[asia-apec 254] APEC '93 WATCH / ECO ISSUE No. 3 Part 1, Seattle, WA

[Northwest FOE Office]

Seattle, WA                                   November 18, 1993
                                              Number 3
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX                   APEC '93 WATCH "ECO"

One of Two Sections
-----------------
ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major
international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental
Conference in 1972.  This issue is produced cooperatively by
groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). 
Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993.
____________________

CONTENTS:

Wildlife Trade   page 1
NAFTA Editorial  page 2
GLOBAL Response  page 3
GREMLIN          page 4
China Dam        page 4
-----------

WILDLIFE TRADE SOARING IN ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

   The Asian Pacific Region's economic boom has enabled many to
indulge in the consumption of wildlife.  The demand for exotic
wildlife drives a soaring trade, both legal and illegal, in
species throughout the region.

   This big business already contributes to the crises of several
endangered species and the degradation of ecosystems.  For
example, the Philippines is home to numerous endangered species
including: crocodiles, pawikan, calamian deer, tamaraw, dugong,
Philippine eagle, peregrine falcons and Mindoro imperial pigeon,
(all listed in CITES Appendix I) as well as the pangolin, the
monitor lizard, pythons,  the Philippine tarsier,  Palawan
peacock pheasant, breeding heart pigeons, Philippine cockatoo,
parrots, rufuous hornbill and several species of owls and eagles
(all listed in CITES Appendix II).  Yet row after row of pet
shops in Manilla still openly sell some of these listed species. 
These wildlife also are smuggles to Taiwan and Hong Kong for
distribution to the worldwide market.

   The Philippine's coral reefs also are victims of illegal
harvesting and trading.  In 1988 alone, according to the
environmental group Haribon, some U.S. $500,000 worth of raw
coral from Philippines was illegally sold, mostly to U.S.

   North America  also is the world's largest importer of exotic
birds.  A global network feeds this demand.  Smugglers wire money
to Mexico City, where birds are shipped from Singapore, Tokyo,
and Buenos Aires.  Then birds are sent via border city of Tijuana
to San Diego, where buyers in US and Canada had access to them. 
A sexed pair of rare black palm cockatoo plucked from the jungles
of Australia, New Guinea or Indonesia easily fetches US$ 25,000.

   Across the Pacific Ocean, China, Japan and the so-called Asian
'Tiger' economies generate even more controversy in the subject
of wildlife trade.  The growing affluence of these economies
creates incredible demand for wildlife for use in exotic dishes,
traditional cures, arts, and tourist souvenirs, as well as for
pets.

   Japan, the major consumer of wildlife in Asia, has been the
center of global controversy over issues as elephant tusks,
hawksbill turtle, bluefin tuna, whale, caiman and bengals.

   Asian traditional medicine also places high premium on certain
animal parts, such as tiger parts, bile from bear gallbladders,
internal organs from musk deer and the powdered horn from any of
the five remaining species of rhinoceros.  TRAFFIC, an
organization monitoring the trade in endangered species,
estimates that South Korea imported 1,700kg tiger bones between
1985 and 1990.  It also estimates that Taiwan, in 1992, has
stockpiled 10 tons of rhino horn, the take from an estimated
4,000 slaughtered rhinos.

   Several Asian cities have developed into centers for wildlife
trade.  Guangdong, the natural transit point for goods headed for
Hong Kong and beyond, has become China's illegal wildlife trade
center.  Ranging from bald eagle, tiger meat, bones and penis,
bear paw to panda, Chinese wildlife is being smuggled out in
formidable amounts.

   In Thailand, Bangkok's Chatuchak Park is called a worldwide
"laundering center" for wildlife.  Thai dealers launder shipments
of everything from rare orchids to South American caimans and
Indonesian orangutan, and send them to zoos and traders in Japan,
Europe, and North America.  Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan
serve as the major conduits for vast array of wildlife and parts.

   As Ginnette Hemley, the director of TRAFFIC (USA)  put it: 
"Asia is the world's hotbed for illegal trade in endangered
species."  

CURRENT EFFORT -- CITES in Action

   CITES -- the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora -- came into effect on July 1,
1975.  The Convention is designed to protect internationally-
recognized endangered species (Appendix I species) from any
commercial exploitation and to subject other threatened or look-
alike species (Appendix II and Appendix III species) to specific
regulations and documentation controls before they can be legally
traded internationally.  It is a United Nations administrated
international treaty.  Today, about 120 nations are parties to
the convention.

   Parties are obligated to confiscate wildlife contraband and
set whatever fines or other penalties.  Yet in many nations,
fines and jail sentences are ridiculously low.  Custom officials
or wildlife inspectors are usually in charge of inspecting
shipments and seizing contraband.  Any shipment containing CITES-
listed wildlife or related products must have a separate permit. 
The Convention recommends specific formats for these trade
documents, but many nations usually produce their own.  It is
sometimes difficult to recognize authentic papers.  Falsifying
documents by dishonest traders and permit theft further
complicates efforts to control the trade.  Frequently, smugglers
take a species from one country where it is protected and ship it
to another country where trade controls are lax and obtain
fraudulent export documents.  Hence, international cooperation in
investigation of illegal trade schemes is crucial.

