<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:40189.wais]
AFRICAN ELEPHANTS--CORAL REEFS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES
CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 39
To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act
AND
H. CON. RES. 8
Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the significance of
maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems
__________
MARCH 13, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
<snowflake>
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-189 cc WASHINGTON : 1997
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada RON KIND, Wisconsin
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Fisheries Comnservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Carolina SAM FARR, California
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
John Rayfield, Legislative Staff
Christopher Sterns, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held March 13, 1997...................................... 1
Text of:
H. Con. Res. 8............................................... 102
H.R. 39...................................................... 101
Statement of Members:
Cunningham, Hon. Randy ``Duke'', a U.S. Representative from
California ................................................ 3
Deutsch, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Representative from Florida...... 5
Farr, Hon. Sam, a U.S. Representative from California........ 2
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California... 50
Peterson, Hon. John, a U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania. 1
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
Chairman, Committee on Resources........................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
American Zoo and Aquarium Association (prepared statement)... 99
Child, Dr. Brian, Community Development Advisor, Longwa
Integrated Development Program of Zambia................... 31
Prepared statement....................................... 79
Cousteau, Jean-Michael (prepared statement).................. 95
De Ferrari, Gina, Director of TRAFFIC, World Wildlife Fund... 29
Prepared statement....................................... 75
Garcia, Terry D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, NOAA, Department of Commerce................... 9
Prepared statement....................................... 61
Ginsburg, Dr. Robert, Chairperson, Organizing Committee of
International Year of the Reef............................. 42
Prepared statement....................................... 57
Jones, Marshall P., Assistant Director for International
Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior................................................... 11
Prepared statement....................................... 68
Maple, Dr. Terry, Director of Zoo Atlanta.................... 23
Prepared statement....................................... 71
Marks, Stuart, Safari Club International..................... 27
Marlenee, Hon. Ron, Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari
Club International......................................... 27
Prepared statement....................................... 73
Murchison, David C., President, Southern Africa Wildlife
Trust (prepared statement)................................. 97
Polo, Barbara Jeanne, Political Director, American Oceans
Campaign................................................... 40
Prepared statement....................................... 88
Pomerance, Rafe, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs (prepared statement)............................... 93
Porter, Dr. James, Professor of Ecology and Marine Sciences,
Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia................ 43
Prepared statement....................................... 59
Telecky, Dr. Teresa, Director of the Wildlife Trade Program,
The Humane Society of the United States.................... 25
Prepared statement....................................... 51
Additional material supplied:
African Elephant Conservation Act (16 USCS 4201-4244)........ 129
African Elephant Conservation Act Grant Program.............. 112
African Elephant Conservation Act Grant Projects in Range
Countries.................................................. 105
CAMPFIRE: Integrating Conservation and Development for a
Sustainable Future in Zimbabwe............................. 155
Criteria for Funding Grant Projects.......................... 113
Guidelines for submission of proposals....................... 121
Interior Department: List of AECA Projects Funded Through
March 5, 1997.............................................. 106
NOAA: ``White Pox'' Coral Reef Disease....................... 21
Projects Funded through March 5, 1997........................ 115
Projects Funded through October 29, 1996..................... 137
Proposal Format and Instructions............................. 125
Reef Relief: Pictures of coral disease at North America's
only living coral reef..................................... 164
Returns From Tourist Hunting in Tanzania..................... 142
U.S. News & World Report: Articles on Elephants.............. 150
World Wildlife Fund: Key Projects Funded by the African
Elephant Conservation Act.................................. 78
Communications submitted:
Joint Letter of March 10, 1997, to Hon. James Saxton from 17
organizations.............................................. 92
Lapointe, Eugene (World Conservation Trust): Letter of March
13, 1997, to Hon. James Saxton............................. 160
Maple, Terry L. (Zoo Atlanta): Letter of March 11, 1997, to
Hon. James Saxton.......................................... 162
REAUTHORIZE THE AFRICAN ELEPHANT CONSERVATION ACT, AND THE
HEALTH AND STABILITY OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEMS
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Committee on
Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Peterson
(Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN PETERSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Peterson. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans will come to order. I am John
Peterson, 5th District, Pennsylvania, sitting in this morning
for Chairman Saxton who was unable to join us.
Today, the Subcommittee is meeting to hear testimony on two
subjects, H.R. 39, the African Elephant Conservation
Reauthorization Act, and H.Con.Res. 8, the Coral Reef
Protection Resolution of 1997.
Under the committee rules, any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the ranking minority
member. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses sooner
and help members keep to their schedules. Therefore, if other
members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent without objection.
I would like to start by explaining H.R. 39. The
fundamental goal of H.R. 39 is to extend the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to allocate Federal money from the
African Elephant Conservation Fund until September 30, 2002.
Furthermore, we will be hearing from our witnesses
regarding the various grant projects that their organizations
have sponsored to assist in the conservation of the African
elephant, the results of these projects, and how additional
funds authorized by H.R. 39 will be spent in the future.
The scope of this hearing will not include the issues of
foreign aid or money provided to various African governments by
the Agency for International Development.
This morning, we will also consider H.Con.Res. 8, the Coral
Reef Protection Resolution of 1997. Mr. Saxton introduced this
resolution, along with Mr. Abercrombie, in early January as a
tribute to the designation of 1997 as the International Year of
the Reef.
This resolution also expresses the congressional commitment
to promoting stewardship of coral reef habitats; encouraging
research and education about reef ecosystems; and improving the
coordination of coral reef activities among Federal agencies,
academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and
industry.
I notice that we have several coral reef pictures on
display on my left, your right, and I look forward to hearing
from our witnesses. Before we begin, I would like to recognize
the American Oceans Campaign, which provided the initiative to
get this resolution underway. AOC continues to do fine work on
issues of marine and coastal conservation, and the Subcommittee
looks forward to further collaboration with them in the future.
I at this time would like to recognize the ranking minority
member, but he has not arrived yet, and I will whenever he
comes for any statement that he may have.
[The statements of Mr. Young and Mr. Farr follow:]
Statement of Hon. Don Young, a U.S. Representative from Alaska; and
Chairman, Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman, as author of H.R. 39, I am pleased that you
are holding this timely hearing on my legislation to
reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Fund.
For the past nine years, this Fund has been the only
continuous source of new money for elephant conservation
efforts. While the Act authorizes up to $5 million per year, in
reality the Congress has annually appropriated less than
$900,000 to save and conserve this flagship species of the
African continent.
This money has been used to finance some 50 conservation
projects in 17 range states throughout Africa. These projects
have been sponsored by a diverse group of conservation
organizations including the African Elephant Conservation
Coordinating Group, Safari Club International, Southern Africa
Wildlife Trust, and the World Wildlife Fund. These funds have
been used to purchase anti-poaching equipment for wildlife
rangers, to complete elephant population surveys and to move
elephants from certain drought regions.
While the world community has been successful in stopping
the widespread slaughter of this magnificent animal, the fight
to save the African elephant is far from over. It is essential
that we extend the Secretary of the Interior's authority to
allocate money for the African elephant beyond its statutory
deadline, and that is the goal of H.R. 39. In fact, my bill
would reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Fund until
September 30, 2002.
This is a sound piece of legislation and this small
investment will help to ensure that our largest land mammal,
the African elephant, does not disappear from this planet.
Mr. Chairman, I compliment you for the swift action you
took in introducing, along with Mr. Abercrombie, the Coral Reef
Protection Resolution of 1997. This is timely recognition of
the International Year of the Reef designation.
Needless to say, we have no coral reefs in the coastal
waters of Alaska. Nevertheless, Alaskan waters do have the
distinction of being the northernmost point in the Pacific
which supports coral growth. A variety of corals live in the
Gulf of Alaska, along the Aleutian chain, and in the Bering
Sea.
Since H.Con.Res. 8 is entirely non-controversial, I expect
that it will and should receive favorable consideration in both
chambers of Congress.
------
Statement of Hon. Sam Farr, a U.S. Representative from California
Today we're holding hearings on two issues that I think are
great examples of how the American government is thinking in
the right direction in terms of fostering stewardship of
natural resources on a global scale, recognizing that as
resources do not limit themselves within political boundaries,
our approaches to wise management should be similarly wide
ranging.
H. Con. Res. 8, the Coral Reef Protection Resolution of
1997 honors the decision of scientists, policy makers, natural
resource managers, and coral reef advocates from around the
world to designate 1997 the International Year of the Reef.
Coral reefs are amazing natural resources, valuable not only
for their astounding diversity, habitat for commercially
important species, vital importance to coastal tourism, coastal
storm protection and just sheer beauty. They're also a valuable
indicator for the health of our world's coastal oceans. Coral
bleaching and reef degradation has pointed out to the world's
scientists that our oceans are experiencing environmental
stress from human activities such as tourism pressures,
increased sediment and nutrient runoff from the land,
pollutants from coastal development, destructive fishing
techniques, commercial harvests, and vessel damage.
This resolution is an important step in acknowledging the
importance of our world's reefs, promoting critical research
and education about reef ecosystems, and encouraging
partnerships between Federal agencies, industry, academic
institutions and non-governmental organizations for their
protection.
The African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of
1997 is motivated by a similar concern for global natural
resources. The Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 was enacted to
provide protection for the declining populations of the
threatened African Elephant. This legislation, and the
subsequent CITES ban on all commercial trade in elephant
products has led to a significant decrease in poaching, and
stabilization and in some cases increases in elephant
populations. To the extent that this legislation would continue
to authorize funding for conservation projects, I am supportive
of it.
I am, however, concerned that the activities of USAID have
provided American taxpayer support for activities which lead to
trophy-hunting and killing of African Elephants. While the
USAID funding is not a direct concern of this legislation, I
believe the subcommittee should consider the program in this
hearing, and direct future attention to it, as it may be in
opposition to what we are trying to achieve with H.R. 39, as
well as counter to the wishes of the American people, 84% of
whom, in a recent poll, stated that they were against elephant
trophy hunting.
Mr. Peterson. I will now introduce our first panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Congressman Duke Cunningham of
California, who will be testifying on H.R. 39. The second
witness is Congressman Peter Deutsch of Florida, who will
testify on H.Con.Res. 8. Please try to limit your oral
statements to five minutes if you can, but your entire
statement will appear in the record. We will also allow you
both to testify before we ask you questions. The Chairman now
recognizes Mr. Cunningham.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, A U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being an
instructor-diver and an avid diver, I would like to work with
Mr. Deutsch and see what he has got in his plan. I think one of
the beauties that we have today is our reefs and barriers and
the protection of them. They are being destroyed by pollution
and the consequences that go along with it.
But I am here not to talk about reefs, Mr. Chairman, but
about a different problem that we have. I would like to thank
you and your committee for the opportunity to testify in
support of the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization
Act, H.R. 39. This is the second comprehensive hearing this
Subcommittee has had on the issue in the last two years, and it
demonstrates our shared commitment to elephant conservation
itself.
Most of us have seen the Nature series on television and
know of the wanton slaughter of our elephants and wildlife
abroad. It is uncontrolled, and poachers go in and destroy
valuable assets that this earth has on a limited basis.
H.R. 39 would reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation
Act through the year 2002. A continuation of this important
program will preserve America's leadership in conservation and
restoration of African elephant herds in their native habitat.
The future survival of the African elephant depends on
America's leadership and our small but crucial amount of
financial support.
Now, I am known as a fiscal conservative, and I disagree
with most of the things that this body tries to fund outside
the Federal Government, outside the Constitution itself. Why is
this different? What area should this fall under?
Well, the AECA has been responsible for rescuing African
elephants from a path of extinction. Foreign countries do not
have the capability to save the elephants, due to economic
reasons, due to lack of support within the country itself,
hunger or poverty. People are driven in some cases to hunt
elephants for economic reasons versus controlling the elephant
population responsibly.
Drought, shrinking habitat, and expanding human populations
had some part in the decline of the elephant population. But by
the mid-1980's, rampant and efficient poaching of elephants for
the world ivory trade was found most directly responsible for
elephants' endangerment.
The funds collected and the funds generated by the AECA and
other organizations will provide game wardens. It will provide
security. It will provide water holes. It will provide better
feed and habitat which an elephant takes about 500 acres to
control.
I would imagine if we had tyrannosaurus rex still on the
planet, people would want to preserve it because it is an
endangered species. It is not. But the elephant is, and it is
something that lives with us every day. And, Mr. Chairman,
remember it is the emblem of the Republican party, and the
least thing we can do is to save it.
The passage of the AECA reversed the downward trend of
elephant population. A large part of the success of the AECA
comes from the efficient African Elephant Conservation Fund
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
provided nearly $13 million during eight years to elephant
conservation.
The focus on the conservation fund was originally on
antipoaching efforts. However, in the last few years, the
project has focused not only on antipoaching efforts, but
elephant population research, efforts to mitigate elephant and
human conflicts, which in our Nature Series I think we have all
seen, investigations of the ivory trade so we can stop the
poaching, cataloging of ivory stockpiles, and identifying new
techniques for elephant management.
In summation, I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, the fund
helps local villagers who often live in fear of elephants to
coexist and benefit from long-term conservation of elephants.
This is an important step. As rural farmers in Africa begin to
accumulate economic gains brought by the wildlife around them,
they will find it in their best interests to conserve that same
wildlife. In the long run, this will reduce the high cost of
conservation and save elephants from extinction.
And I think a tertiary problem that most people don't
understand is that Africa has very, very limited funds. The
money that is raised from different tribes and different
agencies must go to provide high priority health care centers,
for example in a nation where today a huge percentage of some
populations are HIV infected.
This is why, Mr. Chairman, in this particular case, I am
willing to forego the normal principle of not funding outside
Constitutional issues. I think elephant conservation is
important not just for America, but I think it is important for
the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr. Deutsch.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEUTSCH, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
FLORIDA
Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not here to
speak on elephants, but, obviously, I support the efforts of
Mr. Cunningham and the Congress in general in that regards. I
have a statement which I would be happy to submit for the
record.
And really just to summarize, as the Member that represents
the only living coral reef in the North American Hemisphere,
the other reef in another state is represented by Mr.
Abercrombie as the ranking member of this committee, I have a
special sensitivity of the significance of coral reefs in terms
of not just what they do for wildlife, but what they do for
people as well.
The Florida Keys is a unique area that the economy and the
environment truly are one. The largest industry in the Florida
Keys is tourism. The reef itself in the Keys is one of the
major sources of that tourism. And Congress as an institution
has recognized the significance of the Florida Keys in many
ways, but specifically 1990 with the designation of the
National Marine Sanctuary.
I support the resolution. I am glad the Chairman of this
Subcommittee is the original sponsor of it, in that on an
international basis, this is the International Year of the
Reef. And there is a real concern around the world that
potentially up to 30 percent of the world's living coral reefs
could be destroyed in the next decade.
I think anything that we are able to do to focus attention
on this resource on a national basis and on an international
basis is significant, and I urge support of the resolution.
[Statement of Mr. Deutsch follows:]
Statement of Hon. Peter Deutsch, a U.S. Representative from Florida
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. As
you know, my district includes the Florida Keys--home to North
America's only living coral barrier reef. The Florida Keys is
one of the few regions in the United States where coral reef
ecosystem supports the economy of an entire county. In the
Keys, tourism is the number one industry, and the reef is the
number one attraction. The Keys' marine ecosystem also supports
many traditional industries like commercial fishing which
require a healthy and vigorous marine environment.
Congress recognized the significance of the Keys' coral
reef when it designated the region as a National Marine
Sanctuary in 1992. The designation will coordinate our efforts
to preserve the reef for future generations and for the
continued sustainability of the local economy. It also promotes
the comprehensive stewardship, research and education which is
called for by the resolution.
While we are taking major steps in the Keys, we have a long
way to go in South Florida. Globally, 30 percent of the world's
coral reefs may be lost in the next decade if serious steps are
not taken to reverse their plight. During this--the
``International Year of the Reef''--it's appropriate that
Congress recognize the importance of the world's coral reef
ecosystems. I commend the committee for considering this
resolution, and I look forward to continuing our work together.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much. Do we have any
questions? I don't. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. For Mr. Cunningham----
Mr. Cunningham. Good morning.
Mr. Abercrombie. Good morning and aloha to you. We have
multiple sources of funding for the African elephant
conservation efforts including grants from the United States.
I wonder if you have--because I don't have sufficient
background--I have done some reading on different points of
contention with respect to the CAMPFIRE program and the USAID
program, that kind of thing. A question that occurred to me
then is one about coordination between USAID and, say, the
Department of Interior in terms of evaluation of the
effectiveness of the programs.
Do you have a view on that or any information you could
share with me? Because, as I say, mine is at this point
abstract and intellectual; that is to say it is based on
reading rather than on firsthand knowledge or much in the way
of depth of inquiry.
Mr. Cunningham. I don't always agree with Fish and
Wildlife. On the most part, I do. But in this particular
problem, the original intent was to coordinate antipoaching
efforts to save the elephant. Now they are expanding with all
the organizations to take a look at other areas and other
management techniques to preserve the elephants and to provide
better habitat for them. I know Fish and Wildlife is primarily
our point source to go out and take a look at what are the
different things needed.
There was recently a picture--and I love the Nature
Series--and it was an elephant running through a village with
clotheslines on it and, unfortunately, dragging a child with
it. And, you must find how you protect people, how you protect
crops instead of the people going out and killing an elephant.
An elephant doesn't know the difference between a barbwire
fence and a cornfield. How do you protect that? How do you save
both the farmer and the elephant? Do you provide water for them
in another area where they don't transport, or that they have
enough food? All of these are coordinated. Could they be done
better? Yes, I think they could, and that is part of the
process.
This is only the second year we have taken a look at this.
And as you go along, I think we are going to get better and
better. And from all sides of the issue, I think we can work
together and make sure that we have got a stable population.
Mr. Abercrombie. Would it be in our interest to help
support preserves? Traveling that I have done was almost 30
years ago now on my own in Africa, and I had the opportunity to
be in Uganda before the collapse of the political and economic
and social infrastructure there.
And I had occasion to come into close contact with African
elephants outside the huts we were in. But that was under
circumstances in which it was clearly game preserves. It was
tourist oriented.
The infrastructure, if you will, was geared toward that,
and it was large enough so that you didn't have at that time
the encroachment of people desperate to save themselves
literally--save their families, burning down trees and trying
to expand their own grazing for cattle and for forage and, in
some instances, just trying to get wood in order to sell it.
Again, you may have more background on it than I do other than
through reading.
Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Abercrombie, I would not want to start
large-scale dollars going out of the United States for
preserves. I know in many cases a lot of these are privately
held, and they use them commercially and also as game reserves.
Mr. Abercrombie. I see.
Mr. Cunningham. I would not want Federal funding for that.
It is against my principles, and I think we spend too much
money on foreign aid. But in this particular case, the money is
leveraged by many organizations to provide these other things
that you are talking about.
Mr. Abercrombie. But my question really went toward whether
you had some view on the question of whether the poaching side
possibly was in hand where there were stable governments. And
we had--I was taking from your testimony that we could move
into other areas now where we could do thinning of herds, all
that kind of thing.
Mr. Cunningham. Well, they are looking into other areas,
and that is part of this whole process, for which I will be
happy to give you my testimony. They have moved just from the
poaching issue alone, so that it is somewhat controlled. But if
you look at the rhino, especially the white rhino, you look at
the elephant and you look at a lot of these different species,
you find that we have limited resources. But there is still a
big program out there for poachers.
I am a hunter, and I love to fish. I particularly don't
shoot anything I don't eat, and that is just a limitation I
have. But, I love to hunt, I love to fish, but I think we also
need to preserve our heritage for our children and our
grandchildren. They don't have the capability to do that.
But, yet, I know in deer herds here in the United States--
an example, up in Oregon I have a friend where they prohibit
hunting of the whitetail. Well, the whitetail is so sickly and
depleted up there and from interbreeding, and they haven't
allowed other deer to come in.
The same kind of things could happen to these other
reserves if we don't get into the management and other methods
to preserve and protect them. Once you get a smaller herd, then
you get interbreeding, and then you get the same kind of
problems and everything else.
Mr. Abercrombie. Last question then. Can you give us a view
on the point or toward the point of are there organizations
where the governments are sufficiently stable? Are there
organizations with which we can work effectively in terms of
leveraging what dollars we do put forward in this?
Mr. Cunningham. There are several of them in the testimony,
but I would think----
Mr. Abercrombie. Do you feel those organizations are up to
the mark, or are they having their own difficulties? For
example, where the mountain gorilla is concerned, I understand
that despite the best efforts of very dedicated people, it is
extraordinarily difficult for the government agencies with the
responsibility for dealing with it to adequately be able to
patrol, to work, that kind of thing.
Mr. Cunningham. Is it a perfect world out there? No. And
can we adequately do it? Are there other organizations? I think
part of this fund reaches out to the world and says, ``Hey, we
need help.'' We do need help in this, Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Chairman, excuse me for one second. I am
in a markup for votes. If there aren't any questions for me----
Mr. Gilchrest. I am just going to make a quick statement. I
think if we understand the nature--if we look at the tiny
organism that makes up coral reefs and then we look at the
mammoth beauty of an African elephant, we begin to understand
the nature of the mechanics of creation, the mechanics that
keep this planet living and breathing.
And I really do think it falls to the burden of we people,
whether we are Americans or whether we are from some other part
of the world--it is our responsibility to sit down at a table
in a calm, very direct manner so that we can find the
information, the knowledge, the sense of tolerance for each
other's views to protect and preserve these magnificent things
for ourselves and future generations. And I think we have
really begun that process, and I thank both of you for coming
this morning to testify.
Mr. Abercrombie. I just want to thank Mr. Deutsch as well
for his commentary, and we will work together.
Mr. Cunningham. If I could make a comment? I used to serve
on this committee, Mr. Chairman, and it was one of the more fun
committees to serve on because of its bipartisanship and going
in the same directions. I will admit I used to fight a lot of
the initiatives because I thought they were fought for by
extremists.
But I have come to learn in many situations that we can
work together. For example, the striper bass that I talked
about with my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest--I would have opposed
the conservation of the striper bass as a young person because
I would want to fish for them. I didn't want you to stop me
from fishing. I would have been wrong because I have seen those
stocks come back, and today I can catch more stripers.
Yes, I had a waiting period. But today I can go out there
in the Chesapeake and catch more stripers than if we would have
continued at our present rate. We are not always right. We just
try to achieve that direction.
Mr. Gilchrest. And, Duke, we hope you continue to enjoy our
deer burgers, the whitetail deer burgers.
Mr. Abercrombie. For Mr. Cunningham, now that we have you
in the delayed gratification mood----
Mr. Cunningham. Yes, I do support a balanced budget.
Mr. Abercrombie. I came in while you were testifying, and I
apologize. Did you address the question of ivory trade in your
remarks?
Mr. Cunningham. Part of the expanded research instead of
just poaching is to categorize it. We have to know what we have
in stocks, and also have investigations into the different
markets outside the poachers themselves. Illegal ivory is like
drugs. You have got to have people that buy the drugs.
You have got to have people that are dealing in ivory. We
need to get down to the heart of it because you don't just save
the elephant and fight on one end. You have got to go all the
way through the whole system and stop people from wantonly
slaughtering these animals for their ivory.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the witnesses and the
Members for their questions. Now, we will introduce our second
panel of witnesses. Mr. Terry Garcia, the Acting Assistant
Secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and Mr. Marshall Jones, the Assistant Director
of the International Affairs for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. I would like to remind the witnesses that under our
committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five
minutes, but that their entire statement will appear in the
record. We will also allow you both to testify before we ask
questions. At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Garcia.
STATEMENT OF TERRY D. GARCIA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Garcia. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here to highlight the
programs that NOAA has undertaken to address our nation's coral
reef crisis, which was so eloquently described in House
Concurrent Resolution 8.
NOAA is pleased to provide testimony in support of the
Congress's leadership for, and commitment to, active
stewardship of our Nation's fragile coral reef ecosystems. With
the continued support of the Congress, NOAA and the rest of the
Administration will work to address your concerns for the
health and stability of our Nation's coral reef systems--
systems that are in dire crisis.
I would like to touch on four points today: the current
global and national coral reef crisis; what this means to the
U.S.; what NOAA is doing to address the problem; and the
identification of needs and gaps in our resource monitoring and
management strategies.
Experts now estimate that over two-thirds of the world's
reefs are dangerously stressed. It is estimated that 10 percent
of the world's reefs are beyond recovery, while 30 percent are
in critical condition with 10 to 20 years left to live if
something is not done to save them.
Although coral reef and seagrass communities have adapted
to deal with natural stresses such as predators, diseases,
tropical storms, and some climate changes, human activities are
now impacting reefs in many different ways, and the cumulative
impact is destroying many reefs.
A solution is both simple and difficult. If coral reefs are
to survive, we must reduce the magnitude and diversity of human
impacts. The human impacts on reefs vary from reef to reef,
region to region. In general, the most serious human causes of
coral reef degradation are land-based sources of pollution and
direct and indirect effects of fishing.
Other impacts such as ship groundings do serious damage. In
the past two months, there have been three ship groundings on
the coral reefs in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
As was mentioned earlier, the economics of coastal areas
affect the entire nation. More than one-half of the U.S.
population lives in one of our Nation's 411 coastal counties,
only 11 percent of America's land.
People depend on coastal resources like coral reefs for
jobs, income, and a way of life. The contribution that healthy
coral reef ecosystems can make to coastal and regional
economies are significant.
For example, over 3 million tourists visit the Florida
Keys, contributing $1.2 billion every year to the local economy
through water-related activities such as fishing, diving, and
boating. In 1991, visitors to the U.S. Virgin Islands spent
over $700 million.
U.S. recreational divers alone spend at least 300 million
in the Caribbean and Hawaii every year. Tourism in Hawaii
generates over $9 billion in revenue annually, and some 3
million people visit just one of Hawaii's many coral reef sites
every year.
Coral reef ecosystems are critical habitats for commercial
and recreational fisheries worth millions of dollars to local
and State economies. Coral reefs cover only .2 percent of the
ocean floor or an area about the size of Texas, yet produce
about one-tenth of the fish caught for human consumption and
hold about one-quarter of all marine fish species. In the U.S.,
several hundred commercially harvested stocks depend on coral
reefs for survival and reproduction.
Coral reef organisms produce promising leads in the search
for anticancer compounds, antibiotics, pain suppressors, sun
screens, and other products. These organisms potentially hold
the secrets to numerous scientific and medical benefits.
NOAA has a key role in the stewardship of our nation's
marine resources. Our programs are addressing the coral reef
crisis, as well as fulfilling NOAA's environmental stewardship
responsibilities as outlined in our strategic plan.
In fiscal 1996, NOAA spent approximately $26 million for
activities addressing management and protection of coral reefs.
It is also important to remember that many U.S. reefs are in
State, territorial, and commonwealth waters, and the real work
of coral reef management and protection must come from local
and regional communities.
In response to the continued decline and destruction of
coral reef ecosystems worldwide, the U.S. and eight other
nations established the International Coral Reef Initiative in
1994. There are now 75 nations that have joined the coral reef
initiative process.
NOAA has been an important contributor to the design and
implementation of the U.S. Coral Reef Initiative. As I noted in
fiscal 1996, NOAA spent $26 million on programs addressing the
needs of coral reef ecosystems. Although no new funds have been
appropriated for NOAA's participation, NOAA contributed over
$1.2 million in fiscal 1996 base funds to support 42 new
projects addressing priorities of the U.S. Coral Reef
Initiative.
I would just leave you with a few key thoughts regarding
the opportunities, as well as the gaps, in our resources. One,
we must make the public aware of the value and loss of coral
reefs and what we can all do to save them. We have given the
committee copies of the NOAA Public Awareness Campaign
materials.
Two, scientists and managers need the resources and
technology to monitor the health of coral reef ecosystems; and
ongoing support is needed for research and development on the
restoration of coral reefs and their associated ecosystems.
Finally, government and responsible parties need to proactively
reduce threats from human sources such as sedimentation and
poor water quality affecting U.S. reefs.
I see that my time is about up. Mr. Chairman, in
conclusion, by the year 2005, NOAA envisions the nation's coast
with more productive and diverse habitats for fish and
wildlife, cleaner coastal waters for recreation and seafood
production, and coastal communities with thriving, sustainable
economies based on well-planned development and healthy coastal
ecosystems.
NOAA's strategy to reach this objective of protecting and
restoring coastal habitat, including coral reefs, involves
three distinct roles for NOAA: providing greater understanding,
designing and implementing management solutions, synthesizing
and communicating information about problems and solutions to
decisionmakers and the public.
As I noted, we have launched a public awareness campaign.
It is a call for action to the American people and to our
partners to help save coral reefs, the rainforests of the sea.
A copy of one of the posters is to my left, which was donated
by the renown marine artist, Robert Lynn Nelson. We have other
materials which we are distributing to the public through a
special telephone number and have left those materials with the
committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my
testimony.
[Statement of Mr. Garcia may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much. Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL P. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Marshall Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start
by noting that while the Fish and Wildlife Service does not
have a large role in the conservation of coral reefs, it is an
initiative that we also support. We do have coral reefs that
are within the jurisdiction of some national wildlife refuges,
and we will do what we can to be a partner with NOAA in their
efforts on coral reefs.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to
talk to you about another natural resource that is very near
and dear to the hearts of the American people, the African
elephant, and to give you our unqualified support for H.R. 39,
the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997.
We believe that this is a very important step in the
continued global efforts to conserve African elephants.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I am very delighted to be able to
announce today that we have information available at the table
about the first grants being issued under a companion piece of
legislation which was adopted in 1994 modeled after the African
Elephant Act. That is the Rhino and Tiger Conservation Act. And
we are announcing today our first grants under that program.
African elephants, Mr. Chairman, have enormous importance
to the American people. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
received more mail on African elephants in the past decade than
we have received on any other species, and that includes
spotted owls or timber wolves or all of the other domestic
species which are also very important to Americans.
The African elephant is important for all of the reasons
that I think Congressman Cunningham very succinctly and
eloquently spelled out to you. They have artistic importance.
They have cultural importance as a symbol of the wild world.
They have enormous economic importance. Hides and ivory can be
tremendously valuable, but that also can pose a tremendous
problem for us.
They have enormous ecological importance. The elephant is a
keystone species. Protecting elephants and their habitat can
protect entire ecosystems. On the other hand, within those
ecosystems, elephants also have the capability, perhaps second
only to man, to destroy their own ecosystems, to modify them in
ways that make them unsuitable for other species to live with
them.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would note elephants have political
significance as the symbol of one of our two major parties.
Luckily, Mr. Chairman, conservation of elephants also, as Mr.
Cunningham has said, has been very much a bipartisan issue.
The original African Elephant Act passed unanimously with
support from a variety of Members of Congress, and it
originated in this Subcommittee under its previous incarnation.
And we appreciate very much the continued support which you
have given to this program over the years.
Mr. Chairman, my written testimony outlines a number of the
projects which we have undertaken under the grant provisions of
the African Elephant Conservation Act. And it also outlines the
fact that the Act has a unique double strategy, because it also
provided a stick, a regulatory mechanism, for controlling the
ivory trade, a mechanism which President Bush exercised in 1990
to impose a moratorium on import of ivory into the United
States, an action which led the way to an international ban on
the ivory trade later that year.
The ivory issue remains before us since several southern
African countries now believe that the time has come for the
ban to be relaxed so that they could reopen a very limited
ivory trade. We have just received those proposals and are
reviewing them now. We will be consulting with other agencies
and with the public as we develop a U.S. position leading up to
an international meeting, which will take place in Africa in
June of this year, where the ivory trade will be discussed.
Mr. Chairman, the ivory issues are not easy ones, and it is
fair to say that we remain very concerned about potential
adverse impacts which could occur from reopening of the ivory
trade. And, thus, we will be seeking wide consultations on that
issue.
