1973 polar bear range state agreement

Transcription

1 1973 polar bear range state agreement Trade Working Group Recommendations The Trade Working Group of the Polar Bear Range States proposes six recommendations regarding trade in polar bear for endorsement by the Polar Bear Range States at the 2015 meeting in Ilulissat Greenland, September 1-3, Should those recommendation be accepted they are intended to provide useful guidance to the range states, other CITES parties and the CITES secretariat. The recommendations result from completion of the Trade Working Group s project International Cooperation for Better Enforcement, Reporting, and Data for Polar Bears which was designed to address two statements set forth in the Declaration of the Responsible Ministers of the Polar Bear Range States (Moscow, Russian Federation, 4 of December 2013): Explore mechanisms to counter the threat of poaching and illegal trade in polar bears and polar bear parts, including enhanced cooperation among law enforcement agencies at the national, regional and global levels. To strengthen international cooperation to improve the clarity of legal trade data through the adoption of more effective reporting and monitoring practices and help address illegal trade through the adoption of procedures to better identify legally traded specimens and to verify the authenticity of trade documents. The Trade Working Group members provided input on current practices for each of the six topics. A report Review and Analysis of Canadian Trade in Polar Bears from was also commissioned by the Range States Trade Working Group and used to inform the recommendations. 1

2 Recommendation 1: Terms for CITES Parties to use in CITES Annual Reports To improve the clarity of legal trade data, consistency is needed regarding the terms and units used by exporters and importers in the CITES Annual Reports which are provided to and compiled by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP WCMC). Consistent use of terms will help avoid confusion and double-counting of polar bear in international trade. The Range States recommend that exporters and importers use the terms that are used by the Range States. While it is not possible to have a single set of terms for all polar bear imports and exports, due to differing requirements of national legislation, the Range States recommend that CITES Parties use terms and units in their CITES annual reports for the polar bear parts in trade as they are used by each polar bear range state. The document Range States Trade Working Group Project: Completed Tasks (see part Ai) contains the full list of appropriate terms to use for each Range State. Further, it is recommended that the Polar Bear Range States and other CITES Parties use the most precise available term to describe the specimen, and specifically: Whenever possible, not use the imprecise terms: plate and derivatives When the specimens traded for scientific purposes are hair or teeth, use the terms hair and teeth instead of scientific specimen in order to be more precise Only use the term claw when the claw is not attached to the hide or body Use the term bone for uncarved bones and the term carving for carved bones Finally, it is recommended that the specimen code (as per the terminology used in the Guidelines for the preparation and submission of CITES annual reports) be included in the box provided on the CITES Permit to describe the specimen (Box 5). The Range States recommend that the Trade Working Group provide the terms and units used by the Polar Bear Range States in the form of a CITES Notification for the CITES Secretariat to circulate to CITES Parties and UNEP WCMC. 2

