[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3086, GLOBAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, COORDINATION, AND ENHANCEMENT
ACT OF 2009
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS,
OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman
HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Jeff Flake, Arizona
Samoa Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey John Fleming, Louisiana
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Islands Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Diana DeGette, Colorado officio
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 28, 2009........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of South Carolina................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Derek, Bo, Board Member, WildAid............................. 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 26
Gould, Rowan, Ph.D., Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 10
Monfort, Steven L., Ph.D., Acting Director, Smithsonian
Institution National Zoological Park....................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 54
Potter, J. Craig, International Wildlife Lawyer, Law Offices
of J. Craig Potter......................................... 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 77
Roberts, Carter, President and CEO, World Wildlife Fund...... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 38
Wasser, Samuel K., Ph.D., Director, The Center for
Conservation Biology, University of Washington............. 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 69
Additional materials supplied:
Calvelli, John F., Executive Vice President, Public Affairs,
Wildlife Conservation Society, Statement submitted for the
record..................................................... 90
Manson, Hon. Craig, Distinguished Professor and Lecturer in
Law, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy, University
of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, and Former Assistant
Secretary of Interior, Statement submitted for the record.. 92
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3086, GLOBAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
COORDINATION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009
----------
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:05 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z.
Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Kildee,
Faleomavaega, Abercrombie, Pallone, Sablan, Christensen,
DeGette, Kind, Capps, Shea-Porter, Kratovil, Pierluisi, Young,
Flake, Lamborn, Wittman, Fleming, and Chaffetz.
STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO,
A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM GUAM
Ms. Bordallo. Good afternoon. The legislative hearing by
the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife will
come to order.
Today, we will hear testimony concerning H.R. 3086, the
``Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination, and Enhancement
Act of 2009.''
Under Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the Ranking
Minority Member will make opening statements.
People across the globe depend on biodiversity for food and
water, for the regulation of climate and disease, and for
maintaining the natural balance and resilience of the Earth's
ecosystems. Unfortunately, over the past few hundred years, the
myriad threats facing global wildlife have been intensifying,
and the rates of species' extinction have accelerated.
In the 20th Century, we finally came to recognize the very
serious negative consequences that result when biodiversity is
diminished, and the ecosystems' health degraded. For more than
a century, the United States has taken steps, both domestically
and abroad, to conserve wildlife, preserve biodiversity, and
maintain healthy ecosystems. As a result, the United States now
is largely regarded as the global frontrunner in international
fish and wildlife conservation, our systems of public lands the
envy of the world, and our knowledge and technical abilities in
the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat admired and
emulated.
Despite a record of innovation and progress, evidence from
the field indicates that our conservation efforts have been, at
best, partially effective. In the 110th Congress, this
Committee convened two hearings to highlight challenges
confronting global wildlife conservation. The daunting scale of
the illegal trade in wildlife exposed the inefficiencies and
the inadequacies of existing programs within the Department of
the Interior and across other Federal agencies.
In addition, our reliance on CITES to monitor the regulated
trade of wildlife appears insignificant considering the scale
of the threats and the huge unmet needs for assistance in the
field. Moreover, lack of awareness by the United States'
consumers on how their purchases form a growing global market
for illegally traded wildlife indicates that our public
outreach needs improvement.
H.R. 3086 is intended to address these concerns and others.
We have an excellent opportunity to work with a new
administration to more broadly engage the Department of the
Interior with the global conservation community. The
legislation proposes new structures, new tools, and new
direction to guide this effort and, most importantly, new
priorities to broadly engaged stakeholders and the American
public in this effort.
It also includes provisions similar to those in Congressman
Young's bill, H.R. 3198, and I look forward to working with him
on that and the broader scope of issues encompassed in H.R.
3086.
I realize that since H.R. 3086 was introduced that some
observers have expressed concerns about the bill, especially
provisions that would upset the bureaucratic status quo. Of
course, you do not have to be in this town long to realize that
the quickest way to spark an argument is to propose rearranging
the bureaucracy. Nevertheless, this dilatory tendency should
not be allowed to prevent us from engaging in a very important
dialogue to reinvigorate and reenergize wildlife conservation
as a tool for U.S. diplomacy and leadership abroad.
So, to that end, I welcome the views of all, and I stand
ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work on the task at
hand. We have no time to waste.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Good afternoon. People across the globe depend on biodiversity for
food and water, for the regulation of climate and disease, and for
maintaining the natural balance and resilience of the earth's
ecosystems. Unfortunately, over the past few hundred years the myriad
threats facing global wildlife have been intensifying, and the rates of
species extinction have accelerated.
In the 20th Century, we finally came to recognize the very serious
negative consequences that result when biodiversity is diminished and
ecosystem health degraded. For more than a century, the United States
has taken steps--both domestically and abroad--to conserve wildlife,
preserve biodiversity, and maintain healthy ecosystems. As a result,
the United States now is largely regarded as the global frontrunner in
international fish and wildlife conservation and our systems of public
lands the envy of the world, and our knowledge and technical abilities
in the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat admired and
emulated.
Despite a record innovation and progress, evidence from the field
indicates that our conservation efforts have been at best partially
effective. In the 110th Congress, this Committee convened two hearings
to highlight challenges confronting global wildlife conservation. The
daunting scale of the illegal trade in wildlife exposed the
inefficiencies and inadequacies of existing programs within the
Department of the Interior, and across other Federal agencies. In
addition, our reliance on CITES to monitor the regulated trade of
wildlife appears insufficient, considering the scale of the threats and
the huge unmet needs for assistance in the field. Moreover, lack of
awareness by U.S. consumers on how their purchases form a growing
global market for illegally traded wildlife indicates that our public
outreach needs improvement.
H.R. 3086 is intended to address these concerns and others. We have
an excellent opportunity to work with a new Administration to more
broadly engage the Department of the Interior with the global
conservation community. The legislation proposes new structures, new
tools and new direction to guide this effort, and importantly, new
priorities to broadly engage stakeholders and the American public in
this effort. It also includes provisions similar to those in
Congressman Young's bill, H.R. 3198, and I look forward to working with
him on that and the broader scope of issues encompassed in H.R. 3086.
I realize that since H.R. 3086 was introduced that some observers
have expressed concerns about the bill, especially provisions that
would upset the bureaucratic status quo. Of course, you do not have to
be in this town long to realize that the quickest way to spark an
argument is to propose re-arranging the bureaucracy.
Nevertheless, this dilatory tendency should not be allowed to
prevent us from engaging in a very important dialogue to reinvigorate
and re-energize wildlife conservation as a tool for U.S. diplomacy and
leadership abroad. To that end, I welcome the views of all, and I stand
ready to roll up my sleeves and set to work on the task at hand. We
have no time to waste.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I now recognize Mr. Brown, the Ranking
Republican Member of the Subcommittee. The gentleman is from
South Carolina, and I recognize him now for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, we will hear
testimony on your ambitious bill to recognize the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and to greatly expand the size and function of
this agency.
Under H.R. 3086, you would create a new office called the
Institute of International Wildlife Conservation, a new Global
Wildlife Coordination Council, a new International Wildlife
Conservation Fund, a new Emergency Rehabilitation and Recovery
Grant program, a new Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory
Committee, and the expenditure of up to $20 million in
taxpayers' money for wildlife grants and university
fellowships.
This legislation also authorizes the Wildlife Without
Borders program, which has administratively existed since 1983
and has been effectively managed by the Service's International
Affairs Office. I have been a supporter of this program and
note that this Subcommittee held a hearing just last year on a
bill introduced by the former Chairman of this Committee to
authorize the Wildlife Without Borders program. In fact, the
language in H.R. 3086 is strikingly similar to that measure,
which was overwhelmingly endorsed by not only the Fish and
Wildlife Service but a number of prominent wildlife
conservation organizations.
While there are a number of positive provisions in H.R.
3086, there is no indication of what it would cost our
taxpayers to create this new Federal bureaucracy and what
ultimately happens to the International Affairs Office, which
would apparently be left to issue CITES permits and evaluate
foreign endangered species listings.
This legislation will require a massive reorganization not
only of the Fish and Wildlife Service but also a number of
other Federal agencies.
Madam Chair, we also support wildlife conservation, whether
it is here in the United States or international. There are no
Republican or Democrat endangered species. We are all
interested in doing whatever we can to save wildlife species
from extinction, whether they are elephants, great apes,
tigers, or marine turtles, and we are all working to ensure
that our grandchildren have the opportunity to save these
animals in their natural habitat.
It is, therefore, frustrating that despite my specific
request to spend a little time digesting the details of this
52-page bill prior to its introduction, it was full steam ahead
with no input from this side of the aisle. Nevertheless, I
would renew my request that, following this hearing, we will
begin to work together on this legislation in a bipartisan
manner. I look forward to that opportunity.
Finally, I would like to warmly welcome our distinguished
witnesses, including the President of the World Wildlife Fund,
Mr. Carter Roberts; the Acting Director of the National Zoo,
Dr. Steve Monfort; and Dr. Sam Wasser, Mr. Craig Potter, and
Dr. Rowan Gould; and a young lady and talented actress who, in
the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, has dedicated her life to
wildlife conservation, Bo Derek.
They have all traveled long distances to give us their
valuable insight on this legislation, and we appreciate their
presence.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Henry E. Brown, Jr., Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Madam Chairwoman, today, we will hear testimony on your ambitious
bill to reorganize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to greatly
expand the size and functions of this agency.
Under H.R. 3986, you would create a new line office called the
Institute for International Wildlife Conservation, a new Global
Wildlife Coordination Council, a new International Wildlife
Conservation Fund, a new Emergency Rehabilitation and Recovery Grant
Program, a new Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee and the
expenditure of up to $20 million in taxpayer money for wildlife grants
and university fellowships.
This legislation also authorizes the Wildlife Without Borders
program which has administratively existed since 1983 and has been
effectively managed by the Service's International Affairs Office. I
have been a supporter of this program and note that this Subcommittee
held a hearing just last year on a bill introduced by the former
Chairman of this Committee to authorize the Wildlife Without Borders
Program. In fact, the language in H.R. 3086 is strikingly similar to
that measure which was overwhelmingly endorsed by not only the Fish and
Wildlife Service but a number of prominent wildlife conservation
organizations.
While there are a number of positive provisions in H.R. 3086, there
is no indication of what it would cost our taxpayers to create this new
federal bureaucracy and what ultimately happens to the International
Affairs Office which would apparently be left to issue CITES permits
and evaluate foreign endangered species listings. This legislation will
require a massive reorganization of not only the Fish and Wildlife
Service but also a number of other federal agencies.
Madam Chairwoman, we all support wildlife conservation whether it
is here in the United States or international. There are no Republican
or Democratic endangered species. We are all interested in doing
whatever we can to save wildlife species from extinction, whether they
are elephants, Great apes, tigers or marine turtles, and we are all
working to ensure that our grandchildren have the opportunity to save
these animals in their natural habitat.
It is, therefore, frustrating that despite my specific request to
spend a little time digesting the details of this 52-page bill prior to
its introduction, it was full stream ahead with no input from this side
of the aisle. Nevertheless, I would renew my request that following
this hearing we will work together on this legislation in a bipartisan
manner. I look forward to that opportunity.
Finally, I would like to warmly welcome our distinguished witnesses
including the President of the World Wildlife Fund, Mr. Carter Roberts,
the Acting Director of the National Zoo, Dr. Steve Monfort and a young
lady and talented actress, who in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt,
has dedicated her life to wildlife conservation, Bo Derek. They have
all traveled long distances to give us their valuable insights on this
legislation and we appreciate their presence.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina,
the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, and before I recognize
the members of the panel, I would like to ask unanimous consent
to enter into the record a letter in support of H.R. 3086
submitted by the Wildlife Conservation Society. The statement
is that of John F. Calvelli, Executive Vice President, Public
Affairs, Wildlife Conservation Society. Hearing no objection,
so ordered.
[NOTE: The statement of John F. Calvelli can be found on
page 90.]
I would like to also recognize one other Member of our
Committee, the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Donna
Christensen, who is here with us. Thank you very much, Donna.
And now I would like to recognize our panel of witnesses to
testify. Our witnesses include Dr. Rowan Gould, the Acting
Director, the Fish and Wildlife Service; Ms. Bo Derek, who I
had the opportunity to meet yesterday--she is an actress, a
model, and an activist, and she is a board member of WildAid;
Dr. Carter Roberts, President of the World Wildlife Fund; Dr.
Steven Monfort, Acting Director, Smithsonian Zoological Park;
Dr. Sam Wasser, Director, Center for Conservation Biology,
University of Washington; and, finally, Dr. J. Craig Potter,
International Wildlife Lawyer, Law Offices of J. Craig Potter.
I welcome you all this afternoon to the panel and, as we
begin, I would like to note for all of the witnesses that the
red timing light on the table will indicate when five minutes
have passed, and your time has concluded. We would appreciate
your cooperation in complying with these limits, but be assured
that your full written statement will be submitted for the
hearing record and, at this point, I would now like to
recognize Dr. Gould. Could you please begin?
STATEMENT OF ROWAN GOULD, PH.D., ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY BENITO A. PEREZ,
CHIEF, LAW ENFORCEMENT, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Dr. Gould. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Administration's view on H.R. 3086, the ``Global Wildlife
Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act of 2009.'' H.R.
3086 focuses on the role the United States plays in the
conservation of wildlife and natural resources around the globe
and expands the mandates of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in international wildlife conservation.
While the Administration supports the Subcommittee's intent
to further international conservation efforts, we have serious
concerns with the bill and cannot support it as drafted. We
appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support of the
Multinational Species Conservation Acts and look forward to
continuing to work with you to conserve rare and endangered
species.
Through MOUs and other agreements, the Department of the
Interior and its bureaus cooperate with over 100 countries on
environmental conservation and natural resource management. The
Committee should be aware that other agencies within DOI have
international conservation responsibilities and programs.
However, since I am currently serving as the acting director of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the remainder of my
testimony will be focused on the Service's international
activities.
The Service has a proven track record of achievement in
international conservation, both through our proactive efforts
with programs such as Wildlife Without Borders, and our
enforcement of U.S. treaties and laws that regulate
international wildlife trade. The Service has cultivated a
broad-reaching network of partners around the world that
support our international conservation efforts. I would like to
highlight some of the successes that the Service's
international affairs and law enforcement programs have
demonstrated.
Since its inception, the Service's Wildlife Without Borders
program has strived to facilitate and promote meaningful
international conservation efforts to conserve the world's
diverse species. We have collaborated with over 500
international conservation organizations and institutions to
support more than 800 conservation projects around the world.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in strengthening the
Administration's international conservation efforts.
In general, we support the bill's provisions that would
codify the Service's Wildlife Without Borders program with
modifying language to retain the Secretary's discretionary
authority to implement the program. The Service, through its
law enforcement program, is the principal Federal agency
responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and treaties that prohibit
wildlife trafficking and regulate wildlife trade. The program
has long supported the efforts of other nations to improve
wildlife law enforcement capacity. Since 2000, Service agents,
wildlife inspectors, and forensic scientists have conducted or
participated in more than 70 training programs for enforcement
officers representing more than 60 different countries.
The Administration does, however, have serious concerns
with some of the provisions of the legislation.
First, H.R. 3086 establishes an Institute for International
Wildlife Conservation within the Service. Creating this
institute would cause conflict within the Department of the
Interior, as well as create overlapping responsibilities within
the Service. It is unclear in the language of the bill how the
proposed institute and the Service's existing international
affairs and international wildlife trade programs would fit
together. For these reasons, we do not support the creation of
a new institute to house the work that we are doing already.
Second, the bill mandates the contents of a strategic plan
for Service law enforcement. We feel that this would unduly
restrict the flexibility needed to direct law enforcement
resources.
Regarding the International Wildlife Conservation Fund, the
Administration is concerned that donations and gifts received
by the Secretary could present a conflict of interest if
accepted from the same entities that the Service regulates.
Finally, the Administration is concerned that the
provisions of this bill would require significant new financial
and staffing resources and does not provide any authorization
level. The expectation that the Department of the Interior
would support all of the new programs as currently written in
the bill was not anticipated in the Administration's Fiscal
Year 2010 budget submission.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to testify
on H.R. 3086. The Administration sincerely appreciates the
Subcommittee's continued support of international wildlife
conservation efforts. This concludes my remarks, and I be happy
to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gould follows:]
Statement of Rowan Gould, Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Administration's views
on H.R. 3086, the Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination, and
Enhancement Act of 2009 and describe Interior Department programs that
support the role that the United States plays in the conservation of
wildlife and natural resources around the globe. While the
Administration supports the intent of the Subcommittee to further the
goal of international conservation efforts, we have serious concerns
with the bill and cannot support it as drafted. I would like to explain
why in the context of our existing programs.
Department of the Interior International Programs
Through Memoranda of Understanding or reimbursable agreements, the
Department of the Interior (DOI) and its Bureaus cooperate with over
100 countries on environmental conservation and natural resource
management. DOI has the most activities with: Mexico, Canada, the
countries of Central America, Afghanistan, Jordan and Tanzania. DOI
currently has over 150 full-time employees who work on international
activities, most of whom are with the U.S. Geological Survey and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). DOI employees make
approximately 2,500 annual trips abroad to carry out international
cooperation activities. Our international programs enhance our domestic
responsibilities.
Under the Office of the Secretary, the DOI Office of International
Affairs (which reports to the Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management,
and Budget) coordinates international activities involving more than
one Bureau, approves international travel, and is the primary DOI point
of contact for: the State Department and other U.S. Government agencies
engaged in international activities; foreign embassies and ministries;
and international organizations. Since I am currently serving as the
Acting Director of the Service, my testimony will be focused on the
international activities of the Service. However, the Committee should
be aware that other agencies within DOI, including the National Park
Service, have international conservation responsibilities and programs.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's International Programs
We appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support of the
Multinational Species Conservation Acts and look forward to continuing
to work with the Subcommittee to conserve rare and endangered species.
Wildlife and natural resources are under pressure from growing
human populations and corresponding changes in land use, pollution, and
consumption of natural resources. The complexity and diversity of these
challenges require a coordinated, strategic approach led by skilled
conservationists. Wildlife management for long-term sustainability;
capacity building; conservation of endangered species, landscapes, and
ecosystems; and environmental outreach, education, and training are
tools that can address current and emerging issues in wildlife
conservation. The Service is in a strong position to influence and
shape the outcome of wildlife conservation abroad by building on
demonstrated successes utilizing existing expertise in wildlife
management, outreach, and accessing best available technologies.
The Service has a proven track record of achievement in
international conservation, both through our proactive efforts with
programs such as Wildlife Without Borders and our enforcement of U.S.
treaties and laws that regulate international wildlife trade. The
Service has cultivated a broad-reaching network of partners around the
world that support our international conservation efforts. I would like
to highlight some examples of the successes that the Service's
International Affairs and Law Enforcement programs have demonstrated in
the area of international conservation.
Since its inception, the Service's Wildlife Without Borders program
has strived to facilitate and promote meaningful conservation efforts
to help ensure conservation of the world's diverse species. The program
has collaborated with over 500 international conservation organizations
and institutions to support more than 800 conservation projects around
the world.
In 2008, Wildlife Without Borders Regional programs supported
habitat protection for the endangered Andean tapir in and around two
Ecuador protected areas, bringing local government officials and
community leaders together to learn about the importance of the
species, and how to integrate conservation strategies with livelihood
opportunities. Similarly, in Africa, the newly created national park
system of Gabon supported by Wildlife Without Borders has developed
effective management strategies and the training of protected-area
personnel. In Asia, Wildlife Without Borders grants have increased
capacity to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts, established community
development programs, and supported the ongoing efforts of 13 range-
country governments to survey and monitor their elephant populations
and develop effective management strategies for them.
The Multinational Species Conservation Funds and Wildlife Without
Borders Species programs are the linchpin for the success of targeted,
effective on-the-ground conservation efforts for species worldwide. The
Marine Turtle Conservation Fund has enabled the Service to support
intensified nesting beach protection of critically endangered
leatherback sea turtles on beaches in Mexico, Costa Rica, Indonesia,
and Papua New Guinea. In 2008, the African Elephant Conservation Fund
supported a project to analyze satellite images and conduct preliminary
aerial and ground surveys that will serve as the basis for drafting new
conservation action plans for Upemba and Kundelungu national parks in
the Democratic Republic of Congo, where wildlife populations have not
been assessed in more than two decades due to civil strife and collapse
of the national infrastructure.
Wildlife Without Borders also serves a key role within the Service
in facilitating bilateral and multilateral dialogues through the
organization of fora such as the United States-Russian Federation Joint
Committee on Cooperation for Protection of the Environment and Natural
Resources; the Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative; and the
US-Mexico-Canada Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem
Conservation and Management. The Service, through participation in such
fora, has developed an understanding of techniques used around the
world to better facilitate technology transfer, making wildlife
conservation more efficient and effective.
The Service, through its International Wildlife Trade (IWT)
program, carries out the functions and responsibilities for the
implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) for the United States. These
responsibilities are specifically assigned to the Service under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to CITES, the IWT program
also has responsibilities for regulating the international and
interstate movement of wildlife under several other statutes, including
the Endangered Species Act, Wild Bird Conservation Act, Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, Lacey Act, and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The IWT program issues 15,000-20,000 permits annually for import,
export, interstate and foreign commerce, take of captive specimens,
transport of live invasive species, and other activities involving
wildlife and plants. The Service also cooperates with State and tribal
partners to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of U.S. native
species subject to international trade, including American ginseng,
paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, American alligator, freshwater
turtles, bobcat, and river otter.
The Service coordinates and communicates with the other 174
countries that are Parties to CITES on specific permit issues as well
as broader policy and implementation. From 2000-2007, the United States
submitted 20-25% of the species listing proposals considered by the
CITES Parties, and many of these were co-sponsored with other countries
(including Australia, Bolivia, China, Fiji, Georgia, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, the Netherlands, and
Sri Lanka).
The Service, through its Office of Law Enforcement, is the
principal Federal agency responsible for enforcing U.S. laws and
treaties that prohibit wildlife trafficking and regulate wildlife
trade. Working with available resources and a network of U.S. and
global partners, the Office of Law Enforcement investigates illegal
trade, inspects wildlife imports and exports to detect and deter
unlawful trade and conducts outreach to promote compliance with
wildlife laws.
The Service's Office of Law Enforcement has long supported the
efforts of other nations to improve wildlife law enforcement capacity
and strengthen safeguards for their native species. Since 2000, for
example, Service special agents, wildlife inspectors, and forensic
scientists have conducted or participated in more than 70 training
programs for wildlife investigators, park rangers, customs inspectors,
game wardens, and other enforcement officers representing more than 60
different countries. Ongoing partnerships with the International Law
Enforcement Academy/Botswana and Association of Southeast Asian
Nations-Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) provide investigative
training to officers from multiple range states in sub-Saharan Africa
and Southeast Asia.
Such efforts, which have been undertaken utilizing existing
resources, within DOI and with resources from DOS and USAID as part of
their existing conservation efforts clearly contribute to capacity
building in nations where wildlife resources are threatened by illegal
or unsustainable trade. Global wildlife conservation also benefits from
broader U.S. participation in groups such as the North American
Wildlife Enforcement Network, the CITES Law Enforcement Experts Group,
and the Interpol Wildlife Working Group and from ongoing communication
and coordination with regional enforcement alliances (such as ASEAN-WEN
and the Lusaka Task Force) and enforcement agencies in other countries.
H.R. 3086
We appreciate the Subcommittee's intent of this legislation to
strengthen the Administration's international conservation efforts and,
in general, support the provisions of the legislation that codify the
Service's Wildlife Without Borders Program with modifying language to
retain the Secretary's discretionary authority to carry out and
implement the program. However, we have serious concerns with the
remaining provisions of the legislation.
H.R. 3086 recognizes the conservation benefits that the Service is
accomplishing via the Wildlife Without Borders program. Title I,
Subtitle B, would codify the Wildlife Without Borders program,
incorporating various activities of the International Affair's Division
of International Conservation into a more unified and cohesive program.
It would provide a coordinated approach toward existing and emerging
threats to wildlife at varying scales, leveraging and complementing the
Service's efforts in these areas.
H.R. 3086 authorizes the Service's three Wildlife Without Borders
sub-programs that operate in concert with one another to address
threats to global wildlife. The Species program implements the
Multinational Species Conservation Acts and their associated grants
programs, which allow specialists to share information, conduct
research, and implement management activities for targeted species. The
Regional program addresses grassroots wildlife conservation problems
from a broader, landscape perspective using capacity building and
institutional strengthening as primary tools. The Global program
implements global habitat and conservation initiatives such as the
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and assists the Service in addressing
global threats to wildlife, such as the spread of invasive species and
wildlife disease.
The Service has actively cultivated strong relationships with other
Federal agencies, states, foreign governments, academic institutions
and non-governmental organizations around the world. Within the U.S.
Government, the Department of Interior works closely with the
Department of State and the Agency for International Development to
assist with their broader policy and integrated conservation
development programs. The Service continues to provide targeted
technical support to these programs, particularly in regard to wildlife
enforcement and park management. The Service does not support the
creation of a new Institute to house the work that we are already
doing. Nor do we support the requirement to develop and implement a
plan to expand programs in Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean,
Russia, and Africa. Implementing this plan, which would be mandatory if
this bill is passed, may drain valuable resources necessary for other
international wildlife efforts
We have several concerns regarding the bill's proposed
restructuring of the Service's International Affairs program;
challenges that would arise from this new organization of the program;
potential conflicts of interest; and the lack of authorization that
would be required to implement the bill as currently written.
H.R. 3086 mandates the contents of a strategic plan for Service law
enforcement in a manner that would unduly restrict the flexibility
needed to direct enforcement resources. It calls for efforts that are
either underway or beyond the program's capabilities. It calls for
placement of seized wildlife without consultation with the Service
(which enforces regulations that limit such placements) and authorizes
the Law Enforcement program to accept gifts and donations--again
creating the potential for conflicts of interest and potential
questions about the fairness and objectivity of enforcement efforts.
H.R. 3086 establishes an Institute for International Wildlife
Conservation within the Service. The creation of this Institute with
responsibilities related to the work of other Department bureaus would
engender cross-bureau conflict within the Department of the Interior as
well as create overlapping responsibilities within the Service. It is
unclear in the language of the bill how the proposed Institute and the
Service's existing International Affairs program would fit together.
The Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act
would also create an Assistant Director position to head the Institute.
This position would be appointed by the Secretary, rather than the
Director, and the Act does not specify to whom the Assistant Director
would report and, again, poorly integrates the new infrastructure with
the existing organization. The bill authorizes the newly-appointed
Assistant Director to coordinate international conservation efforts
within the Department of the Interior. As mentioned previously, the
Department of the Interior already has an Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management, and Budget that oversees the Department's Office of
International Affairs. This office coordinates international activities
involving more than one Bureau. The position created by the bill
appears to duplicate some of what is currently being done. Significant
clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the new Assistant
Director is needed, particularly since the Department already has an
Assistant Secretary in place to oversee the Department's international
program and the other Interior bureaus have their own international
programs.
H.R. 3086 proposes to establish the International Wildlife
Conservation Fund which would consist of donations, gifts, and
contributions received by the Secretary of the Interior for
international wildlife conservation. The Fund would receive donations
and gifts from potentially the same entities and individuals that the
Service regulates and to whom we issue permits and award grants. The
Administration has concerns that this may be seen as a conflict of
interest by outside parties. There are also potential conflicts with
Service obligations under CITES and the Endangered Species Act with
regard to the suggested functions of the Center for International
Wildlife Recovery Partnerships. In addition, the lack of availability
for these funds to be used by the Wildlife Without Borders program (as
restricted in the legislation) seems to be at cross purposes with the
intent of the bill to support that program.
Title II of H.R. 3086 proposes the establishment of a Global
Wildlife Coordinating Council. The Administration would not support the
establishment of this formal coordinating authority and is gravely
concerned that this Council could seriously hinder our broader
international efforts to conserve wildlife globally, particularly those
efforts undertaken within the mandate of other Federal agencies.
Existing mechanisms, such as the CITES Coordinating Committee, already
provide for CITES-related coordination and consultation among Federal
departments and agencies, and between the federal and state
governments.
Finally, the Administration is concerned that this bill would
require significant new financial and staffing resources and only
provides authorization amounts for specific subsections of the bill.
The Administration's FY 2010 Budget submission did not anticipate or
include funding to support new and expanded programs as outlined in the
bill.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
3086. The Administration appreciates the Subcommittee's continued
support of international wildlife conservation efforts. We look forward
to working with the Subcommittee to further international conservation.
This concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions
at this time.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. I recognize that the administration has concerns with the new
organizational structures authorized in H.R. 3086. It is my
understanding, however, that the administration does not
necessarily object to the principal objectives of the bill
(i.e., greater coordination within the Department of the
Interior and with other relevant Federal agencies; expanded
public outreach and education regarding the illegal trade in
wildlife and wildlife products; authorization of the Wildlife
Without Borders Program; expansion of training opportunities,
especially for law enforcement capabilities in range states;
greater collaboration with non-Federal NGO stakeholders,
especially utilization of technical and educational assets
within the zoo and aquarium community, etc.). Is that a correct
assumption?
The Administration appreciates the intent of the Subcommittee to
strengthen the Department of the Interior's coordination and
collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders on international
wildlife conservation issues and to strengthen outreach and training
opportunities. While all of these components are important, H.R. 3086,
as currently written, does not allow the Secretary to use his
discretionary authority to carry out and implement priority programs
that best support the Department's international wildlife conservation
efforts in conjunction with other U.S. Government and other partners.
2. In your written statement you express concern that the
International Wildlife Conservation Institute created in the
bill would be ineffective in coordinating international
wildlife conservation activities with the Department, and that
this Institute would create organizational confusion within DOI
and within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Should the
Committee amend the bill to strike the authorization of the
Institute, and instead, direct the DOI Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs to take the lead on coordination within
Department? Would the administration support this revision?
The Administration supports striking the bill's language
authorizing an Institute. If H.R. 3086 were to be amended as you
indicate, the Administration would have the same concern regarding the
creation of new organizational structures without clarification of how
they fit into or with the existing structure. There is no DOI Assistant
Secretary for International Affairs, and the Department's Office of
International Affairs is under the Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management, and Budget. The Office of International Affairs currently
coordinates activities that are cross-cutting, international wildlife
conservation activities as well as other matters that involve more than
one DOI Bureau. The Administration supports the provisions on
information-sharing and collaboration with other Bureaus but not one
that directs the Service to lead these efforts within the Department.
3. How often are you, as the acting director of the Service, involved
in face-to-face meetings with other agency and department heads
to discuss international wildlife conservation, the illegal and
unsustainable trade in wildlife and wildlife products, the role
of the U.S. consumer in aiding and abetting that trade, and the
coordination of conservation efforts domestically and
internationally?
Meetings with other agency and departmental heads are held as
needed on policy issues that impact the operations of other agencies or
the Department. For example, meetings were held with the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) to coordinate climate change strategies and
research needs. In addition, Service leadership meets with other agency
and department heads to address interagency conflicts or issues on U.S.
negotiating positions in preparation for international meetings such as
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and
to coordinate law enforcement actions regarding illegal trafficking.
There is on-going communication and coordination between the
Service and other government entities at all levels of responsibility
on the implementation of international conservation issues and
activities. For example, managers and staffs of our International
Wildlife Trade and International Conservation and Law Enforcement
programs work directly on a regular basis with counterparts from a
variety of departments and agencies to address international
conservation. U.S. participation in CITES is coordinated step by step
with other Cabinet level departments (including State, Commerce,
Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Justice) and with numerous agencies
(including the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Forest Service, Council on
Environmental Quality, NOAA Fisheries, Customs and Border Protection,
the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Smithsonian
Institution, and the Interior Department's Office of International
Affairs).
Other bureaus with the Department of the Interior also are actively
coordinating with International community on wildlife conservation
efforts.
For example, the National Park Service (NPS) Office of
International Affairs (OIA) is the NPS focal point for international
activities and serves as the primary contact for other bureaus,
agencies, foreign governments, and international and private
organizations on related matters. Through OIA, the NPS exchanges
technical and scientific information, shares knowledge and lessons
learned, and provides technical assistance to other nations on park and
heritage resource management issues.
The NPS Park Flight Migratory Bird Program is the national and
international migratory bird program in the NPS. The Program has
implemented projects and technical exchange efforts in national parks
across the U.S., and in national parks and protected areas in 19 other
countries in the Western Hemisphere which share migratory bird species.
The NPS also conducts the Intermountain Region International
Conservation Program (IMRICO) which facilitates international
cooperation in the stewardship of resources with Canada and Mexico.
IMRICO also provides technical assistance to the Intermountain Region
parks by working with their Mexican and Canadian colleagues on research
projects, inventories, and the development of appropriate protection
strategies for natural resources in the border region such as bat,
jaguar and Sonoran pronghorn conservation.
4. Title II of the bill was adapted from the legislative authority
used to establish the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force which, as you
know, has been successful in promoting greater coordination and
cooperation among Federal, State and Territorial governments in
protecting and conserving U.S. coral reef resources. Assuming
that the Obama administration supports international wildlife
conservation, and further recognizing that nothing in Title II
would change the statutory authorities of any of the Federal
agencies participating on the Global Wildlife Coordination
Council, nor require these agencies to implement any new
programs, can you please describe how Title II could be amended
to address the concerns of the administration?
The Administration supports international wildlife conservation.
The concept of a Global Wildlife Coordination Council has potential
benefits and could be effective to the extent that it can forge new
ground. However, under H.R. 3086, the Council overlaps with specific
pre-existing committees and coordination efforts.
We recognize the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force has been effective in
reaching across jurisdictional lines and intergovernmental barriers to
ensure that Federal, State and territorial agencies work together to
conserve coral reefs in the United States. The Task Force's success,
however, does not necessarily make it a universal model for promoting
interagency cooperation in every arena. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
was developed in order to fill a need where there was no existing
coordinating activity or body, whereas H.R. 3086 would result in
overlap, redundancy, and conflict with current coordinating structures.
Unlike U.S. coral reef conservation, multiple coordination
mechanisms already exist to apply Federal expertise in supporting range
state conservation and capacity building, ensuring sustainable trade,
and assistance in combating illegal wildlife trafficking. The proposed
Global Wildlife Coordination Council would bring together the same
experts representing the member departments and agencies who are
already engaged in such coordination through other forums.
For example, the CITES Coordinating Committee (whose members are
listed in our response to question 3 above) already oversees Federal
agency efforts to fulfill U.S. obligations under the CITES treaty and
provides an arena for communication and collaboration with respect to
international wildlife conservation. Creating a new Council for these
same purposes would be duplicative. Coordination of U.S. efforts to
support global wildlife conservation are also effectively addressed via
the Council on Environmental Quality, as evidenced by the coordinated
work of the many agencies involved in developing and implementing the
recent Lacey Act amendments for combating illegal trade in timber and
other plants. With respect to law enforcement, coordination already
exists on the ground through such mechanisms as port-based interagency
task forces for intercepting illegal trade and Service participation in
the development of the planned International Trade Data System, which
will facilitate interagency information sharing and smuggling
interdiction for more than 20 partner agencies that police trade.
The duties of the proposed Council would require significant staff
resources and call for assessing virtually every aspect of global
wildlife trade. The proposed Council is also required to develop a
global wildlife action strategy, which calls for either redundant or
even more wide-reaching assessments. Since there is no funding for
administratively supporting a Council or staff, meeting these mandates
would fall on the agency programs and offices whose missions include
international conservation and on NGOs and academics invited to
participate in working groups.
For the reasons outlined above, the Administration does not support
the creation of a Global Wildlife Coordination Council and recommends
that Title II be removed from H.R. 3086.
5. As one of the world's largest consumers of both the legal and
illegal wildlife market, are the United States' international
conservation efforts hampered by a lack of interagency
coordination?
U.S. CITES implementation, U.S. conservation assistance to other
countries, and U.S. wildlife trade enforcement in this country are all
closely coordinated with a host of other agencies, and the Service
actively seeks and welcomes appropriate additions to, or expansions of,
its existing partnerships.
In combating global wildlife trafficking, for example, the
Service's Office of Law Enforcement works closely with the Department
of Homeland Security (particularly Customs and Border Protection and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.
Attorney's Offices, the Justice Department's Environment and Natural
Resources Division, Interior Department Solicitor's offices, and
Interior's International Technical Assistance Program. The Office of
Law Enforcement has also recently increased its liaison with the U.S.
National Central Bureau-Interpol. Enforcement and capacity building
efforts are coordinated on a regional and global basis through such
entities as the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group, the CITES
Law Enforcement Experts Group, the CITES Secretariat, the Interpol
Wildlife Working Group, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-
Wildlife Enforcement Network, the International Law Enforcement
Academy/Botswana, and enforcement authorities in individual nations.
6. How is the Service cultivating the next generation of conservation
scientists and leaders? Would the fellowships authorized in
section 122(c) of the bill help in this regard?
The fellowships described in H.R. 3086 would complement and
leverage the work the Service is already doing to support foreign
students and the in-service, in-country capacity building efforts we
support in various countries. The Service's international programs have
a history that spans more than twenty years of cultivating future
conservation leaders in the developing world. Capacity building to
promote and enhance sound management of wildlife and other natural
resources is a central component of the Wildlife Without Borders
Species and Regional programs. For example, this fall, the
International Institute for Wildlife Conservation and Management, a
highly interdisciplinary graduate program located at the National
University of Costa Rica, will celebrate 25 years of partnership with
the Wildlife Without Borders Program. Throughout Latin America, more
than 400 graduates from this program, the first of its kind in the
region, are now leading conservation efforts in their home countries.