But that is all the more reason, Mr. Chairman, that we
cannot be complacent today. We believe the African Elephant
Conservation Act has made an enormous contribution to elephant
conservation through the grant programs which are outlined in
my written statement. But we believe that the continuation of
those programs is essential.
At the time the international ivory ban was put in place in
1990, a number of donor countries made commitments that they
would provide assistance to African governments for elephant
conservation. Today, the only country that I think has really
fulfilled those pledges and still is living up to its
commitments is the United States, thanks to the action of
Congress in enacting the African Elephant Fund and in
appropriating the funds that we use for the grant programs
under it. We think that the continuation of those programs is
more essential than ever today. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy
to answer any questions you have.
[Statement of Mr. Jones may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank both of the witnesses
for their testimony, and the first question is for Mr. Jones.
What type of conservation projects have been financed by your
agency?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, initially, we funded
antipoaching measures. The sense of Congress at the time the
Elephant Act was originally enacted was that controlling
poaching was the key to the survival of the elephant. And so we
funded measures such as a program which is administered by the
Southern African Wildlife Trust where we help to reward and
recognize rangers who risk their lives to protect elephants
from poaching.
Rangers who have been involved in firefights, rangers who
have had AK-47's pointed in their direction are recognized by
awards, pins, certificates that give them a sense that the
world cares that they are risking their lives every day for
elephant conservation.
In recent years, as the poaching situation in Africa has
stabilized, we have been able to branch out, and we have
supported projects that involved coordination of elephant
surveys among different countries; projects like the support
for development of the capability of rural villagers to help
participate in the management of elephants.
We think that the flexibility that is built into the
Elephant Act is one of the important strengths of it, and we
hope that we will be able to continue a wide variety of
projects like that in the future.
Mr. Peterson. Is there money in ivory like there used to
be? Is it still a pretty profitable business?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, the ivory trade in the
United States virtually died in 1990 after the ivory ban, and
there is no movement as far as I know within this country to
reinstitute the ivory trade, nor do we have any evidence of any
major illegal trade in the United States. It is legal to sell
ivory which was already here, and some of that is still
available. That is perfectly legal, but the demand is not
there.
In European countries, I think the situation is similar. On
the other hand, in Asia I think you would find countries where
there still is a demand for ivory, and the potential for an
illegal trade is always there. Shipments are intercepted almost
on a weekly basis, leaving Africa bound for some country in
Asia, so the problem is still there.
And, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have noted in the last
year or two that the poaching of elephants for the ivory trade
may be on the rise again after the success of the initial ivory
ban in 1990. So we don't think it is an area where we can ever
relax our guard.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr. Garcia, the Florida Keys have
experienced three ship groundings over the past two months,
including the Houston grounding which is the largest that the
Keys have seen. Grounding damage to reefs is extremely
extensive, virtually instantaneous, and highly noticeable. Can
you provide us with more information on the extent of damage
that these groundings have caused? Has your organization
surveyed the damage? Are restoration efforts being planned?
Mr. Garcia. Yes, sir. As you noted, the damage is
significant. The coral reefs are fragile organisms. We have had
the unfortunate circumstances of three groundings. Scientists
from NOAA and from the State have been on the scene assessing
the extent of the damage. We intend to take actions with
respect to the responsible parties once the assessment process
has been completed.
The assessment process is also examining various
alternatives that are available to us for restoring the damage
to the reefs. I don't have a figure for you as to the extent of
the damage. It is, however, significant and when we have
completed the assessment process, we will let the committee
know of the true extent of the damage, as well as the
restoration projects contemplated.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you very much. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you. Mr. Jones, I am not quite
sure--let me move from the closing of your remarks backwards. I
am not sure what you mean when you say we have to be on our
guard. Is that a generic statement? What does that mean, that
we have to be on our guard?
Because if I look at the attachments that I have gotten
from the Subcommittee staff, elephant populations are declining
fairly rapidly compared to 1987 virtually everywhere except
possibly South Africa. It says in the Sudan it may have gone up
4,000. That may be inadvertent, not due to any programs,
because of the civil war there.
Zaire I see cut more than in half and with the chaos that
is going on there, it may be--I am not sure how the count was
even done. So what do you mean by we have to be on our guard?
Do we have international customs agents or something of that
nature? I don't think so.
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, CITES, the international
ban on the ivory trade was enacted under the Convention on
International Trade and Endangered Species, the international
convention that now has over 130 party countries.
Those countries are pledged to uphold the ivory ban other
than a few countries in southern Africa that under the terms of
the treaty took a legal reservation. There is an international
effort among all of the countries that support the ivory ban to
intercept ivory, to stop the cycle that leads to the poaching
of elephants.
Mr. Abercrombie. What does that effort constitute? Is it
done through customs at ports of embarkation or at ports of
entry?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Both. In the United States, it is----
Mr. Abercrombie. Who is the principal importer of illegal
ivory in Asia?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can point
to one country and say that this country is the principal
importer.
Mr. Abercrombie. Can you point to more than one?
Mr. Marshall Jones. There are a number of countries for
which illegal shipments have been intercepted by those
countries. Let me give you an example. Taiwan. Taiwan----
Mr. Abercrombie. Excuse me, Mr. Jones. I am not interested
in what is working. I am interested in where it doesn't work.
If the trade is going on, it must be getting through. Do you
have information as to what countries illegal ivory is going
through?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Chairman, most of the information
we have is about shipments that are intercepted. We could see
what information we could provide to you about--I think what
you are getting at is where ivory may be still being sold in
the marketplace, where the governments----
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. What countries is it being sold in?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I don't have that information.
What we have is information about the countries that are
working hard to enforce the ivory ban. Clearly, someone must
think they can sell it because there is still some ivory moving
in trade.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. What are the principal countries where
the most ivory has been intercepted in Asia?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Countries where ivory has been
intercepted include Japan, include Taiwan, include China,
include countries in Southeast Asia. I can't give you an answer
today about which countries----
Mr. Abercrombie. So it is a general problem in Asia?
Mr. Marshall Jones. It is a problem. It is a problem that
is there.
Mr. Abercrombie. In the conservation fund--so, in other
words, in Japan and China and elsewhere in Asia, there is a
sufficient market for people to try and break the law, the
international convention, and ship ivory in. Is that correct?
Mr. Marshall Jones. There is at least someone thinks that
there is a market there. Sir, I can't tell you today how many
consumers are buying it.
Mr. Abercrombie. I understand that but that is where the
problem is. Somebody thinks there is a market there. Right?
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. With that involved here, we have an
authorization for up to $5 million for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, but the Administration request that I see
here in '97 is for $600,000. Is that correct?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No. It is for--the appropriation in '97
was for $1 million.
Mr. Abercrombie. That is the appropriation, but the request
was $600,000?
Mr. Marshall Jones. '97, yes, sir. It was $600,000. The
Administration request for 1998 is $1 million.
Mr. Abercrombie. Is $1 million, a match that was there
before?
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. Why not the full five?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, we receive grant proposals that
could total significantly more than the funding we receive.
Mr. Abercrombie. Are you leveraging that money?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abercrombie. Can you give us--could you give to the
Chairman how that money is being leveraged, what the $1 million
turns into in terms of your relationship with granting
agencies?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. And what programs that it is associated
with?
Mr. Marshall Jones. It has turned into more than $2
million, and we can provide you with the exact figure.
Mr. Abercrombie. Now, for the Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Fund, the authorization is $10 million up to the
year 2000. Right?
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. The Administration request for '98 is
$400,000?
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. Is that because you do not have sufficient
program information available to you to make it more than that?
Mr. Marshall Jones. No, sir. It is because in the broad
scale of priorities, that was the amount that we felt we could
make a difference with and yet stay within the President's
overall deficit reduction targets.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, can I ask Mr. Garcia then from the
five minutes there? There were two five-minute programs. Right?
Mr. Peterson. We will do another second round, can we?
Mr. Abercrombie. Oh, all right. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. OK.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, I will have some other questions for
you, Mr. Jones, that I will try to submit unless we have a
second round. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will start with
Mr. Jones and hopefully work over to the elephants. The coral
reefs--when a ship crashes into a coral reef like the incident
that just occurred, can that coral reef repair itself and over
what period of time can it as a result of the damage?
Mr. Garcia. Well, first of all, it often takes hundreds of
years for a coral reef to grow a few centimeters. NOAA
scientists, however, in the Florida Keys have experimented with
coral grafts and other techniques for restoring reef structures
that have been destroyed through ship strike or other impacts
that were human induced so that there are ways of accelerating
the regrowth or restoration of a coral reef. But once the
damage is done, it is very difficult to undo it. When a reef is
struck as it was earlier this year by a 600-foot freighter, a
reef can withstand many insults, but----
Mr. Gilchrest. If someone asked you, and maybe they have,
when that incident happened, could you have told somebody,
whether it was the Coast Guard, the international shipping
community, what you would like to see in order to avoid that?
Mr. Garcia. Well, the ship was off course by many miles.
The Congressionally-designated area to be avoided (ATBA) was
clearly designated on all the nautical charts. We don't know
why that ship strayed into this area.
Mr. Gilchrest. There was no suspicion that there might be
drugs on board, that they want to pull a little closer to the
shore and drop it overboard and have some little Cigarette boat
come out and pick it up? Was there any indication or did
anybody check into that?
Mr. Garcia. I have no knowledge of that. This was a
container ship carrying cargo. Most of the cargo, which makes
this an even more concerning incident, consisted of hazardous
chemicals, highly toxic to reef organisms, as well as humans.
Fortunately, nothing spilled.
Mr. Gilchrest. Under these circumstances, part of the
responsibility of the Coast Guard, for example, is charging to
enforce international fishing arrangements and so on. And your
organization is charged with the responsibility of coming up
with a program to protect ecosystems like the coral reefs. Do
you ever communicate with the Navy about these kinds of issues,
or was there anybody from NOAA that sat down and talked to the
Navy or the Coast Guard, I mean, on this particular incident?
Mr. Garcia. We work very closely with the Coast Guard. Part
of NOAA's responsibility is to join the response team when
there is an incident to assist them in evaluating the damage.
We have a continuing responsibility, as I noted earlier, to
assess the damage and then, as part of our damage assessment
program, if it is appropriate, to commence a legal action to
recover sufficient damages in order to restore the injury.
Mr. Gilchrest. A few years ago--well, you mentioned medical
uses for coral reefs. And a few years ago, I understand that
there was some use of coral reefs to replace human bone marrow.
Is that research still being conducted? Does that have any
impact on the extent of coral reefs as a result of this
research?
Mr. Garcia. The research is still underway. Sea Grant,
along with the National Institutes of Cancer, have funded the
research. It is not impacting the reefs in a negative way. What
we are attempting to do is determine what are the many uses
that we have yet to discover of these reefs and to protect them
so that those uses will be available to us in the future.
Mr. Gilchrest. If you had some kind of a magic wand, what
would your ideal program be to not only protect but to restore
the world's coral reefs, and how long would that take and the
approximate amount of money within 10 cents?
Mr. Garcia. How about within a few million? I mention in my
testimony that NOAA has been spending approximately $26 million
a year on programs that are related to reef health and reef
ecosystems. Obviously, we could always use more money. We felt
that this was an appropriate number within our budget. The
types of projects that we need to address I also noted. They
include monitoring, research, and understanding the reasons
behind the reef decline.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you give me two examples of where
there is dramatic coral reef decline and what has caused that?
Mr. Garcia. There are a number of reasons; in the Florida
Keys, human-induced causes such as nonpoint source pollution
that has impacted the reefs.
Mr. Gilchrest. This nonpoint source pollution--is it from
agriculture? Is it from development? What----
Mr. Garcia. All of the above.
Mr. Gilchrest. All of the above.
Mr. Garcia. All of the above--pollution washing into the
south Florida Bay impacts the reef. Fishing practices both
direct and indirect impact the reefs. By overfishing and taking
out species that the reefs are dependent upon--species that
feed on algae which if unchecked covers and then smothers the
reef--we are impacting reefs.
Indirect effects such as cyanide fishing--and I would note
that Congressman Miller has introduced a resolution to ban
cyanide fishing. This is used to stun fish for the aquarium
trade. The cyanide poisons the reefs and is a very destructive
practice. I want to recognize your leadership in taking on this
issue because it is a significant impact. The other impact is
ship strikes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you and thank you for your comments, Mr.
Garcia. Let me just follow along to what was--the discussion
you just had. In the resolution that I introduced, it outlines
the number of what I would almost call intentional actions that
are taken against the reefs for different reasons, for
different motivations, and what have you, but you knowingly are
doing this.
To what extent do we continue to experience that in reefs
in U.S. waters, if you will, or proximity to the U.S.? I mean,
cyanide fishing is one where I think there is an awareness now
that the cyanide clearly has a detrimental impact. But what
other intentional actions do we suffer?
Mr. Garcia. In addition to the ones that I noted such as
ship strikes, in some cases we are loving the reefs to death.
The more human contact, the greater the impact. Boating,
diving, people who inadvertently touch reefs or break off parts
of reefs are damaging those reefs. They are killing them.
Part of the program that NOAA is proposing as a component
of our stewardship role is to educate the public, the users of
these resources, in order to help them understand the impact
that their activity is having on the reefs and how to avoid the
adverse impacts and consequences of those activities.
Mr. Miller. Now, in Florida when you dive on some of the
Keys--I have been out there with some of your people, and there
is sort of a long educational process you go through before
they will let you in the water at least until you feel
comfortable that you maybe should be in the water--but there
is, obviously, a lot of people who are out there just by
themselves for recreational purposes or they are part of--they
have paid some money I guess to dive to services and what have
you. What kind of coordination are we developing with those
various entities in terms of education?
Mr. Garcia. It is very active, and I would commend the dive
community for their efforts. The dive community throughout the
country and Florida and Hawaii understand the importance of
these resources. Obviously, if the reef does not exist, then
their business will not exist. So they have worked with us
closely in educating the public.
Through our sanctuary program we are getting out materials
to the public. We have sanctuary representatives on the water
who work with users of the sanctuary resources to help them
understand how they can use those resources without impairing
them.
Mr. Miller. If we can go back to the cyanide fishing, is
that becoming more extensive, staying the same, or----
Mr. Garcia. I don't know that I could quantify that for
you. It is a problem. It is a problem in the Pacific. One of
the things that we have done through the coral reef initiative
is to work with the territories and commonwealth to educate
their users on the impacts of cyanide fishing and to find
alternatives to this destructive practice.
Mr. Miller. What kind of response are you getting?
Mr. Garcia. It has been very good. The local
representatives have come forward. They have worked with us.
They are crafting projects with our assistance that we think
will help respond to this problem.
Mr. Miller. Are we correct in assuming, you know, a number
of--what many of us are discovering about various environmental
assets is that they are also economic assets if they are
properly taken care of and maintained. I assume both in the
United States and other parts of the world, ecotourism and
diving and all this is generating some local economy. And is
that starting to have some impact in terms of the care and the
preservation of reefs?
Mr. Garcia. I think so. I think people are beginning to
appreciate the fact that the economy and natural resources are
inextricably linked, and that if we destroy those resources, we
are going to impair the economy. As I noted earlier, in the
Florida Keys or in Hawaii, if the reefs disappear, you are
going to feel the impact on tourism. If the tourists disappear,
the dollars won't be there. And if those dollars aren't there,
then the economy is going to suffer. There is a very direct
economic impact associated with these resources and their use.
Mr. Miller. I am sorry that I came in late in your
testimony. But if you haven't touched on it--if you have, I
will be glad to review your statement--but where do you put the
state of the reefs, you know, if you were to measure, where are
we going here? Are we in a state of continued decline for the
moment or are we stabilizing this effort? I mean, from what you
read in the popular press, it suggests that the assault still
continues certainly on a worldwide basis.
Mr. Garcia. That is correct. It does continue. It hasn't
stabilized. There is a serious crisis. Reef ecosystems are in
decline globally, and as I noted in my testimony, nationally.
The estimate I believe is that 10 percent are dead or dying,
another 30 percent could die if there is not intervention in
the next 10, 20, 30 years, and additional reefs would also be
subject to disease and death if we don't reverse this trend.
Part of our program is to educate the public and to
mobilize the public to take action to protect these resources
and to understand their value to the economy generally and to
our heritage.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Jones.
Mr. Walter Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I
also want to apologize to Mr. Jones and Mr. Garcia--I have a
sore throat, excuse me--for not being here for your testimony.
And the question that I have, Mr. Jones, is really not under
your agency's jurisdiction, but are you familiar with the USAID
Program known as CAMPFIRE?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes, sir, I am.
Mr. Walter Jones. Would you please share with the panel
what this program is all about, how it works, and the dollars
involved?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I am not the best person to give
you an expert testimony on CAMPFIRE. It is a program which
originated within the country of Zimbabwe in recognition that
it is the local villages who live with wildlife who in the long
run will be the ones to determine whether those wildlife
populations survive or not.
And particularly in the case of elephants, a species that
has both tremendous potential values for all the reasons that
are outlined in my written testimony, and also potentially can
do great harm both to crops and to people themselves, a
movement, I can't describe who or where this started, except to
say that particularly within Zimbabwe there was a feeling that
local people need to become involved in the management of
wildlife populations.
CAMPFIRE was an attempt, still is an attempt, to do that,
to give local people the opportunity to participate in the
management of their wildlife and to reap economic benefits from
that, benefits that will give them a stake in conservation,
rather than seeing wildlife as a nuisance or, even worse,
perhaps as a symbol of colonial governments and the usurpation
of their resources, something that belongs to them and
something they have a stake to take care of.
As I understand it, USAID put funding into CAMPFIRE to
enable CAMPFIRE to build the capacity of these local
organizations throughout the country to participate in the
wildlife management. We support the general principle of
sustainable utilization of wildlife within the Department of
the Interior. We think that the goals and the concepts in the
CAMPFIRE program are excellent. They are ones which have been
now modeled in other countries, but they are being adapted to
the local situations.
We understand there are questions about the specific
aspects of CAMPFIRE and how it has been managed. And, sir,
those are things that I am not expert enough to be able to
comment on. What I can tell you is we support the goals and
objectives, and we hope that CAMPFIRE will be a success because
we think that is essential for the conservation of wildlife in
southern Africa.
Those are the countries where, in fact, elephant
populations have not declined. Elephant populations are stable
or increasing, countries that in general have done the best job
with maintaining their wildlife resource. It is one of the few
natural resources that some of those countries have, and we
hope that the program will be a success.
Mr. Walter Jones. Do you have enough knowledge--and I
realize if you don't, again, because it is not your agency--but
that the dollar is trickling down to the average citizen in
Zimbabwe?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, I was in Zimbabwe a few years ago
and visited one of the CAMPFIRE districts, and I saw a health
clinic that was built by revenues which came from CAMPFIRE. So
I am sure that revenues are coming down and going to local
communities where they are using them for everything from the
construction of schools and clinics to cash payments to people
who may have a very marginal income, only a few hundred dollars
a year per capita income.
How much of the funding goes down to the villagers versus
how much is used for administrative costs or any other part of
the program, I would not be able to comment. But I have seen
with my own eyes some of the good benefits that can occur if
the program works correctly.
Mr. Walter Jones. My last question, again, is how much
money since the program started has been invested in the
CAMPFIRE program?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Sir, that is a question I cannot
answer.
Mr. Walter Jones. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank the members. Due to
restraint of time and two more panels, instead of a second
round, I am going to ask unanimous consent for Mr. Abercrombie
to ask specific questions to Mr.----
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would like to
follow on a question that Mr. Jones just asked if I might when
Mr. Abercrombie is done.
Mr. Peterson. I yield to Mr.----
Mr. Miller. Go ahead first and then I will----
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. I have a brief question we can follow for
Mr. Garcia. Information from our staff and from my own reading,
they cite an article--I think it was already mentioned--in the
Washington Post. Miller has cited the popular press--talking
about disease in the coral reefs in Florida.
And in that same article, they mention another disease. One
is a white scum, something of that nature, in Florida, and
another disease in Hawaii. But I am unable to discover in
Hawaii precisely what it was that was spoken of. It was almost
a throw-away sentence in the article, and I wonder if you have
something you could--if you can't do it today--look into it and
tell me about it because I can't find it?
Mr. Garcia. Sure. I would be happy to look into it, but I
would also suggest that you have a panel far more expert than I
in the diseases associated with reefs that may be able to
answer your question today.
[The following was submitted:]
``White Pox'' Coral Reef Disease
NOAA is not currently conducting any reasearch or
monitoring activities regarding the occurrence of ``white pox''
coral reef disease in Hawaiian waters. For further information,
it is recommended that you contact Mr. Paul Jokiel, University
of Hawaii/Institute of Marine Biology, 1000 Pope Road, HI 96822
(tel 808-236-7440).
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Miller for a follow-up.
Mr. Miller. Just to follow on the points raised by Mr.
Jones, and maybe other witnesses can comment on it. But as I
understand, your program is the African Elephant Conservation
Fund. That is what we are here about. And that is about $1
million. And the theory of that is that we are engaging in
African elephant conservation, I assume?
Mr. Marshall Jones. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. Truth in labeling. I mean, that is the--I guess
the question I would have to follow is that there seems to be a
substantial amount of other moneys that are flowing into these
same regions.
And I just ask if you have a sense of whether or not when
we look at these programs and the managements of these programs
and the results, are they consistent with the African elephant
conservation program, or are you getting--are there other
programs that are having more of an impact than this $1 million
that may be wiping out the purposes and intent of this program?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Mr. Miller, the African Elephant
Conservation Fund is the only dedicated fund just for elephant
conservation right now. There are a lot of other donors which
operate in Africa, but their efforts are not focused on
elephants.
Mr. Miller. No, but let us just go to CAMPFIRE. That is a
USAID program, is it not?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Most of the funding comes from that. That looks
to me like it is going to be--we have spent about $5 million,
and we are now talking about spending $20 million. Is that
consistent with what people believe we are doing in terms of
African elephant conservation? You suggest you think that
program is working, and I am just asking is that consistent
with what we believe is the intent of what is happening here?
Mr. Marshall Jones. The goals of that program are entirely
consistent with elephant conservation. Obviously, the program
addresses a broad variety of things. Elephants are touched on
in the program. The goals are consistent. I can't comment on
the operation of the program or whether the program has been
achieving the objectives which they----
Mr. Miller. Well, part of that program is about generating
ecotourism or around the hunting of elephants, is it not?
Mr. Marshall Jones. Both, yes, sir.
Mr. Miller. Is the take of those elephants consistent with
the conservation of the African elephant?
Mr. Marshall Jones. We believe it is. We approve the import
of African elephant trophies into the United States from
countries which have a sustainable program. Those programs
result in the taking of less than one percent of the elephant
population each year. The large bulls are those which trophy
hunters will single out.
And as long as those programs are well managed and result
in revenues which are returned to conservation programs, we are
able to approve them, and we have a number of countries that we
have approved for the import of trophies. We think that hunting
is consistent with the Elephant Conservation Act, and the Act
specifically addresses that in its text.
Mr. Miller. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Peterson. I would like to thank Mr. Jones and Mr.
Garcia for their testimony and the members for their questions.
We will now introduce the next panel. The first witness of the
next panel is Dr. Terry Maple, the Director of Zoo Atlanta; Dr.
Teresa Telecky, the Director of the Wildlife Trade Program of
the Humane Society of the United States; the Honorable Ron
Marlenee, Director of Legislative Affairs at Safari Club
International; Ms. Gina De Ferrari, the Director of TRAFFIC for
the World Wildlife Fund; Dr. Brian Child, the Community
Development Advisor of Longwa Integrated Rural Development
Program of Zimbabwe.
I would like to remind the witnesses that under our
committee rules, they must limit their oral statements to five
minutes, but that their entire statement will appear in the
record. We will also allow the entire panel to testify before
questioning the witnesses. The Chairman now recognizes Dr.
Maple. And I guess I should correct--the last one I mentioned
is from Zambia, not Zimbabwe. Welcome to the panel. Mr. Maple,
you can proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. TERRY MAPLE, DIRECTOR OF ZOO ATLANTA
Mr. Maple. Thank you very much. When America's zoo
directors behold an elephant, the see it through the eyes of
the nation's 120 million zoo visitors. There are roughly 40,000
mammals on exhibit in the 170 accredited institutions which
comprise the American Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Only
136 African elephants currently reside in American zoos.
They are extraordinarily difficult to properly exhibit,
manage, and breed. It will be many, many years until we can
proclaim a self-sustaining captive population. Even if we could
clone an elephant to obtain a normal adult, we would spend
decades nurturing and socializing a long-lived creature with a
complex social structure and intellectual powers that rival
those of human kind.
The successful management of elephants in zoos is our most
labor intensive and expensive form of mammalian husbandry. It
is as much art as it is science, and its expert practitioners,
the elephant keepers, must be alert and savvy each and every
day that they walk among the world's largest land mammals. Zoo
professionals respect elephants, while our visitors shower them
with affection. The label ``charismatic megavertabrate'' is a
perfect fit with the African elephant.
I rise to support reauthorization of the African Elephant
Conservation Act because I believe that its grants program is
making a significant difference in Africa. It is doing what was
intended in providing critical financial assistance to support
protection, conservation, and management of African elephants
in the wild.
To date, 17 African countries have benefited from the 50
projects funded with over $5 million of programmatic money and
more than $8 million in matching funds. The identified needs
are greater than the sum expended by a factor of 20.
We have made an important start with this very important
program. The Grants Program of the African Elephant
Conservation Act is an example of American leadership at its
best. We are fact-finding; we are solving real problems; we are
team-building; and we are making a difference in the field.
As one who must live by a budget based on a competitive
marketplace, I recognize the importance of cost-effective,
well-designed, focused, and flexible programs. The African
Elephant Conservation Act was designed to encourage donations
from private sources, and the record demonstrates this strategy
has been successful.
I regard this program as a classic example of a public-
private partnership. The key word is partnership, as our
government must be an effective and willing partner with other
responsible governments and other conservation organizations if
we are going to save elephants in Africa.
In my opinion, there is great potential to dramatically
grow the private side of the match to help fill the gap between
proposed and funded projects. I will do what I can to encourage
expanded participation by the nation's zoos. And working
together we will accomplish a great deal more in the future.
Because the needs are great and the funding at present
modest, the African Elephant Conservation Act was also designed
to provide quick, short-term support for holding actions and
other conservation measures in concert with existing or
proposed long-range activities or until such activities are in
place.
Experts from the field have prioritized well, ensuring that
our contributions are applied to the most critical endeavors,
but in ways that contribute to a holistic plan. These are
thoughtful programs administered by experienced personnel who
are committed to long-term conservation action. America's
continued involvement in such programs instills confidence in
situations where morale can fluctuate wildly on an eventful
day.
Now, Africa's elephants are huge and visible creatures.
Their decline throughout their range has been swift and
dramatic. They are a symbol and a metaphor for our protection
efforts. And we know that habitat destruction has been a factor
in their decline, but we also know that poachers continue to
annihilate whole populations of elephants throughout Africa.
I visited sites in Kenya's Tsavo National Park where this
poaching is evident. And a fresh kill by poachers, I must say,
is a deeply disturbing event. It is an image that is lasting
and something that you cannot forget if you witnessed it.
I would like to recall some words from our Senator in
Georgia, Paul Coverdell, who recently identified the 104th
Congress as the ``most aggressive campaign to protect the
environment in recent history.'' He cited 11 major
environmental initiatives which would provide a ``safer and
healthier environment for all,'' including the Everglades
Protection Amendments to the 1996 Farm Bill.
I want you to know that this is the kind of commitment that
the Congress has made is important. It is important for
elephants. It is important certainly for the nature world.
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Maple?
Mr. Maple. This pact, I want to add, is--pardon me, sir?
Mr. Peterson. We need to move to the next witness. We are
running short on time here.
Mr. Maple. I am sorry. Would you grant me one last
paragraph?
Mr. Peterson. Sure.
Mr. Maple. OK. I simply wanted to quote Senator Coverdell.
He said, ``History will judge this Congress on its merits, and
in terms of environmental protection, it must surely be said
they were committed to conservation.'' We are indebted to the
strong leaders who have sponsored reauthorization of this Act.
I thank you for this, and I would hope that the Elephant
Conservation Act is a very good start for this Congress. Thank
you.
[Statement of Mr. Maple may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Dr. Telecky.
STATEMENT OF DR. TERESA TELECKY, DIRECTOR OF THE WILDLIFE TRADE
PROGRAM, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
Ms. Telecky. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the
reauthorization of the African Elephant Conservation Act on
behalf of the Humane Society of the United States and 12 other
organizations.
Mr. Chairman, in 1988 when the African Elephant
Conservation Act was passed, you will recall that approximately
100,000 elephants were being killed each year to satisfy the
world demand for ivory. Elephant numbers had dropped from about
1.3 million in 1979 to only 700,000 and were declining by about
10 percent per year. Today, there are fewer than 543,000
elephants remaining in the wild.
Elephants have virtually disappeared from some areas of
Africa. The average weight of a tusk being exported from Africa
had dropped from 35 pounds in 1979 to only 13 pounds in 1988,
indicating that older elephants were being wiped out by the
ivory trade. The ivory control system adopted by CITES to
regulate the trade was clearly failing, and by 1988, about 80
percent of ivory in trade was from poached elephants.
The passage of the African Elephant Conservation Act in
1988 and President Bush's subsequent ban on the importation of
ivory into the United States under the Act, which happened in
June 1989, sent a clear message to the CITES parties who, five
months later and with the support of the majority of African
elephant range states, placed the African elephant on CITES
Appendix I, banning the international commercial trade in
elephants and elephant parts.
The ivory trade ban stopped the dramatic decline of the
African elephant. And although poaching and illegal ivory trade
still occur, the levels are minuscule compared to when the
ivory trade was legal.
However, most elephant populations have yet to show signs
of recovery from the years of unfettered poaching for the ivory
trade. Despite this, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia will
propose at this June 1997 CITES meeting to remove their
populations of elephants from CITES Appendix I in order to sell
ivory stockpiles to Japan, and to trade in live elephants and
elephant trophies. Zimbabwe will also propose to trade in ivory
souvenirs and elephant hides.
Mr. Chairman, any change in the listing of the African
elephant under CITES, even if it is portrayed in live animals,
trophies, souvenirs or hides, will unfortunately be seen by
elephant poachers and ivory dealers as a sign that the ivory
trade ban will soon be relaxed.
Indeed, elephant poaching increased in Kenya and other
countries in months preceding each CITES meeting since 1989.
And now just a few months before this June's CITES meeting, 280
elephants, including mothers and infants, have been found
massacred in the Congo, their tusks removed.
Moreover, in February 1997, just last month, a CITES panel
of experts concluded, first, that control over ivory stockpiles
is inadequate in Botswana and requires improvement in Namibia,
and that there continues to be movement of ivory through both
countries to South Africa.
Second, that law enforcement is ``grossly inadequate'' in
Zimbabwe which has permitted the establishment of large scale
ivory carving operations that sell commercial quantities of
semiworked ivory to Asian countries, that large amounts of
illegal ivory are passing through Zimbabwe to South Africa, and
that Zimbabwe has poor control over other elephant products.
And, finally, in Japan, the illegal import of partially worked
ivory or pieces of tusks cannot be reliably detected.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that poachers stand ready to
resume elephant poaching on a large scale, and that none of the
three proponent countries, nor Japan, have control over ivory
trade even now when it is banned from international trade.
Removing any population from CITES Appendix I will reverse
all the progress that has been made since passage of the
African Elephant Act. We, therefore, strongly urge you and
other members of the Subcommittee to voice support for
retaining all populations of the African elephant on Appendix
I.
