadership role
in promoting that treaty's conclusion. A resolution was adopted
midway through the negotiations by the parties that said we
will not increase capacity of the fishing fleet in the region
until we have adopted a treaty and a management plan is put in
place.
Unfortunately, the Spanish fishing industry struck a deal
with one of the Pacific island countries to gain access to
their waters, thereby breaching the resolution that was adopted
by the parties. So, I mention this because I think it is
important for the EU to be a party to the IATTC, but they also
have to agree to play by the rules and to work toward promoting
conservation management.
Moving on to the South Pacific Region Environment Program,
this is a very familiar type of program I am sure to both of
you with your experience with the Chesapeake Bay agreement. In
the Pacific, collaboration, cooperation, and consensus are the
Pacific way. SPREP I think demonstrates those principles and
values very well. Over the years, the United States has
participated as an observer and has participated. The United
States' participation as a full party to this agreement and the
SPREP program would be a wonderful step forward for the United
States, as well as for the SPREP program.
With that, I would like to thank you again for allowing me
to testify here today and would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grasso follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas V. Grasso, U.S. Director, Marine
Conservation Program, World Wildlife Fund
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the South Pacific
Regional Environment Programme Agreement and the Protocol Amending the
1949 Convention of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. I am
Tom Grasso, U.S. Director for Marine Conservation at the World Wildlife
Fund. WWF, the world's largest private conservation organization, works
internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently
sponsor conservation programs in more 100 countries thanks to the
support of our 1.2 million members in the United States and more than 5
million members worldwide.
Today, the living resources of our world's oceans are facing a
variety of threats from human activities ranging from destructive
fishing practices, overcapacity of global fishing fleet, unstable
coastal land use development and the impacts of climate change. The
United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that more
than 70% of the world's commercial fisheries are being overfished or
threatened by overfishing. Moreover, approximately 25% of the world's
total commercial catch of fish is unintentional bycatch or wasted as
discards. Regarding sensitive marine habitats, 58% of the world's coral
reefs are at risk from human activities. Already in Indonesia, over 80%
of the reefs are at risk from dynamite fishing--a threat that is
widespread in the developing world. In the last decade, climate change
has emerged as a major threat to coral reefs. When corals are exposed
to high temperatures large areas of reef loose their colorful algae and
bleach and die. In 1997-98, coral bleaching hit the Indian Ocean
particularly hard with an average of around 80% reef mortality in the
Maldives and other islands.
International cooperation and strong conservation action aimed at
reducing the myriad human threats to our world's oceans is desperately
needed. Today, your committee is considering two such international
efforts in the Pacific Ocean: the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission and the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Agreement. I will address the specific issue with respect to each
agreement individually.
As you know, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
was first established over half-a-century ago. Since that time, the
IATTC has had to address a number of critical issues facing the tuna
fisheries of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) and the ecosystem
upon which they rely. Some of these issues include pursuing advances
fisheries science for support and development of fisheries management
plans as well as the establishment of fishing quotas and the
development and administration of the International Dolphin
Conservation Program whose aim it is to reduce dolphin mortality in the
tuna fisheries of the ETP.
Today, IATTC is faced with perhaps its most difficult issues to
date: that of the gross overcapacity of the region's fishing fleet and
the massive by catch problems associated with the FAD fishery (a FAD is
the use of an artificial floating object to attract fish). You may ask,
why am I raising these issues in the context of hearing on Protocol
pertaining to amend the IATTC convention? Let me explain why. As you
know, the protocol is intended to amend the 1949 treaty to allow
regional economic integration organizations such as the EU to join as
full-participating parties.
According to the IATTC, between 1961 and 2001 the number of purse
seine vessels operating in the ETP has nearly doubled from 125 to 220.
The volume of well space (the fleets' overall fishing capacity) has
increased from 31,096m3 to 197,421m3. That increase represents a 642m3
capacity increase per fishing vessel. Spain currently has 5 Spanish
flagged with an additional 8 locally flagged, but Spanish-owned,
fishing vessels operating in the region. As of the fall 2001, this
aggregated fleet of 13 vessels represents the third largest fishing
fleet in the ETP region.
Additionally, from 1992-1999, there has been a dramatic increase in
the amount of FAD fishing relative to other fishing methods in the
region. In 1992, 31% of the ETP fishery was FAD fishing. By 1999 that
percentage had more than doubled with FAD fishing making up 80.4% of
the ETP fishery. Why is this important? Use of FADs to catch tuna
results in high levels of undersized tuna and other marine species
being caught and threatens the health of the marine ecosystem that
supports the valuable tuna fisheries of the region. According to a 2000
IATTC bycatch working group document, FAD fishing results in much
greater bycatch of undersized fish of the three main tuna species
(yellowfin, skipjack and big eye), when compared to other fishing
methods (e.g. floating objects 27,133mt, unassociated schools 2,551mt
and dolphin sets 747mt during 1998). In addition, the workgroup found
that, again, when compared to other fishing methods, FAD fishing
resulted in the bycatch of other marine species, such as sea turtles,
sharks, billfish, mahi mahi and manta rays, nearly an order of
magnitude greater than the other methods.