   The majority of the APEC members are parties of CITES.  Yet
several members have not signed up.  Full participation in and
sincere devotion to CITES' efforts in protecting endangered
species by all APEC members is essential for cracking down
harmful wildlife trade soaring in the Asian-Pacific economies.

APEC'S OBLIGATION -- Government Action and Citizen Action

   Individual governments have much to do to improve
international compliance with CITES.  Tough domestic legislation
is crucial.  Governments also need to give enforcement efforts
greater attention -- strengthening port inspection capacities,
educating customs officials to the peculiarities of wildlife
trade restrictions, providing secure permitting systems and
taking offenders to court.  Better communication with CITES
Secretariat and trade authorities in foreign countries would also
help bolster the treaty.

   Major wildlife-consuming countries must bear the greatest
responsibility for upholding CITES and policing international
wildlife trade.  They are much better equipped with the
enforcement personnel, communication system, domestic legal
systems and other tools needed to control wildlife trade than
many wildlife-rich developing countries.  Moreover, the consumer
countries also have a significant base of popular support for
species conservation, which can encourage governments to carry
out their CITES mandate.

   Individual nations also can contribute to the protection of
endangered species by governmental action and citizen action. 
The recent effort in saving the endangered rhinoceros, which is
on CITES' Appendix I, shows how it can be done.  In governmental
action, US applies the Pelly amendment to exert pressure in the
consumer countries, including China, Taiwan, South Korea and
Yemen, to change their consumption pattern by possible trade
sanctions.  (Rhinoceros horn is highly prized in Korea, Taiwan,
China as a fever reducing drug, and in Yemen for ceremonial
dagger handles.)

   The Pelly amendment to US Fishermen's Protective Act if 1967
was originally enacted to reinforce whale conservation by
authorizing the embargo of fish products from nations diminishing
the effectiveness of the International Convention for the
Regulation of Whaling.  In 1978, this provision was expanded to
confer similar authority to embargo wildlife products from any
country whose nationals are found by US Secretary of Commerce or
Interior to be " engaging in trade or taking which diminishes the
effectiveness of any international program for endangered
species."  On Nov. 12, 1992, the World Wildlife Fund and the US
Interior Secretary to invoke the Pelly Amendment against the
consumer nation mentioned above.  US Interior Secretary Babbitt
in the CITES' Standing Committee meeting on Sep. 6-8, 1993
announced the  certification of China and Taiwan under the Pelly
Amendment.

   In citizen action, a mass boycott campaign, organized by
several environmental groups including Earth Island Institute and
TRAFFIC Network, against Taiwan has been under way to press
charges in consumption pattern.  The bad publicity for Taiwan
complements the Pelly amendment certification to force Taiwan
moving in the direction consistent with the objective of CITES.

IMPLICATION -- Sustainable Use of Wildlife

   If properly controlled, wildlife trade need not threaten plant
and animal species.  Instead, trade can be a strong force for
conservation, providing countries with the economic  incentive to
protect habitats and managing wildlife in ways that ensure the
species' long term health and survival.  But to achieve this
requires limitations on trade, undertaken by both producing and
consuming countries.  Uncontrolled exploitation and free trade,
on the other hand, spells long-term disaster for both the species
and the valuable resources of producer countries.

-----------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: THE NAFTA VOTE 

   The close vote (200-234) in the U.S. House of Representatives
to approve the implementation of the North American Trade
Agreement brings us one step closer to APEC's efforts this week
to work toward the speedy closure of the General Agreements on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  

   Planet Earth needs a health care program, but NAFTA is the
wrong prescription.  

   In the end, it came down to President Clinton buying votes,
not an unusual feature of US politics, but particularly offensive
when NAFTA is viewed as a symbol of international negotiating
strength rather than on impacts to citizens and the environment.

   Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Public Citizens
brought us  a lawsuit asking for an environmental impact
statement on NAFTA.  Federal Court Judge Charles Richey agreed. 
The decision was overturned on procedural grounds and is being
appealed.  Arthur D. Little, Inc.,has hailed this decision as a
landmark.  In a just released analysis, whey write, "Long
overshadowed by international trade, environmental 'genie' is in
short,'out of the bottle."

   The question for APEC is how will they interpret the NAFTA
vote.  Will they continue to remain mute and deaf to sustainable
development, polluter pays and environmental impact avoidance? 
Or will they understand that the global trading system must not
be finalized in December without integrating these concepts as
promised at the Rio Earth Summit?

   One test would be the rejection of the Proposed APEC Trade and
Investment Framework which contains nary a drop of green. 
Apparently, those environmental groups which supported NAFTA have
been wrong in thinking that expressions of environmental concern
would be taken up by the Clinton Administration as part of this
weeks APEC meetings.  Thus, we see in the global arena not only
the tragedy of the commons, but the tragedy of trade summits as
well.

End of First Section