If passed, these proposals will not only allow the sale of
dusty stockpiles of ivory, but will clear out ivory stockrooms,
making way for new ivory from culled elephants. The HSUS
opposes the use of culling as a means to control elephant
populations and offers hope for a humane alternative.
In January 1997, the HSUS signed a $1 million, five-year
agreement with the National Parks Board of South Africa to,
among other activities, conduct a study on the use of amino
contraception as a means for humanely controlling the size and
growth of elephant populations in Kruger National Park. And Dr.
Jay Kirkpatrick, the lead researcher on the project, is here
with me today to answer your questions. Mr. Chairman, my five
minutes seems to have run out awfully quickly. May I just
conclude?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, please.
Ms. Telecky. OK. We wanted to conclude by commenting on the
CAMPFIRE program. We have a number of problems with money from
the African Elephant Conservation Act going to this program,
the first of which is that the program has promoted the
resumption of the ivory trade. And as I have just described to
you, any resumption in the ivory trade would doom the
elephants.
Secondly, CAMPFIRE has lobbied to change the Endangered
Species Act in this country to weaken it, to allow the import
of more endangered and threatened animals into this country,
and that is of grave concern to us. And, thirdly and finally,
CAMPFIRE is based primarily on African elephant trophy hunting,
which is an activity that is opposed by 84 percent of American
citizens. And we don't think that money should be used from
this Act to fund such programs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Ms. Telecky may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr. Marlenee.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RON MARLENEE, DIRECTOR OF
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; ACCOMPANIED BY
STUART MARKS
Mr. Marlenee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we
should not be surprised at the almost universal support of the
African Elephant Conservation Act and of CAMPFIRE. SCI, Safari
Club International, strongly supports the passage of H.R. 39
which will renew the Elephant Conservation Act.
The AECA funds could almost be considered conscience money.
The ESA and an almost virtual ban on trophy hunting has
stripped the host nations of their ability to fund conservation
and enhancement programs in a meaningful way.
One of the reasons that the African Elephant Conservation
Act is necessary is that the Endangered Species Act is long on
mandates and sanctions and totally devoid of recovery support.
82 percent of the mammals listed under the ESA are foreign, yet
the Act provides no benefit for foreign species with regard to
recovery.
Your invitation to testify asked us to address the various
grant programs that we have under the Act. Accordingly, we will
address and briefly discuss our three grant projects, two in
Tanzania and one in Zimbabwe. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I
have included all of the information required at the end of my
written testimony and ask that that be submitted for the record
along with Dr. Stuart Marks's testimony.
The matching grant for the first Tanzanian project is
$36,000, and it was for a pilot program to train government
game scouts to gather elephant data and pinpoint it
geographically using handheld GPS systems. The date is needed
for wildlife management. Game scouts accompany safari hunting
parties into the field at the expense of the hunter. Here
again, we extend the effective dollars.
The grant funds the training of scouts to collect elephant
data while in the field. It equips them with the Magellans to
pinpoint the location, to accompany their recorded
observations. It also provides a central computer storage data
center. In effect, it has helped to extend the training of game
scouts to act as biological assistants while in the field.
A second phase of the grant has been approved to allow an
increase in the number of game scouts that can be trained. The
program also teaches the game scouts to evaluate the elephant
populations from the point of view of their hunting trophy
quality.
This is important because it maximizes the revenue that can
be obtained from a culling program and from the use of this
natural resource which results in a minimal biological impact
of that particular program and actually reduces the number of
elephants required to be taken to fund programs. The revenues
are a key incentive to conservation and provide much of the
funding used for such conservation.
The second matching grant was for $84,000 to help fund a
survey of Tanzania's elephant populations which may be the
largest in Africa. It will fund aerial surveys of three
specific areas completing the collection of data which will
provide a new base line for elephant populations in Tanzania.
In carefully reviewing the submitted testimony of HSUS, I
have noted criticism of SCI and CAMPFIRE. Mr. Chairman, to be
criticized by HSUS is a badge of honor and distinction. To
merit that criticism, one must be making a contribution
effectively and meritoriously.
Perhaps it is research in saving a child's life. Perhaps it
is programs to feed hungry people. Or, in this case, it may be
as simple as teaching people to protect and harvest animals to
provide revenue that would feed whole villages. I have asked
our esteemed and respected Dr. Marks to explain in a couple of
short minutes what our third grant about CAMPFIRE is all about.
[Statement of Mr. Marlenee may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. [presiding] Do you want to do that right
now, Mr. Marlenee?
Mr. Marlenee. Answer questions for you?
Mr. Gilchrest. Will this take more than a minute or two?
Mr. Marks. I will try in two or three minutes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right. OK. We will let you go, and then
I think we will decide whether or not we will go to the next
two witnesses before the vote is taken. I would say that I
think a badge of honor is for all of us to get down at the
table and express our opinions in a sense of tolerance for each
other's differences so that we can find a way collectively to
proceed to protect the world's ecosystems and great mammals.
And I think that is what we are about here today. We will give
you two minutes, sir.
Mr. Marks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Stuart
Marks. I am Director of Research and Community Development for
Safari Club International. I have a Ph.D. in Animal Ecology and
have taught anthropology. Having grown up in rural central
Africa, I have spent some 30 years researching community uses
of wildlife and assessing community-based wildlife programs.
More to the point, I am the project administrator of the
African Elephant Conservation grant support to CAMPFIRE in
Zimbabwe and have been associated with it from the beginning.
Mr. Miller. Do we have a disclosure form?
Mr. Marks. Yes. I think Congressman Marlenee just gave you
one in our statement.
Mr. Miller. Ron, you asked--is that in your main packet? Is
that part of your--the disclosure form I am talking about is
one of the other witnesses have--maybe we can sort this out
while we go for a vote. In terms of Federal grants and what
have you, have you filed that with the committee?
Mr. Marlenee. What is it you asked, George?
Mr. Miller. Witnesses are required to have a disclosure
form in terms of Federal grants and participations or moneys
received or programs worked on. And we have--but I don't know
if we have it for here. Is this it?
Mr. Marks. Yes, sir.
Mr. Peterson. [presiding] Mr. Miller will review that in
just a moment.
Mr. Miller. Well, this is for the Safari Club.
Mr. Abercrombie. If the gentleman will yield, the problem
here is that we have added new layers of bureaucracy since the
104th Congress. And absent a--this is nothing against you,
doctor, but absent what amounts to a curriculum vitae from you,
you can't testify unless we could waive it or something of that
nature. What I would be willing to do----
Mr. Marlenee. May I respond?
Mr. Peterson. Mr. Marlenee.
Mr. Marlenee. Yes. The testimony that SCI provided that I
spoke to contains all of the grant information, my name, all of
the addresses and information that are necessary. And it is in
the members' packet under SCI testimony. It is with the colored
logo. Dr. Marks is a supplement to my testimony and is included
under the blanket of what I have provided. I think counsel can
point that out to you.
Mr. Abercrombie. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Nice try, Mr.
Marlenee. But, you know, Mr. Maple has got an example right
here--what is required. I don't require it. I don't think a lot
of us require it, but that is what the rules say now. And, you
know, it has got everything, including all your sins of
commission and omission has to be in.
Mr. Peterson. We have an opportune time here to break to go
take a vote, and when we come back, we will have it all cleared
up. We have to break. We will be back shortly. Thank you. The
hearing is in temporary recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Peterson. We will reconvene the Subcommittee hearing,
and we will move to the next witness, Gina De Ferrari. Thank
you, Gina, and please proceed.
STATEMENT OF GINA DE FERRARI, DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC, WORLD
WILDLIFE FUND
Ms. De Ferrari. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear here today. The World Wildlife Fund is the largest
private conservation organization working internationally to
protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We currently support
conservation efforts in many key African elephant range states.
I am here today to convey our views on the effectiveness of
the African Elephant Conservation Act. First, I want to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and applaud the
Subcommittee for taking a leadership role in securing passage
of this Act.
The African Elephant Fund administered by the Fish and
Wildlife Service has provided about $5.4 million over eight
years for elephant conservation throughout Africa. It supported
66 grants in 17 African countries. In our view, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been both efficient and effective in
managing this grant program.
This fund has been the only continuous source of new money
for African elephant conservation efforts since the 1989 ivory
trade ban took effect. Unfortunately, funding from other
sources have proven erratic. In the immediate aftermath of the
ivory trade ban when the world was sensitized to the elephants'
dilemma, funding flowed from various governments, multilateral
bodies, and NGO's to projects in many parts of Africa.
Subsequently, however, funding largely dried up. A 1995
review, co-sponsored by World Wildlife Fund and the Fish and
Wildlife Service, revealed that many African parks and wildlife
departments have suffered severe budget cuts, some around the
order of 90 percent or more over four years, as was the case
with Tanzania from 1989 to 1993.
This not only underscores a very serious trend, but also
makes the moneys authorized by the African Elephant Act even
more valuable and needed. A key list of World Wildlife Fund
projects funded under the Act is appended at the end of my
testimony. I would like to highlight one in particular which
represents the most focused of our efforts.
But first I would like to differentiate between the kinds
of issues associated with elephant conservations in southern
Africa from those in central Africa. In southern Africa,
elephant conservation problems are increasingly related to
human-elephant conflicts as elephant populations outgrow the
available habitat within protected areas. And, increasingly,
conservation projects there are designed to find ways to
minimize those conflicts.
By contrast, central Africa is many years behind east and
southern Africa with respect to protected areas in which
elephants can find refuge. Poaching continues to pose a serious
problem. It is important to note that as many as half of
Africa's elephants live in this region. It is here in the
Central African Republic that World Wildlife Fund has focused a
good bit of its effort.
The southwestern region of this country contains its last
stronghold of lowland tropical forest which is home to large
numbers of elephants. The government of the Central African
Republic and World Wildlife Fund have worked together to create
a multiple use reserve called Dzanga-Sangha and national park
called Dzanga-Ndoki to protect this unique ecosystem.
We have had the support of the Fish and Wildlife Service
for nearly six years. The antipoaching operations supported by
the Fish and Wildlife Service include a force of 30 guards and
have resulted in a marked decrease in poaching and a
significant increase in the elephant population. The recorded
density of more than three elephants per square kilometer is
one of the highest, if not the highest, ever recorded in the
forests of Africa.
A major focus of this project has been the participation of
local people. It is one of the first conservation initiatives
in the lowland forests of Africa to integrate conservation with
the needs of the rural poor. As such, it serves as an important
prototype for future community conservation efforts in central
Africa in which local people realize direct benefits from
wildlife conservation.
The objective of the project to stop large scale poaching
of elephants in the core area of Dzanga-Sangha has clearly been
reached. The elephant population is expanding, and that is a
situation that is unique in the central Africa region. You may
have seen the TV documentary last week showing the slaughter of
200 elephants in the Congo last fall. It was a gruesome scene,
one which underscores the importance of establishing and
effectively guarding protected areas in this region of Africa
where poaching is still a very real threat.
Fish and Wildlife Service funding has provided the impetus
for the establishment of a network of protected areas in
central Africa and has leverage funds from the World Wildlife
Fund, the Wildlife Conservation Society, as well as generous
funding from European governments.
In summary, I would like to express my strong support for
the accomplishments that have been achieved with funding under
the African Elephant Conservation Act, commend the Fish and
Wildlife Service for an excellent job in administering the
fund, thank you for your continuing support, and urge Congress
to fund the Act as generously as it can.
[Statement of Ms. De Ferrari may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Boy, she has got the pace right down. Thank
you very much. Dr. Brian Child.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRIAN CHILD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISOR,
LONGWA INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF ZAMBIA
Mr. Child. Thank you very much. I live in the rural area in
Africa amongst rural people, and pictures like that with
washing being knocked out of my garden are very familiar. I
have managed the CAMPFIRE program for six years, and I now
manage a very similar program in Zambia.
We in Africa would like to thank the AECA and the U.S.
Government for supporting antipoaching using this money. It has
been very useful. But we would also like to commend the new
approach whereby they are supporting the new African approach
to conservation. And I would like to make three points in
support of the recommendation that this continues.
Firstly, southern Africa's sustainable use approach is
probably the greatest conservation success since Yellowstone
over 100 years ago. Secondly, community based natural resource
management, including CAMPFIRE, which has come up a lot, is the
first major success anywhere in matching wildlife conservation
and rural development in conditions of serious human poverty.
And, thirdly, a lot of these successes are being
deliberately misrepresented by groups with little understanding
of Africa and with scant regard for the truth, wildlife
conservation, and human well-being.
As I said, Yellowstone was the first success, and about 15
percent of southern Africa is protected as national parks
because of that American model. But this model is not
appropriate outside national parks where you have human
population doubling every 20 years and widespread human
poverty. People die because they don't have $2 for anti-malaria
drugs.
This approach is based on the reality that the reasons that
elephants and wildlife disappear is because people grow more
and more crops and more and more cattle. If you don't make
wildlife as competitive, it will disappear.
The result of this new policy is a massive increase in land
under wildlife. Starting with elephants, in Zimbabwe, the
population has increased in the last 15 years from 47,000 to
68,000. That is a massive increase in elephants. The increase
is 2 to 3,000 per year compared to an offtake in the CAMPFIRE
program of 130. So it is definitely sustainable.
So in summary of this new paradigm, it has tripled the area
of wildlife conservation, which is amazing, and that is why we
claim it is the greatest conservation success since
Yellowstone.
Turning to community based management, which seems to have
come up a lot this morning, the challenge is to do elephant
conservation where there is poverty and where there are very
serious conflicts of elephant. In Kenya, since 1989, 353 people
have been killed by elephants. That is more people than were
killed in TWA 800. So African people are terrified of wildlife.
The dilemma is how do we conserve destructive animals like
elephants amongst people living in poverty? Now, we believe we
have got a solution to this in that we give people the
ownership of wildlife, and then we help them market it so they
get benefits from wildlife and they conserve it.
And the reason why CAMPFIRE is in the limelight is because
it has made huge strides in developing this philosophy. And I
just want to stress that CAMPFIRE is much, much bigger than
elephants. It is about democracy. It is about human
development. It is about general wildlife conservation.
One of the key things in CAMPFIRE is that everything is
done in a public forum. Rural communities meet to discuss how
to use the money from wildlife and how to manage their
wildlife. The result has been that wildlife has become
valuable, and because it is valuable, it is now conserved. Much
more land--triple the amount of land is allocated to wildlife,
and a lot less animals are being killed.
The result--it is really important to stress this--of the
CAMPFIRE program is the proliferation of grassroots democracies
throughout southern Africa. It is promoting the democratic
process in Africa. People get money. People invest in schools.
And communities are being transformed from being dependent and
downtrodden with no hope to people that can do things for
themselves. And that is sustainable. That means less and less
and less need for foreign aid.
This program is supported by major donors. USAID has played
a major role in supporting it. The Elephant Conservation Act
has helped. The British, the Germans, the EU, the Norwegians,
the Danes all support these programs in southern Africa. In the
testimony I have submitted 20 letters in support from major
conservation agencies like WWF, IUC, and AWF, et cetera. So
there is a lot of support for this program.
I see I am running out of time so I will just summarize by
thanking the AECA for supporting one of Africa's biggest
conservation success stories in 100 years, for promoting
democracy, and for improving the livelihoods of millions of
people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Child may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Child. I have a question for
Dr. Telecky. The one conservation project that your
organization has in Africa devotes $2 million to the
development of elephant contraceptives. If this project is
successful, it will reduce the reproductive capacity of
elephants which you maintain are endangered throughout the
whole range. Where is the logic in trying to reduce the
productive capacity of what you maintain is an endangered
species?
Ms. Telecky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In answer to your
question, I would say that certainly African elephants are
considered threatened under our Endangered Species Act. The
IUCN considers them to be threatened--endangered, rather,
throughout the continent of Africa.
However, in certain areas, there seem to be concentrations
of elephants especially where they have been artificially
fenced in, and there is no way for them to maintain their
normal migratory routes. And Kruger National Park is one of
those places--Kruger National Park in South Africa.
In South Africa, they have quite a bit of tourism, and
tourists were, of course, concerned about what they heard about
600 of these elephants being killed every year by government
rangers essentially. They were culling the population in order
to keep the level down. And tourists were becoming very
concerned about that.
That was of concern to the South African government because
they rely on tourists for quite a bit of income. And we
approached them with an idea that we had. We had been working
on contracepting a number of different species with an amino-
contraceptive vaccine which can be used to control populations
of animals without resorting to massive culling operations,
which are publicly unpalatable.
And the South African government thought it was a good
idea, and they have agreed to participate in some research on
that with us. If you have any technical questions about the
project, we have Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick here who is the research
leader on that project.
Mr. Peterson. I guess my response would be wouldn't it make
more sense to translocate--have a translocation program where
we move them to areas where they are really wanted and needed
rather than using birth control?
Ms. Telecky. Well, in fact, the South African government
does translocate some of those elephants. They set up some new
areas in South Africa where they are moving the elephants to.
But they still feel the need to find a way to control the
population even with the elephants being moved to other areas.
Mr. Peterson. Thank you. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. We are at a disadvantage here. You
folks know much more than we can right at this moment, and you
have different points of view as to the question of hunting and
whether or not that is a good idea.
I want to go back then to Dr. Maple. If you will give me
one second to work my way back in the material. You said then
in your--you are in favor of the AECA programs. Right?
Mr. Maple. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. And your testimony isn't numbered so bear
with me for a moment if you would. I am going to read to you.
``These are thoughtful programs administered by experienced
personnel committed to long-term conservation action,'' et
cetera. ``There are situations--confidence in situations where
morale can fluctuate wildly on an eventful day.
``Such conditions exist in Central Africa today where Zoo
Atlanta has been monitoring a small group of elephants in
Rwanda's Akagera National Park. The virtual survival of small
groups of elephants, gorillas, or other forms of life depends
on equally small groups of dedicated conservationists and the
modest resources to support them.''
I want to use that as a basis for asking both Dr. Telecky
and Ms. De Ferrari, and Dr. Child, you are saying different
things. But Dr. Maple has indicated that there may be a variety
of approaches here that work. It depends on the individual
situation and whether it can be monitored and controlled.
So I would like--maybe, Dr. Maple, you can comment, if you
would, on these other presentations. I mean, what are we to do?
I think that the authorization is not at question. The point
here is what kind of programs are going to be sustained? Should
they all be sustained? Is this more a paradox than a
contradiction?
Mr. Maple. Well, I do agree that down the road and maybe
even already starting today there is some disagreement about
these programs, the scope of them, and the nature of them. I
kind of like to remember what Congressman Gilchrest said,
before he left, a little bit earlier in the day about having a
little tolerance for differences of opinion.
All of the people at this panel and many people in the
audience are scholars. They are involved in these programs
because they deeply believe in them. I think in the final
analysis, a careful forum of evaluation of programs that are
existing and programs that may occur in the future will be a
critical variable in making these determinations.
It may be the case that our evaluation process could be
improved, and I think that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--
--
Mr. Abercrombie. Let me go to that question. Take Rwanda.
The political situation in Rwanda must make it very difficult
for you to be able to do your monitoring.
Mr. Maple. Exactly so. In fact, in that particular
instance, the chaos is so evident that it is difficult even to
get personnel on the ground and to communicate with people who
are there.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, my instinct then--yes. My time will
run out fairly soon. My instinct is to support again under the
right circumstances what Mr. Marlenee is talking about. Dr.
Child, would you agree that you and Mr. Marlenee, the Safari
Club's goals and your goals, they are compatible, are they not?
Right? OK.
And at the same time I can see under circumstances where
you have limited resources that the birth control--the
contraception thing would be a very valuable thing if it works.
But that is going to require a lot of attention and funds, will
it not, Dr. Telecky?
Ms. Telecky. Our experimental research is ongoing right
now. By early 1998, we will know whether this type of project
can work with elephants, but it is right now working in the
management of wild horses and deer populations in the United
States.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, preliminarily then what I am
concluding, Mr. Chairman, is that probably all of these
programs need to be supported depending on the context within
which they are being conducted. I don't really see any
contradictions here. I see parallels and some paradoxes
operating. But what we need then is to have sufficient funding,
and I know that comes back to the old question of where do you
balance this.
But I think if we are to have good relations with Africa as
a continent, and more particularly with those areas in which we
have a demonstrated interest in the United States in
conservation, and with tigers, rhinos, for example, as well as
elephants, I think this is the case. You may have to move
rhinos, would you not, Dr. Maple? That tiger and rhino program
may find necessity for moving those animals. Right?
Mr. Maple. Quite possible.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. So then I think, Mr. Chairman, what we
are dealing with here is a question of adequate funding, and I
for one cannot conclude yet whether any individual approach is
superior one to the other. I think they are complementary.
Mr. Crapo. [presiding] Thank you. The time of the gentleman
has expired. Does the gentleman from California have questions?
Mr. Miller. At the risk of being redundant----
Mr. Crapo. Please go ahead.
Mr. Miller. [continuing]--which in Congress is a privilege
that we don't take lightly so don't laugh, but I am kind of in
the position of Mr. Abercrombie. We have looked at a lot of
background material on these programs. And the purpose of this
hearing is to try to provide some sense of evaluation, whether
we are headed off in the right direction or not, and that is
not to suggest that this isn't without controversy, but that is
part of the framework.
But I am taken with the notion that we are trying to apply
some solutions that make sense on the ground. And, of course,
that is where you get into controversy, but that is true in the
United States. You know, we run into the questions of outright
preservation of species and animals that are game animals, and
we have that all the time.
But the fact of the matter is that the wildlife community,
the hunting community has generated huge amounts of habitat
preservation and increases in species as have the fishermen and
others. And so I think it is all part of the same quilt here.
The question for us is are these working the way we want
them to do. And when I say what we want them to do, I think
there is a very clear sense in the American public's mind that
this is about the protection and preservation of these animals
and hopefully the habitat that they come to rely on. That is
really the overarching theme here.
As Mr. Gilchrest pointed out, yes, we better figure out how
to sit at the table together. But if there is something that
drives this, if people get a sense that this funding is in
contradiction to that overarching desire, then we have got a
problem, which is different than a disagreement or a
controversy about one approach versus the other in the smaller
sense.
I just wonder if you maybe can build on what Mr.
Abercrombie was talking to you, because I get a sense that we
are here reviewing $1 million that we are trying to steer a
very large ocean liner here with a spoon. We are not going to
make a lot of progress. But how does this merge with other
things that are going on, whether it is USAID and other
programs? Maybe, Dr. Child, you might want to since you see
some of this from other support systems.
Mr. Child. The African elephant funding has been--it is
pretty well coordinated in southern Africa with major donors
like USAID and the EU. In fact, the one project that is funded
through this (AECA) is teaching communities how to set quotas,
and that program is nested in entirely within a program that is
coordinated by the Zimbabwe government, and includes support
from the United States, the EU, and so on.
So I think southern Africa has their act pretty well
together--both within countries and between countries. For
example, with the United States funding through USAID, there is
a lot of networking that goes on, and the Namibians,
Botswanans, Zambians, Mozambicans, and Zimbabwens work very
closely together. So in that respect, it is very valuable.
Mr. Miller. Let me go right to--and, Ron, you may want to
comment on this and others. Is hunting an essential component?
I guess maybe that is one of the questions that gets--that is
always right below the surface here. Is this a very real and
essential component to the success of the preservation and
protection of these species?
Mr. Child. Definitely, and throughout all of southern
Africa these programs are beginning with hunting. And the
reason for that is they are starting with very marginal
wildlife populations. There has been a lot of poaching in the
past and so on. If it is difficult to see animals, it is
difficult to have tourism, but you can have hunting.
So what happens is that you will have hunting for about 15
years, and then sometimes you get enough animals to do tourism.
This is because when you hunt you are only taking two percent
of the population which is growing at about 10 percent. So
every year that you hunt, you probably have eight percent more
animals which is very sustainable.
And so the communities and the farmers will be making a lot
of money out of hunting, and then in certain areas where there
is nice scenery or nice rivers or it is a good tourism place,
they may then add a tourism venture and ecotourism venture or
switch completely from hunting to tourism.
But hunting is a stepping stone from degraded cattle
ranching to a wildlife production system. If you take out
hunting, there is no way you are going to move from one to the
other. So, yes, it is absolutely vital at least for the next 20
years.
Mr. Miller. Anyone else on that point? Yes, Ron.
Mr. Marlenee. George, may I respond to that? I believe
naturally that hunting is a very important component because it
is an element in stopping the poaching. Once these indigenous
people have an invested interest in that wildlife, they are
going to protect it and they are going to protect it so that
they have a resource that will return enough to feed and clothe
them in their villages. It is extremely important that they are
vested with an interest in that wildlife, and that has been the
case wherever hunting has occurred around the world.
Now, how much hunting? Well, hunting should be controlled
in these instances, and it is controlled in two ways; one by
our CITES agreement, which establishes quotas, in any country.
They designate, these renown scientists, that you can take 60
here, five here, none over here. Nobody disagrees with that.
And then it is established by the professionals in each
nation. Some of the foremost professionals in the world and
wildlife management are involved in the programs in these
African nations or in the republics of what was formerly
Russia. So that controlled, scientific approach yields the best
of both worlds.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Telecky?
Ms. Telecky. Yes. Thank you. I would like to address the
trophy hunting issue too if that is the subject that we are on.
First of all, it has been claimed that trophy hunting has
decreased poaching I guess in the case of Zimbabwe, in
particular.
And I note that the Zimbabwe government has prepared a
proposal for downlisting their elephants at the next CITES
meeting in which they note--they give some poaching figures for
four areas--four national park areas in Zimbabwe. And poaching
has actually gone up in three of those areas since the CAMPFIRE
program began. So I think to claim that elephant poaching has
declined because of the implementation of this program is not
quite right.
Secondly, I wanted to say that trophy hunting does not
actually address the problem animal situation which was
discussed by Dr. Child a moment ago--elephants going into
villages and harming people and harming crops.
It really doesn't address that because the trophy hunters
are not killing--they are not there when the problem animal is
in the village. They are not killing the problem animal. They
are killing, you know, a different animal essentially. So it
doesn't really address that.
It also doesn't act as a population control measure
because, of course, the hunters are going after the old males.
Those are the ones with the big tusks. And this is not the way
to control an elephant population. So I wanted to make those
three points.
Mr. Miller. Thank you. If I could just ask one----
Mr. Crapo. You can have one additional question.
Mr. Miller. Dr. Child, could you comment on that because
when you talk about trophy hunting, and my friends who hunt and
have seen their trophies, this is--as I understand the hunters,
they are not going there to get any old elephant.
They are going there to get a particular elephant that
looks a certain way, just as if you are trophy salmon fishing
or what have you. You are looking for a certain--there are
certain specifications in the hunting world on how you got this
animal.
So is this really a management tool, or is it because it
spins off revenues because there is a lot of money spent in the
process of getting to the taking of that animal? But is it
really a management tool--a crucial--I mean, is it an
essential, as I started out saying, management tool?
Mr. Child. The primary reason for trophy hunting is to give
the wildlife a value so people farm wildlife and not cattle.
The actual take is not a management tool, it is a management
necessity. And I would like to comment on two of the other
points like the one about problem animals.
As you stated, American hunters generally like to take the
biggest bulls and so on. But what we have worked out in
Zimbabwe is that we have a cheaper deal whereby a hunter can
come, and he can shoot an elephant, and he has to take the
exact elephant that is eating the crops or killed somebody.
And he pays less for that, and he also feels better for it
in many cases. It is marketing, you know. You have to market
everything. If you shoot an elephant and you don't make money
out of it, that is a waste of resources, and that is something
that we try to avoid.
We also try to reduce the number of elephants being killed.
Before this program started, as I said, there were 300 killed a
year. Now there are only 130 killed because they are valuable
and because people are using them more carefully. They are not
just somebody else's elephants that come and maraud through
your fields. They are now your elephants, and you get $10,000
every time one is shot.
I also want to address the poaching issue. I work in these
communities, and, sure, poaching still continues because life
is not perfect. But once communities start to get benefits from
wildlife, the social pressures can stop poaching overnight. And
I have seen it happen in many, many instances. And it is very
easy to pick out three villages and quote that poaching is
going up. But as a general rule, throughout southern Africa
where these programs are working, wildlife populations are
going up. Thank you.
Mr. Marlenee. George, may I address that question?
Mr. Abercrombie. Excuse me. Would the gentleman yield on
that?
Mr. Miller. It is up to----
Mr. Crapo. Certainly.
Mr. Abercrombie. Just so I make sure--and, excuse me, Ron.
You know what this comes back to in my mind now on the
poaching--because, again, we can argue back and forth here, but
there wouldn't be poaching in the first place even under the
circumstances you cite or as much poaching if there wasn't a
market someplace.
It is like drugs in this country, and this stupid
decertification argument that we are having right now. The
drugs are sold in this country. You have no business preaching
to other countries about it when we are consuming them. And so
if it wasn't for the fact that there is a market for that, the
poaching in addition to the circumstances that you cite would
decline or decrease or diminish or disappear. Right?
There has to be a market. Somebody has got to be paying
them for that. So don't we need to concentrate some funds and
some international effort on getting sanctions--genuine
sanctions, hard-hitting sanctions on countries that import this
ivory?
Mr. Child. I think the motivation for poaching is much
broader than the ivory trade. People kill lions because they
are dangerous. In my area, we have had 11 lions killed this
year because they kill people. The other major market is meat.
Africans who only have one or two meals of porridge a day crave
meat, and they kill elephants and they kill buffalo to eat. And
there is no way you are ever going to close that market down.
And the ivory market is a very specific issue and----
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, to the degree then there is an ivory
market there, isn't the exporting of it because there is a
market to receive the ivory?
Mr. Child. The CAMPFIRE program has been incredibly
successful in turning wildlife land back into wildlife because
it is profitable. If you traded ivory and it was twice as
profitable, maybe there would be twice as many animals. I mean,
that is an argument that----
Mr. Abercrombie. I understand. If that was coming as a
result of programs, that would be one thing. But now the
poaching is for two reasons--for food and for--or--I'm saying
poaching now--for food and for profit from the ivory. Right?
Mr. Child. Yes. But----
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. I just think that the answer is--part
of the answer has to be to make sure that if there is illegal
trade as opposed to legal trade--maybe we can get back into a
situation where there is enough elephants and enough ivory
where you can get back in legal trade. But right now those
populations under stress are under more stress from those who
think that the acquisition of ivory is going to be profitable
to them. Right?
Mr. Child. Yes. But we are in a situation in southern
Africa where there are actually too many elephants. And we are
also in a situation where now that the communities are
benefiting from them, if a poacher comes in, he has got to stay
somewhere. He has got to get food. They will report him. So
your information system is much better than it used to be.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you.
Mr. Crapo. The Chair will allow Mr. Marlenee to answer if
you still have one, and then we are going to go to the next
panel. Do you have an answer? Did you want to make an answer?
Mr. Marlenee. Yes. I would like to respond to George's
specific question about harvesting the older elephants, and
that has been brought up here--the trophy hunting part of it.
The oldest males monopolize the females, and so in many cases
these are not the most virile. Their fertility count is not the
highest. So you select that oldest male, remove him from the
herd, and it increases the genetic diversity and gives the
younger bulls a chance to procreate, and it----
Mr. Abercrombie. You better be careful. We are all going to
get in trouble here, Ron, pretty soon. Somebody may want to
advance that idea elsewhere.
Mr. Marlenee. I am starting to gray quite a lot.
Mr. Crapo. We are not going to let this hearing get into
that issue or the subject of decertification.
Mr. Abercrombie. Can we go to the next panel real quick?
Mr. Crapo. The Chair would like to thank this panel for
their patience and their presentation of materials. And the
panel is now excused. Thank you very much for your information
and participation. We would like to invite to come forward now
our fourth and final panel of witnesses.