3 Recommendation 2: Method to Estimate the Number of Polar Bears in International Trade The Range States adopt and recommend use of the following method when estimating the number of polar bears in international trade. A shared method is critical for understanding and avoiding confusion on the number of bears in trade. The Range States further recommend that when estimating the number of bears in international trade using the CITES Trade Data, it is recognized that polar bears parts in international trade are not necessarily from bears harvested in the same year they are exported. The parts in international trade are from harvest in many different hunting seasons which can date back several decades. The Range States recommend that the method including rationale be shared with the CITES Parties through a CITES Notification and posted on the Range States website. Rationale for specimen types to select in the analysis: The ultimate goal in trade data analysis is to inform an evaluation of conservation impact. Information most useful for evaluating conservation impact is the number of bears in international trade. The CITES Trade Database offers two report types: a Gross/Net Trade Tabulations report and a Comparative Tabulations report. It is imperative that the Comparative Tabulations Report type is used for the analysis as the gross data sums all trade transactions including re-exports and cases where the same transaction is simply reported differently (e.g., 100 skins reported by exporter and the same 100 skins reported as trophies by importer would be summed as 200). The recommended approach to arrive at the number of bears in trade is outlined below and uses the trade terms skins, bodies, and trophies. In order to provide the best estimate of the number of bears in trade, the approach only includes those specimens that indicate harvested whole bears. Specimens from non-lethal collection (e.g., hair) are not included as they do not represent a harvested bear and they do not have a conservation impact. The rationale for choosing skins, bodies and trophies takes into account: (1) larger specimens are more representative of a harvested bear (a whole skin for example vs. a skin piece); and (2) specimens infrequently traded have little impact especially when not the main product that is also in trade. Skulls are sometimes traded separately from a skin or a body. Typically, however, the body is also in trade and already accounts for one bear. The number of skulls in international trade in 2012 to 2013 was approximately 9 % of the trade compared to 88 % of the trade represented by skins, bodies, and trophies (CITES export data from the Canadian Permit Database for accessed September 29, 2014). The report Review and Analysis of Canadian Trade in Polar Bears also shows that inclusion of skulls is not important for estimating the number of bears in international trade in the case of hunting trophies, skulls accompany hides, and in other cases, tag numbers for exported skulls could be matched to tag numbers for exported hides. Thus, it is not recommended to take skulls into account to avoid double counting. Finally, trade of live animals is not taken into account because the trade is not frequent, and when it occurs, it usually involves specimens bred in captivity (e.g., zoo) not bears taken from the wild. 3

4 Steps for Data Analysis to Estimate the Number of Bears in Trade from Each Range State: 1. Open the CITES Trade Database at : 2. Select a year range 3. Select Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Norway, Russian Federation, and United States for exporting countries 4. Select All countries for importing countries 5. Select All sources 6. Select All purposes 7. Select bodies, skins, and trophies for trade terms 8. Search by taxon : Ursus maritimus 9. Select output type csv 10. Select report type Comparative Tabulations 11. Get the report In the report: 1. Select a year 2. Sort the data by origin 3. Delete all the records where the origin is provided (these data represent re-exports) 4. Sort the data by exporter Auto sum the exported reported quantity for each range state exporting country (Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation and United States). 4

5 Recommendation 3: Administrative Procedures to Verify CITES Export Permits Consistent with the standard procedure adopted by CITES, the Range States agree that they will facilitate verification of permits in the following ways: Management Authorities for polar bear range states will ensure accurate contact information for the Management Authority on the CITES website under National Contacts and Information. Any country that wishes to verify the authenticity of the CITES documentation for a polar bear export should make a request for verification of CITES export permit to the relevant Management Authority of the range state of export. On request, the Management Authority of the range state of export will provide information to allow permit verification (e.g., provide a copy of the permit as issued or verify a copy of the permit provided by the importing country). The Management Authority will provide information within 15 business days of the request for verification. If this is impossible, the Management Authority shall reply within 15 business days and indicate a date by which they consider it will be possible to provide the information requested. These administrative procedures shall be submitted to the CITES Secretariat for publication as a Notification so that all CITES Parties can be made aware of how range states will facilitate verification of polar bear export permits. 5