Accordingly, WWF supports amending the 1949 treaty to allow
regional economic integration organizations, when appropriate, to join
as party the IATTC. However, as the EU seeks to join the IATTC, WWF
believes that the EU should do so with the full intentions of working
aggressively to address the fleet overcapacity and FAD fishing bycatch
problems that are currently plaguing the region's tuna stocks and
associated marine species. In addition, the EU should ensure that the
fleets of their member States comply fully with any regional plans
aimed at addressing these and other critical issues faced in the
region. Lastly, to date, the United States has shouldered the lion
share of costs for administering the IATTC. Should the EU become a
party, we fully expect the EU to assume a substantial responsibility
for financially support the work of the IATTC commensurate to their
interests in the region.
I will now address the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Agreement. WWF has a substantial interest in the promotion of
collaborative efforts to protect and enhance the marine environment in
the South Pacific. As part of our effort to prioritize efforts to
protect the world's biological diversity, WWF underwent a
scientifically rigorous effort to identify the most global significant
ecoregions and what we came up with was a list we call the Global 200.
In the South Pacific, we have identified marine ecosystems important
for preserving marine biodiversity in Vanuatu, Fiji, New Caledonia,
Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Palau, Solomon Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia and Papua New Guinea. In addition, WWF's South Pacific
regional programme office based in Suva, Fiji has worked
collaboratively with the SPREP over the years and believes it them to
be a valuable partner in the region. The United States support of SPREP
over the years has been essential to its success. Should the U.S.
decide to join as a party to SPREP, WWF would view this in a very
positive light and believe that the United States' full participation
can only enhance SPREP's the collaborative efforts in the region.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you again for
the opportunity to testify here today.
Senator Sarbanes. Very good.
Dr. Barker, we will be happy to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID READ BARKER, PRESIDENT, MONITOR
INTERNATIONAL, ANNAPOLIS, MD
Dr. Barker. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Allen.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee to
express support for the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected
Areas and Wildlife, which I will refer to as the SPAW Protocol,
to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, the Cartagena
Convention.
The Wider Caribbean Region, as defined by the Cartagena
Convention, is the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico,
the Caribbean Sea, and the adjacent areas of the Atlantic Ocean
from northern Florida down to Suriname, which is at the
northeast coast of South America. It therefore includes the
five Gulf States from Texas to Florida, Puerto Rico, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
This region holds great strategic importance for the United
States because it is our southern maritime border and it
contains 27 neighboring countries. The population of the
islands and the immediate coastal zone is more than 100 million
people, and 38 percent of them are poor and depend directly on
agriculture and natural resource extraction for their
livelihoods. So, the prosperity and economic future of this
region depends critically on seashore resort tourism. The 100
million tourists who visit the Caribbean each year contribute
43 percent of the combined gross domestic product and a third
of the export revenues of the countries in the region. More
than 10 million people are directly employed in tourism-related
jobs, and the livelihoods of several times as many people are
indirectly affected by the health of the tourism industry and
therefore by the health of marine environment.
The hallmarks of Caribbean tourism--living coral reefs,
brightly colored fish, clear waters and clean sandy beaches--
are components of a healthy marine ecosystem which experience
has shown can be easily damaged or destroyed by precisely the
sorts of tourism development activities that most depend on
them. At the same time, the fact that there is such a large
number of countries means that substantial international
cooperation throughout the region is required to make
conservation efforts effective. It is hard to think of anywhere
else on Earth where economic growth and international
cooperation for environmental protection are more intimately
connected than in the Wider Caribbean Region. This economic and
environmental nexus is a fundamental strategic challenge for
the region and it is certainly the basis for U.S. participation
as a matter of highest national interest.
These considerations formed the backdrop for the formation
of the Caribbean Environment Program in 1979 and the adoption
of the Cartagena Convention in 1983. The Convention imposes
general obligations on contracting parties to ``prevent,
reduce, and control pollution of the Convention area and to
ensure sound environmental management.'' And it lists six
topics for the development of subsequent protocols, one of
which is specially protected areas.
Negotiations to develop the SPAW Protocol concluded in
January 1990 with the signing of the Protocol by 13 countries,
including the United States. The Protocol calls on each party
to establish protected areas and to plan, manage, and enforce
measures for these areas and for regional cooperation to list
and create a network of protected areas. One result has been a
rapid increase in the number of marine protected areas
throughout the region; more than 300 have now been identified.
The Protocol also calls for parties to undertake national
and regional cooperative measures to protect endangered and
threatened species of flora and fauna listed in three Annexes.
An initial list of species requiring protection was adopted in
June 1991. The 481 species cover both marine and terrestrial
plants and animals and include all species of marine mammals,
of sea turtles, of corals, and sea fans, as well as other
species from mollusks to mammals. Many of the listed species
migrate within and far beyond the region, while some on the
lists are endemic to very small areas. And 190 of the 481
species are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Throughout the SPAW negotiations, 15 U.S.-based and
international conservation organizations worked in close
cooperation with U.S. Government agencies. This cooperation
continued until October 26, 1993, when Ambassador David Colson
testified on behalf of the executive branch at a public hearing
on the SPAW Protocol held by the Foreign Relations Committee.
That testimony described two reservations that the State
Department recommended be included in the U.S. instrument of
ratification. The first reservation concerned limited taking,
and the second concerned environmental impact assessment.