And while they are changing places at the table and coming
forward, let me indicate the first witness on this panel is Ms.
Barbara Jeanne Polo, the Political Director of the American
Oceans Campaign.
Following her will be Dr. James W. Porter, the Professor of
Ecology and Marine Sciences at the University of Georgia, and
following him will be Dr. Robert Ginsburg, part of the
International Year of the Reef Organizing Committee and
Professor of Marine Geology and Geophysics at the Rosenstile
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.
We would like to welcome our witnesses for this panel. I
know you have been patient all day long and appreciate your
patience. Please let me remind our witnesses that under the
committee rules, they must limit their testimony to five
minutes.
But let me reassure you that your entire statement will
appear in the record, and the Members of Congress and their
staff, even those who aren't here, will fully be made--have
that information made available to them. We will also allow the
entire panel to testify before we begin questioning of the
panel. And the Chair would now recognize Ms. Polo.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA JEANNE POLO, POLITICAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
OCEANS CAMPAIGN
Ms. Polo. Thank you. My name is Barbara Jeanne Polo. I am
the Political Director of American Oceans Campaign, a national
environmental organization dedicated to the protection and
restoration of marine ecosystems.
On behalf of my organization and its members, I would like
to thank Chairman Saxton, Mr. Abercrombie, and the
Subcommittee----
Mr. Crapo. Could you bring the mike just a little closer to
your mouth please? Sorry about that.
Ms. Polo. That is OK. [continuing]--for holding this
hearing today on coral reef restoration and protection. This
hearing is timely because reefs around the world are suffering
from overwhelming destruction and calamitous declines, and they
need our attention and support.
We would also like to thank the Chairman and Mr.
Abercrombie and the co-sponsors for their leadership in raising
awareness at the Federal level of the plight of coral reefs by
introducing House Concurrent Resolution 8 in the very early
days of the 105th Congress and the first days of the
International Year of the Coral Reef.
H.Con.Res. 8 supports the goals of the International Coral
Reef Initiative and encourages improvements in many reef-
related U.S. activities. American Oceans Campaign strongly
supports these goals and hopes that through congressional
commitment the means to accomplish these ends will be
identified.
We would like to recommend that a final point be added to
the resolution that would make a commitment to funding for
research and monitoring and for better implementation and
enforcement of provisions in existing statutes that would
protect coral reef ecosystems. These statutes include the Clean
Water Act, the Magnusen-Stevens Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act and others.
We would like to also thank Congressman Miller for
introducing House Resolution 87 just this week. This resolution
seeks to protect coral reefs from destructive fishing
practices. Harmful fishing methods such as cyanide and dynamite
fishing and overharvesting of fisheries that are critical to
coral reef health are two of the gravest dangers coral reefs
face.
Mr. Miller's resolution directly confronts those threats
and promotes replacing these fishing methods with methods that
could sustain the fishery and the communities that rely on
them.
The introduction of these resolutions gives the
environmental community hope that a broader discussion of
legislative protection for coral reefs will ensue over the
course of this year. I have attached to my testimony a letter
that is signed by many national, regional, and local groups
asking for more congressional hearings on reef-related issues
that would be held within the communities that rely on reefs
for economic and environmental stability.
Stronger legislative initiatives and funding priorities
could be the topic of these hearings. There are many
legislative avenues available to Congress to help protect and
restore coral reef ecosystems. Since the greatest threats to
these reefs are the result of human action, regulation of those
actions can reduce threats.
Water pollution, destructive fishing practices, poorly
planned and managed coastal development, inappropriate trade
practices, and lack of protection for threatened species can be
addressed through new legislation or enforcement of current
law. We need to build on the groundwork that Chairman Saxton,
Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Miller, and their co-sponsors have
provided to develop enforceable, secure protection for coral
reefs.
To illustrate how better enforcement of current law will
protect reefs, let me discuss pollution in the Florida Keys.
There is an influx of agricultural runoff in Florida Bay from
South Florida and the Everglades. Coastal development continues
in southern Florida which causes millions of pounds of sediment
to flow into the ocean.
Development is also responsible for destroying the mangrove
forests and seagrasses and coastal wetlands. There are
thousands of sources of inadequately treated sewage poring onto
the reef that come from cesspits, septic tanks, injection
wells, inadequate treatment plants, and boats that are there to
serve 87,000 year-round residents and 4 million tourists a
year.
All of these activities can be controlled through
legislation or enforcement of existing provisions of the Clean
Water Act. Through oversight, Congress has the ability to
emphasize provisions of the Clean Water Act that address
standard settings, stormwater discharges, boat discharges,
protection of wetlands and mangroves, and ocean discharges of
sewage to the water that support reefs.
Through new legislation, Congress could strengthen coral
reef protection by improving polluted runoff controls and
emphasizing the special nature of reefs. Finally, Congress can
give EPA and the states money to accomplish their Clean Water
Act goals.
Fishing is another major threat to reefs. Some practices
are destructive because they target creatures that fill
critical biological niches. Sea urchins, who live on coral
reefs, are a prize commercial fishery. They eat the algae and
by grazing algae they keep it in check. When they are harvested
from the reef, the algae grow out of control and smother the
reef.
Under the Magnusen-Stevens Act, areas in reefs can be
designated as essential fish habitat or made offlimits to this
kind of destructive fishing. If certain areas of reefs were
closed to fishing and these species which fill critical niches
were protected, there is a better chance to save reefs, and
everyone would have healthier fisheries over the long run.
In closing, American Oceans Campaign would like to express
our appreciation to the sponsors of these congressional
resolutions to protect coral reefs. They have opened the door
to ongoing dialog about stronger measures that can be taken by
the Federal Government or on the State and local levels, and we
look forward to more hearings and a continuing search for ways
to ensure long and healthy futures for reefs around the world.
Thank you for considering my testimony.
[Statement of Ms. Polo may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Dr. Polo. And, Dr. Ginsburg, you are
next.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT GINSBURG, CHAIRPERSON, ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE OF INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE REEF
Mr. Ginsburg. Mr. Saxton, Mr. Abercrombie, I am very
pleased to testify on behalf of the International Year of the
Reef which I am the Chairman of the Organizing Committee. And I
would like to commend Ms. Polo for her efforts in bringing this
forward and yours, Mr. Saxton and Mr. Abercrombie, for
sponsoring it.
I think the best way to think about coral reefs is to
realize that they are cities, and just as our cities are
centers of creativity and diversity, so are coral reefs. And
let me, with a few illustrations that you have I believe--the
colored illustrations--show you what I mean about this analogy
and how it helps us understand not only reefs but some of their
problems.
If you look at the one marked A, you will notice that I am
drawing an analogy. Do you have those, Mr. Chairman? If you
look at A, you will notice that I am drawing an analogy between
corals and apartment houses. And indeed there is a very clear
one because the individual corals or polyps, of course, build
their own apartment houses. And, of course, from a developer's
point of view, it is a dream to have the inhabitants build
their own apartments.
I would also like to call to your attention, and I am not
going to have time to go through all the list of analogies
between reefs and cities, the sponges that are like water
purification plants, the fish that are like gardeners or
dermatologists, and the urchins that are like maintenance men.
What I do want you to notice in illustration B is just as
the location of cities is determined by geography, as in Miami
and Boston and even Washington, the same is true for coral
reefs. And that illustration of the Great Barrier Reef reminds
us that reefs are best developed facing the ocean where they
have a constant supply of fresh ocean water at constant
temperature and salinity.
And that they are also best developed, for example, in the
Atlantic on the east-facing sides of the ocean for the same
reason. In other words, that is the preferred location for
geographic reasons.
Now, in illustration C, I want to call your attention to
hazards of reefs just as we have hazards for cities--
earthquakes, floods, and so on. When the water gets unusually
hot, as it does at the end of the summer, for example, in the
Atlantic, we have a phenomenon of bleaching; that is, the
corals lose their central symbiotic algae, and they turn white.
Sometimes they recover, and sometimes they don't.
That is only one of the natural hazards like hurricanes and
earthquakes that affect reefs, but there are plenty of people-
induced hazards, and one of them is down there as oil spills.
And that really is substituting for a whole litany of people-
induced problems, many of which we have already heard about
this morning.
Now, the final next-to-last panel is number D in which, of
course, I am calling attention to what we don't want; that is,
ruins of reefs as ruined cities. In other words, no Rome,
Carthage, or Chechanetsa. And also to remind us that corals are
a kind of model for the future of our cities in the sense that
they recycle wastes, and that they use solar energy.
Now, in the final panel that I have given you, number E, I
want to show you an example of the kind of thing that we are
doing under the aegis of the International Year of the Reef.
And it concerns an area of particular interest to the United
States, and that is what I call Reefs of the Americas.
All those little red areas outline the locus of cities--
coral cities, tens of thousands of them. And if this were a
hearing where the mayors of some of those cities came forward,
they would be telling you about some of their problems, just as
mayors of our cities tell you about problems.
For example, someone from Jamaica would tell you on the
north coast of Jamaica that there has been a catastrophe in
reef loss. The same would be true in Costa Rica where runoff
has caused the death of reef, and so on. But what we don't
know, Mr. Chairman, is the condition of the very large areas
outside those small ones that I have mentioned in those large
reef areas that are marked in red here.
And that is of major interest to us in the United States
because, first of all, as you notice on the bottom of that
thing, we have trade with those countries that amounts to $50
billion. We have tourism that amounts to something between $10
and $20 billion. And you will notice that blue band that goes
through the Caribbean, that is the Gulf Stream circulation that
brings larvae north to Florida. And 95 percent of our fish
larvae come in that way.
So we have a very strong and vested interest in this area,
and one of the things we hope to do during the Year of the Reef
is assess the condition of all those reefs remote from centers
of population because that will tell us if there are serious
problems outside those we know where large populations are
impacting coral reefs.
I wish I had time to tell you more about the educational
activities that are so central to the Year of the Reef, but I
see that my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Statement of Mr. Ginsburg may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Dr. Ginsburg, and the analogies you
have shown are very interesting, and they do make a very good
point. I look forward to questioning on this. Dr. Porter.
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES PORTER, PROFESSOR OF ECOLOGY AND MARINE
SCIENCES, INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of
Congress. I would like to ask permission to show slides during
my presentation if I may please.
Mr. Crapo. Certainly you may. We just ask that you stay
within the five minute time period.
Mr. Porter. If someone could turn the lights down, we will
just go ahead and begin. Coral reefs are very unusual
structures because unlike most other animal communities, they
are dependent on light. The reason they are dependent upon
light is the symbiotic algal cells which live inside them.
The entire biology of reef-building corals and the survival
of coral reefs depends, therefore, on many characteristics that
are typical of plant communities and not strictly animal
communities. Corals look like trees because functionally they
are trees. They produce more oxygen than they consume.
And the color that corals have are not animal pigments but
plant pigments. The green that you see here is chlorophyll.
This is the essential character of coral reefs, and water
quality is going to be critical to their survival.
We can measure the oxygen production and consumption by
corals such as in this particular kind of chamber sitting on a
coral reef in Florida. We are involved in a study of coral reef
photosynthesis and respiration here in the Florida Keys on the
11th of September. And before I am finished with today's talk,
you are going to understand why it was important where this
work was being done, and why it was important the exact date.
Normally, corals produce a great deal of oxygen, and over a
seasonal basis, they produce a nice curve of oxygen evolution.
However, on September 11, 1993, the oxygen and photosynthetic
capacities of the entire Florida reef track collapsed.
Fortunately, that collapse lasted only a small while, and as
time went on, it recovered its photosynthetic characteristics.
We had absolutely no idea what was going on or special about
September 1993.
But to understand this, you have to look at a nonintuitive
aspect of coral reefs, and that is their connection with the
rest of the world. And for those of you who are Members of
Congress from nonmarine States or marine States or States
bordering on the Mississippi River, this analogy and
understanding will be of relevance to you.
This is a shot of the Mississippi River with Missouri and
Illinois in 1992, and in 1993, as those of you know, there was
an unprecedented increase in the amount of water in the river
as historical levels of flooding occurred.
That water brought to the Mississippi and down and out into
the Gulf of Mexico herbicides which were normally used for
agricultural purposes such as atrazine, which is one of the
major breakdown products of herbicides.
If you look at the Mississippi delta area before the--as
the flooding occurred in a natural color shot, you can see this
area here with the Mississippi coming in, and this next picture
emphasizes atrazine and other hydrocarbons, showing that the
Mississippi flooding brought not only riverwater, it brought
other products to the Gulf area.
And that water didn't stay there in the Mississippi delta,
but moved and arrived in the Florida reef track on September
11, 1993, where we recorded a tremendous collapse. And the
point is here that we cannot just protect one environment. We
have to protect all the environments which are hydrologically
connected. And it also means that the people in this room who
have no direct voting representation in the State of Florida
are nevertheless connected intimately to the health of that
reef.
This is a picture from 1975 on the Carries Fort Reef, and
the next picture you will see is 1985. And it shows a
tremendous loss of coral. In this one area alone, some 95
percent of all the branching corals had died. These are the
trees. This rainforest has been deforested. And you can also
see another thing as you compare these two pictures. You can
see the clear blue water there, and in 1985, its diminution on
increase in the amount of particulates in the water.
These are the things that cut down the light. These are the
things that are absorbed, and chlorophyll can no longer do its
function. And what you see here is the distribution of murky
water in Florida Bay because that murky water did not come from
the Gulf Stream, but is coming from Florida Bay itself. It
moves between the Keys and goes out onto the coral reef.
The agricultural and human practices in the south Florida
region affect the water quality both in terms of the nutrients,
nitrogen, and phosphorous, as well as the amount of turbidity.
Some of this turbidity may be due to resuspension of sediments
in the bay, but some may also be due to phosphate mining in
west Florida, or contribution of nutrients from the Florida
Everglades agricultural district, and also from nutrients being
put out into the reef area from the Keys themselves.
And there are many things that we don't understand--
mysterious diseases. Last year I described the origin and
evolution of white pox. These parrot images that you see here
are from the Key West area, and they show that between 1995
when this picture was taken and 1996, almost 80 percent of that
coral reef died from a mysterious disease.
Whether these are or are not related to the water quality
problems in Florida Bay is not known at this particular time.
We don't know whether this is a virus, a bacterium, or a
fungus, and we are investigating this at this time.
But I leave you with this message. There are very few
natural laws, but one of them is everything is connected to
everything else. Everything goes somewhere. We are on one earth
that is hydrologically connected, and whether you are from
Pennsylvania or from Ohio or from Florida itself, the things we
do and the decisions we make in these halls of Congress are
going to affect the survivorship of the most diverse
environment on earth. Thank you.
[Statement of Mr. Porter may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Crapo. Thank you, Dr. Porter. We appreciate that timely
message. And I thank the panel for their testimony. I want to
remind both of us that are here that we have a five-minute
limit on our questions, and I will start out. I just have a
couple of quick questions, and any of you could answer this for
me.
I am from Idaho, and I am learning how nonreef States or
States that aren't involved, as you show in your presentation,
can be very concerned and have input. There is a lot of talk
about the fact that our reefs are in a state of crisis. Is that
a unanimous opinion among the experts, or is there a dispute
among the experts about that conclusion?
Mr. Porter. I think I better answer that. Between 1981 and
1992, we surveyed six reefs quantitatively using the kinds of
photographic imagery that you saw there. Of the six reefs, five
declined at an average rate of four percent per year with a
maximum rate of 10 percent per year. The reef that declined at
a rate of 10 percent per year will be gone in less than a
decade.
Now, the question is is that a universal truth throughout
the Florida Keys. And in response to that, the Environmental
Protection Agency has funded a monitoring study which I am
involved in which extends throughout most of the Florida Keys,
but unfortunately at this point in time, does not include
either national park holdings of the Biscayne National Park or
the dry Tortugas.
And one of the things I would love to see Congress do is to
get the agencies to rip off their institutional badges and get
the end members of this monitoring program funded. That study
started a year ago, and within two years of this date, I will
be able to answer that question definitively for an
ecosystemwide survey. But I can tell you right now the only
ones we have any data for are showing decline.
Mr. Crapo. And that is in Florida?
Mr. Porter. That is in Florida.
Mr. Crapo. OK. And, Dr. Ginsburg, is that something that
might be more generally----
Mr. Ginsburg. I think the jury is still out, and that, in
fact, was my point, that, for instance, if we just look at the
western Atlantic, we know quite a lot about reefs in Florida,
quite a lot about reefs in Jamaica and Panama and a few other
places. But if you look at the very large areas of reefs in the
Bahamas, in Belize, and in Yucatan, we really do not know very
much about their condition.
So I personally am hopeful that we are not going to find
that they are in serious decline, but I think we really must
find out about what is happening to those reefs that are remote
from centers of population and immediate stress, not to say
that they are immune from overfishing and exploitation, you
know, by ship.
But if we talk about obvious and immediate declines, I
don't think we know in the Atlantic, and I think there are
large areas of the Pacific where we are just beginning to get
that kind of information.
Mr. Crapo. All right. Thank you. And, Dr. Porter, you
briefly touched on the white pox disease.
Mr. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Crapo. Is that disease or do we know what causes that
disease? Is it human induced or human-induced factors a
relevant part of the problem?
Mr. Porter. We don't know the answer to that. We do know
that actually the Key West area has seen the origin of four
diseases. We have no idea if something about the water quality
in that area promotes a stress of individual corals to the
point that they are more susceptible to natural disease, but
the white pox is the first time it has been seen, and it is
described in that area. We simply don't know.
Mr. Crapo. Is this disease geographically limited to the
south Florida area?
Mr. Porter. There is a report in Puerto Rico of a disease
that upon verbal description sounds like what we have
documented in south Florida. But at this point in time, I
believe that it is confined to the south Florida area.
And the question that we have right now is is it going to
spread beyond those reefs in Key West that are currently
affected. I have never in my entire 25-year career seen any
biological agent destroy a reef as fast as that disease. And if
it spreads, we are in real trouble.
Mr. Crapo. And is the impact of this disease permanent? In
other words, can a reef or do we know whether a reef can
recover from this disease?
Mr. Porter. Within a human lifetime, that reef will never
recover. And how many human lifetimes are required, I cannot
say.
Mr. Crapo. All right. Thank you very much. I am finished
with my questions. Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. Thank you. Dr. Porter, you indicated
or rather you were here I believe during the testimony when I
made previous mention of the article in the Washington Post
magazine within which you were quoted.
Mr. Porter. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. Are you familiar with that article?
Mr. Porter. Yes, I am.
Mr. Abercrombie. Someone managed to send it to you and said
look, ``You are in the papers,'' right?
Mr. Porter. Yes, they did. Yes.
Mr. Abercrombie. And you weren't indicted or anything. No.
Mr. Porter. That is right. Good news from Washington.
Mr. Abercrombie. Right. But there was--I do want to clear
this up. There is no reference to this statement. It said,
``But as research continued, white pox and other new diseases
are spreading in ways that portend poorly for reefs elsewhere
in the world. Black band, which was once confined to the
Caribbean, has begun to infect corals in Hawaii.'' Are you
familiar with where that statement came? I was----
Mr. Porter. No.
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--unable when I contacted
people in Hawaii to get much confirmation of that.
Mr. Porter. No, sir. I didn't know that black band is
located in Hawaii. Black band is actually a combination of a
blue-green algal infection and a sulphur bacterium infector.
And I am unfamiliar with that as well for the Hawaii area, but
Dr. Richard Greg, who is head of Seagrant, would know.
Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. Right. OK. Because I don't want to
get--we do not want to get into scare routines either. We need
good information so that we can deal with things correctly and
sensibly. One of the interesting points to me was apparently a
colleague of yours in the sense of someone who was concerned
and who had a personal commercial interest, Craig Corollo. I am
not sure----
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--that I am pronouncing his
name correctly.
Mr. Porter. That is correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. A Key West diver. He comments in the
article on something that made some sense to me, and I think
that you indicated, Dr. Ginsburg, in your slides about hot
areas or for lack of a better phrase, and that some of the
diseases turned up in this hot spots. And this can come where
you have outfalls for sewage and that kind of thing. Is that
correct? Either one can answer.
Mr. Ginsburg. I don't think so, no. I don't think there is
any clear connection. The bleaching, the loss of the symbiotic
algae, seems to coincide with areas with periods during the end
of the summer, at least in the Atlantic, when the winds are
light and the temperature increases above 30 degrees
centigrade.
Mr. Abercrombie. That is a natural phenomenon though.
Right?
Mr. Ginsburg. That is a natural phenomenon. Exactly.
Mr. Abercrombie. But we are talking about those things
which human beings may do which add to the water temperature.
Right? Discharges of various kinds or----
Mr. Ginsburg. That would be rather hard. The only thing
that might occur is around an outfall for an atomic energy
plant.
Mr. Abercrombie. Well, then that moves me to the point that
Mr. Corollo was making. He was looking at water color, which I
think has more to do with degeneration of the quality or purity
of the water, and that that could be a factor in degeneration
of reefs?
Mr. Ginsburg. It could I think locally, and Dr. Porter may
address that as well. Any stress I think--people are inclined
to think any localized stress could result in this phenomenon
of bleaching and might even contribute to disease. But I defer
to Dr. Porter about that. I think he is a little more familiar
than I am.
Mr. Abercrombie. Could you----
Mr. Porter. Mr. Corollo was actually using the word hot
zone as a concentration of diseases and not indicating the
temperature of the water.
Mr. Abercrombie. I see.
Mr. Porter. Right now what we have is a geographic
correlation, a correlation of an area of high human impact,
that is Key West, and the distribution of new and unknown
diseases. That correlation is not causation. We do not know
whether the human activity in the Keys is the origin of these
new diseases.
Mr. Abercrombie. It may be contributing though? I can't
imagine----
Mr. Porter. It easily could.
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--that runoff doesn't
contribute.
Mr. Porter. And it could weaken the corals. You see,
particularly the problem of the photosynthetic nature of
corals, the deterioration of the water column doesn't need to
be some sort of horrible chemistry. It can simply be a
diminution of the amount of light that stresses the coral and
makes them more susceptible to disease.
Mr. Abercrombie. But I am worried about in areas like
Hawaii as we have always relied on a couple of things--trade
winds--in other words, we don't have pollution. Well, of course
we have pollution--air pollution, but it gets blown away
because of the trade winds. So if you can't see it, then we
don't have it.
And I am worried as well that where the water is concerned
that we have very strong tides, tidal movements, various
currents between the islands that tend to move things around.
But I am worried that the more--if you simply dump more sewage,
waste, runoff of various kinds keeps cascading into the ocean,
there may come a point when the tides, the currents, et cetera,
are not going to be sufficient to disperse it into the rest of
the ocean so that we can kind of escape what we are doing.
Mr. Porter. That is definitely correct. And if you remember
from one of my slidesshowing the elevated pollution in Florida
Bay, we are talking about an area of 1,000 square miles.
Mr. Abercrombie. So, in other words, we have to be very
concerned in this Year of the Reefs--it makes us focus on
oceans, that ocean pollution simply because the planet is about
three-quarters water doesn't mean that we are going to be able
then to continuously discharge foreign elements, if you will,
nutrients, et cetera, waste, into the ocean and expect that it
is so large, so huge that it will simply be able to disperse
everything that we are putting into it, and there will be no
degradation of the water environment?
Mr. Porter. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Abercrombie. OK. I think that that about does
everything, Mr. Chairman, except for one thing. I would like to
acknowledge the presence in the audience of a young man who is
trying to decide whether he wants to be an environmental
engineer.
And I said that if he came in and listened particularly--no
offense to you, Ms. Polo, on this--but particularly listen to
Dr. Ginsburg and Dr. Porter, that it might--he might conclude
that, in fact, is what he would like to do--Allen Yu from St.
Louis High School in Honolulu. There you are. He can see today
that we actually do things in these hearings which advances our
knowledge certainly legislatively, and I hope intellectually as
well, so that we can make good decisions.
And I want to thank you personally for the clarity of your
presentations. And, Dr. Porter, in particular, I want to say
that I commented to Mr. Crapo that it is too bad that the rest
of the Members not only of this committee but of the Congress
couldn't see your presentation. If you could put that together
in the same form as----
Mr. Porter. Yes. I can do that.
Mr. Abercrombie. [continuing]--Dr. Ginsburg did here--it is
somewhat the same form--I am sure the Chairman would agree that
we could get it to the rest of the committee. I thought it was
an impressive demonstration of the interconnectedness of
elements that affect us all.
Mr. Porter. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Abercrombie. Could you do that?
Mr. Porter. I certainly will do that.
Mr. Abercrombie. And I am sure the Chairman would agree. I
can't speak for him, but it would be very valuable for us, and
it will be taken into account. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
consideration. Oh, and I have one request. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Miller has a statement on H.Con.Res. 8, and I would like to
seek a unanimous consent to have it introduced into the record.
Mr. Crapo. Without objection, so ordered.
[Statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Statement of the Hon. George Miller, A U.S. Representative from
California
Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased that you are holding this
hearing today to discuss the crisis that coral reefs are facing
worldwide. I commend you for introducing H.Con.Res. 8, of which
I am an original cosponsor. On Monday, I introduced a
resolution, H.Res. 87, that condemns destructive fishing
practices that are causing severe damage to coral reef
ecosystems, particularly in southeast Asia, and urges the
United States and the United Nations to promote sustainable
development of coral reef resources. I see this resolution as
complimentary to yours: It focuses on a particular problem that
I am concerned about, one which I believe we can and should
address in the short term, while continuing to work on the
longer term issues which your resolution addresses.
Coral reefs are vital to the environment and the economy of
many island and coastal nations. They are among the most
biologically diverse and productive ecosystems on earth,
rivaling the tropical rainforests on land. The hard structure
of the reef is built up over thousands of years by the
secretions of the tiny living coral animals. So, a coral reef
is truly a living structure. And, as a living structure,
thousands--perhaps millions--of individual coral animals are
dying and others are taking their place on the reef at any one
time.
The problem is that now human activities have shifted that
balance and coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate
worldwide. Corals are very sensitive to water pollution,
sedimentation, damage from boat groundings, and even simple
physical contact by divers. These largely inadvertent injuries
are a significant cause of the well-documented decline of coral
reefs worldwide. Coral reefs are, in a sense, the canary in the
coal mine of the oceans.
A great deal of injury is being inflicted on coral reefs,
mainly in southeast Asia, through easily preventable, largely
illegal fishing techniques. Cyanide, other poisons, and
surfactants like dish washing liquids, are being used to stun
and capture fish for the aquarium trade and for the live food
fish trade. These chemicals kill nearby coral, and divers
scrambling to get fish out of nooks and crannies in the reef
often inflict further damage on the reef. Although illegal
virtually everywhere, dynamite is still being used on some
reefs to stun or kill fish. Afterwards, they float to the
surface where they are easily harvested. The effect on the reef
is obviously devastating. Most of the aquarium fish captured in
this way end up in hobbyists' tanks in the United States. Most
of the live food fish end up on plates in the homes and
restaurants of southeast Asia.
Although the State Department, NOAA, Department of the
Interior, and other agencies are working, through the
International Coral Reef Initiative, to identify and reduce
threats to coral reefs, they need our help. These kinds of
unsustainable fishing practices would not be occurring if
powerful market forces were not at work. U.S. and Asian
consumer demand for reef fish is, in part, driving the
destruction of coral reefs. Yet how many aquarium hobbyists
would purchase a wild-caught reef fish if they truly understood
that in doing so, they were aiding the destruction of the reef
environment that they sought to reproduce in their tank.
Furthermore, if affordable alternatives to wild-caught fish
were available, wouldn't the educated consumer choose them?
This has worked very well in the exotic bird trade; we could do
the same for reef aquarium specimens.
Many of the countries where the reefs are being destroyed--
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and others--have laws on
the books protecting their reefs. But there is little money for
enforcement, and the more lucrative the market, the more people
are willing to risk the penalties in any case. So the keys are
information and education. Only by identifying these
destructive practices and the consumer demands that drive them
can we begin to eliminate or modify them. And only through the
development of sustainable coral reef fisheries can the reefs
be saved.
Both of these resolutions share a common purpose. They are
intended to bring the global plight of coral reefs before
Congress, raise the level of awareness of policy makers, and
ask us to do more. The scientific and environmental communities
have declared 1997 the International Year of the Reef. We
cannot stop ships from running aground on reefs and we may not
be able to stop global warming. But what better time for us to
pay attention to the many problems plaguing coral reefs, and
seek practical solutions to those threats that we can address.
If we don't do something soon, there may not be any reefs left
to save.
In that spirit, I hope we can work together to bring both
of these resolutions before the House soon, and I look forward
to hearing the testimony of the witnesses today.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Crapo. Thank you very much. And before we conclude the
hearing, I did have one final question of Dr. Porter--just a
very quick question, and that is is there any knowledge or any
information about whether the white pox disease could be the
result of the introduction of a nonindigenous species to the
reefs?
Mr. Porter. We don't know about that. It is a very
interesting question because, in fact, it has been suggested
that the sea urchin die-off in the Caribbean resulted from the
introduction of a disease from the Indo-Pacific, which in its
own habitat was not virulent, but in the new habitat of the
Caribbean, where no resistance had evolved against it, became
devastating. It is very much within the realm of possibility.
Mr. Crapo. All right. Well, again, thank you very much to
all of the witnesses on the panel. The information has been
very helpful, and if there is no further business, I would
again thank and excuse the panel. And this Subcommittee would
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned;
and the following was submitted for the record:]
Statement of Dr. Teresa M. Telecky, Director of the Wildlife Trade
Program, the Humane Society of the United States
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you for providing The Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS) with an opportunity to testify on H.R. 39, the African
Elephant Reauthorization Act of 1997.
I am Dr. Teresa M. Telecky, Director of the Wildlife Trade
Program for The HSUS, the nation's largest animal protection
organization, with more than 4.1 million members and
constituents.
Mr. Chairman, The HSUS wishes to emphasize its unqualified
support for the African Elephant Conservation Act and its
reauthorization at the level proposed in H.R. 39.
By way of illustrating the reasons that The HSUS supports
the Act, we wish to remind Members of the Subcommittee of the
circumstances under which the Act was passed. In 1987 when
Congress first considered the Act, and in 1988 when the Act was
passed, Americans had become alarmed by reports on the rapid
decline of African elephant populations due to the ivory trade.
Elephants numbers had dropped from about 1.3 million in
1979 to only 700,000 by 1988 and were declining by about ten
percent per year; by 1989 there were only about 600,000
elephants; today there are between 286,234 and 543,475 African
elephants remaining, according to the IUCN/SSC African Elephant
Specialist Group.
In 1986 approximately 100,000 elephants were killed to
satisfy the worldwide demand for ivory and at least 10,000 of
those were used to supply the ivory for jewelry and other
trinkets purchased by American consumers.
Elephants had virtually disappeared from some areas of
Sudan, Chad, the Central African Republic, and Zaire. In the
Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania, elephants declined by 50
percent between 1977 and 1986; in Tsavo National Park in Kenya
there was a 75 percent decline between 1972 and 1988.
The average weight of a tusk being exported from Africa had
declined from 35 pounds in 1979 to only 13 pounds in 1988,
indicating that poachers were turning to younger and younger
elephants, a particular concern since elephants do not reach
sexual maturity until their early teens and then reproduce very
slowly. In 1988, about 10-15 percent of tusks exported weighed
less than 1 pound--tusks of infant elephants. Entire
generations of older elephants were being wiped out by the
ivory trade.
The Parties to the Convention on International Trade in
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) had, in 1985, instituted a ``CITES
Ivory Control System'' (System) to regulate the ivory trade
through marking of ivory and establishment of country-specific
ivory export quotas. However, by 1988 the System was clearly
failing to halt poaching and illegal trade because it was not
implemented and enforced by CITES Paries. Experts agreed that
about 80 percent of ivory in trade in 1988 was taken from
poached elephants.