It is important to note that the Service's history in supporting
the development of scientists and leaders internationally has, to date,
been primarily focused on building these capacities within range
countries.
Engagement with the International community and the development of
the next generation of conservation scientists and leaders is a
priority for many of the bureaus within the Department of the Interior,
and not just within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National
Park Service has a long tradition of international engagement, and has
either helped create or significantly influenced the development of
park systems in nearly every other country in the world.
The NPS Park Flight Migratory Bird Program technical exchanges have
contributed significantly to capacity building for migratory bird
conservation in Latin America. Examples include:
The assistance of NPS International Volunteers in Parks
(IVIPs) from Latin America, Canada and the Caribbean with Park Flight
monitoring and education projects in U.S. national parks. Since FY
2001, 68 IVIPs, including 65 from 14 Latin American countries, two from
Canada, and one from the Caribbean have assisted with Park Flight
monitoring and education projects in NPS units. These IVIPs contributed
a total of almost 30,000 hours valued at over $550,000, with an
additional 10,000+ hours being contributed in FY 2009.
Park Flight has provided technical assistance related to
migratory birds to eight countries in Latin America and the Caribbean,
for monitoring, data analysis, environmental education, trail
interpretation, exhibit planning and design, visitor management, site
planning, protected area management, and sustainable tourism.
Currently, efforts are underway between Africa and the Dry Tortugas
National Park to protect habitat of the sooty tern which migrates
between these two countries to breed on Bushy Island within the park.
The Administration supports these ongoing efforts to create a cadre of
future leaders in international conservation. Additionally, the
Administration appreciates the Subcommittee's shared interest in
cultivating the next generation of conservation scientists and leaders,
but recommends the use of existing successful programs rather than
creating a new Fellowship program.
7. How can the Service better benefit from the advice of public and
private organizations that have expertise in international
wildlife conservation? Does the administration support the
establishment of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory
Council as provided in section 131 of H.R. 3086?
To ensure the Service receives as much input as possible from the
experts and a broad spectrum of the public, we currently work with
partner institutions that represent significant expertise in
international conservation. The Service's International Wildlife Trade
program actively seeks public input, both through public comment
periods announced in the Federal Register and by hosting public
meetings in the development of CITES proposals and other documents, as
well as in the development of U.S. positions for meetings of the
Conference of the Parties to CITES. The participation of experts in the
CITES decision-making process is extremely important to the United
States. In addition to seeking public participation in its own decision
making process, the United States actively promotes the participation
of experts in discussions at CITES meetings.
The Service acknowledges that an advisory committee could provide
the Service regular access to field-based experts and relevant
information for the Service's consideration in implementing its grant
programs aimed at supporting high-priority field-based conservation
programs. However, the establishment of an advisory committee is
already authorized under the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, and therefore we do not support the establishment of the
Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee as provided in section
131 of H.R. 3086.
8. Clearly the administration has concerns about the authorization of
a Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships.
However, does the administration necessarily oppose the program
activities (i.e., wildlife research; wildlife conservation and
reintroduction; international coordination, public education
and training)? Acknowledging the fact that Smithsonian
Institution has recently re-organized directorates to create a
new Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, which in many
respects mirrors the program activities of the proposed Center,
would the administration support amending the bill to
incorporate the Smithsonian's capabilities via a formal
partnership agreement to function as the bridge to enable
greater cooperation between the Department of the Interior and
non-Federal NGO stakeholders?
Projects supported by Wildlife Without Borders have demonstrated
over their 30 years of program history that protecting wildlife through
monitoring, research, law enforcement, and community outreach and
education is effective in stabilizing and increasing the populations of
animals where they are currently living in the wild. For example, the
Zakouma elephant project in Chad, funded by the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, immediately stabilized elephant populations upon
receiving funding in 2007, as demonstrated by annual total aerial
counts. This success came after an initial elephant population drop
from 3,200 to 900 in a period of two years, leading wildlife experts to
estimate that the project saved an entire regional population of
elephants from extinction.
The Service appreciates and within available resources hopes to
build on the existing opportunities to collaborate with organizations
on varied conservation activities as appropriate. The Service's
International Affairs program already engages in a number of
partnerships, cooperating with NGOs including the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums, the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the
Wildlife Conservation Society, TRAFFIC, WildAid, as well as groups such
as the Humane Society of the United States and Safari Club
International. In addition, the Service has a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Conservation Centers for Species Survival
(C2S2) including institutions such as the Smithsonian's Conservation
and Research Center, Zoological Society of San Diego, White Oak
Conservation Center, Fossil Rim Wildlife Center, and The Wilds. The MOU
established the Service's coordination with these partners on
endangered species research. We believe that formalizing a partnership
between the Service and one particular organization such as the
Smithsonian Institution would limit the Service's capacity to engage
more broadly with other entities and NGO stakeholders in its work.
9. What is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing now to enforce our
wildlife laws against those who trade illegal ivory and other
wildlife over the Internet?
As an operational priority, the Service's Office of Law Enforcement
investigates trafficking in protected wildlife (including trade
conducted via the Internet) and uses outreach to the public (including
Internet site providers) to promote compliance with wildlife protection
laws and treaties. Many recent Service cases show that violators have
used computer technology to further criminal activity.
In response, Service Law Enforcement is leveraging Internet
technologies in its intelligence gathering and investigations;
partnering with website owners to increase public awareness of wildlife
laws; providing cybercrime and computer forensics training to
enforcement staff; building cybercrime investigative and forensics
capacity; conducting appropriate undercover operations; and teaming
with other Federal agencies to combat wildlife trafficking, including
e-commerce.
Service special agents and intelligence analysts routinely
communicate with website companies to secure the removal of illegal
auctions or listings, obtain identifying information on buyers and
sellers, and--as appropriate--pursue investigations. The Law
Enforcement program has added computer forensics staff at the National
Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and has trained select officers
in the seizure and analysis of computers and electronic media to
bolster high-tech investigative capacity in the field. The Office of
Law Enforcement is now in the process of establishing a Digital
Evidence Recovery and Technical Support Unit staffed by special agents
with both computer forensic and investigative skills to further improve
the Service's ability to identify, retrieve, analyze, and utilize ``e-
evidence'' of wildlife crimes.
The Service is also working with the CITES Secretariat and other
international groups to address this issue on a global basis. In 2006,
the Office of Law Enforcement helped plan and participated in an
Internet investigations video conference with regional counterparts in
the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group. Staff from the Law
Enforcement and International Wildlife Trade programs represented the
United States at a CITES-sponsored e-commerce workshop this past winter
where they helped develop recommendations on combating Internet-based
wildlife trade for the CITES Standing Committee.
The Service, of course, cannot possibly investigate every web
posting that offers ivory or some other potentially prohibited wildlife
item for sale. The Law Enforcement program does not believe that such
an undertaking would represent either the best use of the agency's
enforcement resources or add significantly to progress in curtailing
large-scale global wildlife trafficking.
10. I understand that the administration has concerns regarding
section 141 of the bill. How does the administration propose
streamlining this provision? What would be an appropriate time
frame? Should the implementation of a revised Office of Law
Enforcement Strategic Plan be subject to the availability of
appropriations? Are there certain elements within section 141
that the administration would strike due to the need to
maintain confidentiality of data and information and avoid
exposure of ongoing investigations?
Although the Service welcomes the Subcommittee's interest in and
support of efforts to improve enforcement of U.S. laws that protect
global species, we recommend removing section 141 in its entirety from
this bill. This section calls for efforts that are already in progress
under the program's existing strategic and workforce plans; envisions
investments and expansions that reach well beyond the program's current
capabilities and resources; and mandates some activities that are
unlikely to have any serious impact on global wildlife trafficking. It
also seemingly ignores the Service's important role in enforcing laws
that protect native U.S. species from threats that include habitat loss
and industrial hazards as well as illegal take and trade.
Work is already underway to update the existing Office of Law
Enforcement strategic plan (which covers 2006-2010) to provide overall
direction, broad goals, and guiding principles for enforcement efforts
in the period 2011-2015. We would welcome consultation with the
Subcommittee during this process. The strategic plan would address the
need for operational flexibility, the full nature of the program's
enforcement mission, and the scope of its resource priorities.
Unfortunately, Section 141 tries to address this last issue by
authorizing the Service to accept donations and gifts from outside
groups to support enforcement initiatives targeting global wildlife
conservation. Such arrangements could create potential conflicts of
interest, since groups ``donating'' may well be organizations engaged
in activities regulated and policed by the Service. Enforcement
programs should avoid any activity that might raise questions about
their ability to fairly and objectively enforce the law.
11. Section 132 would create an International Wildlife Conservation
Fund to provide a vehicle for the Secretary to accept and hold
donations, gifts, etc. to support activities under the bill.
Recognizing that the administration believes that there is a
potential conflict of interest, how would the administration
recommend amending this provision to eliminate that concern?
Would formally designating the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, a congressionally chartered non-profit with no
regulatory authority, as the administrator of the Fund address
that concern?
The Division of International Conservation currently has a
mechanism to accept and receive gifts or donations from the general
public directed toward specific conservation programs such as ``African
elephant conservation.'' This does not present a conflict of interest,
as the Division of International Conservation is not a regulating or
permitting body.
The Fund, as proposed in the legislation, would present a conflict
of interest if the monies collected were to go to the permitting and
regulatory offices of the International Wildlife Trade program and the
Office of Law Enforcement, rather than being directed to support the
competitive grant activities of the Division of International
Conservation. A regulating body should not receive gifts from those
parties that are potentially regulated by it. Therefore, the potential
conflict of interest exists regardless of the entity administering and
managing the funds.
Based on the current capacity of the Division of International
Conservation to successfully manage its donations and appropriated
funds, there would be no benefit from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation being designated as an administrator of the Fund. The
Service recommends that in order to avoid potential conflicts, gifts or
donations continue to be routed through existing channels.
The Administration additionally opposes the investment authority
granted to the Fund in section 132(d) because it would allow the
investment of appropriations, which are limits on spending, not sums of
cash to be invested. The investment language should be changed to
Treasury's standard language, excluding the investment of
appropriations. There are also potential conflicts with Service
obligations under CITES and the Endangered Species Act with regard to
the suggested functions of the Center for International Wildlife
Recovery Partnerships. In addition, the lack of availability for these
funds to be used by the Wildlife Without Borders program (as restricted
in the legislation) seems to be at cross purposes with the intent of
the bill to support that program.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. Doesn't the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently coordinate
with other agencies within the Department of the Interior, with
federal agencies and with the International community on
wildlife conservation efforts? Is there something lacking with
the existing coordination efforts that should be addressed by
this Committee?
The Service currently coordinates with other agencies and bureaus
on wildlife conservation efforts and activities using our current
capacity and resources. The Service's International Wildlife Trade,
International Conservation, and Law Enforcement programs regularly work
directly with our counterparts from a variety of departments and
agencies to address international conservation. U.S. participation in
the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES),
for example, is coordinated step by step with other Cabinet level
departments such as the Departments of State, Commerce, Agriculture,
Homeland Security, and Justice and with numerous agencies such as the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, U.S. Forest Service, Council on Environmental
Quality, NOAA Fisheries, Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Agency
for International Development, the Smithsonian Institution, and the
Interior Department's Office of International Affairs.
The Service acknowledges that coordination and information-sharing
could be strengthened, especially with agencies such as the U.S. Agency
for International Development that fund wildlife conservation projects.
The Wildlife Without Borders Global Program has already undertaken an
effort to increase collaboration on project proposal reviews with the
Global Environment Facility, run through the Department of the
Treasury.
In combating global wildlife trafficking, the Service's Office of
Law Enforcement works closely with the Department of Homeland Security
(particularly Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement), the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Attorney's Offices, the Justice
Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, the State
Department's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs, Interior Department Solicitor's offices, and
Interior's International Technical Assistance Program. The Office of
Law Enforcement has also recently increased its liaison with the U.S.
National Central Bureau-Interpol. Enforcement and capacity-building
efforts are coordinated on a regional and global basis through such
entities as the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group, the CITES
Law Enforcement Experts Group, the CITES Secretariat, the Interpol
Wildlife Working Group, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-
Wildlife Enforcement Network, the International Law Enforcement
Academy/Botswana, and enforcement authorities in individual nations.
Other bureaus with the Department of the Interior also are actively
coordinating with International community on wildlife conservation
efforts. For example, the National Park Service has teamed with the
Department of Defense and Department of Energy, and Parks Canada,
Tanzania National Parks, and Kenya Wildlife Service in international
wildlife health work. Over 30 ``sister park'' relationships exist
between NPS units and foreign parks that share natural features,
management issues, or cultural ties. The majority of this assistance is
funded with outside financial support, primarily from the U.S. Agency
for International Development, the U.S. State Department and the World
Bank.
2. H.R. 3086 would ``provide specific authority to the Secretary to
coordinate activities within the Department [of the
Interior]''. Doesn't the Secretary already have authority to
coordinate the activities of its agencies? If not, what
specifically needs to be addressed in legislation?
Yes, the Secretary already has this authority to coordinate the
work of the various bureaus within the Department of the Interior and
we do not believe there are any needs that need to be addressed through
legislation.
3. Why is it necessary to fund graduate fellowship programs within
H.R. 3086? What benefits are gained from these fellowships?
The Service already supports several graduate programs and in-
country, in-service training efforts in a number of countries. The
Administration appreciates the Subcommittee's shared interest in
cultivating the next generation of conservation scientists and leaders,
but recommends the use of existing successful programs rather than
creating a new Fellowship program.
4. How many existing fellowship programs are there within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and what benefits have they produced?
For over twenty years, the Service's international programs have
supported graduate students pursuing degrees in wildlife conservation
and management through the Wildlife Without Borders Regional Program
for Latin America and the Caribbean. To date, the Service has supported
over 400 graduates through small scholarships. The students are working
in 20 countries throughout the region, and many are professors teaching
the next generation of conservation biologists, are directors within
their respective wildlife management agencies, or are managing programs
for conservation non-profits. Currently, the Service is developing an
innovative new training program for graduate students in Latin America
and the Caribbean. This fall, environmental leaders from more than 26
countries and territories throughout the Western Hemisphere will gather
to provide input into the development of this multidisciplinary
program.
A second fellowship program supported by the Service is the MENTOR
Fellowship Program (Mentoring for Environmental Training in Outreach
and Resource conservation). MENTOR was established two years ago
through the Wildlife Without Borders Regional Program for Africa. In
August, 2009, the MENTOR program graduated its first cadre of wildlife
professionals from four Eastern African countries (Tanzania, Kenya,
Uganda, and South Sudan) who have gained the requisite skills to
address the illegal bushmeat trade. Fellows have undertaken a unique
combination of active fieldwork and individually-tailored instruction
in preparation for participation in a network of Eastern African
wildlife professionals dedicated to reversing the rising trend of
illegal hunting. Through this program, the Bushmeat-free East Africa
Network (BEAN) was established, engaging government officials, non-
governmental organizations, and wildlife managers in unprecedented
levels of cooperation to utilize law enforcement and outreach
activities in addressing the illegal bushmeat trade.
In addition, the Service's Wildlife Without Borders Program was
recently approached by the University of Michigan's School of Natural
Resources and the Environment (SNRE), one of the most recognized
graduate environmental programs in the U.S., with a request to place
graduate students as summer volunteer interns within the Wildlife
Without Borders Program beginning in the summer of 2010.
5. Has the Service been unable to fulfill its obligations under
international treaties, domestic laws, agreements, or
cooperative agreements due to lack of legislative authorities?
Will H.R. 3086 provide any authorities that are not currently
available to the Service?
Under existing legislative authorities, the Service believes it is
able to fulfill its obligations under international treaties, domestic
laws, agreements, and cooperative agreements.
H.R. 3086 provides new authority to conduct the Wildlife Without
Borders Program and a fellowship program, and to convene a group of
external experts to advise the program. All of these activities can be
accomplished under existing authorities. The Administration supports
the provisions of the legislation that codify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (Service) Wildlife Without Borders Program with
modifying language to retain the Secretary's discretionary authority to
carry out and implement the program.
H.R. 3086 authorizes the Service's Law Enforcement program to
accept donations and gifts from outside groups to support enforcement
initiatives targeting global wildlife conservation. Such arrangements
could create potential conflicts of interest, since groups ``donating''
may well be organizations engaged in activities regulated and policed
by the Service. Enforcement programs should avoid any activity that
might raise questions about their ability to fairly and objectively
enforce the law.
H.R. 3086 also authorizes and funds Emergency Rehabilitation and
Recovery Grants to provide care for seized wildlife. The Service
already has the authority to donate live wildlife to organizations
qualified to care for exotic animals, and those organizations must meet
specific requirements under Service regulations to be eligible to
receive seized wildlife. As the agency has only limited ability (via
the Lacey Act Reward Account) to pay for wildlife care, the Service
welcomes this provision. However, consultation with the Service should
be mandatory for any grant process for wildlife placement to ensure
that regulatory requirements are met.
We also note that zoos, aquaria, and other institutions readily
accept ``marquee'' species that add to the public allure or scientific
value of their holdings, but are often reluctant or unable to
rehabilitate and provide life-long shelter for less ``desirable''
species--particularly when the seized wildlife consists of tens or
hundreds of commonly traded specimens of no interest from an
exhibition, captive-breeding or conservation research perspective.
6. One of the findings in H.R. 3086 refers to the existing wildlife
programs and conservation efforts run by the Service and the
federal government and states that they are ``generally
insufficient and in need of improved and focused attention''.
Do you agree with this statement?
The Service disagrees with the statement that existing wildlife
programs and conservation efforts are ``generally insufficient.'' While
the Service's work in international conservation can always benefit
from more focused attention, recognition, and support, the
characterization that our efforts are ``insufficient'' fails to
recognize decades of excellent work by the Service in this area within
existing resources. For example, since its inception, the Wildlife
Without Borders Program has funded over 800 conservation projects,
working with more than 500 partners. The Service's special agents and
wildlife inspectors have broken up thousands of smuggling operations
impacting the world's most imperiled species and have conducted scores
of law enforcement training programs for global counterparts. The
Service's International Wildlife Trade program issues 15,000-20,000
permits annually for the import, export, interstate and foreign trade
of species; take of captive specimens; transport of live invasive
species; and other activities involving wildlife and plants. This
program also works closely with many of the other 174 Parties to CITES
to ensure that international wildlife trade is conducted legally and
sustainably.
7. Do you believe that authorizing legislation would be useful for the
Wildlife Without Borders Program?
As noted in the Service's testimony, the Administration supports
the provisions in H.R. 3086 that codify the Service's Wildlife Without
Borders Program with modifying language to retain the Secretary's
discretionary authority in implementing the program. Authorizing the
program would enable the Service to build upon the existing program,
engage more partners, and work toward building the next generation of
conservation leaders. In addition, the Service could expand its focus
on regional and global work, building on the strength of the
complementary Species-Regional-Global approach.
8. H.R. 3086 would create an International Wildlife Conservation
Institute and a Center for International Wildlife Recovery
Partnerships. Your written testimony outlined the confusion the
creation of these new entities will have on existing offices.
While Section 5 of H.R. 3086 states that ``nothing in this Act
affects authorities, responsibilities, obligations, or powers
of the Secretary under any other statute'', do you believe that
would be the case if the bill was enacted into law?
The Administration has concerns regarding the creation of new
organizational structures without clarification on how they fit in or
with the existing programs and supports striking the Institute and the
Center for this reason. For example, the Assistant Director position
created by H.R. 3086 appears to duplicate some of the responsibilities
which the Assistant Director now manages but excludes the International
Wildlife Trade program. With regard to the Institute, the Department of
the Interior already has an Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management,
and Budget that oversees the Department's Office of International
Affairs. This office coordinates the international activities in the
Department's Bureaus and other activities unrelated to wildlife and
habitat conservation.
With regard to the Center, the Service already engages in a number
of existing partnerships, cooperating with NGOs including the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the World Wildlife Fund,
Conservation International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, TRAFFIC,
WildAid, and other groups such as the Humane Society of the United
States and Safari Club International. In addition, the Global Wildlife
Conservation Council established in Title II of the bill would impact
and potentially duplicate existing mechanisms aimed at enhancing
coordination and cooperation with other federal and NGO entities.
9. How much of the authorities in H.R. 3086 would duplicate existing
Service programs and activities?
While some provisions of H.R. 3086, such as the authorization of
the Wildlife Without Borders Program, are beneficial, many elements of
the bill are duplicative of existing activities and authorities. For
example, the establishment of a Council duplicates interagency
coordination that already exists. The establishment of an advisory
committee is already authorized under the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.
Section 122 calls for a far-reaching and ambitious educational
outreach program focusing on increasing the awareness of U.S. consumers
about concerns such as wildlife trade. Service efforts to address this
particular issue date back to the 1970s and continue today, often in
partnership with non-profit conservation groups (see question 12
below). While the scale and scope of the outreach program proposed in
section 122 is clearly beyond the agency's current capabilities and
resources (particularly given the timetable mandated), it would also
run the risk of duplicating efforts that have already been carried out
or are currently underway in the NGO community--a community that may
well be better equipped to address this issue not only in the United
States but on a global scale, targeting both consumers and suppliers.
Subtitle D mandates a number of activities that are already
underway within the Office of Law Enforcement, or that the Office has
the authority to pursue if the need and/or necessary resources are
available. For example, the revision of the Office of Law Enforcement's
Strategic Plan is already scheduled to be revised on a five-year cycle.
The Law Enforcement program is already improving its ability to address
the use of computer technology in wildlife crime. Service Law
Enforcement is leveraging Internet technologies in its intelligence
gathering and investigations; partnering with website owners to
increase public awareness of wildlife laws; providing cybercrime and
computer forensics training to enforcement staff; building cybercrime
investigative and forensics capacity; conducting appropriate undercover
operations; and teaming with other Federal agencies to combat wildlife
trafficking, including e-commerce.
Service special agents and intelligence analysts routinely
communicate with website companies to secure the removal of illegal
auctions or listings, obtain identifying information on buyers and
sellers, and--as appropriate--pursue investigations. The Law
Enforcement program has added computer forensics staff at the National
Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and has trained select officers
in the seizure and analysis of computers and electronic media to
bolster high-tech investigative capacity in the field. The Office of
Law Enforcement is now in the process of establishing a Digital
Evidence Recovery and Technical Support Unit staffed by special agents
with both computer forensic and investigative skills to further improve
the Service's ability to identify, retrieve, analyze and utilize ``e-
evidence'' of wildlife crimes.
The Service has worked, as resources allow, to strengthen its
forensics and intelligence-gathering capabilities. The Office of Law
Enforcement emphasizes the importance of enforcement partnerships and
cooperation in investigations and intelligence sharing; is working to
address the issue of international wildlife crime data systems; focuses
on outreach to increase compliance; and has long supported efforts to
build enforcement capacity overseas.
10. If there are new authorities that are not within existing
programs, do you think it would be more effective to authorize
the Service to carry out these functions instead of creating a
new Institute and Center?
As noted in the Service's testimony, the Administration supports
the bill's provisions codifying the Service's Wildlife Without Borders
Program with modifying language to retain the Secretary's discretionary
authority in implementing the program.
11. To increase stakeholder participation, H.R. 3086 would create a
Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee and a Global
Wildlife Council. How does the Service currently coordinate
with federal agencies or foreign governments on wildlife
conservation? Are these new components of H.R. 3086 necessary?
Do you think the Council and Committee will promote better
conservation efforts?
The Advisory Committee created by the bill would provide a vehicle
for the Service to receive input and advice from a group of external
experts, which would be representative of the broad organizations and
groups interested in our work in supporting on-the-ground conservation
efforts in range States. However, such a committee can be established
under the existing authorities of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The Council, on the other hand, despite providing a new structure for
interaction, would fill few gaps in coordination, some of which are
already being addressed through other means such as through the
Service's interagency CITES Coordination Committee and the Service's
longstanding enforcement partnership with U.S. Customs/Homeland
Security. All Divisions within International Affairs coordinate with
the State Department on international activities. The Wildlife Without
Borders Global Program is also currently interacting with the
Department of Treasury on proposal review with the Global Environmental
Facility. Although there is a need for increased coordination between
the Division of International Conservation and the U.S. Agency for
International Development on conservation initiatives, this can be
accomplished through existing authorities. While the need for
continuous coordination is recognized, the Service feels that the
Council, as authorized in the bill, would cause additional bureaucracy
and consume valuable resources needed elsewhere.
12. How does the Service currently educate the public on wildlife
conservation programs and efforts? What does the Service need
to make these efforts more effective?
The Division of International Conservation currently educates the
public on its wildlife conservation programs and efforts through a
variety of media including print, web, and video. The Division's
Internet site includes information on each of the Wildlife Without
Borders Species, Regional, and Global programs, and all related
conservation activities. Fact sheets are produced for each program on
an annual basis and, moving forward, the programs will each produce
five-year reports on grant projects and funding activities. In
addition, the program intends to work with NGO partners to increase its
use of video and new media to engage the public. Over the past five
years, there have been over 100 media and web articles published on
Division programs, distributed in over 800 web or print media outlets,
in addition to over 15 publications by the program and its staff. We
feel these initiatives have been very worthwhile and see value in their
continued development. Regarding the need to aid in the effectiveness
of these efforts, the program is constantly striving to try new tools
and methodologies to improve delivering the conservation message within
the program's capacity.
The Office of Law Enforcement outreach efforts emphasize providing
accurate and timely regulatory information to the wildlife import/
export community via various means. Outreach mechanisms utilized for
promoting compliance include a web-based public bulletin system;
participation in broker association, chamber of commerce, and similar
trade-focused meetings; training programs for brokers, freight
forwarders, international express mail company employees,
representatives of the fashion, fur, leather and other industries,
museum officials, and other groups directly engaged in wildlife trade
or wildlife transport; and one-on-one assistance to individuals,
companies, and carriers. Service Law Enforcement and International
Affairs personnel staff a compliance outreach booth at the annual
Safari Club International meeting, and compliance outreach materials
are distributed to hunters and anglers crossing our land borders to
pursue their sport. Outreach efforts in recent years have also included
presentations to such groups as the Animal Transport Association and
Independent Pet and Animal Transport Association International and
participation in trade-targeted events such as the UPS Trade Compliance
Fair in Louisville, the Baltimore Washington International Airport
Cargo Expo, and the International Air Cargo Convention in Houston.
Broad-based law enforcement outreach to the general public on trade
issues includes such activities as co-production and distribution of
the Buyer Beware brochure with WWF/TRAFFIC North America; an ongoing
partnership with multiple NGOs to make wildlife items available for use
by educators in conjunction with the ``Suitcase for Survival'' wildlife
trade education curriculum; and the donation of wildlife items to
educational institutions, museums, non-profit groups, and other
organizations for use in educating the public about trade. Service
wildlife inspectors and special agents also conduct outreach at
community events (such as Earth Day celebrations, sporting shows, and
State fairs) and give school, scout, and other presentations.
Enforcement officials provide briefings and panel discussions at media
forums (such as the Society of Environmental Journalists annual
meeting); and participate in symposia at universities, law schools, and
``think tanks'' such as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars.
On an annual basis, the Service's International Wildlife Trade
program handles over 6,000 permit applications, as well as responding
to over 20,000 public inquiries. This one-on-one outreach to potential
and active participants in international trade in protected plants and
animals has greatly improved the public's understanding of the impacts
of wildlife trade. The program also has numerous wildlife trade-related
fact sheets and web pages dedicated to specific taxonomic groups of
interest. In addition, the program regularly participates in or hosts
booths at meetings of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies,
the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Safari Club International, the
American Fisheries Society, the American Federation of Aviculture, and
the World Orchid Congress.
Finally, in addition to the efforts cited above, the Service, like
many other Federal entities, is exploring the use of alternative forms
of electronic media, such as pod-casting, blogging, and the use of
Facebook to reach a younger generation of the public and will
incorporate these tools to the extent possible within existing funding
resources.
13. What is the state role in national wildlife conservation education
efforts? Does H.R. 3086 usurp any state responsibilities?
State wildlife agencies conduct a variety of educational programs,
many of them focused on the protection of native species and
recreational activities such as hunting and fishing. The States,
through the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' International
Relations Committee work with the Service on educational programs that
affect native species in trade. Although some State-protected resources
are used to address illegal global wildlife trade, international
wildlife trafficking is more likely to be an educational/outreach focus
for conservation non-profits and the zoological/aquarium community than
for the States.
To our knowledge, H.R. 3086 would not usurp any state
responsibilities in the area of conservation education. It may,
however, be directing the Federal government to engage in duplicative
educational efforts in the United States that can better be
accomplished utilizing the knowledge, skills, and resources of
conservation groups that have historically played a major role in
teaching the public about wildlife trade and conservation.
14. Education of American consumers would seem to be something that
could be done without a new law. Do the existing multi-species
funds or wildlife grant programs run by the Service authorize
funds for education efforts? Has the agency requested funding
for education programs in the President's 2010 Budget request?
The Service has supported WildAid public service announcement
advertising campaigns and RARE conservation campaigns, which target the
consumers of species in the locations where their products are known to
be primarily consumed. The Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund and
the African Elephant Conservation Fund have provisions that permit
education that is not targeted at international audiences. For
instance, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund provided a grant
to the World Wildlife Fund to support the creation of a brochure
targeted at U.S. consumers of illegal wildlife products. Without any
specific mandates, the Service has successfully educated American
consumers through initiatives such as the Suitcase for Survival and
Buyer Beware programs. Additionally, many of the Service's
International Affairs NGO partners are better suited and equipped to
conduct outreach and education campaigns targeting the American public.
The Service has not requested funding specifically for education
programs targeting American consumers in the President's 2010 budget
request.
15. What about law enforcement efforts? Has the agency requested
enough funding in the President's 2010 budget request to
support law enforcement efforts nationally and internationally?
The Service law enforcement efforts have been very successful and
the Administration has provided sufficient funding to ensure these
efforts continue. The Service's Office of Law Enforcement investigates
trafficking in protected wildlife (including trade conducted via the
Internet) and uses outreach to the public (including Internet site
providers) to promote compliance with wildlife protection laws and
treaties.
16. The U.S. has been very proactive in many conservation efforts to
reduce the illegal trade in wildlife. What is the main
underlying issue hindering the success of these efforts?
Even if relatively unlimited resources were available to U.S. based
and international efforts to reduce illegal trade, these efforts would
continue to be hindered by the lack of appropriate laws and/or on-the-
ground ability to enforce them in supplier nations. More fundamentally,
economic and social conditions in range states will continue to fuel
the trade. Poverty provides an understandable incentive for poaching--a
fact that wildlife profiteers eagerly exploit.
Ultimately, it will not be enough for the United States and other
market countries to police incoming trade and promote consumer
awareness, as has been done since the late 1960s with some degree of
success. But the United States can work to address the economic and
social conditions that make wildlife poaching a way to survive for the
impoverished; and the Service can continue its efforts to support other
nations in developing strong conservation laws and building
prosecutorial and enforcement capacity.
17. Mr. Roberts mentioned in his testimony that seizures of illegal
products do not necessarily result in prosecution. Is this a
big issue in the U.S. or is mainly occurring in other
countries? What action needs to be taken to address the lack of
prosecutions in these cases?
Mr. Roberts' statement (as reflected in his written testimony)
refers specifically to Southeast Asia where training programs for
enforcement officers have led to an increase in the number of wildlife
seizures without apparently a corresponding increase in successful
prosecutions. In response, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) has broadened the scope of its
training and capacity building efforts to encompass not only
enforcement officers but prosecutors and judges as well. These efforts
have been supported by the Department of Justice, the Service, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, the Department of State, and non-
profit groups working in the region.
Effective wildlife law enforcement requires a sound legal framework
and the ability to investigate and prosecute wildlife crimes. These
critical elements are lacking not only in Southeast Asia (where ASEAN-
WEN is addressing them) but in other parts of the world as well, and
the Service is working with the Departments of Justice and State and
other partners to provide training to address these issues.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Gould, for the
Service's work in international wildlife conservation.
Before we proceed, for those standing in the back of the
room, if you wish to be seated, you can sit on the chairs on
the lower part here. It may be a long hearing, and I am sure
you would appreciate a seat. Thank you.
It is my pleasure now to introduce someone who is very
passionate, and I had the opportunity to meet and talk with her
yesterday. We share many of the same concerns, and she has
certainly devoted her life to the care and the interests of
animals.
So, Ms. Derek, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the
Subcommittee, and you are now recognized to testify.
STATEMENT OF BO DEREK, BOARD MEMBER, WILDAID
Ms. Derek. Madam Chairwoman, Honorable Members, thank you
for the opportunity to address you today. I speak today as a
board member of WildAid, a conservation organization dedicated
to ending the illegal trade in wildlife, and on behalf of the
Animal Welfare Institute. I am not speaking in my capacity as
``Special Envoy to the Secretary of State on Wildlife
Trafficking,'' a position created under the last administration
and continued under this one. However, my duties in this role
have taken me across the United States and internationally to
broaden my understanding of, and passion for, this important
issue.
Madam Chairwoman, wildlife knows no borders, and nor should
wildlife conservation efforts. The United States has long been
a leader in this field by encouraging other nations and by
providing vital technical and financial support. This bill
would help to ensure that we continue to lead in a way which is
greatly appreciated and builds goodwill and strong bridges with
other nations in a very positive manner.
This bill is also an insurance policy against loss of
biodiversity, against the extinction of some species, against
wildlife crime, and against the very real risk of the emergence
and spread of a serious new disease epidemic. ``An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure,'' and the programs
proposed under this bill could help to prevent billions of
dollars of remedial measures down the line.
Whether from expensive species recovery plans, species
entering the United States, or from the cost of a disease
outbreak, illegal wildlife trafficking is an almost perfect
vector for a new epidemic. The origins of SARS were traced back
to exotic wildlife trade, and had an estimated cost to Asian
economies of some $60 billion.
So perhaps instead of ``Can we afford this?'' the question
should be, ``Can we afford not to take this action?''
I would like to offer a concrete example from my own
experience in the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador on the positive
impact our support can make. The Galapagos Marine Reserve is
one of the largest in the world and, when establishing it in
1998, Ecuador made an appeal for outside support. There were
almost no resources available for law enforcement in this World
Heritage Site. This is a typical situation in less-wealthy
nations.
While they are prepared to forego converting wilderness
into farmland or short-term gains from fisheries exploitation,
pressing human needs mean they find it hard to finance adequate
protection for these areas. Meanwhile, on the other side, there
was a fleet of foreign and Ecuadorian boats raiding the reserve
for shark fin, tuna, and sea cucumbers on a daily basis.
Now, with U.S. assistance from both private and public
sources, it has some of the best marine-protection capabilities
anywhere in the world. The U.S. has provided officers from our
Fish and Wildlife and Park Services for training rangers,
building strong ties with our Ecuadorian counterparts, and
increasing their professionalism and morale.
We have financed vital equipment, such as GPS, binoculars,
and even a float plane. In the last few months, specially
trained sniffer dogs have detected an illegal shark fin cache,
while, in its first month of operation, a state-of-the-art
satellite vessel monitoring system provided by U.S. NGO's has
led to the capture of four boats illegally fishing. Thanks to
assistance in vessel maintenance, they are now carrying out
more patrolling with less staff and other costs. What was a
free for all has truly become a protected area, only with the
support of the United States.
Often the wildlife ranger is the only law enforcement
official in these remote regions, and supporting them will have
an impact in other security issues, such as drug trafficking.
Again, in the Galapagos, their wildlife protection assets have
led to the interception of cocaine in a number of cases.
This Committee has previously heard how the United States
is thought to be the second-largest importer of illegal
wildlife after China, and I believe it is essential that we not
only address the problems abroad but here, too. We can help our
international partners by reduction demand for illegal wildlife
here and helping them do the same in their countries.
Unfortunately, budget pressures have made it very hard for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain its activities
in this area. To this end, I have myself seen how public/
private partnerships can be the most cost-effective method. The
State Department's public service message with Harrison Ford,
carried out in partnership with WildAid, has reached hundreds
of millions around the world and cost the taxpayer less than
$100,000, while projecting a positive image of the United
States.
In my dialogue with wildlife-management professionals,
members, staff, NGO's, and other interested parties, I find a
tremendous consensus on the need for this bill. As currently
drafted, there are a number of concerns that have been
expressed to me from institutional issues to concerns that the
current cost and complexity may prevent it moving forward.
On the cost issue, I believe a less-ambitious program now
can always be enhanced down the line upon proven success and
that this issue should not be allowed to prevent the bill's
swift progress.
Frankly, given the overwhelming support for the core goals,
none of these issues seem to be too difficult to reconcile with
some concerted dialogue, and I believe that, with the Chair's
leadership and input from both sides of the House and
interested agencies, we can rapidly arrive at a bill that can
enjoy all our support and move with the unstoppable momentum
that it needs.
Just as wildlife has no geographical borders, conservation
knows no political borders. It is absolutely a bipartisan issue
with passionate advocates from both parties, and I would urge
both sides to unite and confer for the passage of this bill and
fight for the resources necessary to make it a reality. Thank
you, Madam Chairwoman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Derek follows:]
Statement of Bo Derek, Board Member, WildAid
Madame Chairwoman, Honorable Members thank you for the opportunity
to address you today.