On learning of these proposed reservations, many of the
conservation groups that had worked for years to bring the SPAW
Protocol into existence became concerned that reservations by
the U.S. Government, even reservations on rather narrow
technicalities, might provide an opening for other signatories
to ratify the Protocol with much more substantial reservations,
with the result that the Protocol would come into force of law
in a greatly weakened form. Some organizations took the view
that it would be better for the U.S. Government to wait for the
SPAW Protocol to enter into force of law before ratifying it,
in order that the reservations of the United States not serve
as an unfortunate precedent for other countries.
It took nearly 7 more years for the requisite nine
countries to ratify the SPAW Protocol and bring it into effect,
which did not occur until June 2000. During this time, there
was a very rapid maturation of multilateral environmental
governance in the region, while the parties to the SPAW
Protocol turned a paper agreement into a living document linked
to actual conservation measures. During the 1990's the
Secretariat of the Caribbean Environment Program organized four
meetings of an Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory
Committee for the SPAW Protocol, open to all countries in the
region. These meetings created an atmosphere of cooperation
that fosters an active region-wide work plan now that the
Protocol has become law. The first conference of the parties
was held in 2001, and the second conference was held yesterday
in Jamaica.
Senator Sarbanes, financial and political support and
technical leadership from the United States has been important
to the success of the Cartagena Convention and the SPAW
Protocol. It is in the interest of the United States to ratify
the SPAW Protocol in order to be able to participate in its
implementation as a party rather than simply as an observer.
The stakes are much too high for the United States to remain on
the sidelines. The active participation of the United States is
necessary to enable our southern neighbors to slow and reverse
the accelerating degradation of the marine environment that is
at the center of their economic prospects. Now that the SPAW
Protocol has come into force of law, the environmental
community is no longer concerned that U.S. reservations might
set a precedent that would weaken the agreement.
Since 1998 the wider Caribbean environment network has
endeavored to inform conservation groups about the SPAW
Protocol. We have been able to detect only strong support for
it, as exemplified by a May 2, 2001 joint letter to the
Committee on Foreign Relations expressing the support of 10
conservation organizations. That letter is attached with my
written testimony submitted previously. That letter is just the
tip of the iceberg of support.
I, therefore, urge the Foreign Relations Committee to
report favorably the SPAW Protocol as soon as possible with a
strong recommendation that the full Senate ratify it.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Barker follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Read Barker, President, Monitor
International
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your
Committee to express support for the Protocol Concerning Specially
Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW Protocol) to the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region (Cartagena Convention). I am President of Monitor
International, a nonprofit environmental organization that has
supported the development of the Caribbean Environment Program for the
past 20 years.
The Wider Caribbean Region, as defined by the Cartagena Convention,
is the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and
the adjacent areas of the Atlantic Ocean, from northern Florida all the
way down to Suriname, on the northeast coast of South America. The five
Gulf states from Texas to Florida form the northern border of this
region, which also includes Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
This region clearly holds great strategic importance for the United
States because it forms our southern maritime border and contains 27
neighboring countries. The population of the islands and the immediate
coastal zone of the Wider Caribbean Region exceeds 100 million people,
38 percent of whom are poor and rely directly on agriculture and
extraction of living marine resources. The present and future economic
prosperity of the region depends critically on seashore resort tourism.
The 100 million tourists who visit the Caribbean each year contribute
43 percent of the combined gross domestic product and one-third of the
export revenues of the region. More than 10 million people in the
region are directly employed in tourism-related jobs, and the
livelihoods of several times as many people are indirectly affected by
the health of the tourism industry.
The hallmarks of Caribbean tourism--living coral reefs, brightly-
colored fish, clear water and clean sandy beaches--are components of a
healthy marine ecosystem. Experience has shown that the ecosystem can
be easily damaged or destroyed by precisely the ``tourism development''
activities that most depend on them. At the same time, the large number
of countries means that substantial international cooperation
throughout the region is required to make marine conservation efforts
effective. It is hard to think of anywhere else on Earth where economic
growth and international cooperation for environmental protection are
more intimately connected than in the Wider Caribbean Region. This
economic and environmental nexus is a fundamental strategic challenge
for the region and the basis for U.S. participation as a matter of
highest national interest.
These considerations formed the backdrop for the formation of the
Caribbean Environment Program (CEP) in 1979 and the adoption of the
Cartagena Convention in 1983. The Cartagena Convention imposes general
obligations on the Contracting Parties to ``prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the Convention area and to ensure sound environmental
management,'' and it lists six topics for subsequent protocols, one of
which is specially protected areas.
Negotiations to develop the Protocol on Specially Protected Areas
and Wildlife (SPAW) began about the time that the Cartagena Convention
entered into force of law, in 1986, and concluded in January 1990 with
the signing of the Protocol by 13 countries, including the United
States. The SPAW Protocol calls on each party to establish protected
areas and to plan, manage and enforce measures for these areas and for
regional cooperation to list and create a network of protected areas.
One result has been a rapid increase in the number of marine protected
areas throughout the Region; more than 300 have now been identified.
The Protocol also calls for parties to undertake national and
regional cooperative measures to protect endangered and threatened
species of flora and fauna listed in three Annexes. An initial list of
species requiring protection was adopted in June 1991. The 481 listed
species cover both marine and terrestrial plants and animals and
include all species of marine mammals, of sea turtles, and of corals
and sea fans, as well as other species from mollusks to mammals. Many
of the listed species migrate within and far beyond the region, while
some are endemic to very small areas. One hundred ninety of the listed
species are also listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
Throughout the SPAW negotiations, 15 U.S.-based and international
conservation organizations worked in close cooperation with U.S.