The prices paid for ivory increased from $2.25 per pound in
1960 to $68 per pound in 1988, indicating that ivory was being
used as a commodity, like gold and silver, as a hedge against
inflation. Elephants were being victimized by an upward spiral
of supply and demand: the higher the price, the more elephants
were slaughtered.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the African Elephant
Conservation Act was passed primarily to address the ivory
trade that was clearly, irrefutably driving elephants to
extinction.
The Act, while expressing a desire to give the CITES Ivory
Control System a chance to work, put in place a mechanism
whereby the United States could unilaterally decide to stop the
importation of ivory into the United States if it was
discovered that this System was failing to control the ivory
trade. In June 1989, eight months after the Act was passed, the
Bush Administration imposed a ban on the importation to the
U.S. of African elephant ivory under the provisions of the Act.
At the time, the U.S. was one of the major markets for elephant
ivory; about 30 percent of the ivory in trade was consumed by
Americans.
This preceded by four months, and made a significant
political contribution to, a decision by the more than 100
Parties to CITES, including the majority of African elephant
range states, to ban the international commercial trade in
ivory in October 1989. The reason that the Parties decided to
ban the international commercial trade in ivory was that,
despite an internationally coordinated CITES Ivory Control
System, the trade proved uncontrollable and was driving
elephants to extinction. The ivory trade was uncontrollable
because it is highly lucrative for dealers who are highly
organized, heavily armed, and well-connected to politicians who
look the other way for a price; because elephants are largely
unprotected in most of Africa and are so easily poached; and
because Africa's destitute poverty makes it easy for dealers to
find people willing to risk their lives to poach elephants. The
ivory trade harmed both elephants and local people, while
making a few ivory dealers and corrupt politicians rich.
At the meeting of the Parties to CITES in 1992, African
elephant range states, whose lead was followed by other
Parties, rejected proposals to resume the deadly ivory trade.
At the most recent CITES meeting, in November 1994, African and
other Parties again rejected a similar proposal, and some
stated their concern that down-listing elephants from CITES
Appendix I to Appendix II for trade in any elephant products
would stimulate real or speculative elephant poaching for ivory
which, due to lack of resources, they would be unable to
control.
The ban, which was passed with the support of most African
elephant range states, and which is still supported by most
African elephant range states, has been largely successful in
stopping the dramatic decline of the African elephant. Although
elephant poaching and illegal ivory trade still occur, it is in
minuscule quantities as compared to the levels when the ivory
trade was legal and provided a cover for the illegal ivory
trade. The naysayers who predicted that elephant poaching would
continue, or even increase despite the ban, were proven wrong.
Despite the demonstrated success of the listing of the
African elephant on CITES Appendix I, three southern African
countries have proposed to resume the deadly ivory trade.
Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Namibia have proposed down-list their
populations of the African elephant to CITES Appendix II in
order to sell their ivory stockpiles to Japan, as well as to
engage in commercial trade in live elephants and elephant
trophies. Zimbabwe, but not the others, has also asked for
permission to trade in ivory souvenirs and elephant hide. Their
proposals will be considered at the tenth meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to CITES, to be held in Zimbabwe in
June 1997.
If passed, these proposals have the potential to return us
to the days when more than 200 elephants a day were slaughtered
for the illegal ivory trade--to the conditions that promoted
passage of the African Elephant Conservation Act.
Any change in the listing of the African elephant under
CITES--even if it is for trade in live animals, trophies,
souvenirs, or hides--will be seen by elephant poachers, ivory
dealers, and consumers as a sign that the ivory trade ban will
soon be relaxed. As evidence of this, elephant poaching
increased in Kenya and other countries in the months preceding
each CITES meeting since 1989 because poachers hear about CITES
proposals regarding African elephants. Indeed, just a few
months ago, over 200 elephants were found massacred in the
Congo, their tusks removed. Down-listing elephants for any
reason is the proverbial nose under the tent that will send
poachers into the brush for elephants. Ivory from poached will
be stockpiled as an investment by dealers who will await the
day when CITES will open the trade.
Indeed, under CITES, a Panel of Experts was sent to each of
the three southern African countries as well as Japan to assess
the status and management of the elephant population concerned;
the ability of the countries concerned to control the ivory
trade; and the control of the trade in non-ivory products. The
Panel's report, which was released in February, recognized that
legalizing the import of ivory to Japan may make it easier to
trade illegally; that poachers and dealers may increase
activities in anticipation of a future expansion in ivory
trade; and that there may be a decline in anti-poaching effort
and morale amongst law enforcement staff, because of confusion
about why legal trade in ivory is acceptable.
The Panel concluded that:
``Control over ivory stocks in Botswana are inadequate.''
``It may not be possible to determine the origin of much of the
ivory in the stockpile.'' There continues to be illegal
``movement of ivory through Botswana'' to South Africa.
Controls over ivory stocks in Namibia need improvement and
there is evidence that some ivory is moving illegally through
Namibia to South Africa.
Law enforcement in Zimbabwe ``with respect to the ivory
trade has been grossly inadequate.'' The Department of National
Parks and Wild Life Management ``has permitted the
establishment of large-scale ivory carving operations, which
are selling commercial quantities of semi-worked ivory intended
for export to Asian countries, including Japan, People's
Republic of China and Thailand.'' ``Officials in the Customs
Department declared that they had no interest in controlling
ivory exports.'' Information from South African authorities
``indicates that a large proportion of illegal ivory arriving
in South Africa has passed through Zimbabwe.'' ``Zimbabwe has
poor control over trade in elephant products other than
ivory.''
Control of ivory stocks in Japan ``needs improvements for
parts of tusks. The software of the [Japanese authority]
database must be improved to allow monitoring of the stocks.''
``The control of retail trade is not adequate to differentiate
the products of legally acquired ivory from those of illegal
sources. With the system as currently implemented, it is
unlikely that the import of partially worked ivory (e.g.
inzais) could be reliably detected. More inspections are
needed, including physical checking of the stockpiles. A method
needs to be devised to allow the verification of scraps and
wastes produced.''
In addition, if passed, the proposals will also allow these
countries to clear out their ivory stockrooms in order to make
way for new ivory from culled elephants. Both Botswana and
Zimbabwe claim enormous problems with human-elephant conflict
and growing elephant populations which are causing people to
ask for a political solution to crop-raiding elephants. In
culling operations, entire elephant families are gunned down;
traumatized infants are pulled away from their dying mothers
and sold to circuses and zoos. The ivory is stockpiled, hide
sold to make shoes and briefcases, and the meat is sold to
crocodile farmers. The HSUS opposes elephant culling as a means
to control elephant populations and offers a humane
alternative, which we will address in the second half of our
testimony.
Mr. Chairman, The HSUS also fully supports the portion the
African Elephant Conservation Act that has sets up the African
Elephant Conservation Fund to support projects on research,
conservation, management, or protection of African elephants.
However, we have concerns about some of the types of projects
funded under the Act which we will elaborate on in detail in
our testimony. But first, I would like to describe for you some
of the conservation, protection and research projects related
to African elephants that are currently funded by The HSUS.
In 1993, we provided a $10,000 grant to the Owens
Foundation for Wildlife Conservation for their work on the
North Luangwa Conservation Project (NLCP) in Zambia and we have
continued to leverage about $30,000 for the Foundation each
year through private granting agencies. The HSUS considers the
NLCP to be a model program for combining wildlife conservation
with development of rural African communities without resorting
to consumptive use of wildlife.
In 1986, Mark and Delia Owens established the NLCP to
rehabilitate, conserve and develop the 2,400 square mile North
Luangwa National Park in Zambia. At that time, 1000 elephants
were being killed in the Park each year by commercial meat and
ivory poachers. In the previous 15 years, up to 100,000
elephants had been poached in the Luangwa Valley. Wild fires
set by poachers had burned over 80% of the Park's vegetation
every year. If left unprotected, North Luangwa would be
sterilized by 1996.
The Zambian government had limited resources to protect or
develop the Park. Therefore, the Owenses' first priority was to
decrease poaching by improving the efficiency of the government
Game Scouts. New equipment, housing, training and incentives
were provided to the Scouts. After working closely with these
men for years, the North Luangwa Scouts have been declared the
best in Zambia.
At the same time the Owenses developed a plan to involve
the local people in the conservation of their greatest
resource, their wildlife. Poaching was the primary industry in
the area, providing more jobs and more sources of protein than
any other. Therefore, the Owenses began a Community Development
Program of the NLCP that established small sustainable
businesses that offer basic goods and services to the local
people and provide alternative legal jobs to poachers. These
services are not a free hand out. Each business is based on the
free enterprise system and the initial start-up loan must be
repaid to the project so that new businesses can be started in
the village.
In the past, many of the villagers could obtain ground
corn, their staple diet, only by trading poached meat for it.
Now the NLCP grinding mills provide this service for pennies
and, at the same time, offer employment to millers, mechanics
and bookkeepers. Villagers used to poach bush meat to trade it
for cooking oil, a much prized commodity in rural Africa. NLCP
has taught them to grow sunflower seeds and press oil using
simple seed presses. Again, poaching is replaced by sustainable
legal trade. Other cottage industries that have provided jobs,
food or services to the local people are carpentry shops,
sewing co-operatives and cobbler shops. In some villages, small
shops are opened to provide simple goods to villagers such as
matches, soap and salt. Farmers are assisted with seed loans,
transportation and technical assistance. More than 2000
families in the NLCP target area are benefiting from NLCP's
Community Development and Agricultural Assistance Programs.
The Owenses established the NLCP Conservation Education
Program in fourteen remote villages near the National Park.
Many students had never seen a color photograph and schools
lacked the most basic supplies. The NLCP Education Officer
visits schools monthly, weather permitting, offering a 500
volume mobile library, curriculum guidelines, school supplies,
wildlife slide shows (powered by a gasoline generator),
lectures, projects and contests. Forty-eight American schools
participate in a conservation oriented exchange program with
NLCP's students, exchanging letters, art work, reports and
essays. American schools sent school supplies, books and donate
magazines. These Zambian students will not grow up to be
poachers.
NLCP's Rural Health and Family Planning Program teaches
hygiene, first aid, preventative medicine, family planning and
advanced clinical techniques to village medics. NLCP has
trained and equipped 48 ``Traditional Birth Attendants'' to
assist the pregnant women in the villages near the Park. The
Attendants also teach AIDS prevention, early childhood
development and nutrition to the women of their villages.
The ultimate goal of the NLCP is to ensure that tourism
development in North Luangwa National Park will have a low
impact on the environment and return revenue to the local
villagers. Once the local villagers are benefitting legally
from the National Park through tourism, there will be even less
incentive to poach. The Owens have worked with the Zambian
government to develop a plan for tourism in the Park.
The NLCP has been very successful. When the Owenses
arrived, 1000 elephants were being poached each year. Since
September of 1994 not one has been poached. However, after
nearly six years of almost complete protection, the elephant
population of North Luangwa has not increased. This argues
strongly for continued protection for the African elephant
under a CITES moratorium on trade in elephant parts and
continued funding by the U.S. government for research,
management, protection, and conservation of African elephant
populations. Twenty elephants have been collared with radio
transmitters and aerial data is being obtained to chart their
movements, habitat usage, and more.
Likewise, the people near the Park no longer have to poach
to feed their families. Over 2000 families, many of whom were
once involved with poaching, now have legal, sustainable jobs.
Leaders from villages outside the NLCP range are now coming to
the Owenses and requesting their advice on how to start
programs such as those implemented by the NLCP.
It is sad to note that, although for many years the Owens
Foundation has applied for funding for the NLCP from the
African Elephant Conservation Fund, and has apparently met all
of the criteria for funding under the Act, the project has
inexplicably not been funded to date. The NLCP operates on a
comparatively small budget of approximately $500,000 per year,
which is provided by the Frankfurt Zoological Society of
Germany and the Owens Foundation for Wildlife Conservation.
This is a successful project, which is conserving wildlife,
including elephants and helping people, is worthy of funding
under the Act.
In January 1997, HSUS along with Humane Society
International (HSI), signed a US$1 million, five-year agreement
with the National Parks Board (NPB) of South Africa to conduct
a study on the use of contraception as a means for controlling
reproduction in elephants and humanely controlling the size and
growth of elephant populations. Additionally, under the
agreement, The HSUS/HSI will develop, promote and conduct
ecotourism programs in South Africa. The NPB will undertake to
extend the range of elephants in South Africa and will use the
contraception program to control elephant population sizes if
it is shown by research to be safe, feasible, economic, and
appropriate. Additionally, the NPB will examine and implement
other means of reducing conflicts between elephants and other
wildlife and human interests, including fencing, and
translocating elephants to other parks and protected areas in
South Africa.
The elephant contraception experiment is being conducted in
Kruger National Park, which is home to over 8300 elephants.
Within the Park's fenced boundaries, rangers have culled about
600 elephants each year in an attempt to maintain a population
of 7500 elephants. But widespread opposition to culling has led
South Africa to consider alternative means for controlling
elephant populations and providing more habitat for elephants.
In May 1995, after a public debate on the Kruger National
Park's elephant management policy, the NPB undertook a review
of that policy. The NPB announced that no elephants would be
killed in Kruger National Park in 1996, although the NPB
retains its policy to allow elephants to be killed when
necessary as a last resort. The moratorium has been extended
through 1997.
The HSUS/HSI is sponsoring the program which is being
conducted by a team of scientists from Zoo Montana, the Medical
College of Ohio, the University of Georgia, and the University
of Pretoria in South Africa. Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, HSUS
consultant for contraception and director of science and
conservation biology at Zoo Montana, is leading the scientific
research team. These organizations have joined with the South
African NPB to administer a contraceptive vaccine to elephants
in Kruger National Park.
This vaccine, the PZP (porcine zona pellucida)
immunocontraceptive vaccine, was first developed in the 1970's,
and works by stimulating the immune system to produce
antibodies that block pregnancy. Since its development, PZP has
been tested and adopted by the National Park Service for
management of wild horses on Assateague Island National
Seashore, Maryland; successfully tested by The HSUS and the
Bureau of Land Management on wild horses in Nevada;
successfully tested by The HSUS in collaboration with the
National Park Service on white-tailed deer at Fire Island
National Seashore, New York; and is currently being used on
over 90 species in 60 zoos and aquaria throughout the world.
Before allowing this technique to be tested on wild, free-
ranging African elephants, the research team vaccinated three
female zoo elephants with PZP. These elephants, which were not
mated, showed the strong immune response to the vaccine that is
required for successful contraception. Before taking the
vaccine into the field, the research team also showed that
antibodies produced in response to the PZP vaccine would
prevent sperm from attaching to elephant eggs in the
laboratory.
Between October 2 and 12, 1997, the research team and staff
from Kruger National Park captured, radiocollared, and treated
with PZP 21 adult female elephants in Kruger. Twenty additional
animals were radiocollared but left untreated to act as
controls. Before treatment, non-pregnancy of each animal in the
study was confirmed with ultrasound. In November, the 21
experimental animals were successfully given booster shots
using PZP-containing darts fired from an airborne helicopter.
Currently, the research team plans to deliver a third shot to
treated elephants in May or June 1997. We emphasize that, for
the purposes of this research, once the elephants have been
marked the vaccine can be delivered without ever capturing them
again.
Unfortunately, there has been some confusion between The
HSUS/HSI sponsored immunocontraception project and a concurrent
elephant contraception project being carried out in Kruger
National Park by a German team from the Institute for
Zoological and Wildlife Research in Berlin. This team placed
implants containing a six-month supply of the steroid hormone
estrogen in the ears of a sample of adult female elephants. The
HSUS/HSI and our research team strongly opposed this project,
because, among other reasons, we believed that the estrogen
implants would lead to prolonged and sustained estrus in
implanted females. We have received preliminary reports from
our colleagues at the University of Pretoria that just such an
effect is being seen among the elephants treated by the German
research team. We stress, however, that no such indications
have been reported for the PZP-treated elephants.
By late 1997 or early 1998, our research team will carry
out pregnancy tests on the PZP-treated and untreated control
elephants to determine the effectiveness of the PZP
immunocontraceptive vaccine.
Should the vaccine prove effective as an elephant
contraceptive, there are several reasons that it could be a
useful management tool for free-ranging elephants. First, it
can be delivered directly from the air without capturing the
elephant. Second, the vaccine itself should be relatively
inexpensive to produce. Third, non-pregnant females can be
distinguished from the air with 85-90% accuracy by the age of
calves accompanying them, a technique whose effectiveness was
confirmed with ultrasound during the initial captures. Clearly,
further research would be required to refine the vaccine,
assess its effects on elephant health, reproduction, and
behavior, and develop efficient techniques for delivering the
vaccine to significant numbers of elephants.
Nevertheless, The HSUS/HSI feels that the PZP
immunocontraceptive vaccine offers the promise of a practical,
cost-efficient, humane alternative to the barbaric practice of
destroying these magnificent, sensitive, and complex animals.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, The HSUS is distressed to learn that monies
from the fund have been used to support the Communal Areas
Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in
Zimbabwe was directly supported by an $85,000 grant from the
African Elephant Conservation Fund to Safari Club
International. The HSUS is opposed to the use of funds from the
African Elephant Conservation Act to support CAMPFIRE for the
following reasons.
CAMPFIRE has used money from the U.S. government to lobby
the U.S. Congress to weaken the Endangered Species Act so that
more endangered and threatened species may be imported to the
United States for commercial and other purposes.
CAMPFIRE promotes the resumption of the international trade
in ivory. The U.S. has publicly opposed the resumption of the
ivory trade since 1989. The Department of the Interior should
not pay other organizations to directly oppose its own
programs.
CAMPFIRE is based primarily on elephant trophy hunting, an
activity that is opposed by 84% of Americans (according to
December 1996 nationwide poll conducted by Penn & Schoen
Associates Inc.). The same percentage of Americans oppose U.S.
foreign assistance being used for this purpose. None of the
scarce funds available under the African Elephant Conservation
Act should be used to promote or enable elephant trophy
hunting. Trophy hunting is an industry like any other that
should not receive government subsidies in the guise of
conservation.
CAMPFIRE is environmentally unsound. An independent
contractor hired by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to evaluate CAMPFIRE found that the program
is ``notoriously weak in its environmental assessment of
potential impacts resulting from the project''; that there was
a lack of quantitative assessments of the health of wildlife
populations and the impact of the project upon them; and that
the methodology used to monitor wildlife populations was
``questionable''. The World Wide Fund for Nature in Zimbabwe
reported in 1995 that, ``in order to sustain good quality
elephant hunting, off-take quotas ideally should not exceed 0.7
percent of the estimated total population ... when the number
of elephants killed as problem animals is added to those taken
during sport hunting, the total offtake amounts to 1.03 per
cent, clearly exceeding the level which would ensure that
trophy quality remains constant.'' Diminished ``trophy
quality'' means that the number of mature, sexually active
males in the population is decreasing, threatening the survival
of elephant populations.
CAMPFIRE is plagued by corruption. For example, in a
December 1996 report, the Zimbabwean Parliament concluded that
Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks and Wild Life
Management, one of the implementors of the CAMPFIRE program, is
``riddled by corruption, infighting, and jealousy'' and that a
``management crisis'' existed in the Department. In addition,
in July 1996, senior officials of Zimbabwe's richest CAMPFIRE
district, Nyaminyami, were alleged to have misappropriated
funds and to have accepted kickbacks for granting illegal
hunting rights.
CAMPFIRE already receives approximately $5 million dollars
in support each year from the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID)--five times the amount the African Elephant
Conservation Fund receives from Congress. The HSUS considers
USAID's contribution to CAMPFIRE to be a waste of American
taxpayer dollars that should not be repeated during the U.S.
Department of the Interior's allocation of scarce funds
available under the African Elephant Conservation Act.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to note that the
remaining years of this century will determine the way in which
humans will interact with wild animals in the future. Human
populations have expanded into natural habitat, causing
destruction or unnatural confinement of animal populations,
which at the same time causing the increase in the number of
conflicts between humans and wild animals. Urgent action is
required to develop and implement innovative approaches to
reduce human-animal conflict in ways that will protect animal
populations and their habitat in the new millennium. We can no
longer pursue growth and development at the expense of
wildlife. The HSUS is working to find ways to promote humane
and sustainable development that does not rely on wildlife
killing and seeks your support for our efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
for this opportunity to share with you our views about the
African Elephant Conservation Act.
------
Statement of Robert N. Ginsburg, Chairperson, Organizing Committee,
Representing the International Year of the Reef
In 1994 Terrence Hughes, a coral reef biologist, completed
20 years of surveillance of reefs fringing a Caribbean island
he found appalling changes in reef health. Most of the reef-
building corals originally fully alive were now dead and
covered with fleshy algae. The devastation was like what one
sees in a forest that has been clear cut. From Southeast Asia
to South Florida, coral reefs show signs of decline, not only
from destructive fishing methods, but from a multitude of other
injuries inflicted by growing human populations. In response to
this crisis, 1997 has been designated the International Year of
the Reef.
IYOR is a grass roots coalition of scientists,
environmentalists, sport divers and students in some 20 or more
countries who want to highlight the importance of reefs, spread
understanding of these remarkable ecosystems and promote their
preservation. IYOR is the recognized public counterpart of the
International Coral Reef Initiative, a multi-government-
sponsored initiative aimed at the promotion of sustainable
management of coral reefs and their associated sea grass beds
and mangrove forests. Both programs are the result of the
growing concern for the survival of reefs and the increasing
recognition that reefs are essential to the economic health of
many nations of the world.
RATIONALE FOR IYOR AND ITS GOALS:
The idea for an International Year of the Reef developed in
June, 1993 at a meeting in Miami, Florida of more than a
hundred reef scientists from 20 different countries. During the
week-long meeting a strong consensus developed that many reefs
were seriously degraded, but it was also clear that information
on the global extent of these declines and the impacts
responsible was lacking. It was also evident that protecting
reefs and their rich resources can best be accomplished by
educating users, government officials and the general public.
These concerns led to the development of four main goals for
IYOR.
Goals of IYOR:
<bullet>assess the health of the worlds reefs to identify
reefs in decline and those that are potential parks or
preserves;
<bullet>diagnose causes of decline and help develop
remedies;
<bullet>promote community management of resources to
accomplish their sustainable use; and
<bullet>educate the public about reefs to promote their
protection.
Support from the International Coral Reef Initiative helped
start the global assessment of reef health last year with pilot
projects in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans. These
include (1) a Report on the status of Pacific reefs in ten
countries based on anecdotal reports, to be published this
summer; (2) the results of a study of the effects of fishing on
coral reefs of Tanzania, soon to appear in a scientific
journal; and (3) re-surveys of reefs studied twenty or more
years ago in Puerto Rico and the Bahamas providing information
on long-term changes in the coral communities.
During IYOR, the combined efforts of reef scientists and
volunteer divers will produce the first-ever comprehensive
overview of global reef health. Assessments by specialists will
be supplemented by Reef Check 1997, surveys of reef corals and
fishes worldwide by volunteers from at least a hundred sport
diving groups. In addition, re-surveys of reefs studied decades
ago will be expanded to gauge the effects of long-term impacts
of both natural and anthropogenic stresses.
CAUSES OF REEF DECLINE AND RECOMMENDED REMEDIES:
There is no universal cure for reef degradation because the
causes are so variable.. Just as physicians must diagnose
before treating human diseases, so reef scientists need to
first identify the causes of degradation before designing
remedies. Overfishing for subsistence and livelihood is a
principal negative impact on reefs in many island nations where
socio-economic alternatives are in short supply. Among the
alternatives that already show signs of promise is the effort
to convince fishermen that live fish can have more long-term
value as tourist attractions than as a short-term food supply.
Establishing no-take fish reserves that are monitored by local
populations can maintain stocks. Aquaculture of corals and
tropical fish could reduce pressure on wild stocks. Convincing
restaurants and diners in some countries that large reef fish
are more valuable as key elements in the reef ecosystem than as
status-symbol meals could reduce current run-away harvesting of
these top predators that are key elements of reef ecosystems.
Coastal runoff of sediments and fertilizer is a significant
threat to reefs that must have, clear low-nutrient waters.
Proper design of land development and forest logging in several
areas can reduce the deterioration of coastal water quality.
Halting the discharge of industrial pollutants and untreated
sewage from centers of population can cut down on chronic
stresses on nearshore reefs.
EDUCATION TO INSPIRE STEWARDSHIP:
A major goal of IYOR is to increase public awareness of the
need to protect coral reefs through education. Some of the
various efforts on hand and being developed in at least 20
different countries include:
<bullet>an outstanding exhibit on Caribbean reefs prepared
by the Smithsonian Institution to be displayed at several
locations in the United States;
<bullet>regional workshops on reef systems and reef
management are to be held in Kenya, Brazil and Fiji;
<bullet>teaching aids on reef communities and their
interactions for students and the public are being developed in
Mexico, Colombia and the United States;
<bullet>television documentaries and public-service
announcements are already available and other are in production
in several countries;
<bullet>special programs on reefs are planned for zoos and
public aquaria in the United States;
<bullet>a poster contest on coral reefs for students has
been announced;
<bullet>lectures and demonstrations about reefs are
scheduled in Germany, the Philippines, United Kingdom, Colombia
and the United States;
<bullet>field trips for families and a reef awareness
weekend in Florida; and
<bullet>an exhibit of underwater photographs is circulating
across the United States.
These numerous initiatives are just the beginning, and
interest groups all over the world are developing their own
programs of education about reefs.
ASSESSMENT OF REEFS OF THE AMERICAS:
To illustrate the IYOR approach to reef assessment, I offer
the example of the Western Atlantic; a similar approach can be
applied to other reef areas of the world. Coral reefs of the
Western Atlantic, Figure E, are of special interest to the
United States for several reasons. The reefs of South Florida,
the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are major attractions for
tourism and for education. Tourism alone in these areas amounts
to 10-20 billion dollars annually and provides numerous jobs.
To preserve the valuable resources of reefs requires that they
are used in a sustainable way. Already there are clear signs of
decline in reef fish populations, the kind of warning signal
that forecasted the disappearance of major commercial fisheries
which has occurred elsewhere in the world--California
anchovies, cod, herring, salmon and some tunas.
Individual coral reefs cannot persist alone, but must be
replenished with new reef building recruits from other reefs.
For Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, these recruits may come
from upcurrent in the Antilles; for South Florida, it is the
Gulf Stream System that brings the immigrant larvae of reef
fish (95%) and corals from the Caribbean Sea and especially
from reefs of Central America. Clearly, maintaining the health
of reefs throughout the region is therefore in our own
interests.
Our total trade with countries that have reefs in this
region was some 50 billion dollars in 1995 and total tourism
from the United States is estimated to be at least 10 billion
dollars. Helping these trading partners to manage their reefs
has benefits to both sides. It insures that these reefs
continue to replenish our own reefs with recruits of fish and
coral and it demonstrates the kind of enlightened
neighborliness that helps to insure good relations with our
trading partners.
It is well established that reefs close to population
centers are often seriously degraded. What is not know, and
must be discovered as rapidly as possible, is the condition of
large areas of reefs remote from population centers. If these
remote reefs show extensive declines, that would indicate the
impact of a regional stress, a most serious threat to other
reefs. If alternatively, remote reefs are in good health, then
the surveys can provide valuable baseline information to assist
governments of the region in developing sustainable management
strategies and in selecting reef areas for parks or preserves.
The IYOR Program of reef assessment in the Americas will
build on and expand existing programs in the region. CARICOMP,
the network of long-term reef monitoring sites around the
region will provide essential baseline data on reef
communities. Assessment of the condition of Florida reefs is
well underway by several different groups: NOAA and EPA, The
Nature Conservancy, Florida Institute of Oceanography and the
University of Miami. It will expand this summer with cruises to
examine reefs in the large areas of the Bahamas, Yucatan and
Belize. And parallel activities are being planned for other
reef areas in the Caribbean.
Similar efforts are needed in the other reef areas of the
world. In the Pacific, assessments of reef health can build on
the extensive experience of the reefs of the Hawaiian Chain,
Guam, Samoa, and the Philippines among others and it should
expand to other little known reef areas like the South China
Sea. The background of information on reefs of Indonesia and
East Africa can be used as the foundation for more
comprehensive assessment of Indian Ocean reefs.
SUPPORT FOR THE RESOLUTION (H. CON. RES. 8):
Coral reefs are among kingdom earth's crown jewels. We, the
users and beneficiaries of these remarkable resources must do
all that we can to preserve them in good health for future
generations. The Resolution before this Subcommittee is a clear
and forceful statement of the importance of coral reefs and of
the existing government-sponsored measures to protect them and
to contribute to their understanding. What is needed, and
needed urgently, is funding to support non-governmental
activities that address the goals of Resolution. I suggest that
the way to support these activities is through a program of
matching grants that can stimulate the involvement of foreign
governments, foundations and even individuals. On behalf of the
community of scientists, environmentalists, and reef
enthusiasts involved in the International Year of the Reef, I
commend the authors and sponsors of the Resolution and I am
pleased indeed to offer our full support for it and its goals.
------
Statement of James W. Porter, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Marine
Sciences, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens
Coral reefs are by far the most diverse ecosystems on
earth, supporting more than 33 animal phyla, as compared to
only 8 phyla found in a tropical rainforest. As can be expected
from such diverse environments, coral reefs yield an amazing
pharmacopeia of drugs and products to fight human disease.
Prostaglandin is one of the most potent anticancer drugs known
to medical science and was first extracted from Floridian sea
whips. Porites coral skeletons are routinely used as a bone
substitute for advanced cases of osteoporosis and coral is the
material of choice for skeletal reconstructive surgery.
Estimates of coral reef fisheries of up to 31 metric tons per
annum, as well as tourist and recreational value demonstrate
the economic importance of maintaining the health and stability
of coral reef ecosystems. In the Florida Keys alone fishing,
diving, boating, and other water-related activities contribute
$1.5 billion per year to the local economy.
Corals are actually a unique association between a
cnidarian host (The phylum Cnidaria includes the sea anemones)
and a symbiotic unicellular plant (the dinoflagellate alga,
Symbiodinium) (Porter et al., 1984). This duality confers on
coral its Herculean strength but also its Achilles heel. Unlike
most animals, corals require light to survive because of its
symbiotic algae. Therefore, turbid water kills coral. Coral
reefs flourish in sea water which is (1) clear, (2) low in
nutrients, and has (3) stable salinity and (4) stable warm
temperatures. Corals are very efficient in extracting nutrients
from the surrounding water, and recycling them within their
symbiotic association. Therefore corals do best under
conditions that for most marine organism would be considered
deprivation and are killed by luxury (Muscatine and Porter,
1977). During growth, corals deposit calcium carbonate
(limestone). Like tree rings, coral skeletons indelibly record
past climates, paleotemperatures, and human transgressions to
the coral reef environment.
Corals are the marine equivalent of canaries in the coal
mine. They are among the first organisms to disappear when
conditions for reef development become unfavorable. Since they
actually build the limestone structure of the reef, their death
means rapid decline of the three-dimensional habitat. Their
loss is to fish what deforestation is to birds. As demonstrated
in the following paragraphs, corals can also be early warning
detectors and harbingers of: (1) global marine problems, (2)
oceanic basin problems, (3) oceanic regional problems, and (4)
oceanic local problems.