I speak to you as a board member of WildAid, a conservation
organization dedicated to ending the illegal trade in wildlife and on
behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute. I am not speaking in my
capacity as ``Special Envoy to the Secretary of State for Wildlife
Trafficking'', a position created under the last Administration and
continued under this one. However, my duties in this role have taken me
across the United States and internationally to broaden my
understanding of, and passion for, this important issue.
Madame Chairwoman, wildlife knows no borders and nor should
wildlife conservation efforts. The United States has long been a leader
in this field by encouraging other nations and by providing vital
technical and financial support. This bill would help to ensure we
continue to lead in a way that is greatly appreciated and builds
goodwill and strong bridges with other nations in a very positive
manner.
It is also an insurance policy against loss of biodiversity,
species extinction, wildlife crime and the very real risk of the
emergence and spread of a serious new disease epidemic. In the hard
economic times, it is perhaps even more important to have insurance
against potential disasters. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure and the programs proposed under this bill could help to prevent
billions of dollars of remedial measures down the line, whether from
expensive species recovery plans, invasive species entering the United
States or from the costs of a disease outbreak. Illegal wildlife
trafficking is an almost perfect vector for a new epidemic. The origins
of SARS were traced back to exotic wildlife trade and that was
estimated to cost Asian economies some US$60 billion. So perhaps
instead of can we afford this, the question should be can we afford not
to take this action?
I would like to offer a concrete example from my own experience in
the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador on the positive impact our support can
make. The marine reserve there is one of the largest in the world and
when establishing it in 1998 Ecuador made an appeal for outside
support. There were almost no resources available for law enforcement
in this World Heritage Site. This is a typical situation in less
wealthy nations. While they are prepared to forego converting
wilderness into farmland or short term gains from fisheries
exploitation, pressing human needs mean they find it hard to finance
adequate protection for these areas. Meanwhile on the other side there
was a fleet of foreign and Ecuadorian boats raiding the reserve for
shark fin, tuna and sea cucumbers on a daily basis. Now with U.S.
assistance from both private and public sources, it has some of the
best marine protection capabilities anywhere in the world. The U.S. has
provided officers from our Fish and Wildlife and Parks Services for
training rangers building strong ties with their Ecuadorian
counterparts and increasing their professionalism and morale. We have
financed vital equipment, such as GPS, binoculars and even a
floatplane. In the last two months, specially trained sniffer dogs have
detected an illegal shark fin cache, while in its first month of
operations a state-of-the-art satellite vessel monitoring system
provided by U.S. NGOs has lead to the capture of four boats illegally
fishing. Thanks to assistance in vessel maintenance, they are now
carrying out more patrolling with less staff and other costs. What was
a free for all, has become a truly protected area thanks to the support
of the United States.
Often the wildlife ranger is the only law enforcement official in
these remote regions and supporting them will have an impact on other
security issues, such as drug trafficking. Again, in Galapagos their
wildlife protection assets have lead to the interception of cocaine in
a number of cases.
This Committee has previously heard how the United States is
thought to be the second largest importer of illegal wildlife after
China and I believe it is essential that we not only address the
problems abroad, but here, too. We can help our international partners
by reducing demand for illegal wildlife here and helping them do the
same in their countries. Unfortunately, budget pressures have made it
very hard for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain its
activities in this area. To this end, I have myself seen how public/
private partnerships can be the most cost effective method. The State
Department's public service message with Harrison Ford carried out in
partnership with WildAid has reached hundreds of millions around the
world and cost the taxpayer less than $100,000, while projecting a
positive image of the United States.
In my dialogue with wildlife management professionals, members,
staff, NGOs and other interested parties I find a tremendous consensus
on the need for this bill. As currently drafted, there are a number of
concerns that have been expressed to me from institutional issues to
concerns that the current cost and complexity may prevent it moving
forward.
On the cost issue, I believe a less ambitious program now can
always be enhanced down the line upon proven success and that this
issue should not be allowed to prevent the bill's swift progress.
Frankly, given the overwhelming support for the core goals; none of
these issues seem to be too difficult to reconcile with some concerted
dialogue and I believe that with the Chair's leadership and input from
both sides of the House and interested agencies we can rapidly arrive
at a bill that can enjoy all our support and move with the unstoppable
momentum that it needs.
Just as wildlife has no geographic borders, conservation knows no
political borders; it is absolutely a bipartisan issue with passionate
advocates from both parties and I would urge both sides to unite and
confer for the passage of this bill and fight for the resources
necessary to make it a reality.
Thank you Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee for the
opportunity to discuss this important bill.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Bo Derek,
Board Member, WildAid
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. How has WildAid demonstrated that public awareness campaigns can
change consumer behavior?
In follow up surveys conducted by independent professional survey
companies in Hong Kong 8% stopped eating shark fin soup and 40% said
they would eat it less.
In Taiwan 15% stopped and 40% said they would eat less.
In Singapore there was a reported 30% drop.
In Thailand traders unsuccessfully sued WildAid for a 33-50% loss
of business. The court found that WildAid's campaign was factually
accurate and therefore dismissed the suit.
In China 55% of Beijingers questioned remembered the campaign with
82% of those saying they would eat stop eating it or eat less.
2. How can public-private partnerships decrease the costs of public
awareness campaigns?
For example, WildAid has leveraged millions of dollars of
production for high quality public service announcements.
WildAid has also leveraged tens of millions of dollars of free
airtime with networks, such as CCTV, National Geographic, Discovery,
CNN, Doordashan, Fox and CBS.
It is unlikely that the Federal government would be able to
leverage such pro bono support.
3. Recognizing that the administration has expressed concerns with the
new organizational structures in H.R. 3086, would you support
amending the bill to strike the creation of these new entities,
and instead, utilize the existing office of the Assistant
Secretary for International Affairs as the appropriate point
for strengthening international wildlife coordination within
the Department?
Absolutely although the Department would require increased
appropriations to deal with the workload. This would be more cost
effective than creating new entities and not involve jurisdictional
conflicts.
4. In general, do you support the establishment of a Global
International Wildlife Coordination Council within the
Executive Branch (Title II of H.R. 3086) to better coordinate
the international wildlife conservation activities of relevant
Federal agencies?
Yes.
5. Does WildAid support the establishment of a Global Wildlife
Conservation Advisory Committee to provide a formal means for
non-Federal NGO conservation stakeholders to interact and
engage Federal agencies?
Yes.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. You mention in your testimony that there is ``overwhelming support
for the core goals [of the bill]''. Do you believe the Service
currently handles many of these core goals?
Most fall under their remit, although they are seriously under-
financed at present and therefore they are not being carried out.
2. If not, do you believe the Service should be authorized to
undertake these additional authorities, instead of creating a
new Institute and Center?
Yes. Although the Department would require increased appropriations
to deal with the increased workload. This would be far more cost
effective than creating new entities and not involve jurisdictional
conflicts a new entity would doubtless create.
3. You mention that the U.S. is the second largest importer of illegal
wildlife after China. This is according to the Bush
Administration State Department although how you might measure
this is debatable. What actions are currently being taken to
address this illegal trade?
Although stretched in resources the U.S. is a world leader in
wildlife enforcement efforts. However, public outreach and education
has been virtually unfunded and current efforts need a serious overhaul
and proper financial support.
4. Is the issue here the lack of funding for enforcement officers or a
lack of public education?
More enforcement officers are needed and perhaps new techniques
such as sniffer dog programs at airports should be deployed, but in our
opinion the most significant gap, which could be most cost effectively
filled is in public education/demand reduction, an area where
government/ngo partnership could be most effective. Due to lack of
funding the Service is unable to carry out even basic public education
currently.
5. What species are the most prevalent in the illegal wildlife trade
in the U.S.?
A very wide variety, but elephant ivory, tortoiseshell (from marine
turtles), sturgeon caviar, reptile skins and coral products.
6. Are there certain species that are more prevalent than others?
Certain species are very specific to certain cultures such as Asian
use of rhino horn, tiger bone and bear gall, Latino use of turtle eggs,
African use of bushmeat.
7. How many other nations are working with the U.S. on wildlife
conservation?
A question for the government, but there is a great willingness for
international cooperation in this area and over 170 nations are parties
to the UN CITES treaty which governs this area.
8. What do you see as the leading cause driving illegal trade in
wildlife?
Demand for illegal wildlife products.
9. Is money the sole motive?
There are some cultural beliefs, such as traditional cures. But it
is primarily money driven from the small amounts paid to often poor
poachers to the large traders.
______
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you, Ms. Derek, for your continued
leadership and your passionate interest in this, particularly
in international wildlife conservation, and for your support of
H.R. 3086.
And now we recognize Dr. Roberts. Welcome to the
Subcommittee, and you are now recognized to testify for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARTER ROBERTS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD WILDLIFE
FUND
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Honorable
Members of the Committee. It is a great pleasure to be here
today.
I speak on behalf of WWF and our five million members
around the world and also on behalf of our staff, who work in
partnership with U.S. agencies around the world on this very
topic.
Some say that the United States invented conservation. It
is true that our country has a long legacy of conserving the
natural world and recognizing its dependence on the same. All
you have to do is look around this room at the grand paintings
that depict the history of our country to see the relationship
between our people and the natural world, particularly its
wildlife.
We have done an exceptional job conserving our wildlife in
the United States over time, and we have a long legacy of
helping other countries do the same, and this bill makes some
important steps forward in strengthening our ability to do
that, particularly through the Fish and Wildlife agency.
If you go to most other countries where we work, you can
see this relationship between people and wildlife, and it is
quite strong, it is powerful, but it needs help, and our U.S.
agencies which have the expertise, the legal talent, the
scientific talent, the application of approaches have much to
offer in this regard.
Species extinctions are now something on the order of 100
to 1,000 times more quickly than the ``normal'' extinction rate
that we find in the fossil record due to the loss of habitat,
but also, perhaps more importantly, the lack of capacity in
countries where this important wildlife exists, and we have a
responsibility to help those countries build that capacity.
This bill recognizes that need, and it seeks to strengthen
our ability to address that need. The bill also needs work.
I want to just comment on the parts that World Wildlife
Fund supports the most and those parts that need work. The
parts that we believe are at the core of this bill are the
emphasis on saving wildlife where it lives in the wild,
particularly the Wildlife Without Borders program and the
species programs that are at the heart of the bill.
We also very much applaud the effort to increase the
coordination among parts of the Fish and Wildlife agency. If
all of these parts are interrelated, they need to work better
together. We applaud the intent to make that happen.
Finally, we applaud the effort to strengthen the ability of
the whole agency to do its work.
There are some issues that we would ask the Committee to
keep an eye on. One is to keep it simple. Coordination that
also brings complication is never quite welcome, and there are
ways to make this bill work that will keep the administration
and the coordination simple. That includes the administration
of the overall program to use existing programs within Fish and
Wildlife but also to use Fish and Wildlife to administer the
funds that flow to this program.
We also would encourage the Committee to keep the core
goals simple. There are lots of goals, lots of language in the
Committee that refer to different pieces of wildlife
conservation, and we would just encourage the Committee to keep
wildlife in wild places at the heart of this bill.
Finally, and I think just about every speaker here will say
the same thing, improving the coordination and the ability of
fish and wildlife agencies to do this work without approving
the appropriations to get it done is somewhat of a half
victory, and we would encourage you to look hard at what is
required to succeed in this very important work and to
appropriate the amount of funds that the agency truly needs.
WWF stands ready to help you out with that work in
improving the bill, so I hope you will count on us, but also I
am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts follows:]
Statement of Carter Roberts, President and CEO of World Wildlife Fund,
on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund, and TRAFFIC
Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name
is Carter Roberts, and I am the President and CEO of World Wildlife
Fund (WWF). For more than 45 years, WWF has been protecting the future
of nature. Today we are the largest multinational conservation
organization in the world. WWF's unique way of working combines global
reach with a foundation in science, involves action at every level from
local to global, and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions that
meet the needs of both people and nature. We currently sponsor
conservation programs in more than 100 countries, thanks to the support
of 1.2 million members in the Unites States and more than 5 million
members worldwide. I am also testifying on behalf of TRAFFIC, the
wildlife trade monitoring program of WWF and IUCN. TRAFFIC works to
ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the
conservation of nature. Over the past 30 years, TRAFFIC has gained a
reputation as a reliable and impartial organization and a leader in the
field of conservation as it relates to wildlife trade. It is a global
network, with 25 offices around the world.
WWF and TRAFFIC congratulate the Subcommittee on H.R. 3086, the
Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination, and Enhancement Act of
2009. The intent behind this bill to garner additional government
resources and coordination to the benefit of global biodiversity
conservation is to be applauded. WWF and TRAFFIC have worked hand in
hand with the U.S. government for decades in efforts to protect species
and habitats worldwide. The U.S. has been a leader in international
conservation efforts for over 100 years, and that leadership has been
greatly appreciated by governments, conservation groups and--most
importantly--the local people in those countries that have directly
benefited from it.
We highlight here the key messages that WWF and TRAFFIC hope our
comments on H.R. 3086 will convey:
Greater coordination and cooperation amongst U.S.
agencies investing in biodiversity conservation are needed to ensure an
effective and efficient effort. However, this coordination should not
come at the cost of agency flexibility and autonomy; added layers of
bureaucracy will not alone resolve this issue. The structures proposed
in H.R. 3086 must be clarified and carefully evaluated, and the most
streamlined approach possible should be used which will still achieve
the greatest conservation impact.
Resources should be focused on saving wild species in
wild places, working in close cooperation with local communities and
range State governments.
Adequate authorization levels must be included, and
appropriations allocated, to ensure that the programs proposed in H.R.
3086 can achieve any level of success in positively affecting
conservation initiatives on a global scale.
WWF and TRAFFIC have provided this Subcommittee with testimony
related to these issues on several occasions, including on previous
legislative proposals to expand U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
international programs and on efforts to address trafficking in illegal
wildlife and wildlife products and the U.S. role as consumer in the
international wildlife trade. Efforts to expand the U.S. role in
protecting species and habitats around the world are driven by an
urgent crisis affecting our planet's biodiversity. Species are now
disappearing at an unprecedented rate--100 to 1,000 times more quickly
than the ``normal'' extinction rate that we find in the fossil record.
Scientists estimate that approximately 10% of the world's known
biological diversity is presently in danger of extinction, including at
least \1/4\ of all mammals, \1/3\ of all primates, \1/3\ of all
amphibians, and \1/8\ of all birds. Scientists believe that we are in
the initial stages of a major worldwide extinction event that could
result in the permanent loss of up to \2/3\ of the world's plant and
animal species by the end of this century. Such an outcome would have
unfathomable consequences for the future of our society, our economy
and our planet.
This biodiversity crisis is being felt most acutely in developing
nations, where approximately 75% of the world's terrestrial plant and
animal species reside, in whole or in part. In many cases, poor
management of natural resources and lack of local capacity to promote
conservation and sustainable development in these countries has
exacerbated the threat of extinction to many species and directly
harmed local communities. Conservation is often vital to alleviating
poverty for many in the developing world who depend on these resources
for their livelihoods, food, shelter, medicines, and other necessities.
There are also significant risks to the global and U.S. economies from
the loss of species and habitats around the world and the valuable
services they provide.
The U.S. has an opportunity to lead expanded global efforts to
forestall the biodiversity crisis. The wildlife and natural resource
experts at the Department of Interior (DOI) and FWS are well positioned
as leaders of those endeavors given their long history of successfully
collaborating in developing nations and with private partners to
protect international wildlife, to mitigate cross-cutting global
threats to biodiversity including trade in illegal wildlife and
wildlife products, and to build local on-the-ground capacity for
conservation.
H.R. 3086 builds upon highly successful existing programs within
FWS to create a more broad-based and comprehensive approach to
international wildlife conservation within DOI. In this way, the bill
attempts to address the full range of threats and pressures affecting
global wildlife in a more concerted and coordinated fashion. The
legislation includes programs to promote improved law enforcement,
outreach and education, and new opportunities for public-private
partnerships. It also codifies the existing Global, Regional and
Species programs within FWS into a new, overarching Wildlife Without
Borders program.
Overall, WWF and TRAFFIC believe there are several key
considerations that should guide this legislation to ensure it achieves
its core purposes. It should be broad-based and flexible; focus heavily
on international programs in developing countries; include clearly
defined, scientifically-based systems for establishing conservation
priorities while retaining administrative flexibility; encourage but
not require grant recipients to obtain matching funds from public and
private partners; require host country approval and encourage local
support for programs and projects; provide for coordination among
Federal agencies with overlapping jurisdictions; allow for outside
review of program implementation; and provide adequate funding
commensurate with conservation objectives, including sufficient fees to
enable FWS to meet administrative costs. Priorities for such work
should also emphasize the role of the U.S. as a consumer and agent for
change, where the U.S. has a responsibility to mitigate the impact of
its influence on conservation around the world, particularly in respect
to utilization of wildlife resources.
The Institute and The Council
WWF and TRAFFIC note the attention paid to a consolidated U.S.
conservation strategy and a cooperative effort between all sectors of
the U.S. government contributing to or affecting global conservation.
This ratcheted-up effort and coordination are what is required to
facilitate the kind of efforts required--both on the ground and at the
highest political levels--and is what has been called for by WWF,
TRAFFIC and many of our conservation partners. However, while we
embrace the intent, we have some serious concerns with the execution--
for example:
How will the Institute fit within the current structure
of the FWS and its International Affairs Division?
Why will international treaties fall under the purview of
the Wildlife Without Borders program?
What kind of authority, if any, will the Global Wildlife
Coordination Council (``the Council'') have over the conservation work
of DOI and other Departments?
What is the interface between the Institute for
International Wildlife Conservation's (``the Institute'') Action Plan
and the Council's Action Strategy?
These are just some of the concerns the breadth and scope of this
bill raises. An organizational chart of what is envisioned by this
legislation would be extremely useful in trying to put some of these
pieces together and would help clarify what is intended in this
legislation. It would also be useful in helping to determine if the
scale of this bill is actually what is required to achieve the desired
outcomes, or if a leaner approach could more efficiently accomplish the
same.
A coordination mechanism is certainly needed within the federal
government on global wildlife conservation, but we have heard concerns,
including from within government, that the creation of various new
bodies may create unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. It is unclear, as
currently written, what authority, if any, the Council would have over
the actions of the Department of the Interior, as well as other
government bodies. While we strongly agree that coordination is needed
to ensure that federal agencies make efficient use of available
resources and avoid duplication of effort, we are also wary of
hindering any agency's effectiveness or flexibility in responding to
rapidly emerging conservation issues. More clarity would be helpful
with respect to the defined roles and responsibilities in the
legislation to ensure that any new structure will be of true
conservation benefit and not create new hurdles to agencies carrying
out their missions. We appreciate that mandating cooperation while
allowing a necessary level of autonomy is a fine line to walk, but we
also believe that finding the proper balance will be critical to
avoiding bureaucratic stalemate.
The Institute would be responsible for developing an Action Plan in
consultation with various stakeholders inside DOI and with civil
society. However, for the International Wildlife Conservation Action
Plan to have the necessary buy-in and coordination from other Federal
agencies, it would seem that providing them an opportunity for
consultation on development of the Action Plan would be required.
Additionally, it is unclear what, if any, link is intended between the
Action Plan and the Global Wildlife Action Strategy to be developed by
the Council. WWF and TRAFFIC would suggest that perhaps the Action Plan
be developed by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with
other relevant government agencies and NGOs, and that the Council then
review that Plan and develop a subsequent Strategy which outlines the
actions and resources necessary to implement the Plan, including
domestic policies, international diplomacy, and financial and in-kind
resources. If government agencies outside of Interior are expected to
invest resources in any Plan or Strategy, there must be some kind of
ownership in it to achieve success, and there must be linkages between
these two documents; otherwise, the U.S. government is operating under
two parallel conservation processes, which is exactly what the apparent
intent of this bill is seeking to avoid.
U.S. investment in the Eastern Himalayas region (India and Nepal)
illustrates how a cooperative multi-agency conservation strategy would
allow various government programs to support each other effectively to
not only conserve flagship species such as the one-horned rhinoceros
and tigers, but also encourage community based involvement and
sustainable livelihoods. Survival of rhinos and tigers in these
countries is critical to their ecological balance and also to the well
being of local people. Thanks to support from various U.S. government
agencies, important aspects of conservation in the region--ranging from
technical support to control of illegal wildlife trade to development
of regional strategies to meeting needs of local people--are being
addressed. FWS is supporting the Government of Assam, India, in its
ambitious vision of creating a population of 3,000 wild rhinos by the
year 2020 in seven of Assam's protected areas. USAID through its Global
Conservation Program has been supporting activities in the Terai Arc
Landscape that are targeted towards mitigating threats to rhino and
tiger conservation while also supporting local communities and
sustainable livelihoods. Support from the Department of State to
improve South Asia's wildlife enforcement capacity and cooperation has
also recently been established to secure rhino and tiger populations
from the devastating effects of poaching for trade. This funding to
establish a Wildlife Enforcement Network in the region will ensure that
the criminal networks involved are broken down or seriously disrupted.
This tapestry of support has played a critical role in ensuring long
term survival of South Asia's rhinos and tigers in particular and
contributing to conservation and sustainable development throughout the
region. These efforts have been coordinated, and thus successful, due
in large part to WWF's comprehensive conservation strategies for the
region and these species, which have ensured that each funding
opportunity has complemented the other. Were the U.S. government to
have consolidated conservation strategies, as well as a coordination
mechanism for all agencies investing in biodiversity, much greater
conservation results could be achieved, even with the same level of
funding.
To further the buy-in of government agencies in the Plan and the
Strategy, the bill could go further in stressing the links to the
agendas of Council members to draw their attention to the significance
of the Council and the need for them to engage. Making references to
the links between biodiversity conservation and risks for security,
agriculture, human health and development goals related to community
livelihoods and sustainability would help reinforce this. It needs to
be clear to the Secretaries tagged in this legislation why biodiversity
conservation is linked to their mission and why it should be included
in their agenda.
Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships
WWF and TRAFFIC have worked over the years to build positive and
cooperative relationships with both the U.S. government and other
governments across the globe, and have offered our expertise to help
further their conservation efforts. We have seen that these cooperative
efforts can result in increased conservation benefits by compiling
broad expertise, capacity and resources.
Both of our organizations work to ensure that wildlife populations
and habitats are preserved for future generations, and have prioritized
our work to save the most critically threatened species and places
around the globe. We also note that captive breeding for conservation
purposes can provide a vital reservoir of genetic material to help
repopulate, where feasible, when wild populations are depleted.
However, it is important that this legislation ensures there is an
adequate balance of resources within the proposed Center for
International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships between conservation
efforts to preserve wild species and wild places, and efforts focused
on captive breeding and reintroduction. It is our experience that it is
most efficient, economical and effective to conserve species in their
natural habitats and that ex situ conservation should only be
considered a last resort if, not when, in situ has failed.
We strongly endorse the need for more formalized partnerships
between civil society and the U.S. government to implement conservation
programs, and would encourage that this legislation expand upon this
idea. Many other governments around the world actually sign formal
Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with national and international
conservation NGOs on specific subject areas, which have proven to
successfully cement relations to produce more profound results.
Examples of such formal agreements were the signing of an MOU between
TRAFFIC and the Wildlife Enforcement Division of the Canadian Wildlife
Service this year. The MOU set forth mechanisms for collaboration
particularly in respect to capacity building, policy review and
information sharing. Similarly in 2005, WWF Mexico and TRAFFIC signed a
highly fruitful MOU with the Mexican government's Attorney General for
the Protection of the Environment (PROFEPA), on collaborative efforts
for capacity building, information sharing and public outreach. We
therefore welcome the proposal for multiyear cooperative agreements
between Federal agencies and other stakeholders in wildlife
conservation based in the U.S. and internationally.
Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
In previous testimony, WWF and TRAFFIC suggested the need to
develop an advisory committee of experts from government, civil society
and industry to help guide the conservation work led by the United
States internationally. We therefore strongly endorse the development
of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee. While our
organizations have developed informal, though fruitful, relationships
over the years with FWS, a more formalized mechanism that would allow
for more holistic input would be a useful line of communication for the
government and NGO sectors to learn what the other is doing and how we
can better work together. We recommend that the Advisory Committee,
which reports to the Institute, not include Institute employees as
members. WWF and TRAFFIC would both welcome the opportunity to
participate in and contribute to such an Advisory Committee, should one
be authorized. WWF and TRAFFIC have a breadth of knowledge and
engagement on wildlife conservation issues internationally to help
advise the Committee, including leveraging our global networks and
programs working in 100 countries.
Outreach/Education/Awareness
WWF and TRAFFIC welcome the focus on outreach and education in the
bill, and the fact that the scope of the outreach aims at various
sectors, including consumers, vendors, transporters, and other relevant
businesses and commercial enterprises, as well as range States. We have
highlighted the need for such an effort in the past, particularly an
effort inclusive of industry, and are pleased to see this planned for
so prominently in the bill. The U.S. is one of the top two consuming
nations for wildlife globally and its buying power is having a dramatic
impact on the wildlife and livelihoods of the most biodiverse
countries. The role of the U.S. in supporting source countries,
informing its own consumer market, and enforcing and regulating that
market is a complex one that requires significant resources and
internal and external cooperation and coordination, and we are pleased
that this bill attempts to address it.
We would encourage the U.S. in its efforts to first consider the
numerous conservation outreach programs already in existence, and urge
that this wheel not be completely reinvented; many successful campaigns
and programs exist which the U.S. could build upon and learn from. For
instance, TRAFFIC, which has partnered with the FWS over the years on
the Buyer Beware campaign, is preparing new outreach materials that
will help inform cruise ship tourists about which wildlife souvenirs to
avoid. The goal of our Make a Good Buy campaign is to reduce the
negative impacts of wildlife trade caused by cruise ship tourism in the
Caribbean, Mexico, and Central America by allowing the tourist
industry, local communities and the cruise line industry to make
informed choices. To date, we have produced brochures, wallet cards,
luggage tags and tote bags to carry our message of sustainable tourism,
and welcome any interest or cooperation from the U.S. in these and
other targeted efforts.
Trade in wildlife invariably involves transport of wildlife
merchandise as it moves from the supplier to the consumer, often across
international borders. A commodity may be transported by a number of
different means on its journey from source to consumer--in the air, on
land, or by sea; in a crate, in luggage, or even in an express mail
pouch. Because of this, the transport industry can play a constructive
role in helping to counter illegal trade, and we value any efforts to
increase awareness of the illegal wildlife trade and the importance of
biodiversity conservation in this key sector. We also call on
commercial airlines, shipping companies, courier services and other
relevant industries to cooperate with the U.S. in curtailing illegal
trade.
Also, when dealing with awareness programs related to the
sustainable trade and consumption of wildlife and their products, it is
vital that the U.S. work in collaboration with retailers involved in
the trade, as suggested in this bill. Partnerships should be encouraged
with companies that can have the most significant influence on the
availability of wildlife and wildlife products for sale and in
influencing the demand of consumers by providing sustainable and legal
wildlife products. Just one example of such conservation leadership is
the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN), WWF's initiative to eliminate
illegal and unsustainable logging and transform the marketplace into a
force for saving the world's most valuable and threatened forests,
while providing benefits to the businesses, communities and wildlife
that depend on them. This is particularly important given the passage
of the amended Lacey Act, a groundbreaking law prohibiting the import
and sale of illegally harvested wood and plant products into the United
States. With more than 30 regional offices worldwide, the GFTN provides
the tools and expertise needed to assist more than 360 companies from
across the forest industry supply chain to obtain wood and paper
products from forests that have been responsibly managed. A key
component of its effort to protect the world's forests is to provide
information and education to the private sector to raise awareness of
the negative environmental and social impacts associated with illegal
and unsustainable logging, and the need for companies--including
partners like Wal-Mart, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, and
Williams-Sonoma--to use their purchasing power to support a more
sustainable global forest products industry. Through the GFTN, WWF is
making a real and lasting difference protecting, managing and restoring
one of the world's most vital natural resources essential to sustaining
all life on Earth.
While WWF and TRAFFIC are grateful that the issue of education and
outreach has taken such a prominent role in this bill, we are concerned
with the proposed approach to develop and implement a program within
180 days after enactment of the bill. It is our experience that if an
outreach program is not set up adequately from the start it will muddy
the waters with consumers and partners. Incorrect or unclear messaging
can be harmful and can result in a backlash and even legal action from
industry. There needs to be an initial strategic review of the
priorities to target, including which market sectors (e.g. food,
medicine, pets, tourist souvenirs, fashion, travelers, trade and
industry etc.) and which locales (e.g. ports, markets and places); and
approaches need to be developed that are going to resonate with each
target audience--one size will not fit all. These research and planning
efforts alone will likely require more than the 180 days currently
allowed for development and implementation in the bill; therefore, we
would encourage allowing more time.
Also, the list of partners for these programs needs to include
governments in source countries; there is potential for greater impact
if these campaigns have key government buy-in. For example, a U.S.-
China partnership on wildlife trade awareness would be a groundbreaking
approach, particularly if it could also set up an awareness program
between U.S. and Chinese industry on wildlife trade and fisheries and
timber trade. Bilingual materials and showing the practical benefits of
working together to stop illegal and unsustainable trade would be a
powerful and innovative approach.
WWF and TRAFFIC are keenly aware of the vast resources required to
ensure that an outreach campaign be effective and achieve tangible
benefits. Therefore, a sufficient funding authorization should be
included in Sec. 122(a) and Sec. 122(b) of the bill, as it is for Sec.
122(c).
Law Enforcement
The U.S. has comprehensive policies and enforcement mechanisms for
regulating wildlife trade and for prohibiting international and
interstate trade of endangered, threatened, and protected species.
Nonetheless, illegal wildlife trade continues to take place on a
significant scale. Implementation of existing regulations is still
lacking, in large part because many of the agencies responsible are
severely under-resourced. Given the proper resources, undercover
investigations, inspections, and other programs can be highly
successful.
WWF and TRAFFIC have strongly urged more focus on and resources for
enforcement in previous testimony and in numerous of our reports.
However, H.R. 3086 does not authorize the increased resources necessary
to fund enhanced enforcement efforts. We are concerned with the
specificity of the directives regarding a revision of the FWS Office of
Law Enforcement's (OLE) Strategic Plan, particularly in light of the
fact that these elements are not subject to the availability of
appropriations. While we agree that some of these elements would be
beneficial, we also believe that OLE should determine where their
resources would be best utilized to affect positive change in the arena
of illegal wildlife trade. We would not like to see the elements
outlined in this bill mandated at the expense of other vital programs
such as special investigations and inspections.
Therefore, WWF and TRAFFIC would like to see an authorization for
funding in Subtitle D of the bill. Additionally, the language in Sec.
141(b) should be changed to read, ``The revised Strategic Plan shall
consider as objectives, subject to the availability of appropriations,
the following elements,'' to allow those with the appropriate expertise
and experience the flexibility to assign their program priorities.
Another area of concern for WWF and TRAFFIC is the mandate for
development of a wildlife cybercrime unit. There is no question that
illegal wildlife trade is facilitated through the Internet. However,
this medium is a communication tool that is abused for illegal activity
but that in itself does not merit a distinct unit to address it. The
preponderance of the most serious illegal wildlife trade is not
conducted via Internet, but by well-organized crime syndicates. WWF and
TRAFFIC would prefer to see any additional resources allocated to the
FWS's existing Special Intelligence Unit, which already works to
address wildlife cybercrime, so that they can better address this mode
of illegal trade as well as others, as demanded by current trends,
evidence, and investigations.
The bill's focus on U.S. efforts to build law enforcement capacity
abroad is highly significant. Countries impacted by U.S. consumer
demand need assistance with implementing and enforcing their own
wildlife trade laws. To this end, the U.S., with the support of
conservation partners including TRAFFIC, has already been engaged for
many years in capacity-building efforts around the globe. The Central
America-Dominican Republic (CAFTA-DR) Free Trade Agreement CITES
Support Program is a good example of a medium-term capacity building
program established by the U.S. to reduce illegal and unsustainable
trade. CAFTA-DR member countries encompass a wide variety of ecosystems
and a spectacular diversity of wildlife but face chronic threats to
biodiversity, which often derive from unsustainable natural resource
management practices. As demand for exotic leather, corals, parrots,
fisheries products and an array of other wildlife products continues to
grow, it is important for government agencies and industry to meet the
implementation requirements of CITES and support enforcement. TRAFFIC,
funded by the Department of State, has supported this program since
2006, in partnership with the FWS and the DOI's International Technical
Assistance Program. WWF and TRAFFIC have therefore seen the benefits of
this collaborative and cooperative approach and applaud the intent to
further U.S. investment in addressing illegal wildlife trade abroad.
WWF and TRAFFIC would like to highlight the need to address laws
and policy, prosecution and adequate sentencing within any U.S.
capacity building or funding efforts. Without adequate laws in place,
no country can begin to address illegal or unsustainable wildlife
trade; without a knowledgeable and sufficiently resourced judiciary, no
country can successfully prosecute wildlife crimes; and, lastly,
without sentences adequate to deter wildlife crime, no country--
including the U.S.--can dissuade would-be poachers and wildlife
traffickers. We have seen in Southeast Asia, for example, an increase
in the number of seizures of illegal wildlife through successful
training programs for enforcers; however, most of those seizures do not
result in prosecution, as there is an apparent disconnect between law
enforcement and the judiciary in the region. Compounding the problem
are, again, insufficient laws, insufficient understanding of those
laws, and insufficient sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
and USAID, through support to the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN), have been working in
cooperation with TRAFFIC and other partners to address these issues,
and WWF would encourage further efforts by the U.S. government to
ensure that any capacity building efforts be inclusive of these
judicial aspects of the enforcement chain.
Over the years, TRAFFIC has worked closely with OLE, as well as
DOJ, in gathering and sharing information to assist in investigations
and prosecutions combating illegal wildlife trade both in the U.S. and
abroad. We look forward to continuing in this spirit of cooperation and
will provide whatever assistance we can to further U.S. conservation
efforts.
Wildlife Without Borders
H.R. 3086 would bring three elements of FWS international programs
together, merging the existing Species Programs, Regional Programs, and
Global Programs into a new, three-tiered program to be known henceforth
as the Wildlife Without Borders program. Up until now, Wildlife Without
Borders has generally referred solely to the Regional Programs of FWS
International Affairs. H.R. 3086 would expand the definition of
Wildlife Without Borders to encompass all of the international programs
of FWS--including the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF),
the Wildlife Without Borders Regional Program, and several cross-
cutting global initiatives.
We see the new Wildlife Without Borders Program authorized by H.R.
3086 as an effort to bring the three functions together under a single
title, to supplement existing sources of funding for these activities,
to codify the Regional Programs as a grant program distinct from the
administrative functions of the International Affairs Division, and to
set the stage for a broader global program that would provide greater
flexibility for FWS to respond to conservation needs that are outside
the realm of the Species Programs or the Regional Programs.
One concern we have with this approach is confusion with the legacy
of the current Wildlife Without Borders and the proposed Wildlife
Without Borders program. One simple solution to avoiding such confusion
would be to rename the program. In addition to clarifying that this is
a new program with a new remit, it could also clarify the intent of the
program more globally. The current name may not translate well abroad,
thus we would suggest a more straightforward name along the lines of
Global Wildlife Conservation Program, which clearly speaks to the work
and mission of the program. Additionally, it would be useful to outline
how the current structure of Wildlife Without Borders would change, and
what the new program would look like to accommodate these new
responsibilities.
We also see value in this approach as part of a more concerted
funding effort by FWS to address the full spectrum of issues affecting
international wildlife conservation, provided that the legislation
retains and builds upon the already existing programs, which are often
highly successful and have strong constituent support, and enhances
them by providing FWS with additional flexibility and resources to fill
existing gaps and expand the range of species and locations where it
can carry out its vital work. It is also important as part of those
efforts that FWS coordinate strongly with other agencies, including
USAID, which also work on biodiversity conservation in many of the same
places around the world and often have greater resources to bring to
bear. The legislation provides for such coordination, which we believe
is essential to ensuring that available resources be used as
efficiently and effectively as possible to achieve the U.S.'s
international conservation goals. We also recommend that the grant
programs authorized as part of the Wildlife Without Borders program be
implemented in partnership with nongovernmental organizations and other
stakeholders, including a provision for consultation and cooperation
with stakeholders on the establishment of conservation priorities
eligible for assistance under the Program.
The Wildlife Without Borders program is the section of the bill
that authorizes the on-the-ground conservation work that is so crucial
to saving our world's most threatened places and most vulnerable
species. The success of the existing FWS international programs makes a
good case for their expansion and codification under the proposed bill,
and some of the successful partnerships that WWF has participated in
with FWS, particularly through the individual Species Programs and the
Regional Programs, are highlighted below.
Under the new Wildlife Without Borders program, the Species Program
would consist of the five MSCF administered by FWS, which are
individually authorized programs providing conservation assistance to
specific species or groups of species: African elephants, rhinoceroses
and tigers, Asian elephants, great apes, and marine turtles. The
Species Program would also incorporate any future species funds
approved by Congress, including two that are currently awaiting
passage: one to help conserve great cats and rare canids, and another
to help conserve several crane species. The MSCF provide funding for
grants to support law enforcement, mitigate human-animal conflicts,
conserve habitat, prevent poaching, conduct population surveys, and
support public education programs.