Government agencies. This cooperation continued until October 26, 1993,
when Ambassador David Colson testified on behalf of the Executive
Branch at a public hearing on the SPAW Protocol held by the Foreign
Relations Committee. That testimony described two reservations that the
State Department recommended be included in the U.S. instrument of
ratification. The first reservation concerned limited taking, and the
second concerned environmental impact assessment.
On learning of these proposed reservations, many of the
conservation groups that had worked for years to bring the SPAW
Protocol into existence became concerned that reservations by the U.S.
Government, even reservations on rather narrow technicalities, might
provide an opening for other signatories to ratify the Protocol with
much more substantial reservations, with the result that the Protocol
could come into force of law in a weakened form. Some organizations
took the view that it would be better for the U. S. Government to wait
for the SPAW Protocol to enter force of law before ratifying it, in
order that reservations of the United States not serve as an
unfortunate precedent for other countries.
It took nearly seven more years for the requisite nine countries to
ratify the SPAW Protocol and bring it into force of law, which did not
occur until June 2000. During this time, there was a very rapid
maturation of multilateral environmental governance in the Wider
Caribbean Region, while the parties to the SPAW Protocol turned a paper
agreement into a living document linked to actual conservation
measures. During the 1990s the Secretariat of the CEP organized four
meetings of an Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee for
the SPAW Protocol, open to all countries in the region. These meetings
created an atmosphere of cooperation that fosters an active region-wide
workplan now that the Protocol has become law. The first Conference of
Parties was held in 2001, and the second was held yesterday, in
Jamaica.
Mr. Chairman, financial and political support and technical
leadership from the United States has been important to the success of
the Cartagena Convention and the SPAW Protocol. It is in the interest
of the United States to ratify the SPAW Protocol in order to be able to
participate in its implementation as a party rather than simply as an
observer. The stakes are much too high for the United States to remain
on the sidelines. The active participation of the United States is
necessary to enable our southern neighbors to slow and reverse the
accelerating degradation of the marine environment that is at the
center of their economic prospects. Now that the SPAW Protocol has come
into force of law, the environmental community is no longer concerned
that U.S. reservations might set a precedent that would weaken the
agreement. Since 1998 the Wider Caribbean Environment Network has
endeavored to inform conservation groups about the SPAW Protocol. We
have been able to detect only strong support for it, exemplified by a
May 2, 2001 joint letter to the Committee on Foreign Relations
expressing the support of ten conservation organizations.
I therefore urge the Foreign Relations Committee to report
favorably the SPAW Protocol as soon as possible with a strong
recommendation that the full Senate ratify it.
______
May 2, 2001.
The Honorable Jesse Helms
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senators;
We are writing to urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
report favorably on the protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas
and Wildlife (SPAW) to the Convention for the Protection and
Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region
(a.k.a. the Cartagena Convention).
SPAW was developed by the governments of the region, including the
United States, and is the only environmental agreement addressing
specific biodiversity conservation issues of the Wider Caribbean
region. SPAW protects rare and fragile ecosystems and habitats in the
Wider Caribbean region, thereby protecting the endangered and
threatened species residing therein. The Wider Caribbean region
includes the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean
Sea, and areas of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent thereto south of northern
Florida and within 200 nautical miles of the Atlantic coast. It also
includes internal waters up to the freshwater limit and related
terrestrial areas.
Adopted in Kingston, Jamaica, on January 18, 1990, SPAW came into
force on April 25, 2000 with nine Parties: Colombia, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, The Netherlands, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela. The first meeting of
the Conference of the Parties is scheduled for September 24-28, 2001,
in Cuba.
The United States signed SPAW on January 18, 1990, as one of the
original signatories. SPAW was transmitted to the Senate on October 26,
1993, at which time the Department of State urged the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee to ``report favorably the Protocol as soon as
possible with a strong recommendation thay the full Senate give early
advice and consent to ratification.''
We believe it is vital for the United States to be a Party at the
first SPAW Conference of tbe Parties in September 2001 in order to
ensure that the protocol continues to serve the interests of the United
States. To participate as a Party in the first Conference, the United
States' instruments of ratification must be deposited in Colombia (the
depository government) by no later than August 24, 2001. We strongly
urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to report favorably on the
protocol as soon as possible, and the Senate to consent to ratification
well in advance of the deadline.
Sincerely,
David Godfrey, Executive Director
Caribbean Conservation Corp. David Road Barker, President
Monitor International
Roger Rufe, President
Center for Marine Conservation Carl Pope, Executive Director
Sierra Club
Rodger Schlickeisen, President
Defenders of Wildlife Christine Stevens, Secretary
Society for Animal Protective
Legislation
John Passacantando, Exec. Director
Greenpeace USA Alexander F. Watson, VP & Exec.
Dir.
International Conservation
The Nature Conservancy
Paul G. Irwin, President and CEO
Humane Society of the United
States Ginette Hemley, Vice President
Species Conservation, World
Wildlife Fund
Senator Sarbanes. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony, and also I should express appreciation for the fine
work that you have done over a sustained period of time on
issues in the Caribbean and the environment in the Caribbean.