Recent data shows that global ocean temperatures are rising
(Cane et al., 1997). Ironically, corals are much closer to
their upper lethal temperature than to their lower lethal
temperature. Most tropical marine creatures are similar in this
respect. An increase of only a few degrees centigrade kills
coral. Normally such elevated temperatures are not in the realm
of possibility, but in 1987, corals throughout the Caribbean
turned white (Brown and Ogden, 1993). This was caused by
abnormally high seawater temperatures. A rise of only three oC
was sufficient to denature coral proteins and destroy plant
pigments (Porter et al., 1989). Theoretically, corals can
recover from this thermal stress when the temperature returns
to normal, and we documented such a ``recovery'' in corals
between 1987 and 1989 (Fitt et al., 1993). I put ``recovery''
in quotation marks, however, because our publication was
premature. Corals that bleached had a much higher rate of
mortality over the next three years than those that did not.
Many corals that appeared to recover subsequently lost color
again and died.
Coral bleaching does not prove global warming, but global
warming is the best current hypothesis to explain the outbreak
of coral bleaching episodes during the last decade world wide.
Even if we can not use coral bleaching to prove global warming,
we can state unequivocally that 99.99% of all coral bleaching
is caused by elevated To, and that without a doubt, corals will
be the first tropical marine animals to show the effects of
global warming. Coral reefs as we know them would not survive
global warming.
Corals are also influenced by problems occurring within
their oceanic basin. As part of our NSF supported studies on
seasonal patterns of photosynthesis and respiration of
Floridian corals, we measured oxygen production and consumption
in situ in the reef-building star coral Montastrea annularis.
Most of the data conformed to expected values, exhibiting an
increase in respiration rates during the warmer summer months
and a decrease in respiration during the colder winter months.
Likewise, photosynthesis was expected to follow the same
pattern. It did not. During our September, 1993 sampling,
photosynthesis completely collapsed.
The best explanation is not intuitive. During the summer of
1993, the Mid-West and the Mississippi River experienced one of
the worst periods of flooding in recorded history (Halpert et
al., 1994). Along with the flood waters, the river carried
pesticides and herbicides in sufficient quantities to be
recorded as they exited the mouth of the Mississippi River
(Dowgiallo, 1994). These materials, particularly herbicides,
entered the Gulf of Mexico, but were soon entrained into the
Gulf Stream and arrived at our experimental sight in Florida
the day before our measurements began. We speculate that it was
the herbicides in this water, manufactured to kill weeds, which
ultimately diminished the photosynthetic capacity of Floridian
corals.
A proper scientific experiment is replicated three times. I
do not want to replicate this "experiment" three times. This
example suggests that, in the ocean, everything is connected.
Further this should tell subcommittee members, who may not be
from maritime states, that your states are nevertheless
hydrologically linked to maritime environments and maritime
problems.
We have documented a loss of corals in the Florida Keys
(Porter and Meier, 1992). The loss rate at the studied
locations averaged 4% per year, and was up to 10% per year in
some places. The best predictor of coral loss was simply a
reef's proximity to the cuts and passes between the Keys
leading from Florida Bay to the open Atlantic Ocean. Reefs near
passes, and therefore reefs frequently inundated by Florida Bay
water, declined rapidly; reefs removed from the influence of
Florida Bay grew (Porter, et al., 1994). As part of a large
EPA-funded study in the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, we are examining what aspects of Florida Bay water
may exert an adverse influence on coral reefs in the Sanctuary.
We are focusing on elevated turbidity in the Bay. Data provided
by Drs. Ron Jones and Joe Boyer of Florida International
University show an increase in the amount of turbidity in Bay
waters throughout this current decade (Boyer, et al., 1997).
Remembering that corals require clear water with low nutrient
concentrations, these data suggest a possible regional link
between the deterioration of Florida Bay and the decline of
Floridian coral reefs. The health of downstream ecosystems is
inextricably linked to the health of upstream ecosystems.
Sometimes we have no explanation for local problems. A host
of new coral diseases have recently appeared in Key West,
including the newly described ``White Pox'' (Holden, 1996).
Figures 1 and 2 show ``before'' and ``after'' photographs taken
a little over a year apart on coral reefs off Key West. The
area is infected with this new disease and these paired
photographs from the same site show the virulence and rapidity
of spread of the disease. Several new coral diseases were first
discovered in this same location. The origin and rapid spread a
host of new coral diseases in the Key West area is as yet
unexplained. These discoveries, however, emphasize the
importance of monitoring (Ogdenet al., 1994) and local
stewardship of our diminishing coral reef resources.
Congressional Resolution 8 will aid in the protection of
coral reef resources. It should be supported by both maritime
and land-locked states because even land-locked states are
hydrologically linked to the sea. Good words, however, are not
enough, and a vote for this bill should be accompanied by an
appropriations vote for financial support for agencies such as
the National Marine Sanctuary Program, which is charged with
protecting these environments, and the U.S. EPA, which is
charged with providing the research and monitoring required to
make these long-term management goals feasible.
References Cited:
Cane, MA.et al., 1997. Twentieth-Century sea surface
temperature trends. Science 275:957-960.
Boyer, J.M., J.W. Fourqurean, D. Rudnick, and R.D. Jones.
1997. Temporal trends in water chemistry of Florida Bay (1989-
1995): Influence of water management activities. Program
Abstracts, Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr., Santa Fe, NM 02/10/97,
p. 106.
Brown, B.E., and J.C. Ogden. 1993. Coral bleaching. Sci.
Amer. 64:64-73.
Dowgiallo, M.J., (ed.) 1994. Coastal oceanographic effects
of summer 1993 Mississippi River flooding. Special NOAA Report.
NOAA Coastal Ocean Office / National Weather Service, Silver
Spring, MD 76 pp.
Fitt, W.K., H.J. Sperm, J. Halas, M.W. White, and J.W.
Porter. 1993. Recovery of the coral Montastrea annularis in the
Florida Keys after the 1987 ``bleaching event.'' Coral Reefs
12:57-64.
Halpert, M.S., G.D. Bell, V.E. Kousky, and C.F. Ropelewski.
1994. Fifth annual climate assessment, 1993. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, NOAA National Weather Service.
Climate Analysis Center, Camp Springs MD. 111 pp.
Holden, C. 1996. Coral disease hot spots in the Florida
Keys. Science 274:2017.
Muscatine, L., and J.W. Porter. 1977. Reef corals:
Mutualistic symbioses adapted to nutrient-poor environments.
BioScience 27:454-460.
Ogden, J.C., J.W. Porter, N.P. Smith, A.M. Szmant, W.C.
Jaap, and D. Forcucci. 1994. A long-term interdisciplinary
study of the Florida Keys Seascape. Bull. Mar. Sci. 54:1059-
1071.
Porter, J.W., O.W. Meier, J.I. Tougas, and S.K. Lewis.
1994. Modification of the South Florida hydroscape and its
effect on coral reef survival in the Florida Keys. Ecol. Soc.
Amer. Published Abstracts, Knoxville TN.
Porter, J.W., L. Muscatine, Z. Dubinsky, and P. Falkowski.
1984. Primary production and photoadaptation in light- and
shade-adapted colonies of the symbiotic coral, Stylophora
pistillata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B 222:161-180.
Porter, J.W., W.K. Fitt, H.J. Spero, C.S. Rogers, and M.W.
White. 1989. Bleaching in reef corals: Physiological and stable
isotopic responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:9342-9346.
Porter, J.W., and O.W. Meier. 1992. Quantification of loss
and change in Floridian reef coral populations. Amer. Zool.
32:625-640.
Figure 1. Origin and development of a new coral disease
``White Pox'' on coral reefs in the Florida Keys off Key West.
Top photograph shows one photostation on Eastern Dry Rocks Reef
(KW-II-26) in July, 1995 and the bottom photograph shows the
same area photographed the following year (KW-II-26, October,
1996). In this region alone, more than 80% of the elkhorn
coral, Acropora palmata, were attacked and killed by ``White
Pox'' within one year. Photographs by James W. Porter.
------
Statement of Terry D. Garcia, Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans and
Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce
Good day, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I
am Terry Garcia, acting Assistant Secretary for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the Department
of Commerce. It is an honor and a pleasure for me to appear
before you today to highlight the programs that NOAA has
undertaken to address our Nation's coral reef crisis, which was
so eloquently stated by House Concurrent Resolution Number 8
(HCR 8).
INTRODUCTION
NOAA is pleased to provide testimony in support of
Congress's leadership for, and commitment to, active
stewardship of our Nation's fragile coral reef ecosystems,
including associated mangrove forests and sea grass beds. HCR 8
addresses the leadership needed at the national level to
address and support local management that balances economic,
social, and environmental concerns for the welfare of these
coral resources and the benefits they provide our Nation.
NOAA has established itself as a global leader in coral
reef stewardship through its many activities. NOAA, in
conjunction with other Federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations, scientists and Congress, joins over 50 nations,
principalities, and other organizations in celebrating the
International Year of the Reef. Domestically, NOAA and others
launched the United States Coral Reef Initiative (US CRI) to
protect the Nation's coral reef resources. Internationally,
NOAA has been a leader in the development of the International
Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) since it was established by the
United States and 8 other nations in 1994. There are now over
75 participating governments. NOAA appreciates the
congressional recognition embodied in HCR 8 as well as the
responsibilities commensurate with it, although we are but one
player in this process. The Department of the Interior, the
Department of State, Agency for International Development, and
the Environmental Protection Agency are all actively involved
in implementing the goals of the Coral Reef Initiative. With
your continued support, NOAA and the rest of The Administration
will continue to help address your concerns for the health and
stability of our Nation's coral reef systems--systems that are
in dire crisis. We will do this by working with the key
resource managers and scientists at the national, regional, and
local level.
HCR 8 states that NOAA has a key role in the stewardship of
our Nation's marine resources through national partnerships
such as the National Marine Sanctuaries, National Estuarine
Research Reserves, and Coastal Zone Management programs, and
our continued work to develop science-based solutions for
habitat conservation and sustainable development. There are
many other NOAA programs involved in the protection of coral
reefs and their associated habitats such as the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the National Sea Grant College Program, the
National Undersea Research Program and the Coastal Ocean
Program. While these programs address and support many aspects
of reef stewardship, it is important to remember that much of
the work of coral reef management for most of the Nation's
reefs takes place at the local level under local and regional
management initiatives.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss four
issues with you: the current global and national coral reef
crisis; what this means in the United States to both local
communities and regional resource-dependent economies; what
NOAA is doing to address the crisis; and the identification of
needs and gaps in our resource monitoring, protection and
management strategies.
RECOGNITION OF AN ECONOMIC-ENVIRONMENTAL CORAL CRISIS
Coral reefs are in serious decline globally, especially
those near dense populations and in shallow waters. Our
Nation's reefs are no exception. Many coastal communities in
semi-tropical and tropical latitudes depend on coral reef
ecosystems for jobs, income and food, making the degradation
and loss of coral reefs a serious economic and environmental
crisis.
International Experts now estimate that over two-thirds of
the world's reefs are dangerously stressed. It is estimated
that 10 percent of the world's reefs are beyond recovery, while
30 percent are in critical condition, with 10-20 years left to
live if something is not done to save them. Although coral reef
and seagrass communities have adapted to deal with natural
stresses such as predators, diseases, tropical storms, and some
climate changes, human activities are now impacting reefs in
many different ways and the cumulative impact of human and
natural stresses is destroying many reefs. The cumulative
impact of human activities is more than reefs can handle
leaving them dead, damaged and seriously compromised in dealing
with natural stresses. The solution is both simple and
difficult: If coral reefs are to survive we must reduce the
magnitude and diversity of human impacts.
The human impacts of reefs vary from reef to reef, region
to region. In general, however, the most serious anthropogenic
causes of coral reef degradation are land-based sources of
pollution and direct and indirect effects of fishing. Corals
need clean warm water to survive. Poor water quality caused by
oil pollution, plastics, sewage, or agricultural run-off can
poison reef organisms or cause algae to overgrow and smother
reefs. Sediment pollution from dredging, filling and sediment-
runoff from coastal or upstream deforestation can also smother
the fragile corals. Depletion of fish stocks removes key
species that are essential to maintaining the balance of coral
reef ecosystems. For example, many reef fish are grazers on
algae. When the fish are removed the algae can overgrow the
coral itself, eventually smothering and killing sections of
coral reef. The indirect effects of some fishing is very
destructive: in the Indo-Pacific thousands of years of coral
reef growth is destroyed in minutes by dynamite blasting and
poisons used to collect fish and other reef organisms for food
and the international aquarium trade.
Other human impacts on coral reefs include damage from the
growing dive and tourism industry that can now bring hundreds
of divers and snorkelers to reefs every week. Boats and boat
anchors can do serious damage to reefs. In the past two months,
for example, there have been three ship groundings on the coral
reefs in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, including
the largest ship to ever hit these reefs. Other uses of the
coastal fringe that destroys the backreef mangrove and seagrass
communities that are important parts of the coral reef
ecosystem can also have negative impacts. This would include
the harvesting or displacement of mangroves and seagrasses for
aquaculture ponds and the mining of coral and coral sand. By
signing on to the International Coral Reef Initiative, more
than 75 nations and principalities have demonstrated that they
recognize that human activities can cause significant impact to
coral reef ecosystems and have begun national initiatives. The
United States is proud to be one of the first.
NATIONAL
Like coral reefs all over the world, reefs in the United
States are also in crisis. There are significant coral reef
resources in the southern Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Gulf of
Mexico and the western Pacific. They include: the Florida Keys
coral reef tract and seagrass beds; the deepwater corals of the
Oculina Banks off the southern Atlantic Coast; diverse
Caribbean coral reefs in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands;
the Flower Garden Banks off the coast of Texas, the
northernmost reefs in North America, and extensive reefs in the
Pacific including Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
There are a number of indicators of the coral crisis here
in the United States. Of special concern are the coral
resources that are candidates for listing under the Endangered
Species Act, including 10 coral and 2 fish species. Perhaps the
best studied example of the crisis at the national level is the
Florida Keys where the coral reef tract and associated seagrass
beds are being adversely affected by humans. Problems include
both large and small boat groundings, poor water quality from
Florida Bay, and impacts from divers and snorkelers
inadvertently breaking coral. Overharvesting of many species of
fish, particularly large predators, has severely altered the
environmental balance of the Keys. The past two years has seen
an increase in the incidence and types of diseases afflicting
corals as well as other reef organisms. Scientists are
currently investigating whether some of these diseases result
from human activity.
WHY DOES IT MATTER WHAT HAPPENS TO CORAL REEFS?
The economics of coastal areas affect the entire Nation.
The health of the reefs influences where people live, work and
play. More than one-half of the US population lives in one of
our Nation's 411 coastal counties--only 11 percent of the
land--an average of more than 750 people per square mile.
People depend on coastal resources for jobs, income and a way
of life. For example, the recreational fishing industry
contributes more than $30 billion to the US economy annually.
Tourism-related businesses serve 180 million Americans visiting
the coast each year. The Gulf of Mexico produces 42 percent of
all seafood harvested in US waters. A significant portion of US
fisheries and tourism is related to coral reef ecosystems.
The density of fishes on the reefs is 100 times greater
than the average for most of the ocean. Reefs can be tens of
meters high and thousands of kilometers long. Coral reefs are
among nature's most spectacular and beautiful creations with
almost a million species, a warm water world of exotic fish,
coral and sponges of every imaginable color proving to be an
irresistible attraction to tourists and visitors worldwide. For
many of these reasons, the Florida Keys are the number one dive
destination in the world. The contributions that healthy coral
reef ecosystems can make to coastal and regional economies are
incredible.
CORAL REEFS SUPPORT FISHERIES AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES
For example, over three million tourists visit the Florida
Keys every year primarily to participate in ocean-related
activities like fishing, diving, boating. In 1991, the gross
earnings of the Florida Keys and Monroe County was $853
million, $307 million (36 percent) of which came from services
provided by the tourism industry. This does not include the
other significant contributions these annual visitors make to
other sectors of the local economy. It also does not include
the commercial fishing industry that contributed $17 million to
the Keys' economy. All of these activities depend on a healthy
coral reef and coastal environment.
Tourism is a major industry in other US coral reef areas
like Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Hawaii, Guam and the
Northern Marianas. In 1991, visitors to the US Virgin Islands
spent over $700 million. A significant portion of these tourist
dollars is attracted by healthy coral reefs that over the long
term help make the sand for the beaches, protect the islands
from storm damage, and provide the incredible biological
diversity people come to see. Many islands have seen the
increase in underwater trails, glass bottom boats, divers,
snorkelers and fisherman as clear signs of the value of healthy
coral reef habitat. US recreational divers spend at least $300
million in the Caribbean and Hawaii every year.
Tourism in Puerto Rico brought in over $1.4 billion in
1991. Hawaii's tourism generates over $9.0 billion in revenue
annually, and some 3 million people visit just one of Hawaii's
many corals reef sites every year. About 90 percent of new
economic growth in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Marianas, both of which have large coral reef habitats, is
tourism related.
Coral reefs cover only about 0.2 percent of the ocean
floor, or an area about the size of Texas, but they produce
about one-tenth of the fish caught for human consumption, and
hold about one quarter of all marine species. Coral reefs are
critical habitat for both recreational and commercial
fisheries--lobster, red snapper, shrimp and grouper. Twenty-
three percent of the 200 commercial reef species in the
southeast are overfished, one percent is at full utilization,
and the other 76 percent are of unknown status.
A large portion of the economic value of coral reef
ecosystems is in their importance in producing commercial and
recreational fisheries. In Puerto Rico, for example, the
commercial fishery had a vessel value of over $4.0 million.
Coral reefs produce an annual maximum sustainable yield of 15
metric tons of reef fish per square kilometer. The productivity
of coral reefs is responsible for about one-eighth of the
world's fish harvest. In the U.S. Caribbean, for example, the
true economic value of the contribution of coral reefs to reef
fish production has been estimated at several million dollars
annually.
These fisheries can be sustainable contributors to local
communities and economies when managed wisely. The Magnuson-
Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act provides
important new authority that will enable NOAA to do a better
job of ensuring long-term sustainability of fisheries that
depend on healthy coral reef habitat. The Act calls on NOAA,
through the National Marine Fisheries Service, to identify and
designate habitat that is essential for the continued viability
of living marine resources. Coral reefs designated as essential
fish habitat will be eligible for augmented conservation
measures. These measures will lead to more stable fishery
harvests, with the result that fishing will continue to be an
important sector in local coastal economies.
CORAL REEFS PROTECT COASTAL COMMUNITIES FROM STORM AND WAVE
DAMAGE
Developers and hotel owners are dependent on coral reefs to
provide buffering from high waves and storm surge that can wash
away sandy beaches as well as any structures built behind them.
In the Northern Marianas and Guam, reefs provide protection
from the potentially devastating effects of the storms of
``Typhoon Alley.''
LOST OPPORTUNITIES AND BIOMEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Coral and other organisms that depend on coral reefs have
produced promising leads in the search for anticancer
compounds, antibiotics, pain suppressors, sun screens and other
products. These organisms potentially hold the secrets to
numerous scientific and medical benefits within their rich
diversity. A Caribbean sea whip coral, for example, produces
compounds with anti-inflammatory properties that are now being
used in skin creams and may help alleviate arthritis and other
debilitating inflammatory diseases. Coral skeletons have been
used for bone grafts in humans, and kainic acid from reef
organisms in Japan and Taiwan is used in the diagnosis of
Huntington's chorea, a rare but fatal disease that affects the
nervous system. There is significant potential for improving
human health and stimulating the biomedical industry. NOAA's
Sea Grant program and the National Cancer Institute are the
main supporters of this research, making the compounds
available to industry for testing.
NOAA ACTIVITIES ADDRESSING THE CORAL REEF CRISIS
NOAA is the primary federal agency charged with the
stewardship of US coral reefs. Reefs, and their associated
habitats like seagrass beds and mangrove forests, are also in
state, territorial or commonwealth waters. These entities have
important responsibilities and are important partners in our
efforts. Many coastal states and territories with coral reef
resources have worked to improve their management capabilities
to minimize adverse impacts to corals.
NOAA is also involved in international efforts to protect
and conserve non-US reefs through partnerships with the State
Department, the Agency for International Development,and
numerous non-government organizations and other government
entities. I am pleased that so many parts of NOAA are involved
in activities related to US and other coral reefs including:
The National Marine Sanctuary Program--Through this
program, NOAA manages national coral reef treasures like the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the Fagatele Bay
National Marine Sanctuary in American Samoa, the Hawaiian
Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and the Flower
Gardens National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Texas. The
Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve in Puerto Rico is
another area protecting coral reef habitats and developing
solutions for sustainable management of these resources. Many
of these sites work closely with other federally protected
coral reef areas such as National Parks in the US Virgin
Islands, American Samoa and South Florida.
These programs have had also had important roles in
restoring coral reefs. For example, following two 1989 ship
groundings in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary that
caused significant damage to the coral reef, NOAA recovered
funds to restore both sites. By working with the US Army Corps
of Engineers and a contractor, NOAA is building a three-
dimensional habitat to prevent further degradation of the reef.
Marine life is returning and it is hoped that soon coral
resettlement will begin.
The Coastal Zone Management Program--This program
establishes federal-state partnerships that help coastal states
and territories to sustainably manage the coastal zone to
prevent damage to precious coastal resources like coral reefs.
Seven state and territorial coastal zone management programs
include significant efforts aimed at protecting coral reef
resources, while others have indirect benefits.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has several
important roles related to coral reefs. NMFS manages hundreds
of species making up commercial and recreational fisheries that
are vital to coastal economies and valued at millions of
dollars. For example, over 200 species of reef-dependent
commercial fish species exist in the Gulf of Mexico alone. The
western Pacific also has many state and federally managed
fisheries that depend on coral reef habitats for their
survival. NMFS also works to manage and restore the federally
and internationally protected species dependent on coral reef
habitats like sea turtles, some marine mammals and the hard
corals. NMFS, often in conjunction with the National Marine
Sanctuaries program, also restores habitat including coral
reefs and associated sea grass habitats in sanctuaries and
elsewhere. This often involves development of innovative
technologies to address the impacts of ship groundings. NMFS
enforcement, in conjunction with NOAA General Counsel, promotes
compliance with the laws and regulations related to marine
sanctuaries and fisheries through various means, including
civil monetary penalties, education and outreach programs.
The National Sea Grant Program is an important contributor
of information on coral reefs. Working with state, territory
and university partners, this program provides research funds
to improve the understanding of coral reefs and how humans both
benefit and harm them. For example, Sea Grant has produced
nearly 1000 scientific and popular articles on coral reefs
through its research programs. Sea Grant also has an extension
function, through which it provides information to managers and
the public. Sea Grant is funding projects on the viability of
harvest refugias and on how reefs respond to nutrient loading.
Additionally, Sea Grant has helped develop curricula for
teachers to use in teaching about the value of coral reef
systems. Sea Grant funds an average of $2.5 million in coral
reef-related research and outreach activities every year.
The National Undersea Research Program (NURP), the Coastal
Ocean Program (COP), and the Office of Global Programs (OGP)
are unique contributors to NOAA's effort. NURP provides state-
of-the-art submersibles and underwater technology and support
for underwater research. Three of NOAA's six NURP centers are
working on coral reef issues in Florida, the Caribbean and
Hawaii by facilitating the provision of undersea technology and
research support. Funding of projects ranges from the Jason
Education project to coral reproduction, and the role of corals
in water quality and nutrient dynamics in the Florida Keys, as
well as coral diseases. COP is synthesizing much of NOAA's
information, providing the first ecosystem studies and models
that predict the consequences of actions and impacts, for
example how Florida Bay water quality affects ecosystems like
the Florida Keys. OGP helps predict future climate changes by
studying historical changes in the Earth's climate that are
reflected in the skeletons of corals that hold records of the
past ocean conditions much like the rings in a tree.
The National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information
Service (NESDIS) provides perspectives of the coral reef crisis
from space. Using satellite-derived data on sea surface
temperature, NESDIS now provides global maps showing ``hot-
spots'' where water temperatures are higher than expected and
where coral bleaching might occur. These bleaching
``forecasts'' are now updated twice weekly and available on the
internet. They may allow reef managers to reduce the stresses
on coral reefs from other activities during these periods of
high water temperature, and thereby reduce the chance of
serious damage to the reefs.
These are just a few examples of NOAA programs and
activities related to coral reefs. These are the tools NOAA
uses to address the coral reef crisis and help fulfill NOAA's
environmental stewardship responsibilities as outlined in our
strategic plan. In FY 1996 NOAA spent approximately $26 million
for these activities addressing management and protection of
coral reefs.
ICRI: THE US AND NOAA'S ROLE
Despite some progress in the protection and management of
coral reefs, the coral reef crisis remains very real both in
the US and abroad. In response to the continued decline and
destruction of coral reef ecosystems worldwide, the US and
eight other nations established the International Coral Reef
Initiative (ICRI) in 1994 to support additional actions to
protect, restore and sustainably use these fragile resources.
ICRI is designed to be a catalyst for additional actions that
build on existing efforts. The goal is for each nation to
develop its own initiative to fill the gaps and create
partnerships that can slow the decline of coral resources. I am
very pleased to say that the US was one of the first nations to
develop a national coral reef initiative and help others do the
same. There are now 75 nations that have joined the Coral Reef
Initiative process. For example, the South Pacific region
launched its own Pacific Year of the Reef on February 11.
NOAA, AID, the Department of the Interior, EPA and other
federal agencies have assisted the State Department in the
development and implementation of ICRI by providing technical
assistance on many coastal/ocean management issues and helping
define priorities for coral reef initiative efforts.
NOAA is involved in many international projects related to
ICRI. A few of the many examples include:
--NMFS has worked with the State Department to help
establish and implement a Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
(GCRMN). The GCRMN will provide global access to coral reef
data, including management techniques which have proven useful
in sustaining coral reefs.
--NMFS is working with Mexico on regional implementation of
the International Coral Reef Initiative in North America
through NAFTA's Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).
--In addition to broader Hawaii Sea Grant activities in the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau
which include coral reef issues, Hawaii Sea Grant recently
participated in a team of U.S., Japanese, and Palauan experts
which assessed the feasibility of an international coral reef
center in Palau.
--NOAA has actively supported U.S. Government efforts to
work with the Asia Pacific Economic Partnership (APEC) to
reduce detrimental fishing activities, such as cyanide fishing,
that are significant contributors to the destruction of coral
reefs in the Indopacific region, a major center of diversity
for coral reefs. NMFS is helping organize an APEC workshop on
cyanide fishing in Mexico this June.
--Working with USAID, NOAA has been providing technical
assistance in support of the Middle East peace process, helping
the governments of Jordan and Israel develop a Binational Red
Sea Marine Peace Park. This park protects the coral reefs in
Aqaba, Jordan and Eilat, Israel and supports sustainable
development goals related to coral reef based tourism. The
Peace Park now has a complete mooring and boundary marker
system in place. The park has management regulations including
zoning, and has begun the process of supporting a collaborative
research and monitoring program between the countries of
Jordan, Israel, and Egypt for the Gulf of Aqaba.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?--THE US CORAL REEF INITIATIVE
NOAA has been an important contributor to the design and
implementation of the US Coral Reef Initiative. Although no new
funds have been appropriated for NOAA's participation, NOAA
contributed over $1.2 million from in FY 1996 base funds to
support 42 new projects addressing priorities of the US Coral
Reef Initiative. Some of these projects are now public-private
partnerships developed through the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to leverage public resources. All of these projects
are NOAA's attempt to help to fill gaps in existing US efforts
to protect and manage coral reefs. Here are just a few examples
of the kinds of projects I am talking about. Many of the
projects are described in more detail in the brochure that you
have entitled ``NOAA Coral Reef Initiative''.
PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE USE.
Sea Grant extension agents have worked with other federal,
local and private entities to transfer information and
technology to local communities. In the Pacific, this has
supported sustainable use of reef resources through ecotourism
and mariculture. Mariculture provides a means of reestablishing
species that have been overharvested, provides an alternative
to wild harvest, and provides economic development
opportunities. Sea Grant is also funding local research to
understand human impacts on the reefs.
SUSTAINABLE REEF FISHERIES
In the western Pacific, NOAA supported the first
comprehensive assessment of coral reef resources, current
management efforts and future management needs. In the
Caribbean, NOAA and its partners have helped develop protected
marine areas and conduct research to determine how best to
manage them.
REDUCING ILLEGAL CORAL TRADE
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is working with
partners to help prevent illegal exports of corals by training
import and export personnel about corals and international
trade regulations. The US is the world's largest importer of
coral products accounting for 85 percent of the raw coral and
98 percent of live coral trade. Ninety-five percent of this
trade comes out of Indonesia and export of corals requires
permits from country of origin because all hard corals are
listed in Appendix II of CITES, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species. The more people granting the
permits know about corals and coral trade, the better
management decisions they will be able to make.
Twenty percent of the over $1.2 million contributed by NOAA
to the US Coral Reef Initiative were used to build private-
public partnerships, which have now attracted over $150,000 in
non-federal matching funds for local-level management projects
through NOAA's new partnership with the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation. We think public-private partnerships are
powerful tools in this and other areas of our environmental
stewardship responsibilities.
Although this is a start, the crisis is far from over, and
much work remains. One of the most important themes of the US
CRI is the support for community involvement in the
implementation of local and regional efforts to protect and
sustainably manage US coral reef ecosystems. NOAA is working to
marshal resources for these kinds of efforts in addition to our
other coral-related stewardship responsibilities.
The US Coral Reef Initiative is fundamentally about
partnerships. These partnerships will work to stop the
degradation and loss of coral reefs while balancing local and
regional economic concerns. The power of these partnerships is
that they produce actions that are more than the sum of their
parts. States, territories, commonwealths, non-government
organizations, universities, the private sector and other
federal agencies are working together on reef related
activities to make this a reality. Although the US CRI is off
to a good start, we still have a long way to go, and a number
of on-going gaps and needs to be addressed.
WE NEED TO INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS
In the last decade, the awareness of the fragility of these
reef ecosystems has grown considerably, as has the growing
awareness of the need to concentrate increased management
efforts to mitigate impacts from adjacent land uses. We can no
longer afford to allow direct, physical damage to occur due to
uses which degrade the fragile ecosystem of a reef. Educating
users who impact coral reef communities, and directing their
activities so as to avoid such impacts, must be one of the
constant objectives of comprehensive stewardship.
The International Year of the Reef (IYOR) was declared by
scientists, managers, and non-government organizations to
promote coral conservation efforts and increase public
awareness of human impacts, coral losses and the need for
local, national and international stewardship of coral reefs.
The United Nations, the US, other signatory nations and
numerous organizations are involved in the production of
videos, posters, and other materials to promote public
awareness of how human activities can impact our natural
environment.
On February 24, 1997, NOAA, the State Department and many
of our non-governmental partners kicked off a new national
public awareness campaign on the value and loss of coral reefs.
This is NOAA's major contribution to the International Year of
the Reef. The theme of the campaign is `` Coral Reefs: The
Rainforests of the Sea'' because like rainforests, coral reefs
are among the most diverse ecosystems in the world.
The campaign makes available information on what people can
do to save coral reefs no matter where they live. We've
provided you with some of the materials that are available
including the poster by renowned marine artist Robert Lynn
Nelson, and the brochure ``25 Things You Can Do To Save Coral
Reefs''. These, and other materials, are available to the
public by calling 1-888-CORAL-REEF. You will begin seeing this
number on signs, on public service announcements before movies
in theaters, on television, and on the radio in the near
future. Public awareness is important because people can make a
difference in the coral crisis.
There are, of course, many other areas of need and gaps to
be filled in our efforts to avert further loss of coral reefs.
Let me leave you with just a few key themes.
THE NATION NEEDS BETTER INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY
Scientists and managers need the resources and simple
techniques to monitor the health of coral reef ecosystems.
Techniques must be implemented on the local and regional level
to give managers better information on the status of reefs so
they can make effective, and proactive, management decision.
What is needed is not only additional monitoring but also
improved access to the information being produced. There are
several examples of information networks that can be expanded
to link information and people working on coral reefs in the US
and around the world.