Ever since the first of these species programs was authorized in
1989 when Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act, they
have had an incredibly strong track record of using modest resources to
achieve real on-the-ground conservation successes. They also have an
excellent record of leveraging additional funds from public and private
partners: total funding for the MSCF from FY1990 to FY 2008 totaled $60
million, and was supplemented by $141 million in matching
contributions, a ratio of 2.5 to1. Partners have included other
developed countries, private corporations, host country agencies, and
non-government organizations like WWF.
Though the Species Program grants can be modest in size, their
focused nature and their proven ability to leverage private funding has
made them highly effective programs in priority areas. Through the
Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, WWF has partnered with FWS on a
number of projects to protect tiger populations in Asia, including work
to update information on populations and habitat in order to determine
what areas will be able to support viable tiger populations in the
future. Particular effort has been focused on the Indonesian province
of Riau on the island of Sumatra, which supports one of the last
remaining habitats for the critically endangered Sumatran tiger.
WWF has also partnered with FWS to protect populations of Asian
elephants in a number of priority regions through the Asian Elephant
Conservation Fund. In Cambodia, WWF has engaged in protected area
management and law enforcement patrols, as well as monitoring and
research in areas containing important elephant populations. At the
same time, WWF has worked to build local capacity for these elephant
conservation efforts. In Nepal's Terai Arc region, WWF has used money
provided by FWS to restore transboundary biological corridors between
Nepal and India, helping to improve elephant habitats, address human
and elephant conflicts in the corridor areas, and increase awareness in
local communities. Also in Nepal, WWF has used funding from FWS to
treat park patrol elephants for tuberculosis, which can appear in
domesticated elephants and subsequently put wild populations at risk of
transmission.
Given the proven success of MSCF programs in funding the
conservation of these and other threatened species in the wild and the
significant constituent interest they have generated in Congress and
among the general public, we would hope that these independently
authorized and funded programs would be clearly grandfathered into the
bill as separate programs within the Wildlife Without Borders Species
Program.
The existing Regional Programs (the current Wildlife Without
Borders programs) augment the individual Species Programs by
strengthening local wildlife management capabilities in developing
countries and providing flexibility to FWS in regions and habitats not
covered under the MSCF. The Regional Programs were initiated in 1995
and have focused on capacity-building and training of wildlife
professionals in developing countries. These regional efforts have
largely benefited Mexico, Latin America and the Caribbean, with smaller
programs in Russia, China and India and a relatively new program for
Africa. The Regional Programs have a successful record of leveraging
additional funds from external partners, having awarded a total of $20
million with more than $58 million leveraged in partner contributions.
WWF has partnered with FWS through their Regional Programs on a
number of initiatives, including a regional Train-the-Trainer workshop
on protected area management in the tropical Andes and Amazon region,
and the MENTOR Program, which supports capacity building, training and
career development of emerging African conservation leaders in order to
build a network of leading wildlife professionals in East Africa.
The Regional Program has built on the Species Program's decades of
proven success and filled a crucial gap by providing flexible
international conservation funding not targeted at any one species or
habitat. Its focus on local capacity building and education provides a
critical component for bringing about a culture of conservation in
those developing countries where FWS-funded projects are underway. It
is only by creating homegrown capacity and instilling an appreciation
of biodiversity and its value to local communities, that any local
conservation efforts can be successful over the long-term. WWF strongly
supports the intention of H.R. 3086 to codify these FWS Regional
Programs into law and ensure dedicated resources to achieve these
purposes.
However, we are concerned with the third component included in the
new Wildlife Without Borders program--the Global Program--which would
incorporate FWS activities that currently include support for U.S.
involvement in CITES, the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance, the Western Hemisphere Migratory Species
Initiative, and other international treaties and conventions.
Participation in these accords provides important opportunities for the
U.S. to lead in shaping international conservation policy. The Global
Program would also provide a vehicle for addressing cross-cutting
issues not covered by the Species and Regional programs. Given the
potentially broad scope of this last authority, including the
implementation of global habitat and conservation initiatives, we
stress the need for coordination with other federal agencies and
existing programs that are working on similar cross-cutting issues on a
global scale. Additionally, we express deep concern with rolling
implementation of international treaties under this Program, as these
involve high level international policy issues with an often separate
set of players. There are important diplomatic issues involved in
participation in and strategy for U.S. engagement with international
treaties, which require close coordination with the Department of
State. This policy work merits a distinct body in FWS to oversee it,
which should not be buried under another layer of bureaucracy
International Wildlife Conservation Fund
H.R. 3086 would create a new International Wildlife Conservation
Fund to be administered by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
We support the non-Federal match requirements for the Fund and the
provision for waivers. However, we have concerns that a nonprofit
organization is authorized to administer the Fund and believe this
function would be more appropriately conducted by FWS through the
Institute for International Wildlife Conservation, in line with the
funds currently authorized under the Wildlife Without Borders program.
WWF and TRAFFIC would suggest that following this established model
would more readily allow for a coordinated funding approach between all
of these funds. Parallel management of the various funds by two
different organizations would do nothing to facilitate the
communication needed to avoid duplication of effort and ensure
complimentary funding approaches. We also believe this provision would
be strengthened by inclusion of a specific funding authorization for
carrying out the purposes of the Act, of which penalties and fines
would be one component, donations another, and appropriations a third.
Given the incredible and laudable breadth of the conservation
activities the Fund would cover, we would recommend it be authorized at
a minimum of $20 million.
Political Will
While H.R. 3086 would do much to further U.S. government efforts to
conserve international wildlife, it has become clear to WWF and TRAFFIC
over the years that much more is necessary than having adequate laws on
the books and having systems in place to implement them. Garnering
political will and elevating the issue of biodiversity conservation and
illegal wildlife trade as priorities at multilateral meetings and in
diplomatic exchanges is also essential to bring about significant
change globally. Up to this point, these issues have tended only to
capture the attention of those in government tasked with addressing
them, whereas to be addressed at the scale needed to be successful,
conservation has to be a priority at the highest political levels. The
conservation efforts of governments and NGOs around the globe need the
backing of legislative bodies and Presidents and Prime Ministers, and
the resources and opportunities they can provide, in order to be truly
meaningful. Global biodiversity and threats it faces must be raised to
a higher level of awareness and prioritization. WWF and TRAFFIC would
like express our sincere appreciation to the Subcommittee for the
attention it has given to these issues in the 110th and 111th
Congresses. We also urge Congress and the administration to utilize
every available opportunity to address conservation challenges on the
global stage.
With this is mind, we would like to draw your attention to one
upcoming opportunity for the U.S. to assert such high level leadership:
the Global Tiger Summit that is being planned for the next Year of the
Tiger, in 2010. Despite years of conservation efforts on behalf of
governments and NGOs, the number of wild tigers continues to decline.
Successful conservation of wild tigers requires not only keeping these
revered animals safe from threats such as poaching, but also protecting
the habitats on which they depend, including critical watersheds and
forests. Efforts to insure the health and integrity of these essential
tiger habitats also help to protect the multitude of species and the
local communities that are equally dependent upon them. Wild tigers are
in dire straits, and it will take a truly global effort to save this
iconic species for future generations. WWF and TRAFFIC call on the U.S.
to be at the forefront of this effort and to make meaningful
commitments to ensuring its success.
Conclusion
Finally, TRAFFIC and WWF offer their support and assistance to the
U.S. in its efforts to combat illegal trade and conserve biodiversity.
WWF has worked with local communities, industry and governments since
1961 and has pioneered education and awareness raising work throughout
these sectors. WWF has also built significant partnerships with
business and industry in the U.S., and these relationships can provide
model approaches for future engagements with businesses engaged in the
legal sale of wildlife and wildlife products. TRAFFIC has over 30 years
of in-depth insight into wildlife trade, as well as experience in
monitoring emerging trends, conducting investigations and trainings,
facilitating multiregional enforcement networks, and analyzing data and
legislation in every region around the world. Specifically, TRAFFIC
holds a wealth of information on illegal and unsustainable wildlife
trade and criminal networks in many regions, which we are happy to
share with Congress and relevant agencies in order to highlight the
problems on the ground and to begin to develop effective and
collaborative solutions.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Carter S. Roberts,
President & CEO, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. You and other witnesses expressed concerns with the new
organizational structures authorized in H.R. 3086. However,
there appeared to be little disagreement among the witnesses
regarding the principal objectives of the bill (i.e., greater
coordination within the Department of the Interior and with
other relevant Federal agencies; expanded public outreach and
education regarding the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife
products; authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders
Program; expansion of training opportunities, especially for
law enforcement capabilities in range states; greater
collaboration with non-Federal NGO stakeholders, especially
utilization of technical and educational assets within the zoo
and aquarium community, etc.). How might you suggest the bill
be amended to clean up the purported organizational clutter
while maintaining the principal objectives and the simplicity
you desire? Should greater coordination simply be directed
through the existing office of the Assistant Secretary for
International Affairs within the Department of the Interior?
WWF and TRAFFIC support the principal objectives of the bill,
particularly those that are clearly focused on in situ conservation to
assist species of concern and the habitats that support them. We also
strongly support greater coordination of international wildlife
conservation activities at the interagency level. Activities related to
wildlife and biodiversity conservation need to be coordinated across
the federal government to make them as efficient and complimentary as
possible. For example, USFWS and USAID work in many of the same areas
and may have overlapping programs in those areas, but it is our
understanding that, at present, meaningful collaboration between the
two agencies is limited. We support the need for a formal structure to
bring interested agencies together to discuss their respective
approaches to international conservation programs and find ways to
complement and collaborate with one another. However, we have concerns
about the bill's attempt to create a new structure (the Council) within
the Department of Interior to carry out this interagency function,
given the lack of clarity regarding its authority and practical ability
to coordinate the activities of other agencies. A structure above the
level of the individual agencies--perhaps chaired by the White House
Council on Environmental Quality--may be one possibility.
As we stressed in our written testimony, we support an approach
that will bolster existing international conservation programs while at
the same time enhancing their ability to continue to achieve
conservation results, filling the gaps between them and helping to
coordinate conservation work across the federal government in a way
that is both simple and effective.
2. Recognizing that there will likely never be sufficient Federal
appropriations to address all identified needs it is important
that we utilize the contributions of non-Federal stakeholders.
Do you agree? Are there additional ways to formally incorporate
these capabilities beyond the grant programs authorized under
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund? Do you support the
creation of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
in H.R. 3086?
We strongly agree that utilizing the expertise of individuals and
organizations outside of the U.S. government is an efficient and
effective way to complement U.S. government, as well as NGO,
conservation activities. WWF and TRAFFIC have endorsed, in previous
testimony before the Subcommittee, the need to develop an advisory
committee of experts from government, civil society and industry to
help guide the conservation work led by the United States
internationally. We therefore strongly support the development of the
Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee. While our
organizations have developed informal, though fruitful, relationships
over the years with relevant government agencies and departments, a
formalized mechanism that would allow for more holistic input would be
a useful line of communication for the government and NGO sectors to
learn what the other is doing and how we can better work together. WWF
and TRAFFIC would both welcome the opportunity to participate in and
contribute to such an Advisory Committee, should one be authorized. WWF
and TRAFFIC have a breadth of knowledge and engagement on wildlife
conservation issues internationally, including leveraging our global
networks and programs working in 100 countries, to help advise such a
Committee.
3. Do you support the establishment of an International Wildlife
Conservation Fund in the Treasury to provide a means for the
Secretary of the Interior to accept and utilize gifts and
donations? In order to ensure that there is no potential for
conflict of interest, should such a fund be managed by
agreement through a non-Federal entity such as the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation?
Yes, we do support the establishment of an International Wildlife
Conservation Fund (IWCF), but do not see the need for it to be
administered by a third party like the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation (NFWF). WWF would prefer to see a consistent and unitary
approach to managing and distributing the funds received from
appropriations and from gifts and donations. We do not feel it is
appropriate for the NFWF or any other non-profit organization to hold,
invest or administer funds paid into an account in the U.S. Treasury.
Funds paid into the IWCF, from whatever source, should be treated in
the same manner as currently applies to the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund (MSCF). This Fund has Treasury accounts for each of
the species funds and is authorized to accept gifts and donations from
the public. We do not consider the potential for conflict of interest
from public donors to be any greater for the IWCF than for the MSCF.
WWF acknowledges a possible advantage in having NFWF, whose mandate
is to solicit contributions from private parties in support of
conservation programs, in a position to proactively solicit private
contributions to the IWCF. However, we do not believe that it would
contribute to efficiency to have the Institute's Assistant Director be
responsible for the Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) program and NFWF be
responsible for funding all other programs within the Global Wildlife
Conservation Act. We also do not support a non-profit organization
having control over appropriated funds, and for this reason, too, there
should not be a division of responsibility between the Institute and
the NFWF. We do, however, support the creation of two funds in the
Treasury, one for the largely international grant programs of the WWB
program and one for all other programs to be funded by the IWCF. We
recommend that Section 132(a)(4) be edited to remove overlapping
authorizations that apply to WWB programs, such as ``to provide
financial, technical, and other assistance to conserve fish and
wildlife in their range states''. Finally, we consider the
administrative fees for the IWCF to be very modest for a program of
this diversity and size, and recommend that it follow the fee structure
of the MSCF in which EACH of the species programs is authorized at
$100,000 or 4-5 percent of appropriations.
4. Why is it important to educate the U.S. consumer about their role
in illegal wildlife trade? Should campaigns, such as the
``Buyer Beware'' campaign, be expanded and improved? What would
be an appropriate level of funding for such an endeavor?
We have highlighted the need for such an effort in the past,
particularly an effort inclusive of industry, and are pleased to see
the Subcommittee giving this issue the attention it deserves. It is
important that the U.S. engage in education efforts, as the U.S. is one
of the top two consuming nations for wildlife globally and its buying
power is having a dramatic impact on the wildlife and livelihoods of
those countries housing the greatest biodiversity. The role of the U.S.
in supporting source countries, informing its own consumer market, and
enforcing and regulating that market is a complex one that requires
significant resources and internal and external cooperation and
coordination. We would encourage the U.S. to first consider the
numerous conservation outreach programs already in existence, and urge
that these programs not be completely reinvented; many successful
campaigns and programs exist which the U.S. could build upon. For
instance, TRAFFIC, which has partnered with the FWS over the years on
the Buyer Beware campaign, is preparing new outreach materials that
will help inform cruise ship tourists about which wildlife souvenirs to
avoid. The goal of our Make a Good Buy campaign is to reduce the
negative impacts of wildlife trade caused by cruise ship tourism in the
Caribbean, Mexico and Central America by allowing the tourist industry,
local communities and the cruise line industry to make informed
choices. To date, we have produced brochures, wallet cards, luggage
tags and tote bags to carry our message of sustainable tourism, and
welcome any interest or cooperation from the U.S. in these and other
targeted efforts.
WWF and TRAFFIC are keenly aware of the vast resources required to
ensure that an outreach campaign is effective and achieves tangible
benefits. Therefore, a sufficient funding authorization should be
included to support adequate planning and market research, to
underwrite the campaign itself and to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the campaign. We would encourage consultation with
other government agencies that have run successful campaigns to gather
advice on execution as well as cost. The U.S. Forest Service's long-
running wildfire prevention campaign featuring Smokey Bear may provide
a good model.
5. What other elements would you add, subtract or revise in the Office
of Law Enforcement Strategic Plan? What kinds of information
would best support TRAFFIC in its efforts to monitor the legal
and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products?
To clarify this question, we believe the current Strategic Plan in
place until 2010 should be concluded first and the evaluation of its
success and results reviewed and reported before the next five-year
Strategic Plan is established. We will not suggest changes to the
current plan. The USFWS is doing an excellent job considering the
resources it has to maintain its operations. We recognize that the
Office of Law Enforcement is in the best place to determine the
detailed content of the Plan and its operations. However, in the next
Plan, we believe that the USFWS could take a more proactive and leading
role to support less-developed countries in combating wildlife crime
and regulating trade in wildlife. Building better governance, capacity
and political will in countries that are key hotspots for illegal and
unsustainable trade will not only help conserve biodiversity and
habitats, but will also support livelihoods and development agendas.
For example, the Plan could set in place targets for establishment of
new enforcement networks in regions like Central America and South Asia
through providing expertise, training, tools and personnel exchanges.
Law enforcement agencies could provide information to help support
TRAFFIC's wildlife trade monitoring mission by flagging concerns about
large-scale trade or trade in vulnerable species (particularly those
species that may not yet be regulated under CITES). TRAFFIC could then
undertake research to determine if better trade regulation or
protection is needed for the species, or if new wildlife management
approaches are needed in the countries of origin. We would not expect
the USFWS to share sensitive information with an NGO concerning illegal
trade cases that have yet to be prosecuted.
6. Dr. Monfort testified that the Smithsonian Institution has recently
created a Conservation Biology Institute whose program
activities are quite similar to the activities proposed for the
Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships in H.R.
3086. Would it make sense to amend the bill to direct the
Secretary of the Interior and the Smithsonian, through a
cooperative agreement, to develop a partnership to incorporate
these capabilities and the capabilities of the zoo and aquarium
community at large, to enhance U.S. international wildlife
conservation capabilities? How might such a partnership benefit
or support the on-the-ground conservation activities of WWF?
Would there be any risks to existing programs?
WWF and TRAFFIC would not be opposed to a cooperative agreement
along the lines described above, but we believe that, under such an
agreement, it would be important for the Secretary to bring in the
broader zoo and aquarium community, beyond just the Smithsonian. It is
not clear how such programs might benefit WWF's on-the-ground
conservation activities. Our work is focused on protecting wild places
and the wildlife found in them, and the sorts of activities proposed
under the Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships are
not typically ones that we participate in. We acknowledge the critical
role of zoos and aquariums in undertaking captive breeding programs
when on-the-ground conservation efforts have failed to restore
threatened populations, but believe that the most urgent priorities of
the bill should be to support in situ conservation programs to protect
the world's most threatened species and habitat.
7. In general, does WWF support the establishment of the Global
Wildlife Coordination Council in Title II of the H.R. 3086? If
not, can WWF propose a mechanism to facilitate better
cooperation and information sharing among Federal agencies
involved with some aspect of international wildlife
conservation and law enforcement?
While WWF supports the effort to establish a coordinating body for
Federal agencies involved in international wildlife conservation and
law enforcement, we have concerns about creating a new structure
chaired from within the Department of Interior to carry out this
function. It is questionable whether such a structure is the best way
to coordinate the activities of USAID, NOAA and other agencies that
fund projects to protect wildlife, habitat and biodiversity. Instead,
we would suggest that this interagency coordinating function might be
elevated above the agency level to the White House, perhaps giving the
chairman's role to the Council on Environmental Quality. Similar
approaches are being implemented for interagency strategy and policy
regarding the Arctic and have been included in House-passed legislation
dealing with climate change science and natural resource adaptation.
8. Does WWF support authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders
Program as specified in H.R. 3086? Would authorizations for
species-specific, regional and global programs in the bill be
sufficient to motivate the Federal government to address
declines in families of wildlife that often go unmentioned or
unrecognized under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund,
such as amphibians and reptiles?
WWF has testified on two occasions in support of the Wildlife
Without Borders program and has generally endorsed the program
described in the Act as a means to expand the imperfect coverage of
current international grant programs. We have long supported a more
broad-based and comprehensive approach to international wildlife
conservation within the U.S. Department of Interior, and have suggested
some key considerations in our testimony of July 28 to ensure that
legislation achieves its core purposes (page 2, ``Overall...''). As
noted in our testimony, we would recommend that the new program
described in H.R. 3086 be renamed the ``Global Wildlife Conservation
Program'', in order to avoid confusion with the current Wildlife
Without Borders Regional Program. We strongly support the codification
of the WWB Regional and Global Programs into law and believe it would
be desirable to combine them with the Species Programs under a common
moniker. We also see value in separating these international programs
from the International Wildlife Conservation Fund, which covers all
other programs authorized in the Act. We see the Wildlife Without
Borders section as the core of the Act, and believe resources should be
focused on saving wild species in wild places.
The provisions of Section 121 will not, however, be sufficient to
``motivate the Federal Government to address declines in families of
wildlife that often go unrecognized under the MSCF'' unless (1)
sufficient funds are authorized and appropriated and (2) an Advisory
Committee is authorized to assist in establishing conservation
priorities through regular interactions with Institute staff. With
regard to the sufficiency of funds, it should be noted that the MSCF
programs (including Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act) are
currently authorized at $36.5 million and appropriated at $14.5
million. WWB Regional Programs and WWB Global Programs are not
independently authorized, but are currently funded at $6.5 million.
Under the generous assumption that WWB programs would be appropriated
at 50 percent of authorized levels, we would have to assume that
authorizations for the existing species and WWB programs are already at
$43 million to generate $21 million in appropriations to support
current programs. If the legislation is to make even a small impact on
``families of wildlife that go unrecognized'', the authorization level
for the Wildlife Without Borders program described in this Act would
have to be increased to close to $85 million to generate an additional
$20 million in appropriations for these programs.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. H.R. 3086 requires the Center for International Wildlife Recovery
Partnerships to provide biennial assessments of the role of the
U.S. in international wildlife conservation in consultation
with partner institutions and other stakeholders. Does WWF view
the stakeholder role as one it will take on if H.R. 3086 is
enacted? Would this role be similar to how you work with the
agency today?
WWF and TRAFFIC are concerned that the bill would give the Center
for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships such broad
responsibility to provide assessments of the ``implementation of
strategies to promote conservation of species...'' We believe that such
an assessment would more appropriately be the responsibility of the
coordinating entity for international conservation work within USFWS,
whether that be the Institute or an existing entity. Stakeholders would
then make input through the Advisory Committee to the Institute. The
biennial assessments by the Center would be limited to captive breeding
and reintroduction issues, which is the primary focus of the Center.
Given that captive breeding and reintroduction issues are not ones on
which WWF or TRAFFIC generally work, we would not anticipate a
consultation role on these more limited assessments.
WWF and TRAFFIC are ready, within existing resource constraints, to
support appropriate initiatives and needs of the U.S. government in
helping further conservation goals internationally. We therefore would
be able to provide information for the purposes outlined here, as key
stakeholders working in partnership with the U.S. government in many
places internationally. We would expect to provide the Department of
Interior with indicators of success and evaluations of progress based
upon levels of resources allocated.
2. You mention in your testimony that existing education efforts
should not be duplicated. Can you elaborate on how the bill
could expand the existing efforts instead of recreating them?
The bill proposes a national-level advisory committee and this body
could take on the task of reviewing current education efforts and the
efficacy of those efforts nationally and internationally. If the
advisory committee comprised a range of stakeholders as advisors
(including government, NGOs, industry, business, etc.), the committee
could use its networks to highlight effective campaigns or programs
that could benefit from additional resources, inputs or partnership
with the U.S. government, to reinforce the program's impacts. There are
numerous existing programs that simply do not have enough outreach in
terms of quantities of materials and sites where they are promoted. For
example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's ``Buyer Beware'' campaign is an
excellent tool that WWF and TRAFFIC have assisted with, but the amount
of materials produced could be drastically increased. More innovative
ways of reaching the audience could also be used--for example, on the
screens above check-in counters at airports. Several countries already
do this at their airports to dissuade travelers from carrying wildlife
products that could be illegal. The advisory committee could have an
education working group that monitors campaigns and provides feedback
to the Department of Interior on where to partner, fund, expand or
learn from the current education campaigns. The Department would have
to review the potential campaign partnership for consistency with
Department policy.
3. Does WWF work with any zoos or aquariums to assist them in their
wildlife conservation education efforts? Would you say funding
is the biggest limiting factor to these efforts?
The Suitcase for Survival program is a partnership of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), American Zoo and Aquarium Association
(AZA), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Services' Office for Law
Enforcement, with additional assistance from TRAFFIC North America. It
is designed to address the need for a national education program
focused on wildlife trade and biodiversity. Since 1991, the program has
raised awareness about the devastation caused by illegal wildlife trade
worldwide. It has also helped consumers understand the importance of
biodiversity and how their buying habits can contribute to biodiversity
conservation.
The program includes several components that build on the strengths
of the partners. The FWS and NOAA provide wildlife trade artifacts that
have been confiscated at ports of entry. These artifacts are
disseminated to a wide array of environmental educators and their
respective institutions throughout the nation, and host institutions
can assemble the artifacts into used suitcases. These suitcases can
then be used to conduct wildlife trade educational programs with
educators and students as well as the general public. In addition to
artifacts, the institutions can also use WWF's wildlife trade education
module, Wildlife for Sale: An Educator's Guide to Exploring Wildlife
Trade. More funding to expand the reach of existing programs like
Suitcase for Survival and Buyer Beware (developed with TRAFFIC and FWS
and referenced in our answer to Question 4 from Chairwoman Bordallo),
as well as to develop new programs, would go a long way in highlighting
the conservation issues of wildlife trade and help to alleviate U.S.
consumer impact.
4. H.R. 3086 creates a number of new levels of bureaucracy, but what
does it do and what funding does it provide specifically for
species conservation or on-the-ground activities?
We believe that the bill provides, within the new, overarching
Wildlife Without Borders Program, an opportunity to codify existing
programs that support regional and global wildlife conservation
efforts, while at the same time expanding the opportunities to focus
attention on species and groups of species of concern that are not
targeted by the Multinational Species Conservation Funds. As written,
the bill does not specify authorized levels of funding for the on-the-
ground activities provided for in the bill, with the exception of the
funding authorized under the five existing Multinational Species
Conservation Funds. These five Funds are incorporated into the bill at
their existing individual authorization levels. WWF recommends that
funds need to be authorized to carry out all programs contained in the
Wildlife Without Borders title of the bill. And given our desire to see
this bill expand the scope and ambition of FWS international programs
by helping to conserve more priority species and give attention to
habitats in currently neglected regions of the globe, we believe that
the authorized funding required to fulfill the bill's stated goals for
the Wildlife Without Borders title should be substantial, on the order
of $85 million. This number includes already-existing authorizations
for each of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds.
5. You mention in your testimony that ``added layers of bureaucracy
will not alone resolve this issue''. You stated at the hearing
the need to simplify and strengthen existing programs. Can you
elaborate on how the existing programs could be strengthened to
allow for stronger wildlife conservation efforts?
As noted above under Majority question #8, WWF considers the core
purpose of this Act to be the conservation of species in the wild. The
existing Species Program could be strengthened by expanding the scope
of the proposed WWB program to cover a broader range of threatened
species, such as amphibians and reptiles. The WWB Regional Program
could be strengthened by expanding its scope to more regions of the
world, notably the Middle East and South and East Asia. The WWB Global
Program could be expanded to cover cross-cutting issues like climate
change, disease control and invasive species. Funding for current
programs is spread very thin, however, and does not meet the needs of
international conservation. Strengthening these programs is not just a
matter of reorganization; it is a matter of providing sufficient
funding.
6. What aspects of the bill do you view as necessary: the Fund, the
Advisory Committee, the Council or something else?
International Wildlife Conservation Fund--We strongly agree that
further conservation funding, to support efforts not covered by
existing authorities, is required to ensure that conservation
activities are scaled up to the level necessary to ensure the continued
survival of the Earth's biodiversity. We support the non-federal match
requirements for the International Wildlife Conservation Fund and the
provision for waivers. However, we have concerns that a nonprofit
organization is authorized to administer the Fund and believe this
function would be more appropriately conducted by FWS through the
Institute for International Wildlife Conservation, in line with the
funds currently authorized under the Wildlife Without Borders program.
WWF and TRAFFIC would suggest that following this established model
would more readily allow for a coordinated funding approach between all
of these funds. Parallel management of the various funds by two
different organizations would do nothing to facilitate the
communication needed to avoid duplication of effort and ensure
complimentary funding approaches. We also believe this provision would
be strengthened by inclusion of a specific funding authorization for
carrying out the purposes of the Act, of which penalties and fines
would be one component, donations another and appropriations a third.
Given the incredible and laudable breadth of the conservation
activities the Fund would cover, we would recommend it be authorized at
$50 million.
Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee ``We strongly agree
that utilizing the expertise of individuals and organizations outside
of the U.S. government is an efficient and effective way to complement
U.S. government, as well as NGO, conservation activities. WWF and
TRAFFIC have suggested in previous testimony before the Subcommittee
that an advisory committee of experts from government, civil society
and industry should be created to help guide the conservation work led
by the United States internationally. We therefore strongly endorse the
development of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee.
While our organizations have developed informal, though fruitful,
relationships over the years with a number of government agencies and
departments, a more formalized mechanism that would allow for more
holistic input would be a useful line of communication for the
government and NGO sectors to learn what the other is doing and how we
can better work together. WWF and TRAFFIC would welcome the opportunity
to participate in and contribute to such an Advisory Committee should
one be authorized. WWF and TRAFFIC have a breadth of knowledge and
engagement on wildlife conservation issues internationally that could
help advise the Committee, including input from our global networks and
programs in 100 countries.
Global Wildlife Coordination Council ``WWF and TRAFFIC support a
consolidated U.S. conservation strategy and a cooperative effort
between all sectors of the U.S. government contributing to or affecting
global conservation. This ratcheted-up effort and coordination are
necessary to facilitate the kind of efforts required--both on the
ground and at the highest political levels--and is what has been called
for by WWF, TRAFFIC and many of our conservation partners. However,
while we embrace the intent behind the Council, we have some serious
concerns with the execution. A coordination mechanism is certainly
needed within the federal government on global wildlife conservation,
but we have heard concerns, including from within government, that the
creation of various new bodies may result in unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy. It is unclear, as currently written, what authority, if
any, the Council would have over the actions of the Department of the
Interior, as well as other government bodies. While we strongly agree
that coordination is needed to ensure that federal agencies make
efficient use of available resources and avoid duplication of effort,
we are also wary of hindering any agency's effectiveness or flexibility
in responding to rapidly emerging conservation issues. More clarity
would be helpful with respect to the defined roles and responsibilities
in the legislation to ensure that any new structure will be of true
conservation benefit and not create new hurdles to agencies carrying
out their missions. We appreciate that mandating cooperation while
allowing a necessary level of autonomy is a fine line to walk, but we
also believe that finding the proper balance will be critical to
avoiding bureaucratic stalemate.
7. In your testimony you state that ``adequate authorization levels''
must be included. What amount of funds are you suggesting would
be needed? Would it be more appropriate to authorize and
appropriate additional funds for the existing Global, Species
and Regional Programs?
The one ingredient that is lacking from the Act is a reasonable
estimate of authorization levels. There are two primary foci of this
legislation: (1) grants for on-the-ground conservation activities in
foreign countries; and (2) funding for related activities, largely in
the United States, to educate consumers of wildlife products, ensure
effective law enforcement, support captive breeding and reintroduction,
create an Advisory Committee and encourage improved agency
coordination. In response to Majority question #8, an estimate of $100
million is considered necessary for the WWB Program to achieve the on-
the-ground goals of the Act. In addition, the International Wildlife
Conservation Fund will require substantial funding authorization to
accomplish the many additional mandates of the Act. We would defer to
the Congressional Budget Office for a detailed analysis of the fiscal
impacts of the bill, but would be surprised if the broad range of
programs and institutions in the Act could be implemented for less than
$50 million. As noted above, we recommend that the WWB Program be
funded through a separate account in the Treasury that keeps the focus
on in situ conservation activities. All other programs and activities
should be funded through the IWCF in its own Treasury account.
8. In your testimony you state that ``given proper resources,
undercover investigations, inspections and other programs can
be highly successful.'' You go on to say that H.R. 3086 ``does
not authorize the increased resources necessary to fund
enhanced enforcement efforts''. What amount of funds is needed
to allow for better enforcement? Are there specific enforcement
actions that need additional funds?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and APHIS are best placed to
answer questions on specific details of where resources need to be
applied to enhance enforcement efforts related to animal and plant
crimes and trafficking. It would not be prudent for WWF and TRAFFIC to
publicly suggest where there could be gaps, as this may give wildlife
criminals an advantage to exploit those gaps. It is our belief that for
the next appropriations USFWS/OLE would require additional resources to
more adequately address some of the requirements outlined in the
comments here:
a. Covert investigations by law enforcement, to infiltrate the
organized crime gangs responsible for the illegal trade, has reaped
significant benefits in disrupting and dismantling these crime
networks. The costs are high for such operations and require a long-
term investment of resources and committed staff with particular
specialist expertise. Allowing for such covert investigations and sting
operations to operate more frequently and widely would yield
significant results quickly.
b. Additionally, it is clear to us that the use of intelligence
information is critical, and support for the intelligence unit to both
work in the U.S. and collaborate with foreign intelligence teams in
source countries of wildlife should be enhanced. This also would
support investigations overseas by foreign governments. Additional
funds are also needed to support capacity-building efforts to prevent
poaching and illegal trade in the countries of origin, before wildlife
is smuggled into the United States. The U.S. has shown significant
leadership in this regard in some regions internationally, but the
resources are not enough to allow USFWS specialists to support other
nations in a consistent, longer-term manner.
c. One area of focus that requires urgent attention is the plight
of the tiger, which is rapidly being wiped out in its range in Asia to
feed the demand for bones for health tonics and skins for fashion. The
U.S. could support range countries in developing an international tiger
poaching and trade information system to gather and analyze
intelligence information to help target criminal gangs, trade routes,
smuggling methods and consumer markets internationally. A mapping
function that can show illicit trade flows would also help direct
enforcement efforts.
9. Is a new law needed to authorize these enforcement efforts or can
the agency request these funds under existing authorities?
Most enforcement efforts could be funded under existing authorities
with the correct appropriations. However it is our opinion that the
current draft bill H.R. 3086 combines too many facets into one piece of
legislation. There remains the need to urgently address wildlife
trafficking internationally and empower law enforcement to combat
organized crime networks in a sustained way. A new law that directs
efforts and resources in this regard would add attention and emphasis,
and allow for the wider work suggested in our written testimony and our
comments here to be more adequately realized.
10. You mention in your testimony that ``There are also significant
risks to the global and U.S. economies from the loss of species
and habitats around the world and the valuable services they
provide.'' Can you expand on this statement and give examples
of how the U.S. economy may be impacted by the loss of species
somewhere else in the world?
In many developing parts of the world, natural resources--including
fish and wildlife--form the backbone of local and regional economies.
In globally important ecosystems, local and regional management
practices can have a global effect. One of the best examples is the
Coral Triangle marine region of Southeast Asia--called ``the rainforest
of the sea''--which borders several countries and supports over half of
the world's coral reefs and one of the highest human population
densities on the planet. Not only do these living reefs provide the
economic basis for the livelihoods of tens of millions of people in six
developing nations, they also act as the spawning ground for tuna
populations that supply 50 percent of the global tuna market (which
generates billions of dollars annually). The collapse of the marine
ecosystems that make up the Coral Triangle would not only have a
devastating effect on local communities but could undermine globally
important fisheries and the economies on which they depend. Given the
devastating impacts that warming and acidifying oceans are expected to
have on the world's coral reefs, this scenario could become a present
reality in the coming decades. This example demonstrates how the
success or failure to protect species, habitats and ecosystems in
developing countries may create significant costs or produce
significant benefits for faraway economies, like our own.
The costs of failing to promote conservation in the developing
world can bring other costs as well, outside of the purely economic.
The loss of species and habitat can undermine entire ecosystems and
impoverish the communities that depend on them, and resource scarcity
and the loss of local livelihoods often breed conflict and instability.
Competition over resources may well define the security challenges of
the coming century. The U.S. can help minimize these risks by promoting
development that takes conservation into account. Namibia offers an
example of how a moderate U.S. investment in conservation can help
stabilize and enrich local populations while protecting species and
habitat. Community-based conservancies in that country, with the help
of U.S. support, have fostered rebounding wildlife populations, nascent
local democracies and improved economic growth in a country that
experienced decades of occupation and war. From 1998 to 2003, the
benefits of conservancies to local communities grew from $1 million to
$14.5 million--an average increase of 70 percent a year. In contrast,
failure to take conservation into account in the central African nation
of Niger contributed to famine in that country, which led to chronic
malnutrition, deepening impoverishment and increasing instability. In
2005 alone, 3.6 million Nigeriens went hungry, requiring $19 million in
U.S. emergency assistance. As these contrasting examples suggest,
investing a modest amount in conservation now can prevent the need to
spend a great deal more later on.
11. You state in your testimony that wildlife trade involves transport
of wildlife merchandise. How can the transport industry assist
in countering illegal trade? Are there any confidentiality
issues that would need to be addressed?
For many years, WWF and TRAFFIC have been advocating greater
involvement and responsibility of the transport industry in reducing
the risk of illegal transport of wildlife and products. Wildlife trade
is big business and large volumes and frequent shipments of wildlife
crisscross the planet every day via air, ship, rail, truck, express
mail and courier. The companies that are transporting wildlife often
have the closest contact with parcels, luggage, shipments and carriage
of live wildlife and have an opportunity to both look out for any
suspicious shipments and inform their extensive client base of the laws
and regulations governing trade and transport of wildlife. Transport
companies need to educate the staff responsible for the booking and
movement of goods about the laws that apply to wildlife trade and what
to look for in terms of illicit wildlife shipments. They need to know
who to contact in each country if they do have concerns of potential
illicit activity. This can also stretch to include cabin crew on
airlines who from time to time have detected live wildlife being
smuggled by air passengers, both in the baggage and on the person. In
terms of confidentiality it is important that any suspicions are kept
confidential and only shared with the relevant enforcement agency in
the country or countries where there may be suspected wildlife
trafficking. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law
Enforcement is the responsible agency with whom U.S.-based transport
companies can discuss issues of confidentiality. WWF and TRAFFIC also
have information that can be shared with the transport industry that
identifies the types of wildlife that are smuggled and from which
countries. We would be happy to support any transport company that
wishes to educate its staff and develop internal checks to make sure
they do not transport illicit wildlife.