Mr. Grasso, how many countries are eligible to sign the
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme? Is it 18?
Mr. Grasso. I think so, Senator Sarbanes. It is my
understanding that every country that has been interested in
participating as a party has signed other than the United
States.
Senator Sarbanes. You mean signed and ratified.
Mr. Grasso. I am not sure about ratification, but they have
at least adopted the treaty. I would have to go back and get
that information for you.
Senator Sarbanes. But it is your understanding that the
United States is the only one who has not done so. Is that
correct?
Mr. Grasso. That is my understanding.
Senator Sarbanes. Dr. Barker, on the Caribbean agreement,
how many countries are eligible to participate in that?
Dr. Barker. Within the area of the Cartagena Convention,
there are 33 states and territories. And 28 of them are now
signatories and have ratified the Cartagena Convention. At
least nine states have ratified the SPAW Protocol. France and
Barbados were set to do so within the last 2 or 3 days, and
whether they have actually done so yet or will do so this week
or next week is not clear. But clearly the pace of ratification
has picked up tremendously. The barrier has been for many
countries that it requires legislation, in some cases quite
complex legislation, to be in place before they can ratify
that, and in many cases it has taken almost a decade for them
to develop this legislation for endangered species and for
protected areas.
Senator Sarbanes. The United States is one of the 28
countries that has ratified the Cartagena agreement. Correct?
Dr. Barker. Yes.
Senator Sarbanes. And now we are dealing with a Protocol to
that agreement.
Dr. Barker. Right, that is correct.
Senator Sarbanes. So, presumably there are 28 countries
eligible to sign the Protocol. You say 9 have done so? Ratified
it?
Dr. Barker. Thirteen signed it and I believe now 10 have
ratified it. Some have ratified it that did not sign it in the
beginning. All of the signatories are actively working on
ratification. In fact, all of the countries that are active in
the region are working on ratification, as far as I know.
Senator Sarbanes. Do either of you have a view on the
Tropical Tuna Convention?
Mr. Grasso. On the IATTC?
Senator Sarbanes. Yes.
Mr. Grasso. Yes. As I said in my testimony, we think the EU
should join. It would be an important step forward for
conservation to have the EU join and actually be bound by the
terms and conditions of being parties to that Convention.
Senator Sarbanes. Yes. Which EU countries at the moment are
playing any part?
Mr. Grasso. Right now France is a party with respect to its
territories in the region, and Spain has 13 vessels either
flagged in Spain or locally that fish in the region. Those are
the only ones that I am aware of at this point. It is my
understanding that France would remain a party, only with
respect to its territories, even if the European Commission
becomes a party.
Senator Sarbanes. Senator Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Let me first start with you, Mr. Grasso. In your testimony
you were talking about 70 percent of the oceans are overfished
or threatened to be overfished. I am absolutely amazed with the
population increase of the world and these catches. I just flat
hate waste. I hate waste of electricity, waste of money, waste
of gas, waste of life, wildlife, game animals, and all the
rest. And it is amazing the resilience of the ocean with all
this, if you just look at its bounty.
Let me just ask you some basic things so we can see where
we need to go. You say 70 percent is either overfished or
threatened. Is there a definition of overfished that countries
of the world will agree that this is overfished? For example,
when you have an area that is in noncompliance with air
quality, there are measurements. You will argue endlessly over
whether these are rational or reasonable or commonsense
measurements, but nevertheless, there are measurements. Is
there such an internationally agreed upon definition of
overfished?
Mr. Grasso. You ask a very good question because there are,
obviously, a variety of views of what overfished could be. But
the figure that I gave you is based on the United Nations Food
and Agricultural Organization's definition of what overfishing
is, and that is generally accepted as the definition
internationally for overfishing or at least in analyzing the
status of commercial fish stocks. That is why I use that as
probably the most legitimate definition for the status of
commercial fish stocks.
Senator Allen. How much is actually overfished? You use 70
percent for threatened overfished or overfished. Is it 25
percent, 50 percent?
Mr. Grasso. I will have to clarify this later, but
overfished is somewhere around 30 to 40 percent.
Senator Allen. If you could get me the absolute amount.
Mr. Grasso. Absolutely.
Senator Allen. At any rate, once we get that definition,
then you would look at the specific areas where there needs to
be action taken.
This dynamite fishing. Just an abhorrent approach. It is
probably pretty much common sense how it would have to be done.
How do you enforce this? There are a lot of oceans to patrol,
and how, as a practical matter, can that be enforced? I agree
with you it ought to be banned and outlawed. You talk about
hitting a lot of nontarget fish. You are clearly going to get
it there. At least with nets you are catching it live, and if
there are ways to throw them back in, there are ways to throw
back in alive, whatever the nontarget or smaller fish may be.
We have gone through all of this in the Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Sarbanes. Right.
Senator Allen. And all those wonderful controversies for
crab pots and everything else.
But how do you enforce on all the waters of the world? I
guess there are certain areas; Indonesia you mentioned seems to
be the ones who use that terrible method. But how do you
enforce it? Or how would you propose enforcing it?
Mr. Grasso. Right. It is not so much an enforcement issue
as it is an education issue. As you can imagine, most of this
type of fishing occurs in places where poverty exists. There is
a demand for cheap protein. Indonesia is only one example.