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
Ongoing support is needed for research and development on
the restoration of coral reefs and their associated ecosystems,
which is a critical parallel to the reduction of human impacts.
PROACTIVE INVOLVEMENT BY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
Government, as well as other parties, needs to proactively
reduce threats from anthropogenic sources, such as the
sedimentation and poor water quality affecting reefs in Hawaii
and the Florida Keys. Responsible parties also need to work
together to prevent, while at the same time being prepared, to
address impacts from singular events like oil spills and ship
groundings, and nonpoint sources like sewage seepage and
nutrient input into coral systems.
For example, Hawaii and the trust territories and
commonwealths of the Caribbean and Pacific are ringed by coral
reefs and subject to increased stresses from rapid coastal
urbanization. These reefs are impacted by nutrient enrichment
from point and non-point sources of pollution, dredging for
harbor and marina uses, overfishing and fishing practices,
anchor damage, and similar activities, and have not received
the total focus needed to ensure their health and protection.
In South Florida, work is needed on the outbreaks of coral
diseases and how to address questions of human carrying
capacity of the Florida Keys and surrounding ecosystem.
CONCLUSIONS
Over $300 million is spent in the Florida Keys by tourists
every year who expect to find a healthy Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary. In Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, 90
percent of the new economic development is coastal, and 3
million tourists visit one of Hawaii's many coral reef sites
every year. In American Samoa, corals reefs have an important
cultural role and supply over 50 percent of the local fish used
for subsistence. Coral degradation reduces the productivity and
value of the world's reef fish fisheries since these fish are
dependent on reef habitats for food and shelter. Coral reefs
produce an annual maximum sustainable yield of 15 metric tons
of reef fish per square kilometer.
By 2005, NOAA envisions the Nation's coasts with more
productive and diverse habitats for fish and wildlife, cleaner
coastal waters for recreation and seafood production, and
coastal communities with thriving, sustainable economies based
on well-planned development and healthy coastal ecosystems. To
reach its Sustain Healthy Coasts goal under the NOAA Strategic
Plan, we have committed ``to protect, conserve, and restore
coastal habitats and their biodiversity.'' NOAA's strategy to
reach its objective of protecting and restoring coastal
habitat, including coral reefs, involves three distinct roles
for NOAA: providing greater understanding, designing and
implementing management solutions, and synthesizing and
communicating information about problems and solutions to
decisionmakers and the public.
At NOAA, we are implementing our initiatives and issuing a
call to action for the American people and all of our partners
to help save ``Coral Reefs--Our Rainforests of the Sea''. But
these initiatives, and any new ones that we hope to undertake,
will depend upon strong partnerships and support from our
constituents and Congress. NOAA wishes to acknowledge the
critical role our partners play in this initiative, including
federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, businesses,
local governments and the public. With ongoing support, these
partnerships will continue to grow in number, importance and
effectiveness. Addressing the problem of human impacts on the
world's reefs requires a synergistic response using the
collective energies of science, resource management agencies
like NOAA, and our many other partners. I am pleased to present
the committee with examples from our outreach campaign for the
International Year of the Reef--NOAA's poster ``Rainforests Of
The Sea'', ``25 Things You Can Do To Save Coral Reefs''
brochure, and other materials.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my testimony. I
will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
------
Testimony of Marshall P. Jones, Assistant Director for International
Affairs, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to be
here today to discuss H.R. 39, the African Elephant
Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's implementation of the African Elephant
Conservation Act. It is particularly timely that renewed
emphasis is now being given to this landmark legislative
initiative.
With respect to H.R. 39, the reauthorization of the Act
through the year 2002, the Service strongly supports this
legislation. The African Elephant Conservation Act, as I will
more fully detail in my statement today, has played a
significant role in U.S. efforts to encourage and assist in on
the ground projects aimed at conserving elephants in Africa. In
fact, the early success of this program provided the impetus to
the passage of the companion Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation
Act of 1994, and initial funding provided pursuant to this new
act in Fiscal Years 1996/97 has allowed us to begin a modest
grant program directed at highest priority projects for
critically endangered rhinoceros and tiger populations.
As a Party to the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and a major
consumer of species covered by the Convention, the U.S. shares
responsibility for supporting and implementing measures to
provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened
species, both at home and abroad. The African Elephant
Conservation Act is designed to encourage and assist efforts to
conserve one of the world's most ecologically and
sociologically important species of wildlife. The Act's key
element is the provision of financial resources to help support
elephant conservation programs in the wild in their countries
of origin. The Act is part of the strong U.S. commitment to
assisting the people of developing African nations in
implementing their priorities for wildlife conservation.
Continued support by the U.S. through reauthorization of the
Act remains critical to the continued conservation of African
elephants.
The remainder of my remarks today will focus on the
successes of the African Elephant Conservation Act. Enacted in
1989 and initially funded in fiscal year 1990, the Act has now
given us over six years of experience with African elephant
conservation programs in seventeen African countries. The
African Elephant Conservation Act came into existence at a time
when most African elephant populations were declining at an
alarming rate, due primarily to poaching for a large illegal
trade in ivory. Population estimates vary widely for the
African elephant from the 35 countries within the current
range, but it is estimated that total elephant numbers declined
continent-wide by as much as 50 percent during the late 1 970s
and 1980s.
In response to this precipitous decline, the Act authorized
a unique, two-pronged conservation strategy. First, it required
a review of elephant conservation programs and established a
process for implementation of strict ivory import controls; and
second, it established a Fund for cooperative conservation
projects in African countries. Under the authority of the ivory
trade provisions of the Act, in June of 1989 the President
established a moratorium on all ivory imports into the United
States, which was at that time the third largest consumer of
ivory in the world. The Congressional leadership that
facilitated passage of the Act, and ensuing U.S. ivory import
moratorium, were essential precursors to the U.S. leadership in
the subsequent decision by CITES parties in October of 1989 to
transfer of the African elephant from CITES Appendix II to
CITES Appendix I and impose a global ban on international ivory
trade. While it was recognized that several African countries,
particularly in Southern Africa, had stable elephant
populations and were able to maintain adequate internal
conservation programs, there was no effective mechanism to
control international trade in illegal ivory.
The information available to us today shows that the ivory
ban was quickly followed by significant declines in the rate of
elephant poaching, ivory prices and ivory trade, combined with
stabilization of elephant populations in many countries that
were previously experiencing declines. It is important to note
that there was also a concurrent increase in donor funding to
help support anti-poaching and other conservation efforts in
range countries following the Appendix I listing--most notably
from the United States, including the first appropriation of
funds under the Act. It is also significant and gratifying to
note that the U.S., unlike some other donor countries, is
continuing to fulfill its commitment to elephant conservation.
However, there is no room for complacency. The debate
continues today over the impacts of the Appendix I listing on
elephant utilization programs in some countries in Southern
Africa. Furthermore, a recent report prepared for the last
CITES Conference of the Parties in 1994 suggests that poaching
appears to be on the rise again, which may be due in part to
declines in both donor funding and in wildlife management and
anti-poaching budgets in many African countries.
The issues of elephant conservation and ivory trade are
very complex and are expected to be a significant focus of the
Tenth Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties, to be
hosted by Zimbabwe in June of this year. Three Southern African
countries--Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe--have proposed that
the Conference of the Parties agree to transfer their elephant
populations back to CITES Appendix II, to allow for a number of
trade options including a limited commercial trade in their
legal stockpiles of ivory, live animals, and for Zimbabwe in
carvings, hides, and leather as well. The Service is currently
reviewing these proposals, as well as the report from a panel
of experts appointed by the CITES Secretariat to review trade
and enforcement controls in those countries and in Japan, where
the ivory is proposed to be exported. During this review, the
Service will consult with other Federal agencies and with
affected range countries. It will also publish a Federal
Register notice that will outline the U.S. proposed position on
these and all other CITES proposals and will request public
comment prior to the June CITES Conference in Zimbabwe.
Regardless of the outcome of these proposals at the Conference,
it is certain that the African Elephant Conservation Act will
remain a critical link to enable continued active U.S.
involvement in African elephant conservation, through both its
import control provisions and the grant program.
While this important dialogue is unfolding, we must
continue to keep our focus on the positive strides being made
as a result of the Act's unique conservation strategy--a small
conservation Fund targeted at cooperative, on-the-ground
conservation projects in Africa. Implementation of this program
has played a directly positive role in the conservation of the
African elephant, and an indirect role in the conservation of
numerous species that benefit from the conservation of this
keystone species.
To date, the Service has funded 48 different projects in 17
African countries affecting over 200,000 elephants. Each
project is a cooperative effort with African CITES Management
Authorities, other foreign governments, nongovernmental
organizations or the private sector. No in-country project is
approved unless it has the full support of and has been
identified by that country as a priority for conservation.
Through this cooperative approach the actual on-the-ground
resources directed at African elephant conservation is almost
double the $5 million allocated to the program since 1990.
Under the Act all but 3 percent of funds allocated to the grant
program are used to fund projects. Additionally, no overhead
charges are supported by grant funds. All such costs are borne
by the cooperators as matching contributions to the project.
Thus, 97 percent of all funds allocated by Congress to the Fund
are obligated to specific projects.
In implementing this program the Service has also designed
a streamlined process that allows for timely approval of
projects, and that has the capacity to respond quickly to
emergency situations. Since no implementing regulations were
deemed necessary, there was no time lag in initial receipt of
funds and actual implementation of the program. Furthermore,
the grant program is designed to provide quick, short term
support for holding actions and other conservation measures, in
concert with existing or proposed long range activities, or
until such long range activities are in place. In the early
implementation of the Act, it became apparent that there was a
definite need for such a responsive grant program, and it has
become the hallmark of its success.
One of the earliest projects funded was a cooperative
effort with the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, Central
African Republic, and the World Wildlife Fund. A cooperative
effort was underway to establish a reserve in the southeastern
portion of that country. While funds for gazetting the reserve
were anticipated, no funds were available for basic equipment
and operations of anti-poaching patrols--hired from local
communities--until a cooperative project was implemented under
the Act. When the first patrols were put into place, the only
signs of elephants in a local clearing within the park were the
carcasses of several poached animals. Today over 2,000
individual elephants, young and old, have been identified to be
using that clearing. From an observation platform, local school
children can watch in awe as dozens of elephants gather
together.
In Senegal, the westernmost population of elephants in
Africa is now secure. Through a cooperative project with the
government of Senegal and the Friends of Animals, an anti-
poaching program has provided local community employment and
protection for the remaining elephant population. For the first
time in years, baby elephants are now seen in this small but
genetically valuable population.
In the first years of the program the majority of funding
requests and the highest priority projects for funding were
proposals submitted by or in cooperation with African elephant
range state governments for anti-poaching assistance. Similar
to the projects described above, funds have been provided to
augment anti-poaching and management support in Cameroon,
Congo, Eritrea, Gabon, Mali, Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. Equipment purchased with these funds has ranged from
vehicles to radios to field gear.
One of the most innovative anti-poaching projects funded is
a cooperative effort with the Southern African Wildlife Trust
and several cooperating African government agencies. It
consists of a meritorious service awards program for game
scouts and rangers in Botswana, Tanzania, ambia and Zimbabwe.
This program has provided a much needed morale boost for the
individuals who are asked to risk their lives every day as they
routinely confront heavily armed groups of commercial poachers.
More recently there has been a shift in focus from anti-
poaching projects to other conservation activities that address
management needs and increasing human/elephant conflicts, as
expanding human populations reduce the amount of wild lands
available. In Southern Africa a number of projects have been
implemented to assist range state agencies with elephant
management programs. A cooperative project with the Zimbabwe
Department of National Parks and Wildlife, for example, focused
on the development of translocation techniques for elephant
family units. Over 1,000 individual elephants were successfully
translocated to new range in Zimbabwe when drought threatened
hundreds of individuals with starvation and destruction of
available habitat. That technique is now being used in South
Africa and other range states. A second project in Zimbabwe, in
cooperation with Safari Club International, focuses on the
development of a manual on elephant population management to be
used as part of the CAMPFIRE program to assist local
communities in sustainable development.
In this regard it is also important to recognize that the
Act specifically addresses the issue of sport hunting. The Act
states that ``there is no evidence that sport hunting is part
of the poaching that contributes to the illegal trade in
African elephant ivory, and there is evidence that the proper
utilization of well-managed elephant populations provides an
important source of funding for African elephant conservation
programs.'' Under this authority and special rule for
threatened African elephants adopted under the Endangered
Species Act, the Service has been able to make the required
biological findings to allow the import of sport-hunted
trophies from certain African countries, where it can be
demonstrated that the range country has an elephant trophy
export quota and that imports into the U.S. contribute to the
enhancement of the survival of the species.
The Service annually reconfirms these findings, and
continues to allow the import of sport-hunted trophies from
Zimbabwe and other countries, as part of those countries'
overall African elephant conservation programs. We continue on
an annual basis to evaluate these findings, particularly when
new information becomes available. Zimbabwe's program, for
example, with oversight and regulation by the Zimbabwe
Department of National Parks and Wildlife, includes some
communal land areas enrolled in the CAMPFIRE program.
Other management projects include investigations into the
effectiveness of various forms of deterrents used to discourage
crop-raiding elephants in Cameroon and Zimbabwe; training
wildlife officers in Ghana about elephant biology and ecology;
and elephant population surveys in Cameroon, Chad, Central
African Republic, Malawi, Namibia and Tanzania. Projects have
also been funded to assist in the establishment of a continent-
wide database on elephant populations and in the establishment
of the first comprehensive library of elephant resource
material.
These are but a few examples of the significant successes
of the African Elephant Conservation Act program, demonstrating
the wide array of projects and cooperators. I hoped that these
have served to illustrate its effectiveness and positive
impacts on African elephant protection and management. However,
while much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. The
annual requests for support of high priority projects greatly
exceeds the funds available, and we believe that
reauthorization of the Act can make an important contribution
to elephant conservation.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the findings made by Congress in
enacting this Act regrettably still ring true today: ``Many
(African countries) do not have sufficient resources to
properly manage, conserve, and protect their elephant
populations.'' The United States must share the responsibility
to provide for the conservation of this magnificent species.
The principles embodied in this Act are sound. They provide a
catalyst for cooperative efforts among the governments of the
world, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to
work together for a common goal--the conservation and continued
healthy existence of populations of African elephants. This is
not a hand out, but a helping hand. For all of these reasons
the Service strongly supports the reauthorization of the Act.
------
Testimony of Terry L. Maple, Ph.D., Zoo Atlanta; School of Psychology,
Georgia Institute of Technology
Indlov' ihlatshwa ngabantu bonke kandubub'iwe
(The elephant is stabbed by all before it falls)
Zulu parable
When America's zoo directors behold an elephant, they see
it through the eyes of the nation's 120 million zoo visitors.
There are roughly 40,000 mammals on exhibit in the 170
accredited institutions which comprise the membership of
American Zoo and Aquarium Association's institutional
membership. Only 136 African elephants currently reside in
American zoos. They are extraordinarily difficult to properly
exhibit, manage, and breed. It will be many, many years until
we can proclaim a self-sustaining captive population. Even if
we could clone an elephant to obtain a normal adult, we would
spend decades nurturing and socializing a long-lived creature
with a complex social structure and intellectual powers that
rival those of humankind. The successful management of
elephants in zoos is our most labor-intensive and expensive
form of mammalian husbandry. It is as much art as it is
science, and its expert practitioners, the elephant keepers,
must be alert and savvy each and every day that they walk among
the world's largest land mammals. Zoo professionals respect
elephants, while our visitors shower them with affection. The
label ``charismatic megavertabrate'' is a perfect fit with the
African elephant.
I rise to support ``AECA,'' the ``African Elephant
Conservation Act,'' because I believe that its Grants Program
is making a difference in Africa. It is doing what it intended
in providing critical financial assistance to support
protection, conservation, and management of African elephants
in the wild. To date, 17 African countries have benefited from
the fifty projects funded with $5,434,025 of programmatic money
and $8,651,332 in matching funds. The identified needs are
greater than the sum expended by a factor of twenty, but we
have made an important start with this program. The Grants
Program of the African Elephant Conservation Act is an example
of American leadership at its best. We are fact-finding; we are
solving problems; we are team-building; we are making a
difference in the field.
As one who must live by a budget based on a competitive
marketplace, I recognize Me importance of cost-effective, well-
designed, focused, and flexible programs. AECA was designed to
encourage donations from private sources, and the record
demonstrates that this strategy has been successful. Therefore,
I regard this program as a classic example of a public-private
partnership. The key word is ``partnership,'' as our government
must be an effective and willing partner with other responsible
governments and other conservation organizations if we are
going to save elephants in Africa. In my opinion, there is a
great potential to dramatically grow the private side of the
match to help fill the gap between proposed and funded
projects. I will do what I can to encourage expanded
participation by the nation's zoos. Working together, we will
accomplish a great deal more in the future.
Because the needs are great, and the funding at present
modest, AECA was also designed to ``provide quick, short-term
support for holding actions and other conservation measures in
concert with existing or proposed long-range activities or
until such activities are in place.'' Experts from the field
have prioritized well, ensuring that our contributions are
applied to the most critical endeavors, but in ways that
contribute to a holistic plan. These are thoughtful programs
administered by experienced personnel who are committed to
long-term conservation action. America's continued involvement
in such programs instills confidence in situations where morale
can fluctuate wildly on an eventful day. Such conditions exist
in Central Africa today, where Zoo Atlanta has been monitoring
a small group of elephants in Rwanda's Akagera National Park.
The virtual survival of small groups of elephants, gorillas,
and other forms of life depends on equally small groups of
dedicated conservationists and the modest resources that
support them. AECA may be a relatively small program, but it
sustains work and vigilance of enormous importance to the
world.
Africa's elephants are huge and visible creatures. Their
decline throughout their range has been swift and dramatic.
They are a symbol and a metaphor for our protection efforts. If
we can't protect elephants, what can we protect? Habitat
destruction and competition with humankind for access to land
have contributed mightily to the elephant's decline, while
poachers continue to annihilate whole populations of elephants
throughout Africa. In 1990, I visited a site in Kenya's Tsavo
National Park, where two adults and one baby elephant were
butchered by poachers. Poachers had cut off their faces to
remove their tusks. I had never witnessed an uglier act of
genocide. We can save elephants in Africa, and we should do it.
Saving elephants contributes to the tourist-based economies of
many African nations, but it also contributes to the quality of
life on earth. We must recognize that elephants are creatures
valued worldwide by people who want only to see them realize
their full potential as social, sentient beings.
The Republican Senator from Georgia, Paul Coverdell,
recently identified the 104th Congress as the ``most aggressive
campaign to protect the environment in recent history.'' He
cited eleven major environmental initiatives which will provide
a ``safer and healthier environment for all,'' including the
``Everglades Protection Amendments to the 1996 Farm Bill.''
(This legislation was also strongly supported by Speaker Newt
Gingrich.) Senator Coverdell observed that water quality would
be improved for both humans and the ``many thousands of plants,
animals, and fish species, many endangered, that depend on the
fresh water that filters through the Everglades.'' Senator
Coverdell suggested that these initiatives set a new course by
basing its decisions on current, real science.
AECA is based on sound science. It is a small fund getting
big results. It is leanly administered, prioritized, matched
one-to-one by other, largely private, sources, focused, fast,
and flexible. Republicans and Democrats alike should be proud
to support legislation such as this carefully crafted, cost-
effective, well managed program enacted by Congress in 1988:
The African Elephant Conservation Act. As Mr. Coverdell has
concluded:
``History will judge this Congress on its merits, and in
terms of environmental protection it must surely be said--they
were committed to conservation for future generations.''
References cited
Butler, D.and G.(Eds.) Out of the African Ark. 1988. Ad.
Donker Publishing Capetown, South Africa.
Chadwick, D.H. The Fate of the Elephant. 1992. Sierra Club
Books.
Coverdell, P. ``Capitol Comment,'' The Citizen.
Fayetteville, GA, December 1996.
------
Testimony of Ron Marlenee, Director of Legislative Affairs, Safari Club
International
Chairman Saxton and members of the Subcommittee:
My name is Ron Marlenee, I am the Director of Legislative
Affairs for Safari Club International (SCI). We appreciate the
invitation to appear and testify before the Subcommittee. As
required by the House rules, I have attached further
infommation about our organization, including the grants that
we have received from the Federal government.
SCI supports the passage of H.R. 39, which would amend the
African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA) by extending the
appropriation authorization through fiscal year 2002. The money
appropriated under this authorization goes into the African
Elephant Conservation Fund and to the Secretary of the
Interior, for administration of the fund.
In our view, the African Elephant Conservation Act is an
extremely important piece of legislation because it assists
African countries in meeting conservation goals for a species
that we all believe is important. It does this primarily
through the grants provided by the AECA. These grants provide
work ``on the ground'' in the countries where the elephants
occur. They are used in coordination with the countries in
which the work will be done. The grants are excellent examples
of cooperative conservation.
One of the reasons that the AECA is necessary is that the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) is long on mandates and sanctions
and totally devoid of recovery support. 80% of the mammals
listed under the ESA are foreign, yet that Act provides no
benefits for foreign species. The AECA and its African Elephant
Conservation Fund should stand as an example and model for the
conservation of species that occur in other countries. The AECA
is helping fill the gap left by the ESA in a small but
important way.
We understand that over 300 proposals, totaling $240
million, have been received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, approximately $235 million of which have had to be
denied for various reasons. Since the inception of the AECA, 66
grants have been issue for 50 grants in 17 African countries. A
total of $5,408,435 has been allocated through these grants. We
have attached a descriptive summary (obtained from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) of all of the projects that have
been undertaken.
In spite of the need, the Administration has never asked
for the full $5 million annual authorization. For the last
three years, it has dropped its request to $1,169,000, which is
below the level of the FY 1992 and 1993 requests. The
appropriations have never reached the authorized level either.
The highest appropriation was in FY 1995, for $1,166,767. Last
year, there were serious concerns that the request and/or the
appropriation would be zeroed out. Along with several other
organizations, we actively supported the appropriation and a
total of $600,000 was eventually appropriated. We strongly
recommend that the authorization of $5 million not be changed.
The bill would not change the level of authorization, which
is currently $5,000,000 annually. We agree with this approach.
We would like to note, however, that appropriations have never
approached the level of the full authorization, with the
highest appropriation being $1,166,767 in 1995.
Your invitation to testify asked us to address the various
grant projects that we have under the AECA. Accordingly, we
will briefly discuss our three grant projects--two in Tanzania
and one in Zimbabwe.
The matching grant for first Tanzanian project is $36,050
(with total project costs being more than $60,000) and it was
for a pilot program to train government game scouts to gather
elephant data and pinpoint it geographically using hand-held
Global Position System devices. The data is needed for wildlife
management. Game scouts accompany safari hunting parties into
the field at the expense of the hunter. The grant funds the
training of Scouts to collect elephant data while in the field.
It equips them with Magellan GPSs to pinpoint the location to
accompany their recorded observations. It also provides a
central computer for data storage. In effect, it has helped to
extend the training of Game Scouts to also act as biological
assistants while in the field.
A second phase of the grant has been approved to allow an
increase in the number of Game Scouts that can be trained. An
additional $25,950 (out of a total project cost of $69,200)
will begranted. Other donor agencies such as GTZ have adopted
this approach and are training Game Scouts and even Village
Scouts in areas of the famous Selous Reserve where they have
other on-going conservation projects. Conservation
organizations are adopting it as a model.
The program also teaches the game scouts to evaluate the
elephant populations from the point of view of their hunting
trophy quality. This is important because it maximizes the
revenues that can be obtained from a use of this natural
resource, while minimizing biological impact of the program.
The revenues are a key incentive to conservation, and provide
much of the funding used for such conservation. I have attached
a paper entitled ``Returns from Tourist Hunting in Tanzania,''
which describes in detail the economic importance of this
activity. It states that foreign safari hunting (which is
called ``tourist hunting '') had a value of more than $10
million for Tanzania in 1992.
The second matching grant was for $84,240 to help fund a
survey of Tanzania's elephant populations, which may be the
largest in Africa. The total project cost is $216,110. It will
fund aerial surveys in three specific areas, completing the
collection of data which will provide a new baseline for
elephant populations in Tanzania.
The third matching grant is being carried out in Zimbabwe
and is for $85,OOO to support the CAMPFIRE program. The total
project exceeds $150,000. CAMPFIRE stands for Communal Areas
Management Programme for Indigenous Resources. Essentially,
CAMPFIRE is a major experiment in granting ownership rights and
responsibilities over wildlife to local people living in rural
areas. It has been operating for several years and is showing
that when people have a stake in the natural resources where
they live, they are given an incentive to conserve those
resources. Our grant in Zimbabwe is for the specific purpose of
developing a training manual for use by local villagers to
gather the necessary biological information for determining
sustainable offtake quotas from wild populations. It is similar
in concept to the Tanzania program, in that it provides a cost-
effective way to obtain necessary data. This grant is different
in that it focuses on local people and enhances their
involvement by empowering them to collect and interpret the
data together with enforcing the rules governing the uses of
their wildlife.
The core ideas of CAMPFIRE are being emulated in many
countries. Conservationists and government resource managers
agree that if wildlife does not have value and meaning to the
people who must share land and put their livelihood at risk
with wildlife, then it has little chance of surviving very far
into the 21st century. I have attached a brief description of
the CAMPFIRE program.
I would like to illustrate the point about sharing with
wildlife by drawing the Committee's attention to this picture
[show picture]. It is a blow-up taken from a Newsweek Magazine
article published on September 18, 1995 and it shows an
elephant coming through someone's laundry line somewhere in
Africa. Imagine for a moment that it is your backyard, and
consider that the elephant is the world's largest land mammal
and is neither reluctant or hesitant in snuffing out human
life. Or better yet, imagine that instead of being a Member of
Congress you live in a rural area and depend on subsistence and
cash crops scratched from an impoverished soil with hand tools.
Then imagine your feelings as you watch a herd of elephants
rampaging through your fields in a moonlit feeding frenzy,
destroying everything in their path, including your home. To
live with and tolerate this species takes requires some
incentive. Without the incentive the pest control expert,
called a poacher, is alerted and instead of the elephant having
support and friends, the poacher gains new allies.
I would also like to draw the Committee's attention to
several articles that were published in the U.S. News & World
Report on November 25, 1996. I have provided reprints of the
articles for the Committee, because they tell in a simple but
eloquent way about the importance of providing a value to
wildlife like elephants if they are going to survive. David
Western, the Director of Kenya's Wildlife Service, says that
``elephants are the darling of the Western world, but they are
enemy No. 1 in Kenya.'' He points out that 400 Kenyans have
been killed by wildlife in the past six years, most of them by
elephants.
I have also provided the Committee with a copy of a recent
book entitled Wildlife and People: the Zimbabwean Success, by
one of Africa's premiere wildlife scientists, Dr. Graham Child,
former Director of the Department of National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe. I would like to draw your
attention particularly to his detailed analysis of hunting in
the chapter on ``Hunting for Conservation,'' beginning at page
180.
Dr. Child begins the chapter with, ``as in much of the
world, recreational hunting has been a major force behind
preserving wildlife and wild places in Zimbabwe.'' Child
estimates that the overall value of the wildlife industry
(hunting, tourism, food production, etc.) for Zimbabwe at over
$200 million annually. He ends the chapter with the following
statements on hunting:
``Recreational hunting [NOTE: this is the same as `tourist
hunting' in Tanzania] is an efficient way of marketing
wildlife. A few animals are sold for high prices with little
effect on the productivity of wild populations, or their
ability to increase .... This means that it can be a valuable
source of income even while populations are low and recovering.
It is also a service and labour-intensive industry which is
applicable in areas unsuited to general tourism. As it requires
relatively little specialized capital development and has
little impact on the local environment, it does not foreclose
options ....
``High prices for the removal of a few animals maximizes
the return on the harvest of ecological energy, placing less
stress on the ecosystems for a given quantity of human
welfare....
``The high service component, representing human effort and
initiative, makes it possible to raise the return from a safari
operation .... With high under-employment in Zimbabwe,
especially in the remote rural areas ..., any well-paid labour-
intensive activity that reverses the flow of wealth and people
to the cities is a boon.''
We believe that it was the intent of Congress and this
Committee to exempt sport hunting trophies from USFWS import
restrictions. This Committee found that sport hunting was not
part of the problem. It was actually a very important part of
the solution. All revenue and conservation incentives are
important to elephant range nations. We hope that in the AECA
reauthorization process or in some other way you can clarify
the Committee's original intent to exempt sport hunting trophy
imports in further support of elephant range nations'
professionally regulated programs. Such imports need to be
protected as long as they are from licensed, regulated sport
hunters and comply with CITES. Because of programs like
CAMPFIRE, AECA, professional management, and the revenue raised
by trophy hunting elephants, elephants are increasing in
population at over 5% per annum. CAMPFIRE is constantly
threatened and jeopardized by animal extremists' attempts to
stop the import of those few elephant trophies by threatening
the USFWS offices of Management Authority and Scientific
Authority. The legitimate wildlife management programs in
Africa need to be protected and fostered.
In summary, we support H.R. 39 because it will allow the
continuation of an excellent program that puts money on the
ground where the wildlife occurs, and does it in a way that
works with, instead of dictates to, the people and governments
of other countries.
------
Testimony of Gina De Ferrari, Director of TRAFFIC, World Wildlife Fund
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to appear here today. I am Gina De Ferrari, the
Director of TRAFFIC at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). WWF is
the largest private conservation organization working
internationally to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats. We
currently support conservation efforts in many key African
elephant range states.
I am here today to convey WWF's views on the effectiveness
of the African Elephant Conservation Act (AECA) of 1988. I
would like to review what this law has accomplished to date and
its importance for future conservation initiatives.
First, l want to express WWF's appreciation for the concern
and interest that this Subcommittee has shown for the
conservation of the African elephant, one of the world's most
magnificent and visible symbols for global conservation. We
want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and
we applaud the Subcommittee for taking a leadership role in
securing passage of the African Elephant Conservation Act.
We understand that the President's budget request for
FY1998 contains $1,000,000 for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund. WWF strongly supports a doubling of this
amounts which would fall within the authorized level of
$5,000,000. As noted earlier, the elephant funds have generated
more than matching support from other sources over the six
years of the program's existence, and there is little question
that many times the amount appropriated by Congress will come
from the private sector.
WWF first testified before the House regarding elephant
conservation on June 22, 1988. At that time, a dramatic decline
in many elephant populations over the course of a decade had
precipitated enormous concern among African nations and the
global conservation community. From an estimated 1.2 million
animals in 1979, elephant numbers dropped to about 600,000 by
the late 1980s, a decline of as much as 50 percent in just ten
years. Shrinking habitat and conflict with rapidly expanding
human populations played a role in the decline, yet by the mid-
1980s it was clear that the overwhelming factor in the steep
drop in elephant populations was poaching for the illegal ivory
trade.
During its peak over a decade ago, as much as 800 metric
tons of ivory were exported from Africa each year, equivalent
to the deaths of up to 80,000 elephants annually.
Geographically, the losses were distributed unevenly, with some
elephant populations in east and central Africa suffering
devastating declines, while others fared better. In particular,
elephants in several southern African countries were well
insulated from poaching due to effective management and
conservation programs.
CITES grappled unsuccessfully with the massive outflow of
illegal ivory from the African continent through an export
quota system that ultimately failed to illicit ivory products
out of global trade. The global response was the 1989 CITES ban
on commercial ivory trade, a measure adopted by the vast
majority of CITES member nations. Although controversial among
some elephant range countries, the moratorium has proven
important to the recovery of many of the elephant populations
hit hardest by poaching. The upcoming CITES meeting in June
promises a lively debate on the future of the ivory trade ban,
as the African elephant clearly presents some of the most
challenging issues in wildlife conservation and management
today, and the needs and priorities associated with addressing
these issues vary widely among African countries.