12. You mention that H.R. 3086 does not allow adequate time to develop
and implement an outreach program and that outreach does not
fall under a one-size-fits-all approach. In your experience how
long has the development of outreach actions taken? Does the
Service have adequate existing authorities to conduct these
activities?
Adequate planning and market research are essential to inform an
effective campaign, and monitoring and evaluation are excellent tools
to assess the effectiveness of the campaign and to inform any future
efforts. We would encourage consultation with other government agencies
that have run successful campaigns to gather advice on execution, such
as the U.S. Forest Service's long-running wildfire prevention campaign
featuring Smokey Bear. A rough estimate for adequate research, planning
and design would likely be a full year. Lastly, while FWS is better
equipped to answer the second part of this question, it is assumed that
the Service has adequate authority to conduct an outreach campaign, as
it has already done for the Buyer Beware campaign.
13. Have WWF and TRAFFIC found that education campaigns have been
successful in reducing the consumption of wildlife? What have
you seen as the major hurdles in effecting change in the
cultural use of wildlife in countries around the world?
Education campaigns are highly successful in reducing the
consumption of wildlife. For example, WWF worked with the American
College of Traditional Chinese Medicine (ACTCM) in San Francisco in
late 1990 and early 2000 on an outreach campaign with the Chinese-
American community to discourage use of tiger and rhino products in
traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). The campaign focused not only on
the illegality, but also on the conservation impacts. During that time,
we saw significant decreases in the availability of these products in
Chinatown TCM stores. We conducted a market survey in 1996-1997, which
indicated that 42 percent of the shops visited were selling products
labeled as containing tiger bone and five percent were selling products
labeled as containing rhino horn. When we revisited that market survey
in 2003, only three percent of the shops were selling tiger products
and none were found to be selling rhino products. Additionally, when
our market researchers queried shop owners regarding these products,
often times we were told they were illegal, but even more
significantly, many went on to elaborate the negative conservation
impacts of using tiger and rhino products. It was clear that the
outreach campaign had achieved success. This was due, in no small part,
to the fact that WWF partnered with ACTCM on the campaign and worked
from within the Chinese-American community to influence behavior.
The hurdles in effecting change are manifold. Many of the behaviors
we try to change are deep-rooted and can go back centuries; therefore,
they cannot be eliminated overnight. This means that not only does one
need to take the time to determine the most effective way to influence
positive change (appropriate audience, appropriate messaging,
appropriate media, etc.), but one also must have the resources to
support a broad campaign over a sufficient period of time.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Roberts,
for the tireless work that your organization conducts to
protect global biodiversity.
Dr. Monfort, thank you for being here with us today, and
you are now recognized to testify.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN MONFORT, PH.D., ACTING DIRECTOR,
SMITHSONIAN ZOOLOGICAL PARK
Dr. Monfort. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity
to provide testimony today.
The Smithsonian's National Zoo scientists were among the
founders of the field of conservation biology, and today our
scientists conduct research that aids in the survival or
recovery of species and their habitats, and we work to ensure
the health and well-being of animals, both in zoos and in the
wild.
The Smithsonian's National Zoo is actually part of the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, whose 218 member
organizations collectively reach more than 175 million visitors
annually and reach out to them about the importance of animals
and wild places and also about the roles that they can play in
helping to preserve and conserve these places.
The Smithsonian feels it has a responsibility to preserve
biodiversity, in part, because of our ethical and moral
commitment that relates to our own living collection of
animals, but also because we believe that the public
increasingly expects zoos and natural history museums to be the
champions for conservation of animals in nature, and zoos are
rising to the challenge and, in AZA, there are more than 3,700
field conservation and research programs that have been
supported in more than 100 countries, and there are now 100
species survival plans that reach 160 separate species in need
of conservation. These programs focus on genetic diversity and
habitat preservation, public education, also field conservation
and, maybe most importantly, research and science that is aimed
at assisting the species recovery efforts.
No conservation program is effective without effective
partnerships, so, at the National Zoo, we reach out and partner
with a diversity of partners across the USA and
internationally. This is a broad spectrum of people, ranging
from conservation scientists and public policy experts, to
educators, nongovernmental organizations, and so on.
One particularly relevant partnership for this Act is our
consortium, which is the Conservation Centers for Species
Survival, or C2S2, and this is a recently formed consortium of
five zoological organizations in the United States that control
more than 25,000 acres of land that is available for species
research and recovery, and our partners include prestigious
organizations like the Fossil Rim Wildlife Center in Texas, the
San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park in California, White Oak
Conservation Center in Florida, and The Wilds in Cumberland,
Ohio.
These facilities have large amounts of space, specialized
facilities and staff with the expertise needed to work on
helping to conserve globally threatened species and especially
those that have been determined to be a priority by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and also state wildlife agencies.
We also believe that, given the environmental challenges
that are currently facing the planet, that there is no greater
need than to train the current and next generation of
conservation professionals. At AZA institutions, they reach
over 12 million people each year who are educated in some way
through their visit to zoos, and more than 400,000 teachers
have been reached over the past decades.
At the National Zoo, we invest heavily in K-through-12
education programs, also teacher training programs, and we
emphasize the importance of understanding biodiversity and
especially the role that humans play in shaping its future. We
seek to actually explain why conservation matters, why it
should matter, including how it impacts things like human
health and economic security, and we want to help people
determine how they can understand how they can make a
difference.
We have a major commitment to educating conservation
professionals around the world to help study, recover, and
protect species and their habitats, and we have programs for
undergraduate students, graduate professional audiences, all
based on scientific approaches to conservation and decision-
making. Over the past three decades, we have trained over 5,000
conservation professionals in more than 85 countries, and many
of our graduates hold leadership positions around the world.
Finally, we feel that science is the fundamental aspect of
solving any conservation program. The Smithsonian National Zoo
scientists are uniquely positioned to understand why there are
some species that are going to survive and adapt while others
will go extinct in the face of environmental change, and we
feel that scientific knowledge is what is going to help us to
forecast the changes that will contribute to population
declines and extinctions, but also how to develop mitigation
strategies that will help to keep these from becoming
irreversible changes.
We have particular expertise in understanding the
fundamental biology of species, something that people assume we
know more than we actually do, discovering and understanding
the evolutionary and ecological factors that impact
biodiversity, including human impacts, and also things like
prioritizing species and landscapes that are in need of
conservation, and then developing tools and concepts that can
help us to mitigate the impact.
At the National Zoo and at the Smithsonian, as a whole, we
have one of the largest faculties of conservation and
biodiversity scientists anywhere in the world that are
dedicated to understanding the fundamental biology of species,
the complexity of natural ecosystems, and human impacts on
ecological structure and processes.
In summary, the Smithsonian Institution and the National
Zoo support the overall conservation goals of H.R. 3086, and we
are prepared to work cooperatively with the Subcommittee in any
way we can to be helpful in advancing these common objectives.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these
critical conservation issues, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Monfort follows:]
Statement of Dr. Steven L. Monfort, Acting Director,
Smithsonian Institution National Zoological Park
Introduction and Overview of the National Zoo's Conservation Programs
Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony to you today. My
name is Steven L. Monfort and I am the Acting Director of the
Smithsonian Institution's National Zoological Park. The National Zoo,
in Washington, D.C., draws nearly 3 million visitors per year, and has
over 40,000 member families of Friends of the National Zoo (FONZ). The
zoo's website, supported by FONZ, receives more than 20 million visits
annually from around the world. The Smithsonian Institution's museums
and zoo teach millions of people each year in living classrooms,
dedicate millions of dollars annually to education, conservation and
scientific research programs and support over 130 conservation and
research projects in more than 35 countries.
The Smithsonian Institution's professionals work collaboratively
with other Federal and state agencies to help shape national and
international wildlife conservation policy. They provide expert comment
and input on such issues as migratory species, biological diversity,
wildlife trade, endangered species, and species conservation. National
Zoo staff also contribute their expertise to programs which advance
animal care and welfare, identify emerging diseases, and educate
students and the general public. In addition, the National Zoo is a
member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and actively
supports their conservation initiatives, including the AZA Species
Survival Plan (SSP) program.
All of these activities contribute to the same wildlife
conservation goals which underlie H.R. 3086, the Global Wildlife
Conservation, Coordination, and Enhancement Act of 2009. In my
testimony today, I will summarize the National Zoo's programs, working
closely with many partner agencies, non-governmental organizations,
academic institutions, and other countries to conserve global wildlife
resources. Specifically, I will relate these programs to the efforts
underway to enhance the United States' ability to conserve global
wildlife and biological diversity.
Overview of the National Zoo's Conservation and Science Programs
In its 2008 report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on
expenditures for Fiscal Year 2008 for species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the National Zoo
documented more than $1.1 million expended for 19 native species and 17
foreign species. These species included, among others, mammals like the
Asian Elephant, Scimitar-horned Oryx, and Black-footed Ferret; birds
like the California Condor, Micronesian Kingfisher, and Guam Rail;
reptiles and amphibians like the Desert Tortoise and Panamanian Golden
Frog; and marine Elkhorn Corals.
As an example of one of the stories behind these statistics for one
of North America's most critically endangered species, from 1985 to
1987 the last remaining Black-footed Ferrets were removed from the wild
in Wyoming for their protection. In 1988, the National Zoo's
Conservation and Research Center (CRC), a 3,200-acre facility in Front
Royal, Virginia, became the first zoo to receive ferrets, with seven
individuals transferred from Wyoming's propagation facility. In the
mid-1980s, the Zoo's reproduction team developed artificial
insemination and semen cryopreservation techniques to sustain genetic
diversity in the population. By 2008, the CRC had 33 ferrets in the SSP
breeding program and had produced 533 young, 398 by natural breeding
and 135 additional animals by artificial insemination. Two hundred of
these CRC-produced animals have been released into the wild, part of
the total wild population now estimated at approximately 1,000
individuals. In 2009, another 41 young were born, with 39 surviving.
Two females became pregnant and produced young through artificial
insemination, including the first successful use of cryopreserved
semen, which came from one of the original 1988 founder males.
The programs to conserve these species are undertaken by National
Zoo's staff based at the Zoo's 163-acre campus adjacent to Rock Creek
Park, at the Zoo's Conservation and Research Center, and at field sites
around the globe. Our effectiveness is greatly enhanced through
partnerships with biodiversity and conservation scientists, social
scientists, and educators across the Smithsonian. This work is guided
by the Zoo's ten-year Science Plan, designed to achieve excellence in
conservation biology. Conservation biology is a relatively young
science that uses an interdisciplinary approach to address the
challenges to sustaining biological diversity. By definition,
conservation biology is value-driven, based on the premise that the
conservation of species diversity, ecological systems, and evolutionary
processes are important and benefit both current and future human
societies. In recognition of the underlying importance of conservation
biology to everything we do, the National Zoo will soon be combining
its existing Conservation and Science and Animal Program Directorates
as the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute. We will keep the
Subcommittee informed about the progress of this change as it proceeds
over the next few months.
Under the new Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, our
conservation, science, and animal management programs will be organized
into six centers:
the Center for Conservation Education and Sustainability,
which helps protect global biodiversity by teaching conservation
principles and practices;
the Center for Conservation and Evolutionary Genetics,
which specializes in genetic management of wild and captive
populations, non-invasive DNA, ancient DNA, systematics, disease
diagnosis, genetic services to the zoo community, and application of
genetics to animal behavior and ecology;
the Center for Species Survival, which conducts research
in reproductive physiology, endocrinology, cryobiology, embryo biology,
animal behavior, wildlife toxicology, and assisted reproduction;
the Conservation Ecology Center, which focuses on
recovering and sustaining at-risk wildlife species and their supporting
ecosystems in key terrestrial and marine regions throughout the globe;
the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, which studies
Neotropical migratory songbirds and wetland birds, the role of disease
in bird population declines, and the environmental challenges facing
urban and suburban birds;
and the Center for Wildlife Health and Wellbeing, which
studies the environmental, medical, nutritional, and behavioral
requirements of wild and captive animals.
In this testimony I will give examples of some of the programs
undertaken by these centers and summarize how they relate to the
specific areas outlined by the Subcommittee.
1) The importance of providing technical assistance, building
capacity, and coordinating with range states as part of
strategic global wildlife conservation.
The National Zoo is dedicated to furthering the education of
current and future conservation professionals, including undergraduate
and graduate students, scientists, resource managers, educators,
industry representatives and staff of government and non-government
organizations. For more than three decades, Smithsonian staff and
research associates have offered specialized training courses, in the
United States and at over 20 international locations, on global
conservation topics. More than 5,000 professional conservationists from
over 85 countries have taken part in these courses. These training
courses are principally organized and conducted by the Zoo's Center for
Conservation Education and Sustainability, although Zoo staff from
other centers also provide assistance in their particular areas of
expertise.
Many of the participants from the Zoo's training programs now hold
influential positions at government agencies, universities, and non-
governmental organizations in their home countries. These conservation
leaders have credited the Zoo's capacity building efforts with
contributing to many conservation accomplishments. These include, among
others, the establishment of protected areas, development of public
awareness and education campaigns, creation of organizational strategic
plans, implementation of biodiversity monitoring plans, establishment
of partnerships between the public and private sectors, acquisition of
new technology, and completion of conservation research projects.
The need for training and capacity building continues to increase,
as the world faces an unprecedented loss of biodiversity and multiple
conservation challenges. Expanding human populations have led to
fragmentation of habitats and greater levels of human-wildlife
conflicts. The demand for any source of income in poorer communities,
and for luxury goods in wealthier ones, has led to increased poaching
of live animals, skins, feathers, teeth, claws, and bones. Subsistence
hunting and growing networks of commercial poaching for meat have swept
through Africa and now threaten both predator and prey species in Asia.
The spread of invasive species has resulted in widespread habitat
deterioration, and climate change poses an ever-growing threat to
entire landscapes and ecosystems.
Global Tiger Initiative and the Tiger Conservation and Development
Network
No species has been more affected by these trends than the Tiger,
which has plummeted in the past century in its 13 Asian range countries
from over 100,000 animals in the wild to less than 3,500 today, with
the number still declining precipitously. The National Zoo has been
involved with tiger conservation since the start of the Smithsonian-
Nepal Tiger Ecology Project in 1973, and has chaired the Save the Tiger
Fund Council since its inception in 1995, led by its Conservation
Ecology Center. The Save the Tiger Fund is a partnership between the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the ExxonMobil Corporation
which has guided the investment of about $1 million a year in
conservation projects across Asia. In so doing, it has helped to create
synergistic efforts among a variety of conservation organizations
working to save Tigers in Asia. These projects have been undertaken in
close coordination with the USFWS Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
Fund, the World Bank, and a number of non-governmental organizations
and academic institutions involved with Tiger conservation in range
countries.
Building on this long history of Tiger conservation, in order to
address the new crisis, in June, 2008, the Smithsonian joined with the
World Bank Group, the Global Environmental Facility, the International
Tiger Coalition, and a number of other partner organizations to launch
the Global Tiger Initiative (GTI). The GTI has initiated a series of
Tiger conservation actions designed to culminate in a ``Year of the
Tiger Summit'' in Asia in 2010.
Furthermore, emphasizing the key role of capacity building as part
of the GTI, in June, 2009, the Smithsonian and the World Bank announced
the formation of a Tiger Conservation and Development Network. The
Network will train senior conservation leaders and policy-makers as
well as field rangers, foresters, and other habitat managers in the
latest cutting-edge practices in biodiversity management, with a
specific focus on preserving and increasing wild Tiger populations. The
National Zoo's Conservation and Research Center will serve as one of
the initial launch-pads for the development of the Network. Over the
next year, the World Bank will dedicate more than $1 million toward
these training efforts, and the Smithsonian and World Bank will work to
expand the alliance to include other members and raise additional
financing.
Smithsonian-Mason Partnership
In addition, the National Zoo and George Mason University have also
recognized the need for new partnerships to invest in the next
generation of conservationists, wildlife practitioners, decision
makers, and educators. The Zoo and George Mason have joined forces to
develop a comprehensive academic program for undergraduates, graduates,
and conservationists, also based at the Zoo's Conservation and Research
Center. Multidisciplinary faculty from the Zoo and George Mason have
launched the Smithsonian-Mason Conservation Education Program that will
provide academic opportunities for up to 50 undergraduate and 10
graduate students per semester, and accommodate an additional 60
participants in the professional training and certificate programs. By
leveraging the Smithsonian's internationally recognized researchers and
collections with George Mason's ability to produce entrepreneurial
education programs, we will together be able to produce conservation
practitioners who can effectively address the very serious questions of
the loss of global biodiversity facing our nation and our world.
Until the new facility is constructed, the Zoo and George Mason
will continue with pilot Smithsonian-Mason Semesters for 15
undergraduates at a time, using the existing CRC Training Center. These
students pursue an innovative conservation studies curriculum that
emphasizes experiential learning and combines biology, environmental
monitoring, public policy, human-wildlife conflict resolution, and
environmental economics. The most recent pilot program was completed
successfully in May of this year, with students now going on to
conservation internships, preparations for graduate school, or
permanent positions in the conservation field.
2) The feasibility and implications of increased coordination between
Federal, State, and non-governmental organizations and entities
involved in wildlife conservation.
It is clear to us in the National Zoo that we will never have
enough resources to accomplish all of our global biodiversity
conservation objectives alone, and we believe this applies equally to
other conservation organizations and agencies. Partnerships,
cooperation, and coordination of conservation efforts are essential to
achieving these goals. I would like to highlight two of these
partnerships--the Conservation Centers for Species Survival and our new
Amphibian Conservation Project, each of which is led by scientists from
the Zoo's Center for Species Survival.
Conservation Centers for Species Survival
The Conservation Centers for Species Survival (C2S2) is a
consortium formed in 2005 of five conservation organizations which
together control more than 25,000 acres, which is more than 70% of all
of the land area managed by U.S. zoological institutions for endangered
species research and recovery. C2S2 includes the National Zoo's
Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia; Fossil Rim
Wildlife Center in Glen Rose, Texas; San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park
in Escondido, California; White Oak Conservation Center in Yulee,
Florida; and The Wilds in Cumberland, Ohio. Over the past four years,
C2S2 institutions have leveraged their unique resources, including vast
space for large-scale conservation programs; flexible, innovative, and
scientifically-focused approaches to conservation; and a well-
established history of working together on a variety of conservation
projects for globally threatened species. Special emphasis has been
given to species which have been determined to be a priority for
cooperative efforts by the USFWS and State wildlife agencies.
In May of 2009, the National Zoo's CRC hosted the annual meeting of
the C2S2 group. Attending this meeting were not only representatives of
the five member institutions, but senior leadership from the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums; the USFWS Endangered Species,
International Affairs, and External Affairs programs; the U.S.
Geological Survey's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Bird Conservation Program; and the World
Wildlife Fund's Asia Program.
Presentations and discussions during the meeting emphasized
development of cooperative efforts for a wide variety of endangered
mammals, birds, and reptiles. Fossil Rim Wildlife Center presented a
report on its participation, with other C2S2 members, the USFWS and the
Arizona Game and Fish Department in a meeting earlier this year at the
Buenos Aries National Wildlife Refuge regarding international efforts
to save the Masked Bobwhite Quail, a unique desert subspecies shared
with Mexico. The San Diego Zoo, with active support from other C2S2
institutions, reported on its progress in taking over management of the
USFWS Desert Tortoise Conservation Center in Nevada, at the request of
the USFWS and the Bureau of Land Management. The CRC and the USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center reported on cooperative efforts, in
conjunction with other C2S2 institutions, to enhance the scientific
knowledge base for captive breeding and reintroduction into the wild of
Whooping Cranes, as part of the International Whooping Crane Recovery
Program and Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership. Other endangered
species highlighted during the meeting included, among others, the C2S2
Cheetah Cooperative Management Program; Saiga and newly discovered
Saola antelopes from Asia; Sahelo-Saharan antelopes and red-necked
ostrich from North Africa; rhinos and other hoofed mammals from Africa
and Asia; North American bats; and Attwater's Prairie Chickens in
Texas.
Smithsonian's Amphibian Conservation Program
The world's amphibians are vanishing at an alarming rate. The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has judged
that 42 percent of the world's 6,000 frog species are declining rapidly
and at least 2,000 species are in danger of extinction. Since 1980, 122
amphibian species are thought to have gone extinct, compared to just
five bird species and no mammals over the same period. This is an
unprecedented rate of species loss and deserves an unprecedented
conservation response. However, only a few years ago the amphibian
research community collectively included just a handful of full-time
conservationists in the world working to mitigate threats. This is
clearly a dearth of capacity when compared to the thousands of full-
time conservation workers focused on fish, reptiles, birds, and
mammals.
The Smithsonian decided that it had a responsibility to help deal
with this emerging problem, and it now employs two full-time amphibian
conservationists, working at the National Zoo and the Smithsonian
Tropical Research Institute in Panama, respectively. However, these two
fulltime amphibian conservationists could not be expected to succeed
without partnerships with other institutions. Thus the Zoo and Tropical
Research Institute developed the Panama Amphibian Rescue and
Conservation Project, a partnership with Africam Safari Park in Mexico,
Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado, the Defenders of Wildlife, Zoo New
England, and the Houston Zoo, with the goal of building capacity in
Panama to respond to the global amphibian crisis.
The project will construct a facility to house captive populations
of amphibians that are facing extinction due to a devastating, invasive
amphibian pathogen, the Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis), which was first demonstrated to be an agent of frog
death by scientists from the Zoo in 1999. This fungus has now spread
through all the mountainous regions of Central America except eastern
Panama. In addition, we are collaborating with other scientists to
develop a novel method to control the disease. We hope that this
research may eventually allow us to reintroduce species which are
extinct in the wild, such as Panamanian Golden Frogs or Wyoming Toads
here in the United States, back into native habitats currently affected
by the disease.
In addition to this project, Smithsonian scientists are making
important contributions to amphibian conservation through their work on
Appalachian salamanders, amphibian conservation breeding programs,
taxonomy, monitoring, ecotoxicology, disease monitoring and public
education. The Zoo has recently developed a new amphibian exhibit that
is focused on educating visitors about declining amphibians and our
work to mitigate amphibian extinctions.
3) The ways in which the United States may improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of global wildlife conservation.
There are a host of activities which U.S. institutions can
undertake to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of global
wildlife conservation. Two areas which I would like to discuss today
include the role of U.S. consumers in encouraging bird-friendly, shade-
grown coffee, and the use of new scientific techniques for genetic
analysis to support wildlife conservation decisions.
Effect of Consumers on the Market for Bird Friendly Coffee
American consumers and the choices they make can have a profoundly
positive impact on wildlife habitat throughout the world. One of the
premier examples of this is the marketing of third-party certified
shade-grown coffee, which has been pioneered and championed by the
Smithsonian Institution's Bird Friendly Coffee program. Tropical
deforestation loss has been one of the leading causes of the global
loss of biodiversity and the decline in migratory birds. Countries in
Latin America and the Caribbean, where over 150 species of North
American birds spend the winter, count on exporting agricultural
products for foreign exchange, and millions of families depend on this
income. There are clear limits to the amount of tropical lands that can
be set aside in parks, so the conservation of biodiversity must also
take place on privately owned and managed lands.
Coffee, one of the most important tropical crops, has been
traditionally grown under a diverse shade canopy, providing many of the
same ecological services as native forest. However, recent decades have
brought a push towards modernizing coffee production by removing the
shade canopy and adding many chemical inputs. These ``sun'' coffee
farms are an ecological desert, whereas shade coffee farms are a refuge
for biological diversity and our migratory songbirds.
Consumer demand for shade-grown coffee can help protect migratory
birds and tropical biodiversity if coffee is clearly labeled and
promoted in the marketplace. Since 1998, the Smithsonian Migratory Bird
Center at the National Zoo has promoted ``Bird Friendly'' coffee, an
independently (third-party) certified shade grown coffee that is based
on ecological criteria generated from peer-reviewed scientific research
in coffee growing regions. All Bird Friendly coffee is certified
organic and is additionally inspected for a number of ecological
variables related to the quality of the shade canopy. The coffee is
certified Bird Friendly by any of 14 USDA-approved organic inspection
agencies at a marginal cost to coffee producers. Since 2001, our
Migratory Bird Center has trained dozens of organic inspectors in the
technical aspects of assessing shade coffee criteria.
The Smithsonian Bird Friendly Coffee seal is the most rigorous
scientifically-based environmental certification of a tropical
agricultural product, with many specialty coffee sector leaders calling
it the ``gold standard'' in shade certification. The verifying
paperwork can be traced from coffee plant to cup. Presently, 35 farms
produce Bird Friendly coffee in 11 countries, which is then channeled
through 15 importers that supply about 45 to 50 retailers throughout
the United States, Canada, Japan, and parts of Europe. While the total
amount of Bird Friendly coffee sold is still a relatively small
portion of the coffee market, the underlying concept of promoting shade
grown coffee has had enormous impact on the coffee industry, coffee
growing countries, and the multi-lateral and bilateral agencies that
work with farm families throughout the tropics. The ``Coffee'' link at
the following website provides up-to-date information on the progress
of the Bird Friendly coffee movement: www.si.edu/smbc.
Role of Conservation Genetics in Species Conservation
The National Zoo's Center for Conservation and Evolutionary
Genetics has been at the forefront of research in the rapidly expanding
field of conservation genetics. Our scientists were the first to
analyze and document the loss of fitness caused by inbreeding in
captive zoo animals, and took the lead in developing solutions such as
software for genetic management. This involved developing methods of
non-invasive genotyping (from scat, hair or other shed items) to
identify species and individuals, and to estimate kinship and
population sizes of animals in natural populations. We pioneered the
application of ancient DNA protocols to issues of conservation
importance, as well as to unraveling the evolutionary histories of
extinct and endangered species. Application of these molecular genetics
methods has helped us diagnose and study the dynamics of emerging
pathogens responsible for devastating wildlife diseases.
Use of these techniques can have profound effects on the
conservation of many endangered species. For example, analyses of DNA
from non-invasive samples (that is, dung) from African and Asian
Elephants can identify individuals and document population sizes,
movements, relatedness, and sex. In Gabon, we measured movements of
elephants in response to human activities and stress, and showed that
males somehow avoided mating with related females in Kenya's Amboseli
National Park. Similarly, we have used DNA from scat to monitor
survival, recruitment and inbreeding in African Wild Dogs reintroduced
to their former range in South Africa. These highly endangered canids
number fewer than 5,000, living in fragmented remains of their
originally vast sub-Saharan range, and it is critical to monitor the
success of reintroduction programs.
In Hawaii, we have been involved in a long-term study of Hawaiian
birds threatened by introduced avian malaria. Use of DNA methods has
identified the origins of the malaria parasite and its invasive
mosquito vector and ancient DNA has determined when they likely arrived
in Hawaii. Study of the genetics of the host has helped us learn how
and why some native bird species have become more tolerant of the
malaria than others. In the endangered Hawaiian Petrel, the amount of
genetic variation that has been lost has been determined by comparing
current levels of variation to variation in ancient DNA sequences
obtained from subfossil bones. We are estimating the prehistoric
(before human impacts) Petrel population size for use in models that
predict changes in marine nutrients deposited by the Petrels in the
nutrient poor ecosystems of Hawaii.
DNA fingerprinting methods have enabled us to assess the efficacy
of translocation procedures for threatened Desert Tortoises in the
Mojave Desert, enabling us to assess the recruitment of both male and
female translocated tortoises into their new population. DNA analysis
of blood parasites found in Pandas and related carnivores in North
American zoos has allowed us to determine their taxonomy and origins,
and to develop methods to accurately quantify the level of parasitism.
Obtaining DNA sequences (barcodes) from museum specimens of Ivory-
billed Woodpeckers from North America and Cuba has shown that the Cuban
birds are very distinct from the North American birds. They may be a
distinct species, and also provided sequences useful for comparison to
items found by field biologists that may provide evidence of the
existence of this ``ghost bird''.
4) Conclusion--The Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination, and
Enhancement Act of 2009.
In summary, the Smithsonian Institution and the National Zoo
support the overall conservation goals of the Global Wildlife
Conservation, Coordination, and Enhancement Act of 2009. We believe
that the kinds of activities being undertaken by the Smithsonian's
National Zoo and its many partners that I have documented in this
testimony are fully compatible with these goals. In addition, we are
prepared to work cooperatively with the Subcommittee in any way that
would be helpful to advancing these common objectives. The National Zoo
will continue to enhance our ongoing partnerships with the USFWS, other
Federal and State agencies, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, our
partners in the Conservation Centers for Species Survival as well as
many other AZA member institutions, non-governmental organizations, and
range countries in support of the conservation of global biodiversity.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these critical
conservation issues. I look forward to answering any questions you may
have.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Steven L.
Monfort, Acting Director, Smithsonian National Zoological Park
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU)
1. You mention in your written testimony that the need for increased
conservation capacity building is growing globally. How do you
recommend that the United States respond to this growing need?
What consequences might occur as a result of inaction? Would
United States capacity building efforts abroad be self-limited
in scope and success if we were only to utilize the programs
and people inside Federal agencies and not incorporate the
expertise and capabilities of non-Federal partners?
Answer: Today the world is facing an unprecedented loss of
biological diversity and multiple conservation challenges, from human
population growth to climate change. Inaction will almost assuredly
result in a great wave of extinctions of species. We could lose not
only our wild populations of charismatic species like the tiger and the
Asian elephant, but also a wide range of other mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, and plants. The loss of
these species would deprive us and our descendents of their ecological,
scientific, and esthetic values. Entire ecosystems would be
destabilized and would change drastically in ways that we cannot
predict, let alone mitigate or adapt to, with severe consequences to
our own wellbeing.
To address the growing need for conservation capacity building
contributions from non-Federal partners and international partners is
necessary. For many years, the Smithsonian's National Zoo has played an
active role in the advancement of scientific solutions to conservation
capacity building problems, working closely with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and also bringing a number of partners into the
effort. For example, for the past decade the Zoo has chaired the Save
the Tiger Fund Council, leading a group of experts from zoos,
nongovernmental organizations, universities, and tiger range countries
to make decisions about a fund of approximately $1 million per year
provided by the Exxon Mobil Corporation and administered by the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Capacity-building in tiger range
countries is one of the goals of the Council and of the USFWS Rhino and
Tiger Conservation Fund (one of the Multi-National Species Funds
described above). In order to ensure that funding decisions were
closely coordinated between these two funds, the Zoo invited the USFWS
to participate in the Council from its inception. This partnership
between the two tiger programs is still alive and well today.
The Zoo's July 28 testimony provides a number of other examples of
capacity-building efforts by the Zoo and its conservation partners,
which now include George Mason University, the World Bank, a number of
zoos which are members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, and
many other organizations. All of these efforts are designed to
compliment existing work of the USFWS and other government agencies, or
to fill in gaps where government agencies are unable to work at all.
These examples still represent only a small portion of the Zoo's
overall programs and partnerships, and the Zoo's efforts in turn are
only a small fraction of the total effort contributed by a host of
other organizations to building capacity for the conservation of
biological diversity.
2. What is the significance of conservation biology to your work?
Answer: The key role of conservation biology to the National Zoo's
work is reflected throughout the Zoo's science plan, ``Conservation
Biology at the National Zoo--A Science Plan for 2006--2016''. This plan
is built on the importance of research and discovery, development of
science-based solutions, creation of zoo linkages, training the current
and the next generation, and educating and inspiring the public. The
Zoo believes that these goals provide a sound framework for a
comprehensive program to address the survival and recovery of species
and their habitats, and to ensure the health and well-being of animals
in captivity and in the wild.
Conservation biology is a relatively young science that uses
interdisciplinary approaches to address the challenges to maintaining
biological diversity. By definition, conservation biology is value-
driven, based on the premise that the conservation of species
diversity, ecological systems, and evolutionary processes are important
and benefit both current and future human societies. And, by its very
nature, conservation biology must be adaptable because in our changing
world, threats to biodiversity will continue in new and uncharted ways,
as noted in the response to question 1 above.
National Zoo scientists were among the founders of the field of
conservation biology, and they continue as leaders today, with global
perspectives, diverse expertise, and long-term experience in conducting
inter-disciplinary zoo- and field-based research. For all of these
reasons, the Zoo is establishing the Smithsonian Conservation Biology
Institute (SCBI), incorporating its five existing science centers plus
a sixth center encompassing the Zoo's animal care staff. SCBI staff,
located at the National Zoo's main campus in Washington, D.C., at the
Zoo's Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia, and at
field sites around the world, will continue to work to achieve our
goals for excellence in the study, management, protection, and
restoration of threatened species, ecological communities, and
ecosystems.
3. What is the importance of the public outreach and the fellowship
programs to your work? How does the fellowship program
initiated with George Mason University compare with the
fellowship program authorized in section 122(c)?
Answer: The importance of public outreach to the Zoo is captured in
one of the goals of the Science Plan for 2006-2016, which is to
``Educate and Inspire the Public'' by providing a scientific basis for
public education and outreach in conservation. This involves being a
national provider of objective, science-based information and education
materials to the conservation community, policymakers, Federal
agencies, zoos, universities, K-12 schools, the media, and the public.
Another component is to develop exhibits and education programs which
lead to inspiring and dynamic science-based zoo experiences that foster
caring and greater public awareness of animals, their habitats, and the
need for conservation action.
Fellowships are a key part of another goal in the Science Plan, to
``Train the Current and Next Generation.'' Fellowship opportunities
impact not only the careers of the individual fellows but also the
Smithsonian and all of its broad disciplines of research. The fellows
benefit from this support, often used for thesis or dissertation
research, which in turn impacts the academic and research communities
as they become future researchers, professors, and museum professionals
of tomorrow. Fellows contribute enormously to the quantity and quality
of Smithsonian research, stimulating the Institution's research
community by bringing new ideas from their disciplines, contributing to
exhibitions, and conducting research in specialized areas that enrich
and enhance information about the national collections. Conducting
basic scientific research and exploring history and culture increases
the Smithsonian's ability to carry out its mission. Their research
contributes to the understanding of the critical issues of global
change, bio-diversity and cultural diversity. For example, National Zoo
fellowships have made substantial contributions to the conservation of
tigers and other critically endangered species in their home countries.
The fellowship program with George Mason is part of the overall
Smithsonian-Mason Global Conservation Studies Program jointly
administered through the National Zoo's Center for Conservation
Education and Sustainability and the Mason Center for Conservation
Studies. A new Memorandum of Understanding will provide for support of
eight graduate students (two per year) in a four-year program
culminating in a Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Policy. The support
takes several forms including stipends for teaching (based at George
Mason) and research (based at the Zoo's Conservation and Research
Center) and tuition remission. This is a renewal of a program which
over the past eight years has produced an average of one to two Ph.D.'s
per year.
In contrast, the fellowship program proposed in H.R. 3086 would not
be geared to providing support for Ph.D. candidates throughout their
study program. Instead, it would give fellowships of not more than one
year (with the possibility of renewal) for U.S. and foreign students to
participate in the policy process, provide expertise to the Federal
Government, obtain international wildlife conservation experience, and
encourage capacity building and partnerships in other nations.
4. The administration has expressed concerns about the authorization
of a Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships.
However, the program activities of this Center (i.e., wildlife
research; wildlife conservation and reintroduction;
international coordination, public education and training)
track well with the activities of the Smithsonian Institution's
Conservation Biology Institute, which was formed in a re-
organization of the Smithsonian's Science and Conservation and
Animal Program Directorates. Would the administration and the
Smithsonian support amending the bill to formally incorporate
the Smithsonian's capabilities via a partnership agreement with
the Department of the Interior to function as the bridge to
enable greater cooperation between the Department of the
Interior and non-Federal NGO stakeholders?
Answer: The National Zoo has had a number of longstanding
partnerships with the Department of the Interior, in particular with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as with the National Park
Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. These relationships have
enabled the Zoo to assist with the recovery of species listed by the
USFWS as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
This includes species in the United States which are the subjects of
endangered species recovery plans, as well as species in Africa, Asia,
and Latin America which are covered by the USFWS-administered
Multinational Species Conservation Funds (African and Asian elephants,
rhinos, tigers, great apes, and sea turtles) and the Wildlife Without
Borders program.
In addition to the Zoo's individual efforts to work with the USFWS
and other Interior agencies, as noted in the Zoo's July 28 testimony,
in 2005 the Zoo's 3,200-acre Conservation and Research Center led an
effort to form a consortium, the Conservation Centers for Species
Survival (C2S2). This consortium includes four partner institutions
which also manage large areas of land for endangered species research
and conservation. C2S2 institutions are now working with the USFWS and
other government agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau
of Land Management, and State fish and wildlife agencies, for the
survival and recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species
Act.