The most effective method we had was our experience off the
coast of East Africa on Mafia Island where dynamite fishermen
were coming from the urban centers out to Mafia Island and
fishing there with dynamite. We educated the local fishing
community about the impacts of that type of fishing on their
ecosystem, their environment, their fishing grounds, and they
formed their own community awareness and community enforcement
program to keep the dynamite fishermen away.
But truthfully, you have to go community by community along
the coasts of the developing world to really get at this issue,
and it is not something that can be done by international
protocols or treaties. It really has to be working on the
ground. WWF has a number of programs that are aimed at helping
to reduce dynamite fishing around the world.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Now, on tuna, you mentioned the tuna issue, which I
understand. There is something coming up and you glancingly
referenced the ones in the Western Pacific. I have been
focusing on this Andean trade extension. My main focus has been
on textiles because of many textile jobs in Virginia being
lost, and I do not care to have more of them lost. There is
some controversy--and I haven't focused on it--about something
in this Andean trade extension that has to do with tuna. Are
you familiar with whatever this is and do you have any position
on it?
Mr. Grasso. I am not at all familiar with what the tuna
connection is with the Andean trade agreement.
Senator Sarbanes. Ecuador would get tariff-free canned tuna
into the United States. At the moment, there are six countries
that send canned tuna into the United States. Ecuador is one.
The other five are in the Pacific. Well, Thailand is No. 1, but
the Philippines is a major exporter of canned tuna from
Mindanao, which is the part of the Philippines now where we
have this insurgency taking place that we are very concerned
about.
The Philippines is very concerned that tariff-free access
into the United States for Ecuador tuna will, in effect, knock
them out as a supplier of canned tuna to the United States and
will shut down an industry in a critical part of their country
with respect to this insurgency. They tell us a couple of
hundred thousand jobs are at stake. So, it has some very
significant consequences. In fact, to accommodate fighting the
drug trade in the Andean nations, to try to deal with that
problem, you may intensify the insurgency problem in the
Philippines, let alone impacting negatively on a country which
has always been a consistent supporter and ally of ours.
Senator Allen. Thank you for being here and having the
Senator on the witness stand. That's good.
Mr. Grasso. I am honored.
Senator Allen. I am glad you did not know the answer.
Senator Sarbanes. I was just visiting the Philippines
issue.
Senator Allen. I was going to say you are very
knowledgeable. I also found out that Senators Stevens and
Inouye are going to put in an amendment to get that out.
Senator Sarbanes. That is right.
Senator Allen. Let me ask Dr. Barker a question. I have
read your attached list of all the people who are in favor of
the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Protocol to the
Wider Caribbean Region, the Cartagena Convention. Do you know
anyone who is opposed to this? The administration is obviously
in favor of it. All we have heard is testimony about how useful
it is. You hate to ask somebody who is here as a proponent, but
sometimes you can figure out the truth of matters by saying,
well, who is opposed to it and why.
Dr. Barker. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that question
because we have really looked for opposition to this so that we
would take that opportunity to provide orientation to what this
actually means and what its consequences are. I have to say
honestly we have detected no opposition whatsoever.
The original support for this effort came from marine
mammal and sea turtle protection organizations, and it has
spread now to people who are bird watchers. It has spread to
people who have interests in coral reefs, and it has spread
much more widely into the tourism industry, which really
appreciates this linkage between a clean environment and a
healthy tourism industry. So, I have to answer honestly no.
Senator Allen. Well, good.
So, finally, in discerning your remarks, you earlier had
concerns about U.S. reservations on takings and so forth. Now,
you feel that even with those reservations on takings, that
that is no problem. I want to make sure I understand your
written testimony. It states here ``the environmental community
is no longer concerned with U.S. reservations that might set a
precedent that would weaken the agreement.'' So, you are in
support of it with those minor reservations.
Dr. Barker. That is correct.
Senator Allen. Thank you very much, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. Dr. Barker, let me impose on you, just
generally, to ask you how you see environmental progress or
lack thereof with respect to the Caribbean. Are we making
improvements, or is the situation worsening?
Dr. Barker. My understanding is that this is something akin
to the ozone layer question that you had asked Secretary
Turner. I do not believe that one can say that the
environmental degradation of the Wider Caribbean has reached an
end. You can still travel around and see very readily areas of
mangrove forests that are being cut down to develop new beach
resorts. You can see the spread of coral bleaching throughout
the region. You can see the increase of hypoxic areas where the
oxygen is completely taken up by the extent of phosphate and
nitrate pollution. So, I think the answer is that the rate of
deterioration is much lower than it would be without these
efforts. But frankly, a great deal more effort is needed than
is presently being undertaken to really sustain a healthy
environment throughout this region.
Senator Sarbanes. Of course, you made the point in your
statement that much of their economy is very directly related
to having a healthy environment. So, unless this deterioration
is brought to a halt and you begin to renew the environment,
they are actually undercutting their economic prospects. Are
they not?
Dr. Barker. Exactly. That is exactly correct and it is very
scary.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, gentlemen, we thank both of you for
appearing today. It was very helpful testimony.
The committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Questions Submitted for the Record
Responses of Hon. John F. Turner, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau
of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, to
Additional Questions for the Record Submitted by Senator Joseph R.