6 Recommendation 4: Coordinated Information Sharing Among Enforcement Programs The Range States agree to create a new Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) as an information sharing mechanism a Range States Enforcement Network. The Network would consist of members of the polar bear range states and would build on and improve existing mechanisms for information sharing and collaboration between range state enforcement authorities. It is assumed that the goal would be to have the ability to share enforcement information on polar bear among the Range State countries noting that it would be up to the members of the network to develop and agree to their terms of reference and areas of work. It is noted in the case of Greenland that enforcement is the responsibility of Denmark when it comes to Interpol and the Range States recommend inviting Denmark to be a member of the Network, particularly should international trade resume from Greenland (a voluntary international export stop is in place). Regarding Existing Networks: NAWEG and CEC EWG Canada and the USA are both members of the North American Wildlife Enforcement Group (NAWEG), a Wildlife Enforcement Network (WEN) comprising of USA, Canada and Mexico and the Commission on Environmental Cooperation's Enforcement Working Group (CEC EWG), whose parties are also the USA, Canada and Mexico. Information sharing for enforcement purposes between the Parties is permitted as all are signatory the North American Accord on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC). Due to security concerns (enforcement information invariably includes personal information), the countries cannot grant access to each other s' databases or send data extracted from the database containing personal information. The countries can, however, send each other sanitized data extracts (i.e. no personal information). Some personal information can also be shared on a case by case basis for compliance monitoring purposes. NAWEG and the CEC-EWG have provided opportunities for Canadian and American enforcement officials to meet in person and to develop professional relationships, which has facilitated the use of the information sharing provisions of the NAAEC. Interpol Members of Interpol are permitted to share and transmit enforcement information to each other. This is an important conduit for the transmission of enforcement information among range states and other importing states. Regarding creation of a new Wildlife Enforcement Network for Range States: Membership in a WEN encourages and enhances the transmission of information between parties. While the Interpol conduit is available for all member countries to use, and Canada and the US have bilateral arrangements, actual transmission may be infrequent. It may not occur to an officer in a range state to share polar bear enforcement information to enforcement officers in other range states that they have never met. Therefore, we recommend the creation of a new Range State Enforcement Network for polar bear would promote the exchange of enforcement information via Interpol, or the creation of information sharing agreements that would permit more direct sharing. 6

7 Recommendation 5: Tagging The goal of the trade working group was to better understand tagging procedures used by the Range States in order to identify procedures that allow for traceability of polar bear parts and products in international trade as permitted under CITES. The Range States recommend adoption and implementation of the following tagging procedures for harvested polar bears in international trade and recommend that these procedures be considered for implementation by other Range States, for example, should international export of polar bear parts and products resume from Greenland. Tagging procedures: Overseen by the responsible government Issue tags per hunting season in accordance with allowable harvest levels/quotas Tag all harvested bears and all bears taken for defense of life and property At time of tagging o Collect and store tissue/hair samples o Record tag number along with information on sex, age class, date and location of harvest, name of hunter and circumstances of the hunt. Tag remains with bear skin throughout the tanning/taxidermy process Tag remains with bear skin or mount throughout the trade chain including to final destination and in private possession If the original tag is damaged, the tag must be reported as damaged and a replacement tag with a new number be re-issued and recorded by the responsible government Mark the skin or mount with other identification tool that corresponds to the tag number (e.g., microchip) Tag features: Tamper-resistant, locking tag Heat resistant and resistant to chemical and mechanical processing associated with tanning and taxidermy Unique alphanumeric number applied by permanent stamping that includes the year of harvest and indicates the area of harvest (e.g., province, territory, state, management unit) as needed Documentation: Tag number and corresponding identification tools (e.g., recorded in harvest reports and databases of the responsible government Tag number recorded in documents supporting transfer of ownership Tag number recorded on documents that permit sub-national trade (e.g., export from a territory to a province within Canada or export from Alaska to another State within the United States) Tag number recorded on the CITES export permit along with the dimensions of the polar bear hide or mount Tagging and recording information as per the procedures above as possible for seized illegally harvested bears is also recommended. 7

8 Recommendation 6: Tracking Harvested Bears in International Trade In order to track harvested bears in international trade and understand/monitor the quantity of polar bears in international trade, the ability to link the harvest tag number with the polar bear part with the CITES export permit number is needed. There can also be a lag between date of harvest and date of international export and therefore information on harvest date and date of CITES permit issuance is also needed. The Ranges States recommend that information be shared publicly on the parts in international trade from harvested bears (samples such as hair, blood and tissue for scientific research and live bears would not be included). The data fields recommended for inclusion are: country, specimen type (e.g., skin, bone, skull), harvest tag number, date of harvest, the number of the issued CITES export permit and the year of issue. Since Canada is a Range State that currently allows international export of specimens of harvested bears, it is recommended that Canada post their information on a suitable webpage and maintain the information annually. It is recommended that the information be posted by the next meeting of the Range States. Should international export of harvested bears resume from other Range States, Canada would consider sharing a database to collect and post information as appropriate. August