Similarly, the Zoo is the lead institution within the Smithsonian
for the partnership with the World Bank and a number of other
organizations in the Global Tiger Initiative. As part of this
Initiative, the Zoo and the Bank are now developing the Tiger
Conservation and Development Network, designed to strengthen the
capacity of Asian countries to protect and recover their tiger
populations. This is being done in consultation with the USFWS, to
ensure that it contributes to the tiger conservation goals laid out in
the USFWS-administered Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, as well
as with the National Park Service and a number of other organizations
are also advising the Zoo in this program.
The Asian elephant, another critically endangered species sharing
many habitats in Asia with the tiger, is also the subject of a new
partnership effort led by the Zoo. The Zoo is organizing a new
strategic planning effort with other U.S. zoos interested in elephants,
the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Asian range countries, the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Asian elephant
specialist group, key non-governmental organizations, and the USFWS.
The result will be a set of prioritized actions which are fully
coordinated with the goals of the USFWS and the Asian Elephant
Conservation Act.
Thus the Zoo is not only an active participant in endangered
species conservation efforts, but also is serving as a catalyst to
encourage additional contributions from a wide range of partners. The
Zoo would like to consider ways in which these contributions could be
expanded in the future, in consultation with the Department of the
Interior and the Subcommittee.
5. Should the Smithsonian Institution be included as a participating
agency on the Global Wildlife Conservation Coordination Council
authorized in Title II? Would this Council be a positive
improvement, in general?
Answer: The Smithsonian Institution supports the overall goals of
H.R. 3086. The position of the Administration on the specific
provisions of the legislation which would create the Global Wildlife
Conservation Council was presented in the July 28 testimony of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. H.R. 3086 would create a Center for International Wildlife Recovery
Partnerships which would be charged with developing and
implementing an international research program with a focus on
captive animal care and propagation. What is your view of this
provision? Do you have any concerns with this language being
included in the bill?
Answer: H.R. 3086 would establish the Center for International
Wildlife Recovery Partnerships as part of the Institute for
International Wildlife Conservation. The concerns of the Administration
on the establishment of the entire Institute was given during the July
28, 2009 hearing in the testimony of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
2. Do you think the legislation is necessary? Could additional
authorities be given to existing agencies to fulfill the same
goals?
Answer: There is support for the provisions of the legislation that
codify the Wildlife Without Borders program. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will need to comment about what other authorities it might be
given to achieve the same goals.
3. What agency and laws currently govern the care of captive animals
in the U.S.? Have these laws been successful in governing the
care of captive animals?
Answer: The Animal Welfare Act, administered by the Department of
Agriculture, regulates the care of warm blooded animals in captivity
for exhibition purposes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service regulate the import, export, and
interstate commerce of many species in captivity under the Endangered
Species Act (which also implements the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The
USFWS also regulates the movements of injurious wildlife under the
Lacey Act. Some provisions of the latter three laws require the
agencies to evaluate the conditions of transport and housing prior to
authorizing import, export, or interstate movements. The implementing
agencies are in the best position to comment on the overall success of
these laws in the regulation of the care of captive animals.
The National Zoo works closely with each of the implementing
agencies to ensure that all of its activities comply with applicable
provisions of each of these laws.
In addition, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) sets
standards for animal management and care, and evaluates each member
institution regularly as a condition for maintaining its accreditation.
The Zoo works closely with AZA to ensure that its facilities meet or
exceed the accreditation standards.
4. Do you think H.R. 3086 will change the laws governing the way U.S.
facilities care for their captive animals or is the focus only
on effecting change in international facilities?
Answer: Provisions of H.R. 3086 which pertain to captive animals
are found in Section 123, which establishes the Center for
International Wildlife Recovery as part of the larger Institute for
International Wildlife Conservation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
would be responsible for determining the priorities and operating
procedures for the Center, which would be charged with conducting a
number of activities to further the conservation of species covered by
the Endangered Species Act, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species, and/or the Red List of the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature. The National Zoo does not believe the
intent of the legislation is to change the overall regulatory framework
for the conditions under which animals are held in captivity, which is
regulated by the laws and agencies noted in the answer to question 3
above. Instead, the legislation calls for activities to mobilize
partners to complement conservation activities undertaken by U.S.
government agencies outside the United States; enhance coordination and
cooperation between government agencies and non-governmental
stakeholders; facilitate long-term investments in captive breeding,
reintroduction, rehabilitation, release, habitat protection, and
research; enlist accredited zoos and aquariums and other governmental
and non-governmental partners to assist with research and public
education; and assess opportunities for restoration of transboundary
species.
5. H.R. 3086 would require the Center to provide animal care,
technical and zoological assistance to identify endangered
species that are candidates for rehabilitation and
reintroduction in the wild and utilize its expertise and
facilities to rehabilitate endangered species and reintroduce
those species to the wild. Is it normal for an agency to have
its own facilities to rehabilitate or care for animals? If not,
do agencies usually use zoo facilities to conduct these
activities? How have these relationships worked? Are the
facilities ever forced into actions that they would not
necessarily take on their own?
Answer: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service will need to provide information about the overall
policies and programs for the rehabilitation and reintroduction of
endangered species back into the wild.
Since 1988, the National Zoo's Conservation and Research Center has
been involved in developing and using the best scientific techniques in
the captive propagation of endangered Black-Footed Ferrets for ultimate
release back into the wild. These activities are done in close
cooperation with the USFWS National Ferret Black-Footed Ferret
Conservation Center in Wyoming, which manages the overall
reintroduction program. This activity was undertaken voluntarily by the
National Zoo as part of its goal to advance scientific excellence in
conserving wildlife.
6. You were asked at the hearing about the number of zoos working with
the Service to care for seized animals. Can you provide the
Committee with the number of facilities hosting seized animals?
Do the facilities cover the costs of animal care or does the
agency reimburse the facility? Can the facilities recoup some
of the costs through displaying the animals?
Answer: The National Zoo does not have information about the total
number of facilities working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
care for seized animals, or the arrangements for covering costs.
The Zoo's collection includes the following reptiles which were
seized by the USFWS:
six Radiated Tortoises (Geochelone radiate) received in
1999 from California;
three Grand Cayman Iguanas (Cyclura nubile lewisi)
received in 1998 from Florida (one of which was transferred to Columbus
Zoo in Ohio in 2006 and another transferred to Gladys Porter Zoo in
Texas in 2000);
two Yellow-spotted Amazon River Turtles (Podocnemis
unifilis) received in 1997;
four Gila Monsters (Heloderma suspectum) received in 1996
(one of which died in 1997 and another in 2002);
two more Gila Monsters (Heloderma suspectum) received in
1981 (one of which died in 1998);
five Green Tree Pythons (Chondropython viridis) received
in 1996 (two of which were transferred to University of Virginia in
1998; one died April 2005 and one died November 2006).
The Zoo's records do not indicate who paid for the costs of
shipping these animals to the Zoo, but all subsequent expenses have
been the responsibility of the National Zoo or other zoos involved in
subsequent transfers. Animals usually arrive as loans from USFWS due to
chain of custody and pending trial issues. Once the legal issues are
resolved USFWS is usually willing to donate the animals. In general,
accredited zoos and aquariums close to ports of entry or other places
where animals are seized are usually the first stop for temporary
holding of confiscated animals.
The National Zoo does not charge admission and thus it does not
have a means to directly recoup its costs. In any case, the reptiles
which have been placed with the National Zoo, like many other animals
which are seized by the USFWS, are not the kind of animals which would
be likely to generate increases in zoo visitation, with or without
admission fees.
7. Education of American consumers would seem to be something that
could be done without a new law. Do the existing multi-species
funds or wildlife grant programs authorize funds for education
efforts?
Answer: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which implements the
Multi-national Species Fund and establishes the policies for grant
eligibility, will need to provide the answer to this question.
The National Zoo has as one of the goals of the Science Plan for
2006-2016, to ``Educate and Inspire the Public'' by providing a
scientific basis for public education and outreach in conservation.
This involves being a national provider of objective, science-based
information and education materials to the conservation community,
policymakers, Federal agencies, zoos, universities, K-12 schools, the
media, and the public. Another component is to develop exhibits and
education programs which lead to inspiring and dynamic science-based
zoo experiences that foster caring and greater public awareness of
animals, their habitats, and the need for conservation action. These
activities are not funded by any grants from the USFWS.
8. What could be done to further your existing conservation efforts?
Is lack of adequate funding the key issue?
Answer: As noted in the National Zoo's testimony presented at the
July 28 hearing, the world today faces an unprecedented loss of
biodiversity and multiple conservation challenges. The Zoo will never
have enough resources to accomplish all of our global biodiversity
conservation objectives alone, and we believe this applies equally to
other conservation organizations and agencies. Given these growing
challenges and the limited available resources within any one
organization, partnerships and cooperation are critical to effective
action. That is why the Smithsonian Institution has joined with the
World Bank to form the Global Tiger Initiative, and with George Mason
University to form the Smithsonian-Mason Conservation Education
Program. It is also the guiding principle behind the National Zoo's
initiative to leverage the resources of its 3,200-acre Conservation and
Research Center with the four of its partner institutions in the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums having the largest land areas to form
the Conservation Centers for Species Survival, and to join forces with
the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and five zoos and
conservation organizations to form the Panama Amphibian Rescue and
Conservation Project.
These are some of examples of the many partnership efforts of the
National Zoo to join forces with other organizations to achieve greater
results than any single organization could accomplish alone. However,
all of these efforts are still limited by the joint resources available
among the respective partners. These cooperative efforts could achieve
even greater results if they were conducted in concert with new
policies and programs by government agencies and donor organizations
which give incentives to accredited zoos and aquariums, universities,
and non-governmental organizations to undertake such cooperative
efforts.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Monfort, for
highlighting the important role that zoos play in international
wildlife conservation and for supporting the conservation goals
in this piece of legislation.
Dr. Wasser, welcome to the Subcommittee. You are recognized
now to testify for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAM WASSER, PH.D., DIRECTOR, THE CENTER FOR
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Dr. Wasser. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
invitation to appear here today and appreciate the entire
Subcommittee's time afforded me.
Developing nations hold some of our greatest biodiversity
treasures, but they really need reliable information on the
sources and magnitude of the risks facing them to be able to
effectively manage these resources. I commend H.R. 3086 for
acknowledging and attempting to meet those needs.
My center pioneered measures to acquire DNA and a host of
physiological indices eliminated from the body in feces. We use
feces because it is the most accessible wildlife product in
nature, and its collection is entirely noninvasive. We work
closely with wildlife authorities and NGO's in the application
of these tools to wildlife conservation on a global scale. I
will describe two applications of this, starting with the
illegal wildlife trade.
The impacts of the burgeoning illegal wildlife trade are
beginning to rival those of habitat loss. Ivory trade
epitomizes this. Poaching-related elephant mortality now
exceeds 10 percent of the population annually. Demand from
high-paying industrialized nations, such as China, U.S., and
Japan, are driving this trade. They caused the price of ivory
to increase ninefold in the past five years, and this has
become a very high-profit, low-risk enterprise that now is
largely driven by organized crime.
We collaborate with Interpol, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and African and Asian authorities using DNA to
determine the origin of large ivory seizures that bear the
signature of organized crime. We also determine their modus
operandi.
DNA from feces is used to map the elephant genetics across
the entire continent of Africa. We then match the same DNA from
ivory to this map, and that allows us to determine the major
poaching hot spots in Africa.
Prior to our work, law enforcement thought that the large
ivory seizures consist of people assembling ivory from stocks
across Africa, a kind of cherry picking, and what we found,
though, is that poachers are repeatedly hammering the same
populations over and over again as though they got a purchase
order from dealers to get a certain number of tusks at a
certain period of time.
We also found that these poachers and dealers tend to
smuggle ivory to neighboring countries before they export it.
It is a risk-reduction strategy so that poachers are unable to
finger the dealer, should they get caught. Traditional
investigatory measures really would be unable to detect those
kinds of trends.
Like H.R. 3086, we contend that source countries are really
the best place to contain this illegal trade. We help them to
do this by identifying the poaching hot spots, focusing the
limited enforcement resources of these poor countries on key
poaching areas. This prevents illegal wildlife trade products
from entering the international market where the massive volume
of containers shipped daily make this trade logistically and
economically nearly impossible to trace once it enters the
global market.
This strategy of focusing on the source countries is also
one of the only ways to keep wildlife from being killed in the
first place. We have exposed with our work some of the largest
source countries in this illegal trade, and we have found them
openly denying their involvement. These methods can also be
applied to other wildlife trade, such as illegal timber and the
tiger trade, and it is important to recognize that this
industry is currently between five and $20 billion annually,
and this has a tremendous impact to our biodiversity.
Now, the second application of this that I want to speak to
is monitoring human disturbance impacts over large landscapes.
While we pioneered measures to get DNA and physiological
products from feces, we also went further to develop effective
methods of finding them. We actually train detection dogs,
essentially analogous to narcotics dogs, to simultaneously
locate large numbers of samples from multiple target species
across huge parts of the wilderness. Dogs work in habitats from
deserts to savannah, rain forests, open sea areas, and species
as diverse as pocket mice, spotted owls, jaguar, caribou,
wolves, tigers, and anteaters.
The comprehensive sampling by these dogs has enabled us to
develop DNA-based methods that simultaneously estimate the
population sizes and distributions of multiple species over
large, remote landscapes with a high degree of precision. We
get stress hormones, reproductive hormones, nutritional
hormones, toxins, immunoglobulins, all of which enable us to
develop an entire health panel of the animal that allows us to
partition the impacts of these pressures occurring in response
to environmental pressures.
These combined tools allow us to assess change in animal
abundance and distribution along with the causes of those
changes over huge landscapes, and these are invaluable tools
for guiding managers about what and how to mitigate.
In sum, developing nations hold some of the most important
resources in biodiversity around the world, and if we do not
act now to develop methods that help guide their practices,
then we will be in trouble. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wasser follows:]
Statement of Samuel K. Wasser, Director, The Center for
Conservation Biology, University of Washington
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
providing me with the opportunity to address the important subject of
the Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act of
2009.
My name is Samuel K Wasser. I am the Director of the Center for
Conservation Biology and hold an endowed chair in Conservation Biology
in the Department of Biology at the University of Washington.
I have a Ph.D. in animal behavior and have conducted national and
international wildlife research for more than 30 years.
The Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act
of 2009, hereafter termed the ACT, calls for capacity building to
improve management in biodiverse countries, partnerships between
government and non-government entities, outreach and more.
My testimony addresses issues of direct relevance to the ACT: The
need for reliable information on the sources and impacts of human
disturbances to insure effective decision making by wildlife
authorities in the U.S. and abroad. Filling that void requires
identifying the location, form and magnitude of the disturbances facing
wildlife. These, in turn, require reliable estimates of population
sizes of multiple species, how species use their environment, how
disturbance impacts that use, and the associated impacts of disturbance
on morbidity and mortality.
My Center has pioneered the development of a number of genetic and
physiological tools to cost-effectively assess the sources and extent
of human disturbances on wildlife at a global scale. We are applying
them to problems ranging from identifying poaching hot spots to
determining impacts of oil exploration, toxin exposure, loss of prey
and ecotourism on wildlife over very large landscapes. We apply these
methods to species as diverse as African elephants, pocket mice,
Northern Spotted owls, jaguar and whales. The methods we pioneered are
now being used by scientists around the world and includes
collaborations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Geological Service and the Bureau of Land Management,
wildlife authorities in Cameroon, Kenya, Zambia, Uganda, Malawi, Hong
Kong and Taiwan, and inter-governmental organizations including the
Interpol Working Group on Wildlife Crime and the Africa-based Lusaka
Agreement Task Force. We also have collaborations with several non-
government organizations as well as members of industry. This work
touches on many of the priority issues in the ACT and is thus, by
example, a strong endorsement of what the ACT proposes.
The Problem:
As populations, economies, and demands for more resources grow, so
do the footprints of humans and the number of disturbances that occur
concurrently. Addressing these problems requires tools that can
localize and distinguish between co-occurring disturbances over large
geographic scales in order to maximize effectiveness of mitigation
efforts.
The problem is particularly acute in developing nations. These
countries often possess the greatest biodiversity; yet, they lack funds
to manage them, let alone to thoroughly investigate the causes of the
problems that need to be addressed. Poaching, roads, logging, opening
habitat for oil exploration, land conversion for agriculture,
unrestrained tourism, unregulated use of herbicides and pesticides,
excessive hunting quotas, and use of fire to clear farm or ranch land
are just a handful of the pressures countries are inflicting on their
wildlife.
The Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act
of 2009 aims to help developing countries meet their conservation needs
through capacity building and collaborations between government and
non-government entities. These efforts are extremely timely; a better
understanding of the system makes mitigation more efficient thereby
reducing costs to already financially strained budgets.
The problem is compounded by demands for wildlife products, from
ornaments, to traditional medicines, timber and fuels placed on these
biodiverse countries by industrialized economies. Developing countries
with high biodiversity are often enticed to meet these demands, since
sale of their natural resources can be a relatively easy source of hard
currency. Much of these sales are unregulated if not illegal; in many
such cases, government officials, but not the governments themselves,
are the ones that profit. The country and the environment are the big
losers in these instances. Politically unstable countries are
especially likely to fall victim since hard currency is vital to the
purchase of weapons and ammunition necessary for these regimes to stay
in power.
As the ACT acknowledges, reliable information and effective
education are among the greatest defenses of these practices. If we
know where wildlife are being exploited, as well as the magnitude and
forms of human impacts, we are in a better position to make the right
management and enforcement decisions, as well as to inform the public
about what is transpiring. The latter is important because it is among
the most expeditious means of encouraging change.
Some of the most valuable tools for providing critical information
to managers are coming from advancements in genomics, bioinfomatics and
medicine. DNA analysis has had major impacts on law enforcement,
helping to convict the guilty, free the innocent, identify the victim
or find their places of origin. Medical diagnostics have similarly
grown, allowing physicians to acquire a comprehensive health profile of
a patient from a single blood sample. We have developed similar tools
to acquire such information from wildlife, cost-effectively, without
adding more disturbances to wildlife in the process.
Our Approach:
My center has pioneered methods to acquire DNA, stress, nutrition
and reproductive hormones from feces. We are also perfecting methods to
acquire toxins and immunoglobulins from feces. Obtaining this
information from feces has several advantages. Feces contain an
enormous amount of physiological information since it is a principle
route for elimination of DNA, hormones and other physiological products
from the body. Feces is also the most accessible wildlife product in
nature and can be acquired without disturbing wildlife in any way. The
only remaining challenge is finding it.
To address this, my center pioneered methods to train detection
dogs to find scat/feces, performing much like narcotics detection dogs
locating drugs. Our dogs are able to locate scat with high reliability
from up to 18 species at once, over very large remote areas. We even
have dogs that detect feces from baleen and toothed whales that is
floating on the water surface; dogs ride on the bow of a boat,
detecting whale fecal samples at distances greater than a nautical mile
away.
The information we are able to obtain from these noninvasively
collected samples is remarkable and unprecedented. The methods are
relative inexpensive and becoming cheaper and less complicated all the
time. The use and application of these tools for capacity building are
considerable, as are the opportunities for partnerships between
government and non-government organizations.
The following detailed examples illustrate the utility and breadth
of these methods for wildlife conservation and their fit with the
priorities of the ACT.
My first example comes from Africa, where our tools have
transformed the fight to contain the illegal ivory trade.
Combating Illegal Trade in African Elephant Ivory:
We used DNA to track the source and modus operandi of those in the
illegal ivory trade across Africa. These tools have proven particularly
useful to authorities policing this trade.
The Problem:
Demand from high paying industrialized nations has caused the price
of ivory to increase 9-fold in the past five years. Although profit is
high, prosecution risk and punishment is disappointingly low; wildlife
crimes are low priority compared to weapons, drugs, murder, rape and
terrorism. Organized crime syndicates are now driving this trade,
taking full advantage of this high profit, low risk enterprise.
Liberalization of laws promoting global trade have compounded the
problem. Close to 1 million containers are shipped daily with the
potential to transport large volumes of contraband, and customs is able
to inspect < 1 % of them.
Another problem stems from underestimation of this trade.
Population size and hence mortality estimates from many nations are
unreliable, in part because of Africa's vast remoteness, but also
because some countries providing these estimates may have conflicts of
interest. Extrapolating from seizure rates, we estimate that elephant
mortality rates are currently in excess of 10% annually from poaching.
The significance of this loss cannot be overestimated. Elephants
evolved to have enormous impacts on habitat structure. They are the
single most important source of seed dispersal for large trees and thus
their loss will surely have significant impacts on the carbon-capturing
potential of central African forests. Their loss will also negatively
impact ecotourism, one of the most reliable sources of hard currency
for many African nations.
Our Approach:
We collaborate with Interpol, USFWS and African and Asian
authorities, using DNA to determine the origin of large ivory seizures
that bear the signature of organized crime. We simultaneously identify
the responsible countries, and how poachers/dealers are getting the
ivory out of source countries.
DNA acquired from elephant feces is used to map the frequencies of
multiple genes across Africa. We assembled this map over the past 10
years with the help of scientists, governments and managers across
Africa, and the generous support of the USFWS African Elephant
Conservation Fund. We acquire the same DNA markers from seized ivory.
Matching the genes in ivory to the multi-locus gene frequency map
enables us to determine the ivory's origin(s) with considerable
precision, and hence the major poaching hot spots in Africa.
We conclusively identified Zambia and Tanzania as two of the
largest source countries in this illegal trade. The Zambia seizure was
shipped from Malawi to Singapore in 2002. The seizure weighted 6.5 tons
and included 531 large tusks plus 42,000 ivory signature seals (often
called chops or hankos). This was the largest seizure since the 1989
ivory ban and second largest on record. Zambia unsuccessfully
petitioned CITES 1 that same year to diminish the
conservation status of their elephants, which would have allowed them
to partake in subsequent CITES sanctioned ivory sales. Three year
later, another 6 tons of ivory was seized in the Philippines, shipped
from Zambia. We were unable to analyze that shipment because it was
subsequently stolen from the warehouse where customs had it stored.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species, is an agreement under UNEP that determines the international
conservation status and trade rules surrounding wildlife, worldwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar case occurred in 2006; Tanzania shipped 11 tons of ivory
to Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan within a two-month period. This was the
largest single string of seizures on record, making the perpetrator
among the largest illegal ivory dealers in Africa. We showed that the
ivory was primarily poached in southern Tanzania, spilling into the
northern tip of Mozambique. Like Zambia, Tanzania petitioned CITES to
diminish the conservation status of their elephants that same year, but
subsequently withdrew the petition owing to public pressure. Then, in
March 2009, it happened again. Vietnam seized 6.2 tons of ivory shipped
from Tanzania. Two months later, the Philippines seized 3.5 tons of
ivory shipped from Tanzania. Two additional seizures were recently
seized in Kenya, also believed to have originated from Tanzania.
Meanwhile, this month Zambia declared that they will once again
petition CITES next year to diminish the conservation status of their
elephants, announcing that two other elephant range states will follow
suit. Several sources have indicated these two other countries to be
Tanzania and Mozambique. These findings illustrate the need to expose
countries in denial of their illegal trade, and to hold them
accountable. Education is vital to any hope of pressuring them to take
action to fight these crimes.
These cases all share a number of features. The large ivory
seizures resulted from poachers hammering the same populations
repeatedly, in contrast to the common belief that dealers were
assembling large shipments of contraband ivory by cherry-picking from
stocks across Africa. In the case of Zambia, poachers/dealer smuggled
the ivory into a neighboring country (Malawi) for shipment to Asia.
This is a risk reduction strategy, making it difficult for apprehended
poachers to identify the dealers. We identified a similar strategy in
our investigation of a seizure of forest elephant ivory made in Hong
Kong. In 2006, four tons of ivory were seized in Hong Kong in a
container, shipped from Cameroon. X-ray revealed the container behind a
false wall in the back of the container. Ivory chips were also
recovered in two other containers with false walls, returning to
Cameroon with used tires for resale from Hong Kong. We found that all
of this ivory was poached in southern Gabon, but shipped from Cameroon.
Traditional investigatory methods that rely on shipping documents could
not have confirmed that.
We contend that source countries are in the best position to
control this burgeoning illegal trade, which is also consistent with
priorities of the ACT. Local empowerment is vital. Our methods are
helping source countries achieve these objectives by providing tools
that can focus their limited law enforcement resources on key poaching
areas. Focusing on source countries also helps prevent products from
entering the international market where they are logistically and
economically nearly impossible to trace, and may be the only way to
keep wildlife from being killed in the first place. At the same time,
we are exposing source countries that are underestimating the extent of
their illegal trade, and identifying strategies employed by large,
organized ivory dealers.
Educating the Public:
The illegal ivory trade is an area where public opinion and hence
education clearly matter, highlighting another objective of the ACT.
The 1989 ivory ban was implemented by CITES, largely because extensive
education campaigns created enormous public pressure to stop the
slaughter of 700,000 elephants in less than 10 years. Public pressure
was so great that it virtually eliminated demand, stopping the trade
almost overnight. Unfortunately, the public stopped paying attention
several years later, believing the problem to be solved. Demand rose
again while pressure to enforce the ban subsided. The ivory trade issue
soon became the most contentious issue in CITES, and this has severely
impacted the objectivity of decision making on this issue. Meanwhile, a
higher percentage of remaining elephants are now being killed than at
any other time in history.
Public education is once again needed to overcome these issues. Our
center is doing our part by publishing our findings of this renewed
illegal trade in high quality refereed journals, accompanied by press
releases. We are simultaneously publishing this work in respected lay
journals with broad exposure, such as Scientific American. This is an
area where scientists can play a unique collaborative role with
government. Unlike government employees, scientists are encouraged to
publish their work. Our publication in Scientific American this month
encouraged a member of the Tanzanian parliamentarian to call for a full
investigation of Tanzania's ivory trade, new counts of elephant numbers
will soon be conducted in southern Tanzania that include independent
observers and last week 6 Tanzanian businessmen were apprehended and
charged with smuggling 11 tons of ivory as well as 11 counts of
conspiracy, unlawful hunting, exporting concealed and undeclared items
and making false documents.
Our forensics methods can also be applied to other illegal wildlife
trades, currently a $5-20 billion/yr annual industry causing tremendous
loss of biodiversity. Among these, the illegal timber trade is probably
most serious. In some countries (e.g., Tanzania and DRC) estimates
suggest that nearly 100% of international timber sales are illegal. The
trade is thus totally unregulated, the government receives no revenue
form this illegal trade and some of our most important remaining
forests for carbon capture are being destroyed in the process.
Forensics tools such as these that can help localize these trades are
vital.
As a final note, lack of financial support has been the biggest
obstacle to our work. USFWS generously provides us $50-75K per year
from the $1 million annually appropriated by congress to the African
Elephant Conservation Fund. However, USFWS support covers only a
fraction of our costs. Source countries either cannot afford to pay for
these analyses or have no desire to see this work conducted. Seizing
countries appear to consider this trade too low priority to contribute
funds for DNA analyses. Despite these constraints, we try not to let
funding be an obstacle; otherwise the seizing countries would never
turn over the ivory for analysis. I accordingly hope that the ACT will
be able to increase support for this work in the future.
Monitoring Impacts of Anthropogenic Disturbance:
Our Center has taken a similar noninvasive approach to monitoring
impacts of habitat loss and human disturbances with equal impact.
The Problem:
Impacts of habitat loss and human disturbance present yet another
suite of challenges that have proven difficult to address in developed
and developing countries, despite the considerable pressures they place
on wildlife. Scientists strive to address these problems by acquiring
reliable mortality rates in relation to these pressures. However, this
approach has proven problematic. Such pressures rarely kill the animal
directly. Rather, they increase their probability of dying, and this
takes time. Many other events can occur in the interim, complicating
such linkages. Mortality rates also require accurate population
estimates. These are difficult to acquire, often being extrapolated
from expensive telemetry studies that track only a small number of
animals at great cost, while bearing limited representativeness to the
entire population. Moreover, radiocollaring procedures are highly
invasive, increasing mortality risk from the capture procedures.
A second problem stems from the fact that disturbances rarely occur
in isolation; where there is one disturbance there are typically many.
Without knowing which disturbance is having the impact, it becomes
impossible to know what and how to mitigate. The impacts of mitigation
are equally difficult to monitor. Long time intervals may elapse at
considerable expense before the effects of these mitigations become
known. Sometimes they cause more harm than good.
Our Approach:
Our Center has developed noninvasive genetic and physiological
measures obtained from wildlife feces to help developed and developing
nations quantify human impacts and guide their mitigation. One of our
greatest strengths stems from tools we developed to comprehensively
sample large parts of the landscape. Detection dogs locate large
numbers of fecal samples from multiple species over considerable
distances. Using dogs for sample detection also has very low associated
bias. Detection dogs are selected for their highly obsessive play
drive. This obsessive play drive makes their sampling less biased than
nearly any other available method. Since the dog's primary motivation
is to get its ball, which occurs whenever the dog finds a sample from
the correct species, the dog will not bias its search by the animal's
sex, social status or capture history. That means all individuals of
the target species have an equal chance of being detected. No other
method can make that promise. The dogs also find the samples where they
lie, whereas most other methods lure the animal to the sample
collection location.
DNA in these samples is analyzed to confirm the species, sex and
individual identity of the animal. This allows DNA measures to be
employed in field designs that can reliably estimate population size in
vast, highly remote areas. The distribution of samples also reflects
the species' distribution over the landscape, allowing us to determine
precisely what features are attracting or repelling individuals over
time. Stress, reproductive, and nutrition hormones, as well as other
procedures in the same samples are similarly tied to the landscape
features, allowing us to physiologically partition disturbance impacts.
We have shown that DNA collected by dogs greatly enhance the
accessibility and cost-effectiveness of the genetic and physiological
measures. DNA samples collected using dogs provide more reliable
population size estimates (i.e., have lower associated error), as well
as more reliable data on the disturbance of species across their
habitat, because the dogs covered a greater area and the probability of
sample detection is higher. Data are thus more representative of the
population as a whole because a greater variety of individuals and
areas are sampled. Large number of samples collected over multiple time
periods, also provides more reliable associations to temporal and
physical disturbances, particularly those that change over time (e.g.,
changes in human resource use across the season). These highly
informative sampling methods are very straight forward, and versatile
enough to be used on virtually any combination of species, in nearly
any type of habitat.
This makes these methods ideally suited to assist management
decisions by authorities in developing countries.
We are using these methods on a wide variety of species and
habitats, including pocket mice, northern spotted owl, fisher, grizzly
bears and Mexican wolves in North America, tigers in Cambodia, maned
wolves, cougar, jaguar, giant-ant eater and giant armadillo in the hot
dry Brazilian Cerrado, caribou, moose and wolf in the frozen oil sands
of Alberta, right whales and killer whales in the eastern and western
US. They can even be used to locate rare plant species over vast remote
wilderness areas.
The following four examples show the breadth of these methods in
terms of species, habitat, climate and questions addressed.
Impacts of Oil Sands Exploration on Caribou, Moose and Wolf:
One of the most timely applications of our methods is monitoring
impacts of oil development in the oilsands of NE Alberta on threatened
caribou, moose and their primary predator, the wolf. The oilsands have
abundant oil reserves, but its heavy black viscous oil, termed bitumen,
is expensive to extract and must be rigorously treated to convert it
into an upgraded crude oil. Current oil prices per barrel have recently
made it cost-effective for companies to extract and process the
bitumen. SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) is the most common
method used to extract this oil. Seismic and delineation drilling
determine where and how much oil is present. Steam is then used to heat
and move the material through underground veins to an extraction area.
These operations must occur in the winter, when the ground is frozen
and are strictly controlled by the Alberta government due to the
sensitive nature of boreal forest. Thus, the habitat goes from remote
wilderness most of the year to a booming town in winter and then back
to wilderness as soon as the snow begins to melt.
The Problem:
We are working in collaboration with the Chipewyan Prairie Dene
First Nation, StatoilHydro Canada and the Alberta provincial government
to monitor impacts of the oil exploration on the caribou, moose and
wolf living on oil sands lease areas in NE Alberta. The study began
four years ago, at the onset of oil exploration in the area, and plans
to continue for 10 years through the oil extraction process.
The caribou, moose and wolf are monitored because their large size
and ranging behavior make them likely to be impacted by oil development
activities. The caribou is a species of particular concern because it
is threatened in Alberta. The moose offers a good comparison species
because it is similar in size but differs in microhabitat and social
structure. The moose is also a primary prey species of the Chippewa
Prairie Dene First Nation. The caribou is a prey species of secondary
importance to the Dene. The wolf is the primary non-human predator of
the moose and caribou.
Our Approach:
The comprehensive sampling provided by the dog teams allows us to
simultaneously monitor: How population size changes for each species
across years; what factors in the environment each species is attracted
to, or avoiding; and how the stress, nutritional status and
reproduction of each species vary over space (relative to distance from
key resources and anthropogenic disturbances) and time (relative to
intensity of extraction activities within and between years). The study
also includes a low exposure control area where little or no oil
extraction is occurring.
This year, four dog teams searched a 3,000 km2 area, two feet deep
in snow, four times in just 10 weeks, and collected 1800 samples from
these species.
Results to date show how the abundance, distribution, stress and
nutritional status of these three species are impacted by the presence
of high- versus low-use oil exploration roads, in conjunction with the
natural and anthropogenic habitat features they cross. We are already
identifying ways to reduce impacts of oil exploration on wildlife
through better road management. Results also suggest that practices
other than wolf removal may offer the best solution to saving
threatened caribou in these areas over the long-term.
Results have been so effective that other companies operating in
the oilsands are now asking to be included in our monitoring program.
Causes of Decline of the Southern Resident Killer Whales of Puget
Sound:
The Problem:
The southern resident killer whale population in Puget Sound
declined by 20% in the 1990's and eventually led NOAA to declare them
an endangered population under the Endangered Species Act in December
2005. At least three hypotheses have been advanced to explain their
decline: ecotourism, loss of prey and excessive toxin loads of PCBs and
PBDEs. Each hypothesis has been advanced by NOAA, the public and
scientific sectors, in heated fashion, creating enormous pressure on
NOAA to mitigate. But, where should they focus their mitigation?
Our Approach:
We are using our methods to separate the relative impacts of
ecotourism, prey and toxin load in an effort to determine what
pressure(s) is most urgent to mitigate. NOAA is analyzing the DNA from
our samples for individual killer whale identities as well as the
identities of their prey types. We are analyzing stress, nutrition and
reproductive hormones, as well as toxin loads, all from the same
samples in relation to temporal changes in boat traffic and salmon
abundance.
Dogs ride on the bow of a boat and detect scat at distances >1 mile
away. Stress and nutrition hormones from these samples have already
shown that lack of their primary prey, Chinook salmon, is the single
biggest cause of their decline. Thus, recovering salmon should be the
single biggest effort in attempts to recover this species. The diet
impact may be significantly magnified by release of toxins stored in
fat reserves, increasingly metabolized during starvation. (Methods
already exist to measures these toxins in dolphin scat and will soon be
optimized for killer whales.) In fact, cleaning up toxins at the same
time as recovering the salmon could result in more rapid killer whale
recovery/unit effort. Ecotourism may also play a role in acute stress,
mandating best practices during ecotourism.
The fact that these scat methods enabled us to learn all this from
an animal that spends >90% of its time under water is testimony to the
remarkable power of this technique.
Wide Ranging Mammals in the Brazilian Cerrado:
Increasing agricultural expansion and land use is having severe
impacts on persistence of wide ranging species. Mortality of such
species disproportionately occurs outside of nature reserves that are
intended to protect them. The Cerrado habitat of Brazil comprises the
world's most diverse tropical savanna and is home to hundreds of
species found nowhere else in the world. This habitat also comprises
one of the world's most threatened regions as land is being rapidly
converted for agriculture production of soybean and sugar cane for
biofuels.
The Problem:
The government responded to the high rate of land conversion by
mandating that private landholders set aside 20-30% (depending on the
State) of their farmland as natural habitat. However, some landholders
purchased this set-aside land outside their farms instead of
maintaining natural habitat within their farmland.
The Approach:
We used our methods to assess differential impacts of these
different land use practices on movement of wide-ranging wildlife
species across the landscape by examining how the type of land mosaic
best promotes or reduces presence of maned wolves, puma, jaguar, giant
armadillo, giant anteater and tapir.
Results indicated that natural islands in a sea of agriculture are
critical to allow these wide ranging species continued movement through
converted habitat. This is vital since protected areas are too small in
number and size to sustain all of these species.
Dogs readily located scat from the study species across the
landscape. All species were found inside and outside of Emas National
Park (ENP). However, the jaguar was almost entirely restricted to
forest habitat, the majority of which lies outside the park. The jaguar
is accordingly at greatest risk from isolation from habitat
fragmentation. The maned wolf, puma, giant anteater and tapir made
extensive use of the landscape mosaic surrounding the park, although
the vast majority of scats were concentrated in or very near patches of
natural habitat.
The giant armadillo (IUCN Vulnerable) also showed a clear
preference for open habitats in this region. However, we found no
evidence of burrow digging or scat samples from armadillos in croplands
or pasture further than 100 meters from natural habitat. This is
particularly important since open habitats are nearly non-existent
outside protected areas in this region.
Hopefully, these results will help convince the Brazilian
government to tighten mandates, assuring that set-aside land remains
inside farmland for the benefit of these incredible species.
Northern Spotted Owls in the Pacific Northwest
The Northern spotted owl (NSO), Strix occidentalis caurina, is the
flagship threatened species of the Pacific Northwest. Federally listed
under the Endangered Species Act in 1990, the NSO continues to decline
at a rate of about 7% throughout its range.