Biden, Jr.
questions applicable to all treaties
Question 1. Has your testimony today been coordinated with the
other affected departments and agencies of the Executive Branch (such
as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)? If not, why
not?
Answer. My testimony today has been coordinated with other
Executive Branch entities that play an important role in implementing
these agreements, such as the Environmental Protection Agency; the
Marine Mammal Commission; the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of
the Interior; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce.
Question 2. Are there any related or side agreements with regard to
any of these treaties which have not been submitted to the Senate?
Answer. There are no related or side agreements with regard to any
of these treaties.
Question 3. Are there any significant interpretive statements made
by an authorized U.S. official in connection with the negotiation of
any of these treaties of which the Committee should be aware?
Answer. No significant interpretive statements were made by an
authorized U.S. official in connection with the negotiation of these
treaties.
spaw protocol
Question 1. The SPAW Protocol was submitted by President Clinton.
Does the Bush Administration support the reservations and understanding
proposed by the Clinton Administration (note that the proposed
reservation related to Article 11 was later amended by a letter to the
Committee from Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs Wendy
Sherman, dated November 3, 1993)?
Answer. After an extensive review, the Bush Administration has
determined that it can support the reservations and understandings
proposed by the Clinton Administration, as amended.
Question 2. The Committee held a hearing on the Protocol on October
26, 1993. Written questions for the record were submitted to the
Department following that hearing. Please review those responses and
affirm whether they remain valid, or update the responses as
appropriate.
Answer. All of the responses remain valid with the following
exceptions:
Question #1--The LBS Protocol (The Protocol Concerning Land-
based Pollution and Activities) has been negotiated and was
adopted in 1999. The United States signed the LBS Protocol on
October 6, 1999. There has been no recent discussion of a
possible protocol on movement of hazardous waste products in
the region.
Question #4--None ot the ten Parties to the SPAW Protocol has
designated any terrestrial areas as being within the definition
of the Wider Caribbean.
Question #7--The United States has not requested, and does
not intend to request, the Depositary to circulate a letter
setting out details of U.S. law or practice with regard to the
reservation to Article 11. The United States also has not
outlined, and does not plan to outline, our law and practices
with regard to the reservation to Article 11 at meetings of
SPAW Parties and signatories such as the Interim Scientific and
Technical Committee. To date, none of the Parties has ratified
the SPAW Protocol subject to a reservation, declaration or
understanding.
Question 3. Article 26 of the Protocol states that the ``initial
versions of the annexes, which constitutes an integral part of the
Protocol . . .''
Given that the Protocol itself provides that the Annexes are
an ``integral part'' of the Protocol, should not the Senate
give advice and consent to ratification of the Annexes at the
same time that it gives advice and consent to ratification of
the Protocol? What is the justification for treating the
Annexes as an Executive Agreement?
If the Senate were to give advice and consent to
ratification of the Annexes, would the Executive Branch support
inclusion of a declaration stating that the Annexes could be
amended in the future without Senate advice and consent,
provided that the Senate was given advance notification of the
proposed amendments to the Annexes?
Answer. When the SPAW Protocol was being prepared for submission to
the Senate in 1993, the State Department consulted with staff of the
Foreign Relations Committee and concluded the three Annexes were best
treated as an executive agreement. The Annexes were provided to the
Committee for the Senate's information, but were not submitted for
advice and consent. If it is currently the desire of the Committee to
give its advice and consent to ratification of the Annexes along with
the Protocol itself, the State Department is agreeable to that approach
as an acceptable alternative.
Because amendments to the Annexes will be based on technical
information about the status of a species, and because a Party has only
ninety days to object to an amendment, we believe the Senate would not
care to become involved in formally reviewing each species listing. We
therefore expect that Annex amendments will be treated as revisions to
CITES Appendices are handled, i.e., they would not be submitted for
advice and consent, but will be concluded as executive agreements. We
would be pleased to provide the Committee information about proposed
and actual amendments to the Annexes.
Question 4. Have the annexes been amended since they were submitted
to the Senate in 1993? If so, please provide the current annexes.
Answer. No. The annexes have not been amended since they were
submitted to the Senate in 1993.
Question 5. Is it anticipated that the U.S. will designate any
protected areas under Article 4?
Answer. The United States does not anticipate designating any
protected areas under Article 4 at this time.
Question 6. Is the discussion of U.S. law related to environmental
impact assessments, as set forth on page VIII of the Treaty Doc. 103-5,
still accurate? If not, please submit an amended summary.
Answer. Yes. The discussion of U.S. law related to environmental
impact assessments, as set forth on page VIII of the Treaty Doc. 103-5,
is still accurate.
Question 7. Is the discussion of U.S. law regarding the obligations
of the Protocol, as set forth on page IX of Treaty Doc. 103-5, still
accurate? If not, please submit an amended summary.
Answer. Yes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have
confirmed that the Protocol will be implemented in the United States
through existing statutory authority and no additional legislation is
required.
Question 8. Article 11 provides for amendment of the annexes. In
the submittal to the Senate (at page VII of Treaty Doc. 103-5) it is
stated that ``the Administration intends to provide timely notification
of proposed amendments to the Annexes to the public through a notice in
the Federal Register in order to ensure adequate time for meaningful
comment prior to their adoption by the parties.''
Is that the intention of this Administration?