The Problem:
Habitat loss from logging and land conversion have historically
contributed the greatest threats to this species. This prompted
authorities to establish Spotted Owl Special Emphasis Areas (SOSEAs)
that cannot be logged as long as NSO are shown to have occupied them
within the past 3 years. Timber sales also are required to establish
that the land is free of spotted owls before any sales go through.
Then, a new problem arose that complicated these regulations. The
barred owl (BO)--a close relative of the NSO that is twice its size, as
well as a competitor and a predator--expanded its range into the west
coast from the northeast US, occupying a huge portion of the spotted
owl's range. Some managers argue that the impact of the BO range
expansion on NSOs is so great that future timber concessions may no
longer affect NSO persistence. That question has yet to be answered.
Regardless, managers are now faced with a different problem:
The primary means of establishing NSO presence, as a prelude to
timber sales or harvesting SOSEAs, is conducted by vocal surveys; NSO
indicate their presence by their vocal response to simulated
territorial calls given by observers. However, NSO are becoming
increasing unresponsive to these calls when BOs are present, apparently
fearing attack by BOs if they vocally announce their location. If the
primary means of detecting NSO is no longer reliable, how can these
surveys be used to enforce current regulations re: timber sales and
preservation of SOSEAs?
Our Approach:
To address these problems, we trained detection dogs to locate NSO
by their pellets and feces, without requiring an owl vocal response. In
the springs of 2008 and 2009 detection dogs located spotted owls by the
scent of their pellets and feces. They detected 17/18 known owl pairs
in 2008. In 2009, they detected owls in 12 out of 18 sites surveyed; no
owls were detected by any method, including vocal surveys in the
remaining 6 sites. These methods can be used to simultaneously survey
for BOs with pellets and/or feces identified to the species level by
DNA, enabling this method to also be used to more readily address
overall impacts of BO on NSOs. Discussions have already begun with
USFWS that could employ this method more broadly.
Concluding Remarks:
Effective global conservation requires reliable information on the
sources and magnitudes of human and natural impacts on the environment.
Such information is limited in developed countries, and even more so in
developing countries. The ACT recognizes this by its objectives of
increasing the flow of information required to make sound management
decisions, as well as by the importance it places on educating the
public to be better environmental stewards. The approach pioneered by
our center exemplifies the importance of these priorities, as outlined
in the ACT.
We partner with government and non-government entities to provide
highly accessible, noninvasive genetic and physiological tools to aid
global conservation, addressing questions such as the extent,
distribution and strategies behind the illegal wildlife trade, and the
impacts of human and natural disturbances on wildlife health.
We developed novel tools to acquire this information cost-
effectively, over large remote areas, without adding disturbance to
wildlife. And, results are helping inform developed and developing
nations how best to address global conservation issues of paramount
importance to our planet's well-being.
We strive to publish our work in high quality, peer-reviewed
journals with accompanying press releases, as well as in respected
magazines aimed at the educated general public. This approach appears
to be working, judging by the near monthly appearance of our work in
the national or international media. It also fills an important void as
this route of information transfer is relatively uncommon in the
government sector.
The objectives of the Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination
and Enhancement Act of 2009 are particularly important in these hard
economic times, when priorities are easily shifted elsewhere. We hope
the ACT will encourage our efforts as well as those of others, and look
forward to the opportunity to work with our representatives and
managers on these important issues.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Sam Wasser,
Director of the Center for Conservation Biology, University of
Washington
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU)
1. Other witnesses expressed concerns with the new organizational
structures authorized in H.R. 3086. However, there appeared to
be little disagreement among the witnesses regarding the
principal objectives of the bill (i.e., greater coordination
within the Department of the Interior and with other relevant
Federal agencies; expanded public outreach and education
regarding the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products;
authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders Program;
expansion of training opportunities, especially for law
enforcement capabilities in range states; greater collaboration
with non-Federal NGO stakeholders, especially utilization of
technical and educational assets within the zoo and aquarium
community, etc.). How might you suggest the bill be amended to
clean up the purported organizational clutter while maintaining
the principal objectives? Can these objectives be attained
simply by directing existing bureaus and programs within the
Department of the Interior to do them?
Enhancing existing bureaus and programs (e.g., directing existing
bureaus and programs within Interior) is the best approach to cleaning
up the organization clutter, while maintaining principal objectives of
the ACT. However, there also needs to be a vehicle that fosters
collaborations outside of interior, encouraging novel approaches to
some of these issues. An advisory committee that includes members of
NGOs and members of the scientific community across universities would
help assures that.
2. Recognizing that there will likely never be sufficient Federal
appropriations to address all identified needs it is important
that we utilize the contributions of non-Federal stakeholders.
Do you agree? Are there additional ways to formally incorporate
these capabilities beyond the grant programs authorized under
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund? Do you support the
creation of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
in H.R. 3086?
I do agree that supplemental non-Federal contributions would be
valuable, but it is important that contributors do not drive the
agendas to avoid conflicts between competing organizations becoming
obstacles to progress. A Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory
Committee would provide an important means of assuring objectivity as
long as the committee had the appropriate balance of government and
non-government organizations, including members of the scientific
community.
3. Do you support the establishment of an International Wildlife
Conservation Fund in the Treasury to provide a means for the
Secretary of the Interior to accept and utilize gifts and
donations? In order to ensure that there is no potential for
conflict of interest, should such a fund be managed by
agreement through a non-Federal entity such as the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, or a university-based
institution?
I wholeheartedly support such a fund. An organization like the NFWF
would be appropriate to manage these funds as long as there was a
process to guide their focus areas and ensure transparency. A well-
balanced advisory board would also be key in this respect.
4. Dr. Monfort testified that the Smithsonian Institution has recently
created a Conservation Biology Institute whose program
activities are quite similar to the activities proposed for the
Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships in H.R.
3086. Would it make sense to amend the bill to direct the
Secretary and the Smithsonian, through a cooperative agreement,
to develop a partnership to incorporate these capabilities and
the capabilities of the zoo and aquarium and university
research community at large, to enhance U.S. international
wildlife conservation capabilities? If you disagree, please
explain why?
I commend the work and vision of the Smithsonian's Conservation
Biology Institute. I also believe there are many other organizations
doing great work and that there needs to be a vehicle that assures
equal opportunity in order to capitalize on the creativity that exists
across the US. I am concerned that giving any one organization too much
power will limit the potential of this program.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. Why has the price of elephant ivory increased 9-fold in the past
five years? Who is creating this demand?
Demand for ivory from high paying industrialized nations,
particularly China, U.S. and Japan, have been largely responsible for
the 9-fold increase in the price of ivory. The growing economy and
middle class in China has been the greatest contributor to this growing
demand in recent years; their growing middle class buys ivory to flaunt
their new-found wealth. Japan has consistently maintained their high
demand. The principle demand in the U.S. is hunters buying ivory
imported primarily from China, which they have carved into pistol and
knife handles.
2. On Page 3 of your testimony, you indicate that ``Wildlife crimes
are low priority compared to weapons, drugs, murder, rape and
terrorism.'' If you were the head of law enforcement in one of
the African range states, how would you address this problem?
First, it is important to note that the problem exists in both
consumer countries and exporting countries. Very few of the large
dealers ever get prosecuted, and when they do, punishment is often
minimal. In 2006, Japan convicted an ivory dealer of importing the
largest ivory seizure in that country's history, but gave him a
suspended jail sentence and a $6,000 fine for a seizure valued at $10
million. The U.S. has the highest interdiction rate at its borders, but
prosecutions of illegal ivory traders within the U.S. remain
embarrassingly low.
One of the biggest problems facing African range states is that
corrupt government officials and other powerful entities are often
participating in these crimes. Thus, this problem is a double-edged
sword. This is also why vehicles such as the Global Wildlife
Conservation Act are so vital. Often law enforcement agencies have
their hands tied until their citizens support their cause. We need
mechanisms to identify the countries driving the trade and to
communicate this to their public. We also need to educate the public of
the long-term consequences that result from loss of their biodiversity.
Media in these countries is vital; so are outspoken celebrities that
people will listen to.
If I were a law enforcement official in an African range state, I
would work to insure that my efforts are encouraged and supported by
the public. I would insist on independent counts of the wildlife in my
country so that escalating mortality rates from illegal trade could not
be masked. I would work with scientists doing work such as our center
to help identify the poaching hot spots and focus limited law
enforcement to those areas. I would work with the judiciary to ensure
that punishments are severe. I would solicit capacity building from
effective law enforcement agencies such as Interpol. I would also
encourage and strengthen intergovernmental law enforcement entities
such as the Lusaka Agreement Task Force, whose mission is to police
wildlife trade across international borders. I would especially
strengthen enforcement at key trade routes including ports of entry and
especially shipping ports for countries with a coastline.
3. You identify Zambia and Tanzania as two of the largest sources of
illegal ivory. In these two countries is it a lack of will
power, manpower, resources or is it just apathy that has
created these elephant killing fields?
None of the above. These are poor countries in terms of available
hard currency, but also countries that have enormous natural resources
that can be illegally exploited for personal gain. This problem becomes
self-perpetuating because money breeds power, especially in these
countries with high disparity of wealth. Often those profiting are more
powerful than those doing the policing. Sometimes, the fox is guarding
the henhouse. There is also strong influence of Asian countries such as
China operating in those countries, creating the demand for these
products and the opportunities for their sale.
4. What is the current situation in Zimbabwe in terms of wildlife
poaching?
The situation in Zimbabwe is currently worse than ever before. They
have one of the highest rates of inflation in the world, creating a
serious lack of hard currency. These factors, coupled with enormous
political turmoil in that country have created numerous opportunities
for wildlife trade violations. Reports of such violations appears
almost weekly on wildlife watch ``listservs''. These include: elephants
being killed to feed soldiers, ministers ordering elephants shot to
feed people during celebrations, hunting rights being sold for high
prices to wealthy hunters abroad just for photo ops, government
stockpiled ivory showing up in illegal seizures, sale of ivory for arms
from China. All of this perpetuates a climate of taking what you can
before it's too late. There has not been a formal wildlife count of
Zimbabwe's elephants in over a decade and the government keeps quoting
this decade-old count to argue they have too many elephants. Those on
the ground state otherwise. They have recently wiped out nearly all of
their remaining rhinos. The list goes on. The fact that a country with
so many known wildlife violations was permitted by CITES (Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species) to downlist their elephants
and participate in the legal ivory sale that occurred in 2008 is a
travesty that speaks poorly of the international safeguards that are
supposed to be protecting our planet's biodiversity. Countries
participating in the sale were supposed to have demonstrated that they
are effectively controlling illegal trade in their country. Zimbabwe
had no such claim.
5. You mentioned that you provide tools focused on law enforcement
resources in key poaching areas. Is the fact that AID, which
has far more money than Fish and Wildlife Service, has a policy
of not supporting law enforcement activities a real problem in
fighting against well armed poachers?
I do believe that countries could benefit greatly if AID money were
devoted to this cause. I also believe that doing so is consistent with
their mandate. When natural resources are illegally exploited and sold
as a source of hard currency, this unregulated enterprise destroys the
country's biodiversity, negatively impacts water catchment, negatively
impacts tourism and impacts acquisitions of legal sources of hard
currency in these countries. The illegal sale of natural resources also
is used to keep corrupt officials in power, and a well-known source for
supporting terrorism, all at the expense of the country's long-term
political and economic stability. AID should be working to stop this
trade because such efforts prevent illegal trade from compromising the
political and economic stability of these countries.
6. Since we have stopped commercial logging on millions of acres and
destroyed the jobs of thousands of loggers, why has the
population of the Northern Spotted owl continued to decline by
about 7 percent?
Loss of habitat is the primary problem, resulting from poor timber
management and excessive logging of old growth forests. This has most
recently been exacerbated by invasion of barred owls from the east (a
competitor and predator of the spotted owl), also facilitated by
habitat destruction from excessive timber practices in the intervening
areas. One policy that has been particularly problematic in my view is
the logging of previously occupied areas of importance to spotted owls
when owls have not been documented to occupy these areas for three or
more years. The three-year period is arbitrary and is not based on any
scientific criteria. Logging of these previously important owl habitat
areas (indicated on prior occupancy) further reduces opportunities for
owl recovery by eliminating areas of historical importance that should
remain intact to promote northern spotted owl recolonization.
Essentially, the small amount of remaining old growth forest should be
preserved in perpetuity for the recovery of spotted owls and the other
species that evolved dependencies on this habitat.
7. What is your recommendation for addressing the presence of barred
owls?
Better timber management is the only long-term solution. Currently,
plans are underway for massive culling of barred owls to address their
acute threat to the spotted owl. I am unclear whether this will be an
effective management activity over the short term. However, I believe
there is little question that the barred owl will remain a problem is
we do not manage the landscape to reduce further invasions, and give
spotted owls a competitive edge in competition with barred owls already
present. Culling barred owls will only provide a short-term solution,
if any solution. Forests must be managed to give the spotted owls a
fighting chance.
8. How much of the wildlife conservation problem is getting nations to
value their wildlife?
I believe that this is the single biggest problem and the most
important long-term solution. Otherwise, poor land management practices
and over-exploitation from short-term economic gain will always win.
Education and outreach are key.
9. Are there certain countries that are having more difficulties
protecting their wildlife and if so what is the reason?
Countries that lack hard currency but have significant natural
resources to exploit are certainly those most vulnerable. They are also
some of the most important countries to preserve. Slowed development
from lack of hard currency has historically been key to preserving
wildlife in poor countries, often making them the remaining strongholds
of biodiversity. Demand from global economies and trade are now putting
that diversity at enormous risks as developed countries move in to
exploit these riches.
10. You were asked at the hearing about focusing on source vs.
consumer countries and you recommended the focus be on source
countries. Can you elaborate on what actions can be taken with
source countries to reduce or eliminate illegal wildlife trade?
Focusing on source countries is the only viable way of keeping the
wildlife from being killed in the first place. Liberalization of global
trade makes illegal trade far more expensive and difficult to police
once the wildlife products move outside the source countries,
particularly when prosecution risk is so low. As an example, Interpol
has only one permanent wildlife officer. CITES (Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species)--the principle organization
mandated to police international wildlife trade, also has only one law
enforcement officer.
Source countries primarily need:
1. Vehicles, fuel and munitions to police their trade
2. Capacity building
3. New tools to identify the sources of the problems in their
countries (e.g., genetic tools to identify the source of
poaching, and improved methods of estimating wildlife
population sizes, mortality rates, and resource use)
4. External methods that expose source countries in denial of
the extent of illegal trade in their country, coupled with
national and international public pressure to do something
about it.
5. Education inside and outside source countries so that
people realize what they are losing and show source countries
that they care, i.e., publically support enforcement activities
within source countries.
6. Good science, conveyed by media and other ways of reaching
the public is key here.
7. We need to improve the effectiveness of CITES--the UN
agreement responsible for overseeing the international wildlife
trade--and redirect their mission from one of protecting trade
to protecting wildlife. Otherwise, no trade will be
sustainable. When a species is at serious risk, all efforts
need to be directed at getting their illegal trade back under
control. The elephants are a prime example, where politics over
rights to trade have occurred at the expense of protecting a
species that is keystone across Africa.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Dr. Wasser, for your
commitment to wildlife research for over 30 years and for your
support of this important legislation.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Potter, and you can
begin.
STATEMENT OF J. CRAIG POTTER, INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE LAWYER,
LAW OFFICES OF J. CRAIG POTTER
Mr. Potter. Thank you, Madam Chair and distinguished
Members of the Committee. It is a great honor for me to be here
today to present my views on this legislation and related
matters.
Although I am here as a citizen and a taxpayer, I have some
experience with these issues going back for many years. I was
actually the Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of
the Interior when we established the line item for the Wildlife
Without Borders program. I was also at Interior when we
reauthorized the Endangered Species Act the last time it was
reauthorized, which was in 1982.
I left government in 1988, and I have been involved on the
outside with these issues, one way or another, ever since. I
guess I had the good fortune, or the bad fortune, as it may be,
to have seen these issues from both sides, and so I bring to
you my perspective with that in mind.
Many of the points that I want to make with respect to this
legislation have already been made, so I will try to succinctly
highlight just a few key items.
First of all, with the introduction of this bill, and on
July 14th with the introduction of H.R. 3198, I believe this
Subcommittee has come to the brink of a huge opportunity. You
have an opportunity, as I see it, to use the broader purposes
of H.R. 3086 as a foundation from which to take action now on
the authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders program. In
my written statement, I describe my perspective on the various
programs within the Wildlife Without Borders program.
With respect to the species program, in particular,
Congress has appropriated since 1988 some $67 million, and that
has been matched by approximately $150 million from the private
sector. This program, in my view, is probably the most
effective grant program in government, and I think that,
through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds and the
oversight that this Committee has with respect to those
matters, this program is a key, obviously, to Wildlife Without
Borders.
The regional programs and the global programs provide an
amazing opportunity, from my view, to look at the heart of the
future of this program, which is capacity building. The
concerns that I have with H.R. 3086 have been, to some extent,
explained, but the basic concern I have is that an overemphasis
on that bill at this time may dilute the opportunity to really
think about what Wildlife Without Borders has done and where it
can go in the future.
The final point that I would like to make with respect to
Wildlife Without Borders is reflective of the written testimony
of my distinguished colleagues on this panel and, in fact,
myself. I note that there are at least three dates of inception
that are quoted by three or four of us here. Fish and Wildlife
Service dates this program to 1975. If correct, that means that
the regional program was when Wildlife Without Borders began. I
dated the inception to the creation of the line item in 1983,
and Mr. Carter dates it to the inception of the Elephant
Conservation Act in 1989.
The point I want to make is that all of these are correct.
This program has grown from within. It has had the opportunity
to be seen and viewed, and it has expanded, and it is time for
this Committee and Subcommittee to take consideration of what
might be done with it in the future.
More importantly, I think that the opportunity is here to
officially recognize and authorize the Wildlife Without Borders
program as it should be recognized and authorized, and I think
that important point, I hope, would not be lost on the
Subcommittee.
The fact that wildlife do not recognize borders was
mentioned by Ms. Derek. I think that point needs not to be lost
on us. Without international cooperation, an increasing number
of these species will be lost, but the point is that they do
not recognize international boundaries, and the Wildlife
Without Borders name itself centers on that very issue.
If the Subcommittee decides and chooses to embrace any or
all of the new programs that are encompassed in H.R. 3086, I
think it could do that with the reauthorization or the
authorization of Wildlife Without Borders and with the
convening of an advisory committee to look at the many points
that have been raised in this proposed legislation, but I am
fearful, for some of the reasons that have been mentioned here
by my colleagues, and for specific concerns that I have, and we
can address further, if you want, that if we dilute that effort
now, we may lose the opportunity to deal with a very important
program at this point in time.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my views
on this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Potter follows:]
Statement of J. Craig Potter, International Wildlife Lawyer
Introduction
Thank you Chairwoman Bordallo and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present my views on H.R. 3086, the
Global Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act of 2009.
This hearing is an extraordinary opportunity to discuss the great need
to enhance the capacity of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to deliver
conservation results on a global scale and I am honored to be with you
here today.
My Experience and Background
If you include the time I spent on the Senate Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee in the late 70's, I have been involved with
global conservation issues both in and out of government for over 30
years. I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks at the Department of the Interior in 1983 when we
administratively created the Wildlife Without Borders line item in the
budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
During my tenure at the Department of the Interior I was
extensively involved with international conservation issues. Among
other things, I am a former Head of Delegation for CITES and I also led
the first U.S. Observer Delegation to RAMSAR in 1984. I was heavily
involved in the last reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act in
1982 and my experience there set the stage for much of the work I did
in the private sector after I left the government in 1988. Since
leaving government, much if not most of what I have done has related in
one way or another to global as well as national conservation. In what
we all know is becoming an increasingly globalized world, it is
becoming harder and harder to distinguish between global and
international conservation. And that, I believe is as it should be.
Wildlife Without Borders
Since the mid 1970's, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, through
what is now referred to as the Wildlife Without Borders Program, has
worked with many national and international partners to conserve
wildlife around the world. Over this period of time, the Wildlife
Without Borders program has produced a track record of excellence.
Wildlife Without Borders has established a highly-successful program
based on collaboration with foreign governments, international and
domestic NGOs, and other U.S. Government agencies. With what amounts to
very limited federal funding, this program has established a highly
effective program that can quickly focus limited but leveraged
resources in areas where they are most needed. Although the program
began as a Regional initiative focused primarily in the Western
Hemisphere it has grown over the years to encompass three distinct but
coordinated programs. From a funding perspective, the bulk of the
program has been focused on the so-called Species Programs, but from my
perspective, much of the hope for the future of this program rests with
the Regional and the Global Programs.
As the Subcommittee is well aware, legislation was introduced by
former Chairman Don Young during the last Congress to codify and
specifically authorize the Wildlife Without Borders Program. It is my
understanding that similar legislation has now been introduced by Mr.
Young in the 111th Congress.
Before sharing my perspectives on the three program components of
the Wildlife Without Borders Program and addressing some of my concerns
regarding H.R. 3086, I would like to express to the Subcommittee my
basic fear that H.R. 3086 may actually dilute and even possibly
diminish the critically important opportunity to act now to recognize
and expand what is already by any definition a highly effective
international conservation program.
The Species Program
Building on Congressional mandates through the Multinational
Species Conservation Funds, the Wildlife Without Borders Species
Program is well recognized for its ability to quickly focus on-the-
ground funding to address critical conservation needs through the
African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Great Ape
Conservation Fund, and the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund.
Since the inception of the first international wildlife
conservation fund in 1988, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $67
million to help save two species of elephants, five species of rhinos,
tigers, and Great apes, and six species of marine sea turtles. This
money has been matched by more than $150 million in private funds which
together have been used to finance more than 1,400 conservation grants
in range states throughout the world. There is little doubt that
without this lifeline of financial support some of these imperiled
species would have continue their slide toward extinction.
The Regional Program
I believe I am correct in stating that the Regional program
component of The Wildlife Without Borders Program essentially began in
the 1975 when Mexico and the United States signed the Agreement for
Cooperation in the Conservation of Wildlife. That agreement established
the U.S.-Mexico Joint Committee on Wildlife Conservation and
effectively initiated what has become the Regional Program of the
Wildlife Without Borders Program.
Over the years, a fundamental goal of this program has been to
build conservation capacity and establish ecosystem management regimes
through the allocation of a relatively small amount of taxpayer money.
This focus on capacity building, made possible by the vast and unique
experience of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fills a much-needed
niche by helping to develop and support the ability of international
partners to conserve and manage wildlife resources and critical
habitats regionally. These are the only funds available to assist some
of these endangered international species and without this investment
many of these species are much more likely to become extinct in the
wild.
There are now four regional programs in Latin America and the
Caribbean, Mexico, Russia, and Africa. During the past five years, the
Service has spent $10.8 million, which has been matched by $19.8
million and has funded 304 conservation grants or only about one-third
of the number submitted to the Service for funding consideration.
The first regional program was established in 1983 for Latin
America and the Caribbean. During the past five years, 154 grants have
been awarded, 3,990 conservationists have been trained, and the cost to
U.S. taxpayers has been $3.2 million or about $640,000 a year. Projects
approved here included efforts to improve the conservation of the
Andean tapir, which is the most endangered large mammal in the Andean
region, efforts to save the Swainson's hawk which is extremely
threatened as a result of pesticide use, and efforts to conserve
jaguars in Argentina.
The second regional program was established in Mexico in 1994.
Between 2004 and 2008, the Service approved 83 grants allocating $3.1
million in taxpayer money and among other things, training some 13,000
conservationists. Although not well known, Mexico is home to an amazing
one-tenth of all of the species known to science. Over 100 threatened
or endangered wildlife species are shared between Mexico and the United
States including bats, condors, desert sheep, gray whales, jaguars,
manatees, and a large variety of migratory birds. Specific projects
have been undertaken to conserve the forest habitat for monarch
butterflies, jaguar conservation in the Yucatan region, and the
restoration of the California condor in Baja California.
Five years ago, the Service established its third regional program
with the Russian Federation. During this period, there were 54 wildlife
conservation grants approved, 58 conservationists were trained, 38
habitats and ecosystems were addressed, and $461,000 in Federal funds
were distributed. With over 6.5 million square miles, the Russian
Federation provides essential habitat for a number of imperiled species
including Amur tigers, polar bears, saiga antelope, Siberian cranes,
and snow leopards. In addition, under this program, more than one
million bird bands were distributed throughout Russia and more than
2,000 surplus uniforms were donated for use by Russian conservation
staff.
Finally, just three years ago, the Service initiated efforts to
create a regional program in Africa which is home to many of the
world's most spectacular species and diverse ecosystems. To date, the
Service has financed 13 grants which have been financed by over $2
million in Federal and non-Federal matching money. The Service is also
starting efforts to build regional efforts in China and India.
The Global Program
The third component of Wildlife Without Borders is the Global
Program. At this point in time this is a relatively small program, but
as I stated earlier, I believe this program component has tremendous
potential for the future. In Fiscal Year 2008, it is my understanding
that the Service funded only nine projects costing the taxpayers just
over $518,000.
These projects have been designed to conserve some of the world's
most endangered species, to strengthen the communication and
cooperation among nations striving to conserve migratory species of the
Western Hemisphere, to assist governments in international wetlands
conservation under the RAMSAR Convention, and to address ongoing
wildlife crises such as the bushmeat trade in Africa.
The Global Program has the tremendous potential to address several
critically important global conservation needs of cross-cutting
significance such as capacity building and strengthening collaboration
with developing institutions. Given the world we live in, these are
particularly important short-comings at this time.
In the light of the growing needs as highlighted in H.R. 3086,
particularly in developing countries, now is the time to reflect on the
role of the Wildlife Without Borders Program, as administered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conserving wildlife and habitat
around the world for future generations.
H.R. 3086
While I strongly support the Findings and Purposes of H.R. 3086, I
have serious concerns about the scope of the legislation and the
impacts it might have on existing programs and activities, not only
within the Department of the Interior but also across and within other
Agencies and Departments as well. This legislation creates, out of
whole cloth, a bureaucratic structure with unrealistic goals and
timeframes that will, I believe, cause the redirection of already
scarce resources and the dilution of incredibly important existing
programs. I would also suggest that as written, this legislation may
actually impede progress already being made under the Wildlife Without
Borders Program.
The history of Wildlife Law in this country is the history of well-
meaning laws and regulations that have been layered on the federal
agencies and citizenry of this country, often without adequate
consideration of their consequences. This is too important an
opportunity to make the same mistake again and I strongly urge the
Subcommittee to carefully consider the consequences of this legislation
at this time.
I note that the Findings and Purposes of H.R. 3086 closely mirror
the Findings and Purposes of the Wildlife Without Borders authorization
currently pending before this Subcommittee and ask that you consider
whether the purposes of this overall legislative effort might be better
met through a focused expansion of that program. Therefore I do
support, with appropriate changes, the authorization of the Wildlife
Without Borders Program as well as the establishment of the Global
Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee. I would urge the Subcommittee
to turn its attention to the authorization and expansion of the
Wildlife Without Borders Program and suggest that in that context you
consider how the broader purposes of H.R. 3086 might be met.
So as not to abandon the laudable objectives of many of the
sections of H.R. 3086, I suggest the Subcommittee also consider
establishing the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee as a
way of addressing the feasibility, practicality and implications of
some of the more expansive sections in the legislative package before
the Subcommittee today. For the most part, I believe the sections of
H.R. 3086 that cannot be appropriately addressed through the activities
of an Advisory Committee could actually be addressed within the
Wildlife Without Borders Program itself. As is always the case, the
ability of the Program to address such efforts will likely be a
function of the availability of appropriated funds.
Summary and Conclusion
In the letter of invitation to appear today, the Subcommittee asked
four critical and related questions. While it is my intent that my
testimony will have addressed those questions, specific acknowledgement
and response to those questions may provide some context for the
Subcommittee to consider where it may wish to go from here with these
important matters. I believe that the importance of providing technical
assistance, building capacity and coordinating with range states as
part of a strategic global wildlife conservation effort is critical. I
also believe that a good framework to provide such assistance exists
but could be substantially expanded.
Regarding the question of the feasibility and implications of
increased coordination between Federal, State and non-governmental
entities involved in wildlife conservation, I believe there are many
complexities and issues here and that the tradeoffs need to be
carefully considered. I don't believe that H.R. 3086, as drafted,
adequately considers the tradeoffs and complexities inherent in such an
effort.
Concerning the ways in which the U.S. may improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of its global wildlife conservation efforts, I believe
that the best way to do this is through the specific authorization of a
sufficiently funded Wildlife Without Borders Program. This program has
developed over many years and its success is a tribute to the
dedication of a dedicated partnership of governmental and non-
governmental conservationists.
Hopefully in the course of this testimony I have answered your
questions regarding H.R. 3086, but if not I look forward to answering
any additional questions you may have. Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo,
for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on these
important matters.
______
Response to questions submitted for the record by J. Craig Potter,
International Wildlife Lawyer, Law Offices of J. Craig Potter
Questions from Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU)
1. You and other witnesses expressed concerns with the new
organizational structures authorized in H.R. 3086. However,
there appeared to be little disagreement among the witnesses
regarding the principal objectives of the bill (i.e., greater
coordination within the Department of the Interior and with
other relevant Federal agencies; expanded public outreach and
education regarding the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife
products; authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders
Program; expansion of training opportunities, especially for
law enforcement capabilities in range states; greater
collaboration with non-Federal NGO stakeholders, especially
utilization of technical and educational assets within the zoo
and aquarium community, etc.). How might you suggest the bill
be amended to clean up the purported organizational clutter
while maintaining the principal objectives?
Response: As I suggested in my oral testimony, I think most of the
purposes of H.R. 3086 could be well addressed by authorizing The
Wildlife Without Borders portion of the bill and establishing an
Advisory Committee to carefully consider and advise the Secretary as
well as the Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'') regarding some of the
other functions suggested in the bill. How you might separate these
functions, however, should be carefully considered.
For example, consideration should be given to moving some of the
functions in H.R. 3086 directly to the Wildlife Without Borders Program
(``WWB''), including possibly: 1) the development of an International
Conservation Action Plan; 2) the implementation of Sections (a) and (b)
of the Public Outreach, Education and Wildlife Awareness Program; 3)
studying the feasibility of implementing section (e) of the Center for
International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships Program, and; 4) the
development of an Enhanced Approach to Law Enforcement.
Regarding the Advisory Committee, I would suggest that
consideration be given to using that committee to: 1) look carefully at
the need for an Institute, with particular emphasis on whether it is
advisable or necessary to split functions away from the FWS to achieve
the objectives of the Act; 2) look carefully at the concept of
International Wildlife Conservation Fellowships as part of an expanded
Public Outreach Program, recognizing that Wildlife Without Borders
could already be pursuing the general programmatic and educational
outreach objectives of Sec.122 (a) and (b); 3) look carefully at the
concept of a Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships
Program, including all of the functions described in sections (a)-(d),
recognizing that Wildlife Without Borders could already be considering
the establishment of an Emergency Rehabilitation and Recovery Grant
Program under Sec 123 (e); 4) look carefully at the feasibility and
advisability of establishing an International Wildlife Conservation
Fund; 5) look carefully at the potential for Enhancing Law Enforcement
Activities, recognizing that Wildlife Without Borders could already be
pursuing this objective with the cooperation of others within FWS or
perhaps even within other agencies, both within DOI as well as
elsewhere, and; 6) look carefully at the feasibility and advisability
of establishing a Global Wildlife Coordination Council. In the absence
of an Institute, the Advisory Committee should be established by the
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service or possibly by the Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks (``AS/FWP''). Either way, the
Advisory Committee should be staffed by FWS and should make specific
recommendations to the Secretary consistent with the broader purposes
of a revised bill.
2. Recognizing that there will likely never be sufficient Federal
appropriations to address all identified needs it is important
that we utilize the contributions of non-Federal stakeholders.
Do you agree? Are there additional ways to formally incorporate
these capabilities beyond the grant programs authorized under
the Multinational Species Conservation Fund? Do you support the
creation of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee
in H.R. 3086?
Response: I do agree that the contributions of non-Federal
stakeholders should be utilized whenever possible, but not at the
expense of other worthy and in some cases competing efforts by those
non-Federal stakeholders. The key, it seems to me, is to increase the
size of the pool of contributions available to address identified
needs, which underscores that the identified needs and the Federal role
in all of this should be carefully considered.
As I mentioned in my oral testimony, use of the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (``NFWF'') to formally incorporate these
capabilities should be considered. I realize that Section 132(d) of
H.R. 3086 establishes an administrative linkage with NFWF, but it may
be possible or even advisable to use the Foundation for these purposes
regardless of whether an International Wildlife Conservation Fund is
established. If it were deemed inadvisable to use NFWF directly, the
NFWF model could be useful in establishing a separately chartered
International Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
As indicated in my answer to question #1, I do support the
establishment of the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee.
3. Do you support the establishment of an International Wildlife
Conservation Fund in the Treasury to provide a means for the
Secretary of the Interior to accept and utilize gifts and
donations? In order to ensure that there is no potential for
conflict of interest, should such a fund be managed by
agreement through a non-Federal entity such as the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation?
Response: I support the concept of such a fund, but as suggested
above, I think the establishment of this fund at this time would be
premature. In my opinion, we need to make certain the Wildlife Without
Borders Program is authorized and adequately funded before we turn our
attention to the establishment of a new international fund. I'm not
sure I understand the potential for a conflict of interest, but as
indicated above, if such a fund were established, I think consideration
could be given to administering it through the NFWF.
4. Dr. Monfort testified that the Smithsonian Institution has recently
created a Conservation Biology Institute whose program
activities are quite similar to the activities proposed for the
Center for International Wildlife Recovery Partnerships in H.R.
3086. Would it make sense to amend the bill to direct the
Secretary and the Smithsonian, through a cooperative agreement,
to develop a partnership to incorporate these capabilities and
the capabilities of the zoo and aquarium community at large, to
enhance U.S. international wildlife conservation capabilities?
If you disagree, please explain why?
Response: Several institutions within the zoo and aquarium
community have programs, some of them long-standing, that are quite
similar to the Conservation Biology Institute mentioned by Dr. Monfort.
An example of such a program that has been in existence for many years
is the Institute for Conservation Research (``ICR'') which was formerly
the Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species (``CRES'') at the
Zoological Society of San Diego's Wild Animal Park. The ICR already
administers and operates a wide variety of conservation programs
employing some 130 people in virtually all of the areas being
considered by the Smithsonian.
As was also mentioned in Dr. Monfort's written statement, a
consortium of land-holding institutions within the zoo community has
already formed the Conservation Centers for Species Survival (``C2S2'')
to work specifically with the FWS to look at many of these same issues.
Without understanding how and why these capabilities need to be
coordinated better than they are now, I think it would be premature to
mandate a role for the Smithsonian or any other zoological institution
to incorporate or coordinate the capabilities of the zoo and aquarium
community at large into this effort.
Questions from Ranking Republican Member Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)
1. At the hearing, you were asked if more could be accomplished for
wildlife conservation if we bolster existing programs instead
of creating a new Institute and Center, as H.R. 3086 would do
if enacted. Can you give some example of programs that should
be enhanced with new legislative authorities and which may be
in need of additional funding?
Response: In my opinion the existing programs that need to be
supported in order to enhance wildlife conservation as envisioned in
H.R. 3086 are those within the Wildlife Without Borders Program. In my
written statement I summarized the excellent track records of the
Species Program, the Regional Program and the Global Program in
leveraging Federal dollars and I feel strongly that enhanced funding in
all of these programs would get the biggest conservation return at this
time.
As indicated in my answer to question #1, above, I also feel that
if the Subcommittee decides to pursue the purposes of Sections 122 and
123 of the existing version of H.R. 3086, it should consider
transferring the General and Educational Outreach components of Section
122 as well as the Rehabilitation and Recovery Grant component of
Section 123 to the Wildlife Without Borders Program. If the
Subcommittee should decide to transfer these additional
responsibilities to the Wildlife Without Borders Program, I would also
recommend transferring the Authorization of Appropriations in both
cases (or whatever portion of those authorizations that are deemed
appropriate) to the Wildlife Without Borders Program to fund these
additional efforts. The possible need for the other components of these
two sections could then be carefully reviewed by the Advisory
Committee.
2. You recommend keeping the Global Wildlife Conservation Advisory
Committee created in H.R. 3086. The bill would have the new
Institute Assistant Director establish the Committee. Would you
recommend that this authority be given to the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service or another entity in the Department
of the Interior?
Response: I cannot think of a more appropriate authority within
Department to carry out this responsibility than the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service unless it might be the AS/FWP. Unfortunately
the AS/FWP has not really engaged on these issues thus far and even if
that office were to take on this responsibility it would probably have
to be staffed by FWS.
3. Do you agree with the Mr. Robert's recommendation that no Institute
employees (or agency employees) should be on the Advisory
Committee?
Response: I do agree with Mr. Robert's recommendation in terms of
the Advisory Committee itself, although I think it would be perfectly
appropriate and probably even preferable for Agency personnel to be
involved in managing and coordinating the activities of the Advisory
Committee.
4. What is your view of the Global Wildlife Coordination Council? Is
it necessary or are existing federal coordination efforts
sufficient? If existing federal coordination efforts should be
enhanced, how should it be done?
Response: While I don't feel existing Federal coordination efforts
are sufficient, I think the establishment of a Global Wildlife
Coordination Council at this time would be premature. In general, I
think the establishment of such a Council may have great value, but I
fear that in the absence of a clearer understanding of how the duties
and responsibilities of the Council will actually be carried out and
given the immense scope of the immediate responsibilities of the
Cabinet Members involved, it is very likely this effort might be wasted
at this time.
In my opinion, the first step here should be to have the Advisory
Committee look carefully at this issue. I also feel that the benefits
of such a Council are likely to take shape more meaningfully following
the passage and implementation of new legislation. The Subcommittee may
want to take a look at the possibility of extending provisional
authority to establish such a Council depending upon the results of
review by the Advisory Committee and after further consideration by the
Secretary.
5. You discuss the necessity of providing technical assistance,
building capacity, and coordinating with range states as part
of a strategic global wildlife conservation effort. How would
you expand the existing framework to make it more successful?
Response: If the watchword is success, I would begin by funding the
Wildlife Without Borders Species Programs more adequately. These
programs have already identified keystone species living in critical
habitats around the planet. As presently structured they provide the
opportunity for congressional oversight and an expanding species-based
framework that increasingly and unavoidably must consider the role of
habitat.
We have been learning for some time now that for conservation to be
truly effective it must be pursued on a larger scale within broader
boundaries defined by natural landscapes and viable ecosystems. As we
learn more about how to address our own conservation needs in the U.S.
we are developing tools and skills that are directly applicable to the
problems that are being encountered in range states. Transfer of these
capabilities through capacity building and the provision of technical
assistance is critical, but it must be done in a way that is consistent
with the actual needs, capabilities and desires of those being given
assistance.
In terms of actually expanding the existing framework to make it
more successful, a critical key from my perspective is the expansion of
the Regional and Global programs of WWB. Looking at the broader
purposes of H.R. 3086 it seems evident to me that many of these
purposes could fit well within expanded Global and Regional programs. I
have previously mentioned the direct transfer of some of the components
of H.R. 3086 to WWB and consideration should be given to using those
components to expand the existing framework of the Regional and Global
Programs of WWB.
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I would think about asking
the Advisory Committee to look at more effective ways to actually
deliver community-based conservation in range states. It really boils
down to how habitat is managed sustainably, both economically and
biologically. Some of the witnesses at the hearing suggested this can
be done relatively easily and cheaply in range states but the
experiences of many NGOs with lots of money over many years tells me
that is not always the case. The need for effective partnerships here
is critical and this is one of the key reasons to emphasize global and
regional coordination among a variety of stakeholders.
6. Why do you believe that ``much of the hope for the future of this
program rests with the Regional and the Global Programs''?
Response: In my opinion the broader scope necessary to address the
health, sustainability and species interdependence of landscapes and
ecosystems mandates that the future of the Wildlife Without Borders
Program must evolve, if it is to evolve in any significant way on a
regional and global basis. The hallmark of the Species Program has been
the ability to identify and respond to specific and in many cases
emergency needs of critically threatened species around the planet.
Central objectives of the regional and global programs should be to
address broader problems such as climate change, human-wildlife
conflict, the need to build local human and institutional capacity and
the need to expand outreach and education to regional and global
stakeholders. These objectives are in many ways remarkably similar to
those of H.R. 3086 and they are what I was referring to when I
expressed my feelings about the future of this program.
In the long run I believe the Regional and Global Programs have the
potential to more effectively deliver more broad-based conservation
benefits than the more traditional local grants approach of the Species
Program. Some of these programs are already being developed within FWS.
Examples include the MENTOR program, supporting a team of African
nationals to address the bushmeat crisis in East Africa and the Western
Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative which has as its purpose the
establishment of a hemisphere-wide cooperative involving governments
and NGOs to address the problems faced by migratory species. These
could be just the tip of the iceberg, but they are, in my opinion the
hope for the future of this program.
______
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Potter. Now, I will
recognize the Members for any questions they may wish to ask,
alternating between the majority and the minority, and allowing
five minutes for each Member, and if you have further
questions, we may go a second round. I will begin with Ms.
Derek.
These questions are, I think, very generic. How can the
United States maintain its leadership role in international
wildlife conservation? Do you have any specific ideas?
Ms. Derek. I really, in the time that I have spent on this
issue and in my travels in an official capacity, I really think
that the best results have been a combination of the U.S.
Government support and NGO's. I think that their knowledge in
the field on the ground and in the communities is vital, and I
think it is the best way our tax dollars get spent on these
important issues.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Why is it important to increase
public awareness among United States consumers regarding the
illegal trade of wildlife?
Ms. Derek. Well, as an American, I was surprised that we
were number two in consuming endangered wildlife, and I believe
that so much of that is a lack of education. I think that most
citizens would not consume these animals if they only knew, and
I think that there are a variety of ways to educate them, and I
think it is vital. I think that we could solve the problem
without getting more involved in law enforcement and
prosecution if we would just use education.
Ms. Bordallo. Education. How has WildAid demonstrated that
public awareness campaigns can change consumer behavior? What
have you done in that area?
Ms. Derek. Our campaigns very much resemble mainstream
commercial advertising. The production is very expensive, and
we use pop icons from around the world especially targeted to
those countries where the consumption of endangered wildlife is
a problem.
So, for instance, in China, we have Jackie Chan, Yao Ming,
and virtually all of the Olympic athletes. We had a very big
campaign during the 2008 Olympics; and we were reaching,
through free air space, sometimes a billion people a week. It
is highly effective, and it is my opinion, having been the
object of the media at one time in my life, that when you take
someone who is so popular and iconic in a culture, and you have
them say that this is not appropriate to consume these
products, I think it is more effective than any legislation or
enforcement.
We just did a study in China, and 55 percent of the
population remember our campaigns and, in some questions, up to
80 percent said that they would not eat shark fin soup again.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I tend to agree with you on that, using
noted personalities and so forth. What is the size of your
organization? What are the numbers?
Ms. Derek. It is very small but highly effective.
Ms. Bordallo. Highly effective and very small.
Ms. Derek. I joined this organization because I meet a lot
of people, very dedicated, wonderful people, regarding this
issue, and they are very good at defining the problem, and
WildAid had a solution that I could truly understand, so that
is why I personally got involved with this.
Ms. Bordallo. Are you represented in all of the states in
the United States and other countries?
Ms. Derek. Mainly international, yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Mainly international.
Ms. Derek. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. All right.
Ms. Derek. We would like to get more involved in this
country with the public awareness and education. I think our
Harrison Ford piece and some of our athletes that we have used
in some of our PSAs will be very beneficial.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, persons like yourself would be able to
develop this, I am sure, and to expand the organization.
Ms. Derek. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, thank you. I have two questions
for Dr. Gould.
Aside from the Administration's stated objections to the
organizational reshuffling, does the Administration support the
goals and activities of the bill, especially increased public
outreach in education, increased emphasis on professional
conservation training here and abroad, and greater cooperation
and coordination with nongovernmental stakeholder
organizations?
Dr. Gould. I can answer that question in a very concise
way: yes.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Good.
Dr. Gould. It is important to recognize that the Fish and
Wildlife Service, as has been indicated by the panel here,
works very closely with NGO communities and with international
entities. We have always recognized the fact that these kinds
of partnerships, outreach, training, appropriate law
enforcement activities, coordination and cooperation is the
best way to get to where we want to be collectively.
Everybody in this room supports international wildlife
conservation, and we are all kind of on the same page, and I am
delighted to point out that all of those entities that you
pointed out are cornerstones for effective partnerships to get
to be the basis of eventually a law that will be very effective
in international conservation activities.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. I guess, then, it would be safe to say
that just the organizational reshuffling is a little concern to
you.
Dr. Gould. Yes. The organizational issue is a major concern
for us. As you are probably aware, we have CITES functions; the
National Park System, due to their Organic Act, has some very
legitimate activities in international wildlife conservation;
the Department of the Interior has the USGS, which is very,
very active in international conservation, both from a
scientific perspective and from a technical-assistance
perspective. There are lots of programs out there based on
their own authorities and their own ``Organic Acts,'' so to
speak, are legitimate activities that need to be recognized in
a broader conservation law that takes this whole international
conservation effort forward.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, perhaps it is just too strung out, and
we need really to bring it all together, and I think this can
be worked out. So we look forward to working with you and your
Department.
Dr. Gould. The Administration looks forward to working with
you further.
Ms. Bordallo. How does the Service handle confiscated wild
and endangered animals, and could that process be simplified
and improved by formal partnerships with veterinary,
zoological, and aquarium facilities?
Dr. Gould. I would have to turn to my experts behind me.
Ms. Bordallo. You can step forward.
Dr. Gould. Can I have Benny Perez, our Chief of Law
Enforcement, with your permission?
Ms. Bordallo. If you could introduce yourself for the
record and just answer that question, please. Yes.
Mr. Perez. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. I have been
here before.
We have six various regulatory authorizations to dispose of
wildlife, including converting it to our own use, eventual sale
of legitimate items for sale, destruction, and returning to the
wild. All of that is codified in Regulation 50[c] of FAR Part
12. We have a National Property Repository in the Denver area
where we do stockpile a lot of the material that we seize that
is utilized for some of the training that we deliver, the
training of our own personnel, and then availability for a
variety of uses. At some point, we make a determination as to
the best use of that stuff, including disseminating it under
our Suitcase for Survival program that we provide to elementary
schools with a training module. Those items are used to further
the conservation message within the U.S.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
Now, I would like to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Brown, if
he has any questions, to please proceed.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses all for being so informative.
My question is to Mr. Potter and, Dr. Gould, you might want
to add in on this, too, and any other members of the panel
equally. In your testimony, you stated that H.R. 3086 may
actually impeded progress already being made under the Wildlife
Without Borders program. Do you believe H.R. 3086 could
diminish the funding available to the existing programs?
Mr. Potter. I think that is possible, Mr. Brown. I think
that is one of the issues that the Subcommittee needs to take
into consideration, and I think that a number of points have
been made here about the unfunded mandates issue. If some of
the programs and reports are required to be done under this
legislation, presumably those may have to be done by the
existing staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is not
clear at all in the bill, and so that would be a concern that I
would have, yes.
Mr. Brown. Dr. Gould, do you want to weigh in on that?
Dr. Gould. Yes, I do. Right now, the international
conservation work that we do in the Fish and Wildlife Service
is maxed out in terms of the amount of money we have to do the
work we are doing. Much more could be done, obviously. If we
were to add increased infrastructure, including many advisory
groups that may be redundant to the kind of CITES advisory
groups already in place, it would require a diversion of
resources that we would have to take from somewhere.
Unfortunately, that ``somewhere'' would be some very effective
programs in the Wildlife Without Borders program, and we would
not like to see that happen.
Obviously, if we work together and minimize unnecessary or
better overlapping infrastructure, we could more effectively
use the resources we have available right now.
Mr. Brown. Let me add further to that question. Would it be
correct to state that you believe more could be accomplished
for wildlife conservation if we bolstered the existing program
instead of creating a new institute and center, as H.R. 3086
does?
Dr. Gould. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brown. Mr. Potter?
Mr. Potter. Yes. I agree with that, and to augment the
point that was made by Rowan, I think one of the things that
H.R. 3086 offers you the opportunity to do is to really look at
the costs here and think about what needs to be done, and that
could be done under the aegis of an advisory committee in
concert with the expansion of our authorization of Wildlife
Without Borders.
Mr. Brown. Would any other members of the panel like to
chime in? Have you got an opinion on it, anybody?
Dr. Wasser, my question is to you. What impact has the
African Elephant Conservation Act had on conserving this
flagship species, and are the right grants being issued by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Dr. Wasser. I think the Elephant Conservation Act has been
extremely effective. I think that they are utilizing their
money very, very effectively. It is an extremely important
mechanism to get funding to outside nations, as well as to
include scientists, such as myself, to be able to develop
methods that can be very effective and can nurture
collaborations between other countries and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Mr. Brown. Ms. Derek, in your statement, you recognized
that there are concerns with aspects of the bill. Would you
support authorizing only the Wildlife Without Borders program?
Ms. Derek. I would have to discuss this with some of the
witnesses, I think, for me to have a concrete opinion on that.
Mr. Brown. But that is your number-one program, isn't it?
Ms. Derek. Yes.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Brown, and now I would like to
recognize the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Mrs.
Christensen.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
also thank the witnesses for their testimony. It is really very
informative as I read through it. I want to also commend our
Chairwoman for her efforts to stop the illegal trafficking of
wildlife and the adverse impact it has on a variety of habitats
and eventually on all of us.
My first question is around the institute. I want to
understand the need for the institute, so maybe I will start
with Ms. Derek and Mr. Roberts on this.
What is it that the institute would do that the Department
of the Interior and the Service is not doing or cannot do?
Mr. Roberts. You are asking me to provide a rationale for a
part of the bill that is not our highest priority from the
point of view of WWF.
Mrs. Christensen. OK.
Mr. Roberts. Certainly, from our point of view, the
essential thing is to strengthen the existing programs but also
to strengthen coordination between them. It appears there are a
variety of ways to strengthen coordination.
Our plea is to simplify rather than to complicate, to
coordinate without complications, and to simplify the
administration of this program, which means relying as much as
possible on existing programs and making sure that the
financing, to the greatest extent possible, is managed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service itself.
So you are asking me to provide a rationale for something
that is not the core of the bill that we support at this point
in time.
Mrs. Christensen. Ms. Derek, did you want to add?
Ms. Derek. I would agree with Mr. Roberts. I think that
unless it can enhance the work that is already being done by
the Fish and Wildlife, I do not think it is at the core either.
Mrs. Christensen. OK. I wondered about that. So maybe, in
part, you have answered my next question. I have worked with
the Coral Reef Task Force, and the council seems to be modeled
on that, and the Coral Reef Task Force has been very effective.
Let me go to Dr. Gould first. Since you are supporting
codifying the Wildlife Without Borders, what about the council,
in your opinion, and if it is in your testimony, I apologize; I
did not get a chance to read all the way through it.
Dr. Gould. Well, the proposed creation of the Global
Wildlife Coordination Council is also of some concern. As
written, the creation of this body would appear to diminish or
conflict with legal authorities that have already been
delegated to the Department and the Service by codifying an
oversight role in other departments. So those are problems that
need to be worked through. We absolutely support coordination
and cooperation, but this particular structure could be
problematic for those reasons.
Mrs. Christensen. Did anyone else want to talk to the
importance of the council in the bill? Mr. Roberts, is that
something that is one of the core parts you support?
Mr. Roberts. The council, in and of itself, seems like a
perfectly worthwhile idea, bringing together different agencies
with interests in wildlife. It is interesting. I have another
meeting following on the Arctic. When you look at all of the
different parts of the U.S. Government that touch conservation
and wildlife, certainly coordination is essential, and having
like mechanisms to make that happen are essential. In the case
of the Arctic, it is of interest to Interior, to the State
Department, to the White House, to the Navy, to Fish and
Wildlife, and more.
Having mechanisms for the U.S. Government to come together
with coordinated, coherent planning is essential, particularly
because, in a lot of parts of the world, the conservation of
wildlife, the rule of law, sustainable use of resources is as
much a security issue, as much an issue of development, as it
is a conservation issue, per se. So having a mechanism to bring
together the intelligence of the U.S. Government in a
concentrated way, particularly as it relates to these programs,
is important.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands. I have a couple of questions for Dr. Roberts.
Could the U.S. Government be doing a better job of giving
organizations like your own a seat at the table when it comes
to the creation and execution of an international conservation
strategy?
Mr. Roberts. We at WWF, and also the wildlife trade
monitoring program we call TRAFFIC that we created with IUCN,
have been grateful for the partnership we have had with the
U.S. Government which goes back many decades. Could it be
stronger? Sure. Are we complaining? No.
We have such a close partnership with government agencies,
and there is such a track record of success in places like the
Congo and Africa with particular species, in the Terai Arc in
Nepal, which is a centerpiece. Actually, there is an exhibit in
the National Zoo which talks about this partnership
conservation effort in the Terai Arc in Nepal. So we are
grateful that the bill emphasizes those partnerships, and if
makes them stronger, great.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Roberts. I have one last point. I am sorry.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. Go ahead.
Mr. Roberts. The other thing which is true is that for
every dollar which is expended through Fish and Wildlife, in
partnership with NGO's and the like, those dollars are
multiplied sometimes fivefold, and so it is only smart for the
government to encourage such partnerships because not only are
we able to bring expertise and a global reach, but also we are
able to bring financing from other sources to bear on the
problem.
Ms. Bordallo. I have another question for you, Dr. Roberts.
How can the structures created within this particular bill be
changed to better achieve the intent of greater coordination
and cooperation within the Department of the Interior and among
U.S. agencies in international wildlife conservation efforts?
Mr. Roberts. That is a great question. Certainly, the first
order of business would be to make full and best use of the
structures that currently exist.
Ms. Bordallo. To make the what?
Mr. Roberts. The structures that currently exist before
creating new ones, and I am sure our staff would be happy to
work with Members of the Committee staff in looking at models
of how that might work.
Another point that I have made is the financing of this
work, to use the Fish and Wildlife agencies as the first
recourse to finance that work before using other entities. I am
sure there are a lot of other ideas that we could bring to the
table and are happy to work with your Committee to bring those
forward.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, we are looking forward to it, and that
is the reason for a hearing, so we can get some of the input
from you. I am a strong believer in coordinated efforts and
consolidating. Since I have been a Member of this Committee--I
do not know--I just asked the staff here--how many
organizations do we work with? There are over hundreds of them
some of them with the same purpose when they were organized. So
it is very confusing, and sometimes you do not get as much done
when they are just so spread out like that.
So this is the reason for the bill, and we just want a
little tighter coordination, and I think it would be much more
beneficial in the long run.
Mr. Roberts. Madam Chairwoman, our written testimony
includes some very specific recommendations----
Ms. Bordallo. Solutions.
Mr. Roberts [continuing]. Regarding structure,
simplification, coordination, so I----
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. The staff will take a look at
that.
Mr. Roberts. Great. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Gould, you mentioned the fund established
in this bill would create a conflict of interest because the
same nongovernmental organizations that could donate to the
fund would also be seeking resources from it. Now, why is this
a concern now? It is my understanding that the current
multinational species conservation funds allow the same kind of
thing, and no concerns about conflicts of interest have been
raised before.
Dr. Gould. Well, as I understand it, these donated funds
would also be potentially donated by entities that could come
under both our regulatory and law enforcement functions or
oversight, and so it could set up a situation where there might
be a conflict of interest or some issue that might be looked on
in a nonethical way. So we are concerned about having a
structure in place that would put our people in a position of
working with people that are contributing a lot of money to
this particular function.
You have to remember, we do permit a lot of activities in
terms of trade in pelts. We permit a lot of activity related to
hunting, trophies. We permit a lot of activity related to legal
trade within the international community, legal trade through
CITES, and so on and so forth. So the concern is, whatever
structure gets set up obviates that potential that people would
be questioning our role with those folks.
Ms. Bordallo. So, for the record, Dr. Gould, prior to this
bill being introduced, you had these concerns, the conflict and
so forth.
Dr. Gould. Yes. We have these concerns right now.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. That is what I wanted to hear.
Mrs. Christensen, you go ahead, and I have two more.
Mrs. Christensen. It is related to the fund as well, and I
was wondering if, given the concerns of conflict of interest,
and I would ask this of anyone on the panel, does anyone have a
recommendation for how that can be addressed and maybe a
different structure for the fund or any other way than how it
is presented in the bill? Is there some other way that we could
do that and avoid a conflict of interest? Should a foundation
be set up like the National Park Foundation, if there are any
suggestions? You can go ahead, Mr. Roberts, if you have one.
You did not. OK.
Mr. Potter. I have a thought on that. It strikes me that
you have a similarity here. You mentioned the Park Fund. The
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an entity that does
similar work that allows matching activities, and it is an
entity that is outside the structure of the Interior Department
but actually started within the structure of the Interior
Department, and that is something to think about possibly.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Madam Chair. If there are no
other answers, that is my only other question.
Dr. Gould. I would like to make one other point.
Mrs. Christensen. Sure.
Dr. Gould. Apparently, the structure that we have right
now, any donation specifically----
Ms. Bordallo. Could you speak up a little bit?
Dr. Gould.--specifically, donations go right into our
Multinational Species Conservation Fund. It is a very pointed
activity, and there is little chance that that money--there is
any conflict of interest that could result from that kind of
activity. That is a grant program for the five multi-species
grant programs that we administer.
The concern is that law enforcement comes under this
institute, and if there was a general donation to this
institute for general programs, that could constitute a major
problem, and that is what I meant by we just do not see a way
around that problem. I am sure that there are structures that
we could come up with that would be beneficial, but that is a
particular problem with this bill.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands. I have two questions for Dr. Monfort.
Why is it important, Doctor, to engage the conservation
community, especially zoo and aquarium stakeholders, in
assisting the Federal government in the conservation of
wildlife?
Dr. Monfort. Well, as I mentioned in my previous remarks,
the zoo community consists of more than 200 organizations and,
collectively, they have a tremendous capacity to help in terms
of conserving species in a variety of different ways. Species
recovery programs are one key way.
Even small zoos can participate in doing recovery programs
on species like amphibians, for example, where they do not need
extensive facilities, but they happen to have scientific
expertise or capacity.
Larger zoological organizations, the larger ones, like the
Chicago Zoological Society or the San Diego Zoo, a number of
other zoos, including the Smithsonian and Bronx Zoo and so on,
have quite an impressive capacity to do science, capacity
building, training, and do that on a pretty wide scale already.
So I think what we are talking about is a resource that
already exists and is already making a strong contribution but
that has a much greater potential than is currently being
exploited, and I think that really relates to the whole issue
of partnership, the importance of partnership that is outlined
in the bill, the kinds of partnerships we are working around,
for example, under the Global Tiger Initiative that we are
doing, working with other zoos, with World Wildlife Fund, with
the World Bank, and so on.
So the zoo community is part of the conservation community,
and it is open to becoming more involved and more engaged in
conservation activities, so I think it is a very strong
constituency on a number of levels that are relevant for the
bill.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Doctor. One other question: Is it
helpful to have a program that authorizes the Secretary to
reimburse zoos and aquariums for costs related to the care and
recovery and rehabilitation of injured, sick, or seized
wildlife, and what limits should there be on such a program?
Should certain facilities be identified, or should the program
be available to all facilities?
Dr. Monfort. There are already a large number of zoos that
are engaged in wildlife rehabilitation, some that work in
partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service and state
wildlife agencies, so that is something that is already
ongoing, and I am sure that those zoos with that capacity would
very much appreciate having the opportunity to recover costs
related to those activities.
It is, however, important to recognize there is a limited
capacity, and the species that are selected for those sorts of
programs ought to have appropriate conservation prioritization
put to them. We cannot become a clearinghouse for every animal
that has been confiscated or recovered, and so for those that
are of high priority and have conservation value, then that
would certainly be appropriate, but it is also equally
appropriate to make sure that any organization involved in
taking care of these animals is meeting the highest standards
that we have to offer of animal care.
I believe we have that under the Animal Welfare Act, but
even way above and beyond that, we have the ability now, with
modern zoological practice, to provide really outstanding care,
and the AZA sets really tight standards, and I would think that
that would be a good starting point for setting standards for
organizations that were involved in that kind of work.
Ms. Bordallo. When you said that the zoos, many of them
already have this in place, what percentage of the zoos across
the Nation would you say are carrying on with this?
Dr. Monfort. I do not know the percentage. Actually, it was
going around on the director's lists for the last couple of
weeks. I think it is actually a fairly small percentage. It is
quite a liability to take on, and you end up warehousing
animals that take up a lot of space and resources. I think that
you would see the potential for participation to increase if
funding were made available.
Ms. Bordallo. Yes. When you said some of the zoos are
already, I figured it might be a large majority.
Dr. Monfort. It is probably a minority, and those zoos are
taking it out of hide basically to participate in those
programs, by and large.
Ms. Bordallo. And then I have two other questions for Dr.
Wasser. Can you elaborate on some of the broader impacts of
illegal wildlife trade?
Dr. Wasser. Yes. I think one of the biggest problems facing
nations is acquiring hard currency in many of these poor
countries, and one of the most reliable sources of hard
currency is their natural resources. So, frequently, natural
resources are utilized to generate hard currency to keep
regimes in power, and this has tremendous impacts on
biodiversity.
If you look at the effects of the illegal timber trade,
right now, that is probably one of the most egregious crimes
going on. This impacts climate change around the world. If you
look at the ability of forest structure to recover, and you
consider the amount of poaching of African elephants that is
occurring in central African forests, which is one of our most
important sources of carbon capture, and you have elephants
which disperse billions of seeds annually and, right now, the
numbers of elephants in that area have gone from 200,000 down
to numbers probably near 15,000 elephants, the whole forest
structure is likely to change in the very near future.
So these are some of the impacts that are likely to happen
and, as Ms. Derek said, there is also a serious relationship
between the illegal wildlife trade, especially the bush meat
trade, and the spread of emergent diseases. So these are all
very, very serious impacts that will have repercussions over
the long term, and sometimes they are hard to see in the short
term.
Ms. Bordallo. I have another question. Why focus on source
countries as opposed to consumer countries?
Dr. Monfort. Well, one of the problems is that if you look
at the wildlife trade, right now, just the liberalization of
trade laws to promote global trade has resulted in a situation
where there are nearly a million containers being shipped
around the world on practically a daily basis, and Customs is
able to inspect about one percent of these.
So when you think about that, plus the fact that these
crimes are very, very low priority, once the wildlife products
leave a country, it is virtually impossible to track them
effectively. We get lucky a couple of times, but most of the
time it is really a very, very difficult task.
The source countries can defend their wildlife much, much
more reliably. They just need tools to direct them to the
proper sources. They have done it in the past and, relatively
speaking, it does not take a lot of money. It takes vehicles,
gasoline, and perhaps some munitions, and really the thought
that people care, and that will allow you to really contain
this trade, prevent it from getting into the global market
where you cannot trace it, and it will thwart the ineffective
prosecution that is happening in this trade right now.
Ms. Bordallo. I thank you very much for your answer to
that, and I want to thank all of the witnesses for their
participation in the hearing today. Your answers will certainly
assist us as we go forward with this legislation.
I want to thank Dr. Gould, Bo Derek, Mr. Carter Roberts,
Dr. Monfort, Dr. Wasser, and J. Craig Potter for being with us.
Before we adjourn, I would like to thank one of our staff
members, our clerk, Megan Maassen, for her dedication and her
work in this Committee. I have traveled with her to hearings
throughout the country. This is her last hearing with us today,
and her abilities, spirit, and smile will truly be missed. So
let us give her a hand. Megan?
[Applause.]
Ms. Bordallo. So if there is no further business before the
Subcommittee, the Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the
Subcommittee and our witnesses for their participation here
this afternoon, and the Subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[A statement submitted for the record by John F. Calvelli,
Wildlife Conservation Society, follows:]
Statement of John F. Calvelli, Executive Vice President,
Public Affairs, Wildlife Conservation Society
This statement is submitted in support of H.R. 3086, Global
Wildlife Conservation, Coordination and Enhancement Act and includes
recommendations that are designed to significantly improve this
legislation. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) welcomes this
legislation's establishment of an overarching international wildlife
conservation program to facilitate broader international coordination
and enhance conservation efforts at the Department of the Interior. WCS
applauds the Committee's leadership on this legislation's comprehensive
attempt to deal with conservation challenges such as habitat loss,
illegal wildlife trade, climate change and emerging wildlife diseases
through the authorization of the Wildlife Without Borders program,
creation of an international wildlife institute, strengthened law
enforcement and public education to reduce threats to wildlife,
increased commitment to international wildlife treaty obligations such
as CITES, support for captive breeding and wildlife recovery; and
greater U.S. government collaboration in supporting global wildlife
conservation.
While H.R. 3086 laces together the many vital components of
delivering U.S. government assistance to global wildlife conservation,
WCS remains concerned about this legislation being an unfunded mandate
for the Department of the Interior without specific mention of
authorization of appropriations levels for key sections of the bill
that cover wildlife and landscape conservation. WCS, through its
economic investment projections for conservation, has been able to
estimate that for select landscapes such as the Maya Bio Reserve in
Central America and the Eastern Steppe of Mongolia alone, it would take
anywhere in the range of $52 million to be able to implement lasting
conservation strategies that would ensure the biological richness of
these key landscapes over the next decade. WCS understands that the
U.S. government cannot undertake the sole responsibility of providing
conservation assistance globally. However, the cost of implementing a
meaningful international wildlife conservation program would roughly be
$100 million annually--$ 50 million each for the Wildlife Without
Borders regional and global programs (Sec. 121)--which would not take
into account the investments covering the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds and the other components of this bill such as
captive breeding, curbing illegal wildlife trade, delivering
conservation education, strategic planning for future conservation
investments and strengthening inter-agency coordination. In the absence
of these authorization levels, the aspirations of this important
legislation would fall short of delivering upon its mandate.
WCS is also concerned about the proposed delegation of management
authority of the International Wildlife Conservation Fund (Sec. 132) to
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. While recognizing the
contributions of NFWF to date, WCS believes the traditional
responsibility of investing and reinvesting federal funds or accepting
donations for the Fund must remain within the federal government.
Existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service international programs are
administered by the Secretary of the Interior in concert with the
fiduciary role of the Secretary of the Treasury. It is recommended that
these functions not be altered by this legislation.
WCS is supportive of enhancing greater coordination (Sec. 201)
between federal agencies that would elevate wildlife conservation
through the highest ranks of the U.S. government while recognizing that
this legislation needs to further clarify the role and purpose of each
federal agency in order for an effective coordination model to work.
The international conservation community currently benefits from modest
levels of funding transferred via inter-agency mechanisms. For example,
the U.S. State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development
have regularly supported the work of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
on central African great ape conservation through the Congo Basin
Forest Partnership (CBFP) and the Central African Regional Program for
the Environment (CARPE). It is recommended that such examples of inter-
agency coordination that have delivered invaluable support to
conservation on the ground are strengthened. It is also recommended
that H.R. 3086 include provisions to clarify that the Secretary of the
Interior remains a convener of a global wildlife coordination council
and does not diminish the role of other federal agencies whose primary
role is to advance U.S. foreign policy and assistance.
WCS recommends that H.R. 3086 include regional pilot projects in
the U.S. monitoring wildlife in large ports of entry to curb illegal
wildlife trade and address health risks posed to humans, wildlife and
local ecosystems. The pathogens that affect wildlife have, in many
cases, destabilized trade and caused significant economic damage that
have exceeded an estimated $100 billion in losses to the global economy
since the mid-1990s. With increased international travel and trade and
threats such as climate change affecting both wildlife and humans,
monitoring wildlife at ports of entry for illegal trade and potential
health risks will help us predict where trouble spots will occur and
plan how to prepare for them. These efforts would complement the
increased education and law enforcement capabilities that this
legislation proposes.
While WCS applauds this legislation for providing incentives to
organizations caring for rescued animals (Sec. 123), we remain
concerned about the status of confiscated and rescued animals.
Oftentimes, monitoring large ports for wildlife trade and disease
result in confiscation of thousands of wildlife species. As an
institution constantly called upon by law enforcement and quarantine
authorities in the New York metropolitan area to care for confiscated
animals, WCS is confronted with this responsibility on a weekly basis.
This responsibility has significant impacts on the conservation value
of a species and management of additional species in our collections.
It is recommended that this legislation clarify that captive breeding
of rescued or confiscated animals not be incentivized.
The Department of the Interior plays a pivotal and catalytic role
in global wildlife conservation. H.R. 3086 will help develop new
relationships and strengthen existing ones through increased
collaboration among U.S. Government agencies. WCS stands in support of
any U.S. government investment made for global conservation and
continues to remain committed to leveraging financial assistance
through private, corporate and philanthropic sources. WCS looks forward
to working with the Committee to strengthen this legislation for
effective and efficient implementation of on the ground global wildlife
conservation programs.
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Hon. Craig Manson,
Former Assistant Secretary of Interior, follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Craig Manson,
Former Assistant Secretary of Interior, Now Distinguished Professor &
Lecturer in Law, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy, University
of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law
Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Mr. Brown, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee:
It is a singular pleasure to be able to testify on this very
important matter. I had the honor of testifying before the Committee
many times between February 2002 and December 2005 when I served as
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. In
that position, I had responsibility for the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. I paid particular
attention to the international activities of both bureaus. Twice (2002,
Santiago; 2004) Bangkok), I led the United States Delegation to the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). I was actively
involved with our participation in the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.
I also held a separate Presidential commission as United States
Government Representative to the joint U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Fishery
Commission. Additionally, I was the Secretary's designee as co-chair of
the United States Coral Reef Task Force.
I am now and have been since January 2006, a faculty member at the
University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law, resident in the
Capital Center for Public Law and Policy. I teach about, and research
issues of policy development at all levels of government.
From the foregoing experiences, I have an appreciation of the
issues that the drafters and supporters of H.R. 3086 wish to address.
In my view, however, this well-intentioned bill is seriously flawed.
Here are the reasons that I believe this bill is unnecessary and
less useful than the status quo:
1. The bill creates unnecessary bureaucratic structures: The
``Institute for International Wildlife Conservation'' is a high-minded
notion to be sure. However, for many decades the Department of the
Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies have
successfully implemented international treaties and carried out
Congressional mandates and Executive initiatives with respect to
international wildlife conservation. The Institute created in Section
101 would duplicate the functions of some other units of government and
outright usurp the role of others.
As for coordination of Federal, state, local, tribal and NGO
wildlife conservation efforts, the bill is not clear as to how much
involvement the Institute would have in the municipal affairs of these
entities. In any event, the existing processes for development of the
United States positions in CITES is a model for interagency cooperation
and public participation in international wildlife conservation
policymaking. This existing model does not require additional
bureaucratic structures and can be replicated easily in other aspects
of international wildlife conservation policymaking.
With respect to the Global Wildlife Coordination Council, there are
already plenty of things for busy Cabinet officers and their seconds to
do without these additional meetings to track and attend. Nothing would
be gained from adding to the schedules a Congressionally mandated duty
when in fact, the Executive Branch, through Administrations of both
parties, has fashioned adequate mechanisms to address the coordination
issues that the Council would oversee. On the other hand, the Council
represents another diversion of Cabinet members' time, attention and
funds.
The proposed ``Center for International Recovery Partnerships''
would at best duplicate the functions of other Fish and Wildlife
Service and DOI programs. Indeed, the creation of the Center as
proposed could eventually harm the programs which for many years have
accomplished the intended goals without the additional overhead costs
that inevitably accompany a restructuring like this one: adding
positions with haughty titles like ``Executive Director'' and such.
2. The bill goes beyond Congressional oversight to micromanage the
Fish and Wildlife Service, an Executive Branch agency. There is no
question but that Congress has a right and a duty to legislate in areas
within its constitutional powers and to see that its mandates are
carried out. However, it is the President who is given the
constitutional power to implement the laws passed by Congress. This
power is conferred under Article II, section 3; the President ``shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' This includes the
power to determine how and by what means ``the laws be faithfully
executed.'' Necessarily, then, Congress is obligated to give the
Executive Branch the leeway to do this.
H.R. 3086 amounts to nothing so much as a preferred organizational
plan for one part of one bureau of a Cabinet Department. Such a thing
Congress should not indulge. When it comes to a matter of ``preferred''
methods, the Executive has the greater prerogative as long as ``the
laws be faithfully executed.''
Not only does H.R. 3086 interfere with the Executive Branch's
programmatic prerogatives, the bill also imposes many new and
unnecessary reporting requirements for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
These reports duplicate other reporting requirements and divert
administrative resources from other tasks.
Furthermore, the bill also offends separation-of-powers
sensibilities by mandating ``Action Plans'' and ``Action Strategies.''
The development of such specific products should be left to the
discretion of the Executive Branch.
3. The bill discourages innovation in species conservation
worldwide. As written, the bill demonstrates a bias in favor of
traditional approaches to species conservation, some of which may have
little or no application in some foreign jurisdictions. Additionally,
the bill does nothing to encourage new research or the exploration of
scientificapproaches to conservation that depart from the present
orthodoxical edifices. These facts serve to heighten a perception of
the bill as simply repackaging existing programs unnecessarily to the
benefit of no one.
The United States over the last decade has remained exceptionally
influential in the area of international wildlife conservation. Our
accomplishments at CITES in Santiago, Bangkok, and The Hague,
demonstrate that as fact. At Bangkok, for example, the State Department
and the Interior Department took the opportunity to highlight illegal
trafficking and to forge partnerships with the ASEAN states.
The success of existing U.S. programs can also be seen in the
desire of certain coral dependent states to participate in our coral
reef programs. The successes, I believe, come from the fact that a more
cooperative and collaborative approach was taken with our foreign
colleagues. They were not treated as ignorant innocents who had to be
shown the right way--they were rather regarded as important partners of
equal standing in overcoming common problems. I think the tone of H.R.
3086 may encourage a return to the paternalistic bad old days.
Finally, I concur with the testimony of the Administration that
portions of this bill could seriously hinder our broader international
efforts to conserve wildlife globally, particularly those efforts
undertaken within the mandate of other Federal agencies.''
I thank the Chair and the Committee for this opportunity to present
my views on H.R. 3086 and I can be contacted by the staff in the event
of further questions.