Is there adequate time for such notice under the amendment
process set forth in Article 11? At what point in the process
would you seek public comment?
Answer. Yes, that is the intention of the Administration.
We believe there is adequate time for such notice under the
amendment process set forth in Article 11 based on the interval between
the meetings of the SPAW Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
and the biennial meetings of the Conference of the Parties. We
anticipate notifying the public through a notice in the Federal
Register after the SPAW Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
reports its views on the nomination and before the Parties meet to
decide whether or not to list or de-list the nominated species.
Question 9. What role has the United States been playing in this
Protocol since its entry into force? Have we sent observers to the
meetings of the Parties?
Answer. The United States has supported the SPAW Protocol since its
adoption through voluntary contributions to the UNEP Caribbean Trust
Fund. These contributions support the operation of the UNEP Caribbean
Environment Program's (CEP) Regional Coordinating Unit in Kingston,
Jamaica (which acts as the secretariat for both the CEP and the
Cartagena Convention), and the implementation of programs under the CEP
related to the Cartagena Convention and its three Protocols. U.S.
contributions to UNEP for the International Coral Reef Initiative have
also gone to the CEP in support of SPAW program coral reef projects.
U.S. delegations have participated in SPAW Protocol-related
meetings over the years (such as meetings of the Interim Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee, the technical committee convened in the
period between adoption and the coming into force of the Protocol), and
participated as observers in the first two meetings of the Conference
of the Parties to the SPAW Protocol in September 2001 and May 2002 and
the first meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee in
September 2001. The U.S. also participates in the ``Ad hoc Working
Group for the Review of the Criteria for the Listing of Species in the
Annexes of the SPAW Protocol,'' an inter-sessional working group
established at the first Conference of the Parties in September 2001 to
review the criteria developed for the listing and de-listing of species
on the SPAW Annexes.
treaty with niue on delimitation of a maritime boundary
Question 1. By what means did New Zealand communicate that the
Government of Niue had the requisite competence to enter into this
agreement? Orally, or in writing? If in writing, please make available
a copy of the written communication.
Answer. New Zealand communicated in writing that the Government of
Niue had the requisite competence to enter into an agreement with the
United States. A copy of the Diplomatic Note from the Government of New
Zealand dated March 5, 1996 is attached.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
WELLINGTON
5 March 1996
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade presents its compliments
to the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to
refer to the Embassy's Note No. 128-95 of 18 December 1995 seeking
confirmation from the New Zealand Government that the Government of
Niue has the requisite competence to conclude on its own behalf a
treaty establishing a maritime boundary between the United States
Territory of American Samoa and Niue and to undertake all of the rights
and obligations specified therein.
The Ministry wishes to confirm to the Embassy that the Government
of Niue has the requisite competence to conclude such a treaty on its
own behalf.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade avails itself of this
opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States the assurances
of its highest consideration.
protocol amending the 1949 convention on inter-american tropical tuna
commission
Question 1. Will the membership of the European Union (EU) result
in a reduction in the U.S. financial contribution to the Commission? If
so, what is the anticipated reduction? What percentage of the IATTC
budget does the U.S. currently contribute?
Answer. EU membership in the Commission will very likely result in
a reduction of the U.S. financial contribution to the IATTC. The IATTC
is still working to revise the funding formula for determining what the
assessed contribution of each Party will be. Based on current formulas
being considered, the payment by each country will be based in large
part on the quantity of tuna caught and the quantity utilized by that
Party. Because it is difficult to predict when the EU will be able to
accede and what quantities of tuna will be caught and utilized by
various countries at that time, we are not in a position to predict the
size of any such reduction at this time.
Since 1998, the U.S. has negotiated a progressive reduction in its
annual contribution to the IATTC from $3.2 million (or about 90 percent
of the $3.6 million budget of the IATTC at the time) to the current
level of $2.1 million. Other IATTC members have increased their
contributions substantially to make up for the U.S. reduction. The U.S.
payment to the IATTC for FY 2002 is $2.1 million out of total assessed
contributions of $4.1 million. Thus, the U.S. payment for FY 2002 is 51
percent of total assessed contributions.
Question 2. Which states that are members of the EU have a
significant number of fishing vessels operating in the convention area?
Will the participation of such states in the conservation and
management measures of the Commission have a material effect on the
fishery?
Answer. The only EU member state with a significant number of
fishing vessels operating in the convention area is Spain, which has a
number of large purse seine vessels fishing the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Currently, these vessels are not legally bound to implement IATTC
conservation and management measures such as catch quotas, bycatch
reduction measures and others. EU accession to the IATTC would ensure
that these vessels are legally bound by the IATTC regime, which, in
turn, will strengthen the Commission's efforts to ensure a well-
regulated fishery with effective compliance mechanisms.
south pacific regional environment program agreement
Question. What is the purpose of the bar on reservations in Article
10(3)? Did the Department consult with the Committee before agreeing to
it?
Answer. No reservation clauses are found in many international
instruments. They can serve U.S. interests by ensuring that other
parties cannot take reservations contrary to our interests and to which
the United States would object. Such clauses are particularly common in
agreements establishing international organizations in recognition of
the need to ensure that all Parties will be subject to the same
institutional requirements. We are not aware that the Committee was
consulted in this specific instance although we are generally aware
that the Committee has concerns about provisions barring reservations.
-