The ivory trade ban was a stop-gap measure targeted at a
crisis situation. The issue we are discussing here, Mr.
Chairman, which is in many ways more critical over the long
term, is international funding for wildlife conservation. To
this end, the African Elephant Conservation Act has played a
crucial role. The Act established the African Elephant
Conservation Fund and authorizes up to $5 million per year for
elephant conservation projects. Although the fund has never
been appropriated to the amount fully authorized, it has proven
an important instrument for helping African nations in their
efforts to rebuild elephant populations hit hardest by poaching
as well as for addressing the growing array of elephant
conservation and management needs throughout the continent.
To best understand the importance of monies provided from
the AECA, one would have to consult with the governments and
wildlife officials and experts of the 17 countries which have
benefited from its support. WWF has conservation programs or
projects in 16 African countries and oversees several projects
which have been the direct recipients of support from the
African elephant fund. Based on our own field reports and
contact with experts across Africa, the fund has been an
important source of support for projects that otherwise would
not have been possible.
The African Elephant Fund, administered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), has provided about $5.4 million
over 8 years to elephant conservation activities in range
states throughout Africa. Mr. Chairman, this is a very modest
program--$5.4 million has supported 66 grants in 17 African
countries. In our view, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been
both efficient and effective in managing the elephants grant
program.
Through many years of developing and managing international
conservation programs and projects, we at WWF have learned many
important lessons. One is that successful conservation
initiatives require commitment and continuity. The African
Elephant Conservation Fund has in fact been the only continuous
source of new funding for African elephant conservation efforts
since the 1989 ivory trade ban went into effect. Unfortunately,
funding from other sources has proven erratic. In the immediate
aftermath of the ivory trade ban, when the world was sensitized
to the elephant's dilemma, funding flowed from various
unilateral and multilateral bodies and NGOs to projects in many
parts of Africa. Since then, however, funding has largely dried
up. A 1995 review cosponsored by WWF and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, with support from the elephant fund, revealed
that many African wildlife and parks departments have suffered
severe budget cuts, some or, the order of 90 percent or more
over four years--as was the case with Tanzania from 1989-1993.
This not only underscores a very serious trend, but also makes
the monies authorized by the AECA even more valuable and
needed.
From WWF's perspective, some of the strengths of African
Elephant Conservation grants program ...include:
*Emphasis on small grants. By emphasizing small grants, FWS
is able to move monies relatively quickly with minimal
bureaucracy, while also ensuring that a wide spectrum of
projects is supported. The African elephant inhabits some 35
countries, and conservation needs and capacity vary widely. The
Service has chosen to provide maximum reasonable flexibility by
keeping grants small, while maintaining a broad focus to ensure
funding for meritorious projects throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
*On-the-ground focus. Virtually all monies coming from the
fund go directly to the field where needs are greatest; just 3
percent goes for administration. Moreover, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has been responsive to emerging needs, as
witnessed in 1993 when an anthrax outbreak threatened Namibia's
elephant population. Emergency assistance was provided from the
African elephant fund, and helped head off a potential
catastrophe.
*Balanced set of projects. In the beginning, the African
elephant fund supported mostly anti-poaching projects, as these
were the immediate priority. Since then, we are encouraged
that, while grants are still targeted at clear and identifiable
needs, the fund supports not only anti-poaching but many other
activities, such as elephant population research and censuses,
efforts to mitigate elephant/human conflicts, investigations of
the ivory trade and cataloging ivory stockpiles, elephant
translocations, and identifying new techniques for elephant
management.
*Cooperation with range states. All FWS projects receive
approval from the host-country government before proceeding. We
have found that there is a very clear process and commitment to
consultation and, where possible, collaboration with African
governments.
*Matching funds. Since the elephant grants program was
initiated in 1990, more than $8.6 million in matching
contributions has been spent on the various projects
supported--a match ratio greater than 3:2. In addition, the
fund has played a catalytic role in larger initiatives, such as
in the Central African Republic's Dzanga Sangha Reserve. In a
major effort to protect important wildlife habitat and
biodiversity by working with surrounding communities to link
conservation with development needs, African elephant funds are
used to support three teams of game scouts that patrol the
Reserve and combat poaching. In partnership with WWF and
others, the U.S. government has been able to play a focused
role in the conservation of this biologically-important area
that is important for forest elephants as well as for many
other unique species.
*U.S. leadership. Last but not least, the AECA has allowed
the U. S. to put its money where its mouth is and set an
example for other countries to follow. I would like to
emphasize the importance ofthe fact that FWS support has not
been curtailed once the poaching crisis abated. It is such only
through such continuing support that the long term survival of
African elephants will be realized.
The list of specific initiatives supported by the African
Elephant Conservation Act is impressive and I would encourage
members to review it. (The list of WWF projects funded under
this Act is attached to this statement.) These projects have
provided critical seed money to new elephant conservation
initiatives in Africa, provided supplemental funds for existing
projects with needs that could not be met from other sources,
and helped build conservation infrastructure within elephant
range states. With projects receiving matching support from
organizations such as WWF, Safari Club International, the
Wildlife Conservation Society, and others, the African Elephant
Conservation Fund has clearly multiplied its conservation
benefits substantially.
WWF believes that the positive results of the projects
supported by the African Elephant Conservation Fund are the
most important signs of the strength of the Act. They have
allowed the U.S. to play a lead role where it really counts--
funding initiatives in range countries to help ensure the
survival of this threatened species in the wild.
Although it is sometimes tempting to assume that once the
immediate problem is addressed, the problem is solved. However,
securing the future of Africa's wildlife requires a long-term
commitment. Therefore, the continuing Congressional support for
this program will be critical to the long-term viability of
many elephant conservation initiatives--and I urge Congress to
maintain the strong support it has shown to date.
Key WWF Projects Funded by the African Elephant Conservation Act
In Central Africa: Central Africa is home to as many as a
half of Africa's elephants--the forest elephants. The
establishment of protected areas in this region lags far behind
that of southern and eastern Africa, and heavy poaching
continues to pose a serious problem. Funding provided by the
FWS has provided the impetus for the establishment of a network
of such protected areas, and has leveraged funds from WWF and
the Wildlife Conservation Society, as well as generous funding
from the Dutch and German governments and the European Union.
As a result, notable progress has been made in protecting the
elephant populations in the region. WWF has been working in the
following areas on the projects described below.
Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Special Reserve and L'zanga-
Ndoki National Park. Central African Republic
The southwestern region of the Central African Republic
(CAR) contains the country's last stronghold of the diverse
lowland tropical forest characteristic of central Africa, which
is home to a significant population of elephants. The
government of CAR and WWF have worked together to create a
multiple use reserve (Dzanga-Sangha) and national park (Dzanga-
Ndoki) to protect this unique ecosystem. This project seeks to
integrate wildlife protection, tourism, research, trailing,
rural development and preservation of the cultural integrity of
the BaAka pygmies to conserve this valuable forest. The FWS has
supported elephant protection, ecological monitoring and
coordination in the Dzanga-Sangha project for nearly 6 years.
The anti-poaching operations supported by FWS include a force
of 30 guards and have resulted in a marked decrease in poaching
and a significant increase in the elephant population, and the
recorded density of 3.18 elephants per square kilometer is one
of the highest--if not the highest--ever recorded in the
forests of Africa. Over 2,000 individual elephants have been
observed at the Dzanga clearing, and only rarely are elephants
shot in the park.
A major focus of this project has been the participation of
local people; it is one of the first conservation initiatives
in the lowland tropical forests of Africa to integrate
conservation with the needs of the rural poor. As such, it
serves as an important prototype for future community
conservation efforts in Central Africa, in which local people
realize direct benefits from wildlife conservation.
The objective of the project--to stop large scale poaching
of elephants in the core area of Dzanga-Sangha--has clearly
been reached. FWS support has made it possible to maintain an
active anti-poaching effort that has resulted in an expanding
elephant population--a situation that is unique in the central
African region. Clearly, the steps that have been taken are
working, and need to be continued in order to keep protecting
this important elephant population.
Gamba Protected Areas Complex--Petit Loango Reserve Gabon
In April 1990, WWF joined forces with the FWS to provide
emergency support for the conservation of elephants and other
wildlife in the Petit Loango Game Reserve in Gabon. The reserve
has a great diversity of habitats and species, covering 500
square kilometers of seashore, mangrove, swamp and tropical
forest. Established in 1966, the reserve is a priority site for
elephant conservation.
Recent increases in poaching for meat and ivory pose an
immediate and severe threat to elephants in the reserve. Under
this project, which is ongoing, an anti-poaching unit has been
sent to patrol the area and to meet with rural communities to
explain the problems associated with poaching. There measures
are designed to give the government the time to develop a long-
term conservation program for Petit Loango and adjoining areas
in the entire 10,000-square-kilometer Gamba Reserve Complex.
Emergency anti-poaching efforts such as those at Petit Loango
are buying time--time needed to develop sound, long-term
conservation and development programs that demonstrate
conservation benefits to communities and, in so doing, enlist
the critical support of local people to reduce poaching.
Bangassou elephant censusing project. Central African
Republic
Little information has been available on the status of
elephant populations in the Bangassou forests of southern CAR,
but there have been reports of high elephant density and heavy
poaching in the area. The purpose of this project--which began
3 years ago, and is near completion--is to estimate the numbers
and distribution of elephants and chimpanzees remaining in
those forests, to assess the impact of ivory poaching, and to
assess the general conservation potential of the forests. Such
surveys and analyses are the precursors to establishment of
protected areas.
In Southern Africa: Elephant conservation problems in
southern Africa are increasingly related to human-elephant
conflicts, as elephant populations outgrow the available
habitat within protected areas. However, poaching in parks, and
disease outbreaks are still of concern and WWF has undertaken
projects in the following areas.
Chobe National Park. Botswana
WWF assisted the government of Botswana through the
preparation of an elephant management plan for Chobe National
Park in 1994. Chobe National Park is one of the most
significant protected areas in southern Africa. It has more
that 400 wildlife species and protects habitat for one of the
largest known elephant populations on the continent. Recent
elephant population estimates for northern Botswana (with Chobe
as an important core area) are 70,000--highlighting the
importance of developing a management plan here.
Namibia Desert Elephants: anthrax outbreak
In response to an outbreak of anthrax in Namibia in 1993,
approximately 30 desert elephant were inoculated against the
disease with emergency funding from FWS. The Namibian elephant
population is one of the most mobile on the continent, and it
is very easy for an infectious disease like anthrax to wipe out
a large population in a very short time. Namibia has
approximately 10,000 elephants that could have been threatened
by the disease had it not been caught in time. In addition,
elephant populations in neighboring countries also could have
been susceptible to the disease.
In addition to protecting the entire elephant population of
the region, it was particularly important to protect the small
population of approximately 50 desert elephants, as this
population is unique in that it has developed characteristics
that allow it to survive in the desert.
Anti-poaching unit. Zambia
Zambia is home to approximately 25,000 elephants, and at
the inception of this project in 1991, poaching was a serious
threat. Under this project, WWF helped the Zambian government
establish an anti-poaching unit, which resulted in a
significant breakthrough in the fight against poaching. Several
poaching rings were broken and many individuals were arrested
and prosecuted.
The international headquarters for the World Wildlife Fund
has also received support through the African Elephant
Conservation Fund for projects in Cameroon to assess the impact
of crop raiding elephants, and elephant related research in
Kenya. In addition, the TRAFFIC office in Malawi, a joint
program of WWF and IUCN, has received funds to monitor the
ivory trade and has undertaken a survey to quantify existing
ivory stockpiles. We would be pleased to provide the
Subcommittee the details of these projects upon request.
The Future
Priorities for future WWF projects for which we will seek
funding under the African Elephant Conservation Fund will focus
on surveys of elephant populations and establishment of
additional protected areas for the forest elephants in central
Africa. Central Africa is many years behind east and southern
Africa with respect to the establishment of protected areas in
which elephants can find refuge, yet as many as half of
Africa's elephants live here. The Dzangha-Sangha project would
serve as a model for future WWF work in the region. It would be
our goal to establish a more expansive system of protected
areas in central Africa and in doing so, to involve local
communities and make them partners in the effort to protect
elephants.
------
Statement of Dr. Brian Child
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to
participate in this oversight hearing on the African Elephant
Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997. I am Dr. Brian Child.
I obtained a doctorate from the University of Oxford as a
Rhodes Scholar, with my expertise being land use and wildlife
economics. I was instrumental in developing the highly
successful wildlife industry on private land in Zimbabwe. I
also coordinated and developed the CAMPFIRE program as a senior
official in the Zimbabwe Government, where I spent 12 years. I
am now developing an equally successful program in Zambia. I
have worked or visited community wildlife programs throughout
Africa, have advised USAID, the World Bank, NORAD, UN/FAO and
several African governments, and have published extensively. I
live and work amongst the people and wildlife of Africa, and
have been a dedicated conservationist since my earliest
memories.
This submission thanks the AECA for financial support
received. It suggests that support should be continued, but
that this support is targeted towards longer term solutions.
Since long term solutions are usually based on utilizing
wildlife, and killing animals is always contentious, this
submission spends some time justifying the sustainable use
approach. Note that this approach is supported by mainstream
conservation and development agencies and is only considered
controversial by fringe groups whose concern is with the rights
of animals, rather than biodiversity conservation.
Mr. Chairman, we in Southern Africa have recognized and
accepted that conserving wildlife costs money but that this
expenditure must be justified in a situation where people die
for lack of medicine and food. This is why we are evolving
pragmatic, economically sustainable, approaches. This is also
why the external assistance offered to the range states by the
AECA is extremely important for securing the long term survival
of these species and the maintenance of their habitat. I would
like to convey my strong support for the passage of H.R. 39,
which would amend the AECA by extending the appropriation
authorization through fiscal year 2002. The funds provided
under the AECA, if appropriately used, can present important
opportunities for maintaining sustainable wildlife
conservation. However, this potential depends on using funds
for wildlife conservation programs that are appropriate. These
funds should support Africa's determination to manage wildlife
for the benefit of her people in a dual approach which
establishes parks and protects the wildlife inside them but
which also promotes conservation through sustainable use
outside them.
Southern African Elephant Populations
The AECA was enacted in 1988 in response to the declining
elephant populations in many parts of Africa. However, it is
important to note from the outset, that in many countries in
southern Africa elephant populations where not declining.
Indeed they have been steadily increasing over the past two
decades. This is supported by regular surveys, the high quality
of which has been acknowledged by CITES and verified by Dr. Ian
Douglas Hamilton, the reknowned elephant expert of Kenya. These
independent assessments were required to combat malicious
misinformation campaigns designed to discredit the success of
southern Africa's elephant management.
We welcome increased emphasis on CBNRM
The review process in the Act has shown the effectiveness
of some southern African elephant management programs, and as a
result we have been the recipients of several grants under this
Act for which we extend out thanks. Initially the highest
priority projects for funding were proposals for anti-poaching
assistance. Such measures are valuable to combat short-term
problems. For example, in Zambia, two anti-poaching projects
were funded: one is a joint program of the World Wildlife Fund
and the Zambia Anti-Corruption Commission to establish a
Species Protection Unit to assist in elephant anti-poaching
efforts; and the second is a co-operative project of the
Ministry of Tourism and Natural Resources and the African
Safari Club of Washington, D.C. to provide anti-poaching
equipment and assistance to the Remote Game Scout Program for
the (FY90, FY91, & FY95). Several other countries in Africa
have also received funds to augment anti-poaching projects and
this support has some positive effects on the elephant
populations.
We particularly welcome the change in focus of the AECA
from anti-poaching activities to local management programs, and
we encourage a continuation of such support. In our experience,
programs that assist local communities and governments to
manage their wildlife resources in the appropriate social,
cultural and economic context have the greatest chance of
success in the long term.
Importance of landholders and communities
I would like to emphasize the importance of a dual strategy
that addresses short term problems like poaching by providing
strategic funding but which also strengthens the long-term
commitment of local communities to elephant conservation by
ensuring that they participate and benefit from the management
of wildlife on their land.
This is a great challenge. Rural populations in Africa are
more dependent on the natural resource base than any other
region in the world. People and wildlife share the land, and
wildlife, particularly elephants, can represent a serious
threat to the survival of people. For example, in Kenya between
1989-1996, 354 people were killed by elephants and another 235
were injured. This was more people killed by elephants, than
elephants by people!
In Africa, like anywhere else in the world, peoples' first
priority is survival, not conservation. Therefore, if the
elephant is to survive and flourish outside of protected areas,
it must contribute to the survival of local people, rather than
threaten their survival. Otherwise the fate of the elephant
will be similar to that of some of the larger, dangerous
species here in the US such as the mountain lion or wolf.
Recent experience in Africa has shown that when elephants
becomes a source of economic benefit to those who live with
them, this creates an incentive to conserve them and this can
translate into wildlife conservation programs that are both
sustainable and effective.
``Farmers--more than hunters [or poachers] threaten rare
species,'' Newsweek, September 18,1995
In a far-reaching conceptual advance, IUCN's Sustainable
Use Specialist Group for Southern Africa (SASUSG), has pointed
out that the primary threat to wildlife (including elephants)
is loss of habitat to competing land uses like livestock and
crops. To emphasize just how real and over-riding this threat
is, more than 90% of the large herbivore biomass in Africa is
now domestic stock, implying just how much wildlife has been
lost. These insidious losses are more serious, more long-term
and more far-reaching than the highly publicized and dramatic
losses to poaching.
Having identified the primary threat as competition for
land, it follows that the survival of wildlife will depend on
it becoming economically competitive. It then follows that
conserving wildlife depends on sorting out economic mechanisms
such that they reflect the comparative economic advantage of
wildlife. This is achieved by two things: ensuring that
landholders and communities are the primary beneficiaries of
the wildlife on their land; and adding value to wildlife and
its products to make it more competitive.
Therefore we believe that the Act's change in focus to
local management programs is a big step in the right direction
but we believe there is much more that can be done to maximize
the effectiveness of this Act. Further action should recognize
that the primary threat to elephants in the long term is loss
of habitat, and should therefore support measures to add value
to elephants, and to encourage the implementation of suitable
institutional structures that ensure that these benefits accrue
to the people on whose land elephants live. There will still be
times and places where the support of old-fashioned law-
enforcement will be necessary. Money will also be required.
However, increasingly, the efforts of several African
Governments to develop and implement a sound policy framework
will require support, often through measures that depend more
on dialogue and cooperation than financial aid.
The future of wildlife will depend on markets and trade.
For the sustainable use to work in the long term, and there is
no realistic alternative, we will have to change the
perspective that trade inevitably leads to extinction, and
develop conditions so that trade leads to conservation.
The way to make sustainability a reality is to give
individuals the incentive and rights to participate. In
supporting market-led approaches like those adopted in southern
Africa, US Vice President Al Gore remarked in his treatise on
environmental policy, Earth in the Balance, ``one of the most
effective ways to encourage market forces to work in
environmentally benign ways is to give concerned citizens a
better way to take the environment into account when they
purchase goods or make other economic decisions.'' For
Zimbabwe, Zambia and many other range states this ``better
way'' is CBCD. And it is clearly in the best interests of
wildlife conservation for the AECA to support programs that
give local communities sufficient incentive to protect
resources.
Community-Based Conservation and Development
The southern African states support nearly half the world's
elephants. In these countries there is a strong movement to
complement traditional protected area-based conservation with
sustainable use programs and devolved community-based wildlife
management. Southern Africa's pioneering work has been
applauded by most mainstream conservation and development
agencies. However, because this approach involves using and
sometimes killing individual animals, including elephant, it is
often subject to vitriolic attack from fringe conservation
groups. Because of this threat and the associated publicity, I
have provided a fairly detailed justification of the
sustainable use approach. We believe that the future of
Africa's wildlife lies in this approach, and we wish to develop
a broad understanding and support for it, especially in
important consumer countries like the USA since the consumers
(you) are as important to successful sustainable use as the
producers (us).
A new conservation paradigm
Traditionally, conservation has been based on centrally-
managed protectionism. This approach is no longer appropriate
for countries that suffer acute poverty and where people are
largely dependent on natural resources. It is no longer
appropriate in emerging democracies where local people are
determined to be represented and to manage their own resources,
not have management imposed on them by central or international
agencies. Wildlife cannot be put into a black box and removed
from economic reality or from its interaction with the people
who live alongside it. It must benefit people, and it must pay
for itself, and it must be theirs to control, otherwise it will
be replaced.
The traditional system for managing wildlife is also highly
centralized with much in common with centrally planned
economies. The recent demise of these indicates the future of
conservation if a new approach is not initiated.
In the last ten years strategies for conservation and
wildlife management in Africa have seen dramatic changes. These
changes resulted from the failure of the traditional
``projectionist'' approach to conservation, as witnessed by the
ever decreasing wildlife habitat, growing threats to certain
key species--such as the elephant and rhino--and threats to
biodiversity in general. The protectionist approach was based
upon an assumption that humans and wildlife could not co-exist
and must be separated, creating a conflict between the
objectives of human development based on use of resources and
conservation, to the detriment of both.
Continue to protect Parks, but ADD a new approach
sustainable use outside them
Faced with this dilemma, new strategies for conservation
have been developed in Africa, most notably within the Southern
Africa Development Community (SADC) region. These strategies
focus on complimenting and replacing aspects of the
protectionist approach, rather than dismantling it entirely.
Thus southern Africa retains the most extensive network of
designated National Parks--completely protected areas--of any
region in the world, covering approximately 15% of the total
land area of the SADC region.
It is for the management of wildlife outside these areas
that new strategies have been developed. These strategies focus
on harnessing socio-economic forces to conserve wildlife. At
the core of these strategies is the recognition that to
succeed, conservation must address the link between the needs
of the people and the needs of wildlife.
In Southern Africa, in particular, great strides have been
made in developing a new conservation paradigm. Instead of
being treated as a ``priceless'' non-resource, wildlife is
recognized as an increasingly valuable resource which should
and can pay for itself. The system for governing wildlife is
also turned on its head. Instead of being centrally-planned,
proprietorship of wildlife is devolved to the landholder, and
the system is designed to self-regulate. Self-regulation occurs
through the marketplace and by establishing mechanisms for
community consensus and control. In essence, the benefits from
wildlife are devolved to landholders and communities. For the
first time, wildlife gives these local communities the
financial resources to develop themselves. They no longer have
to depend on the patronage of bureaucrats or donors. Decisions
are made democratically in public meetings. This has dramatic
effects. It introduces an effective system of grass-roots
democracy. Communities begin to do things for themselves, and
in doing so begin to over-come a crippling sense of dependency
and helplessness. This transformation then releases the energy
of these communities to develop themselves, making the process
sustainable. The result is more wildlife, more democracy, more
economic development and people with a greater sense of self-
worth.
This new approach revolutionizes the governance of natural
resources, and indeed governance in general, by empowering
grassroots communities to manage their affairs through a
participatory and democratic process. The following diagram,
describing a Zambian CBNRM program, illustrates these dramatic,
enlightened and far-reaching changes.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.001
If Americans understood that these programs promote human-
rights, human well-being and democracy, and lead to both rural
develop and wildlife conservation, they would undoubtedly
support them. Attempts to portray these cutting-edge programs
as a cover for killing elephants are simplistic, naive and
mischievous, and indicate an inability or unwillingness on the
part of the critics to understand their far-reaching and
positive implications.
Principles of the new approach
The principles underlying these programs are the principle
underlying democracy and sound management. They have been
extensively analyzed but, in essence, they ensure:
<bullet>that management is devolved to landholder
communities and is democratic, transparent and accountable;
<bullet>that local people `own' resources, are the primary
beneficiaries from them, and that resources like wildlife are
not excessively taxed. Those who live with the wildlife should
be the principal actors in management decisions regarding its
use;
<bullet>that, provided people have proprietorship of
wildlife, wildlife should be marketed to add as much value as
possible (thereby increasing the incentives to `produce' it).
The landholder should be free to decide what is the best
combination of uses, with these including protein production,
safari hunting, tourism, eco-tourism and others. To date the
greatest economic return has been provided by high quality
hunting of a small, sustainable portion (usually 2%) of the
wildlife resource.
In short, these principle aim to get the economic system
right such that wildlife conservation is regulated and
encouraged by market forces, with government maintaining a
backstopping role in the rare case of abuse.
Proof in the pudding
We are already seeing the impact of this grass-roots
democracy in the increasing voice of African communities and
wildlife producers in national and international fora.
The impact of community-based wildlife conservation on the
livelihoods of rural people is also well documented throughout
southern Africa.
In specific relation to elephant and wildlife conservation,
this new approach is showing very significant conservation
benefits. The attached cartoon illustrates the relative merits
of the new and old paradigms for wildlife conservation, and the
reluctance of some rich, western urban groups to see this
reality (none so blind as those who do not want to see). Kenya,
having banned hunting in 1976 represents the situation where
the new African-generated approach to conservation has not been
adopted (note that Kenya, as stated frequently by Dr. David
Western Director of Kenya Wildlife Service, recognizes the need
to adopt this approach but was painted into the preservationist
corner by its past policies which included the burning of ivory
and is struggling to climb out of it). Recent surveys show that
the wildlife populations in Kenya have declined by as much as
40-60% since this non-use policy was adopted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.002
In contrast, in South Africa some 8 million hectares of
ranch and farm-land have been allocated to wildlife. The
contribution of this to wildlife illustrated by noting that
this compares to 2 million hectares of national parks and
protected areas. Similarly, in Zimbabwe more wildlife is now
protected on ranch and farm-land than in national parks because
of the adoption of pragmatic wildlife policies. The same is
increasingly true throughout southern Africa.
The challenge of the last decade has been to develop
policies and practices whereby small-scale black subsistence
farmers living in remote rural communities have come to own,
manage and benefit their wildlife.
That southern Africa has been successful in taking up this
challenge is illustrated by the widespread involvement of
communities throughout the region in community-based wildlife
programs: LIFE in Namibia, NRMP in Botswana, CAMPFIRE in
Zimbabwe, ADMADE in Zambia, all of which are partly supported
by USAID.
That these programs are at the cutting-edge of the global
search for solutions to the problems of poverty, democracy and
conservation in developing countries, is reflected in the
excitement and endorsement of these programs by:
<bullet>the major mainstream conservation agencies
(examples are attached from WWF, IUCN AWF, WCS, NWF, IIED, and
the renowned conservationist Paul Erlich are attached in
support);
<bullet>the support of these programs by the major
development agencies and bilateral donors (USAID, EU, Norway,
Netherlands, UK, Germany, to name a few);
<bullet>the positive editorial support in major mainstream
publications (Economist, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, US News
and World Report and others); and
<bullet>the prominence of programs like CAMPFIRE in recent
academic and development literature (e.g. ``Living with
Wildlife'' and ``Decentralisation and Biodiversity
Conservation'' by the World Bank, ``Whose Eden'' by IIED,
``Natural Connections'' by Island Press).
These programs are new and evolving, and their management
philosophy is based on adaptive management, and therefore on
on-going evaluation and transparency. This is reflected in the
amount of self-criticism and self-evaluation generated by these
programs, and it why these programs have allocated so many
resources and, particularly time, to disseminating information
and supporting visitors from interested parties including
academics, other communities and even visitors patently opposed
to the sustainable use approach.
``Animal rights activists want to kill the best hope yet
for African wildlife'' UTNE Reader, Dec 1996
``For many, conservation seems a simple matter: stop
killing wildlife. Those on the ground are coming to the
opposite conclusion,'' The Economist, April 26, 1996
While transparency is essential and criticism is welcome,
an unfortunate consequence is that opponents of sustainable use
often misuse and misquote this information. A timely and
pertinent example are the recent attempts by HSUS to discredit
CAMPFIRE. As noted in a response to one such article by HSUS
(which is attached as an example) ``it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that this [misrepresentation] is no accident, but a
deliberate attempt at distortion to validate their ethics, with
scant regard for the truth or human welfare''. Similarly Dr.
Barry Dalal-Clayton of IIED notes: ``excerpts have been lifted
... and presented together in such a way as to suggest,
unfairly, a pattern of unsustainability in CAMPFIRE activities.
They also imply, quite mistakenly, that IIED believes this to
be the case. These quotes have been taken out of context ...''
To press home the point, Paul Ehrlich notes: ``I have long been
a supporter of various animal rights initiatives ....[but] even
the most casual analysis tells one that, in the case of the
elephants, the Campfire Program is on the right side and the
Humane Society is on the wrong side ... I'm sorry you are
having your fine efforts at rural development being attached by
a fringe group''. While criticism is welcome, indeed
encouraged, such deliberate misrepresentation and irresponsible
claims are not useful and can absorb and waste a lot of
resources that could otherwise work directly to benefit
wildlife and rural communities.
Cutting edge and regional unit
There is little doubt that the southern African community-
based wildlife programs are at the cutting edge of contemporary
conservation. They have been greatly assisted by the support
and partnership with America, who have has the foresight to
recognize and support this innovative approach, providing
significant funding through USAID and small amounts of
strategic funding through the AECA. CAMPFIRE, and this support,
is in the limelight because it is leading the way.
The value of CBCD programs to a sustainable ecological
future has won global recognition and is, in part, supported
financially by assistance from the US government. The US,
through the USAID, provides financial assistance to the
following countries for their CBCD programs in the SADC region
alone, Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia, as well
as countries such as Cameroon, Kenya and Uganda elsewhere in
Africa. This American support for these programs should come as
no surprise, particularly given the emerging consensus in
support of sustainable development from across the political
spectrum. The former US Secretary of State, James Baker
observed that:
``Sustainable development, to put it simply, is a way to
fulfill the requirements of the present without compromising
the future. When policies of sustainable development are
followed, our economic and our environmental objectives are
both achieved. In fact, America's entire approach to bilateral
and multilateral assistance is based on the concept of
sustainable development.''
Outputs from sustainable use and community-based
conservation
To illustrate how successful the sustainable conservation
approach to wildlife management can be, I would like to provide
information using the example of CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe, but
recognizing that this is but one example of a regional
approach.
It is unfornmate that the American public is being
misinformed that CAMPFIRE is about killing elephants. It is
much broader than this. It involves democracy, human rights and
improved governance. It involves human well-being. It involves
fundamental economic restructuring and improved land use. And
it results in broad-scale conservation of elephants, other
wildlife and their habitats.
Biological conservation
When viewed in the context of elephant conservation, the
results of CAMPFIRE are impressive. Whilst it is well-known
that the number of elephants has declined in some African
nations following more ``traditional'' conservation measures,
for example, Kenya, where the elephant population plummeted
from 35,000 to 26,000 in the 1980's. Zimbabwe's elephant
population has increased under policies that include
utilization, soaring from approximately 48,000 in the early
1980's to 67,000 today and is currently increasing at a rate of
2-3,000 per year. Likewise Botswana, which has a similar
approach to wildlife management, has an elephant population of
approximately 80,000, again a substantial increase in the
elephant population. Namibia has sustained a significant
increase as well.
Interestingly, sound utilization has reduced the number of
elephants killed. In the early 1980s, some 300 elephants were
killed in communal areas every year largely because they were
raiding crops. With the introduction of CAMPFIRE, offtakes were
considerably reduced, with about 100 elephants sold to trophy
hunters and only 30 killed for crop raiding. They had become so
valuable that people began to tolerate and manage them.
We have already noted the massive increase in land
allocated for wildlife throughout southern Africa as a result
of sound management policies.
Monitoring
Fringe groups sometimes attack CAMPFIRE on the basis that
it has failed to conserve wildlife. This is simply not true.
Indeed, with funding from AESA through SCI, CAMPFIRE has
implemented one of the best quota management programs in
existence. Every animal shot is measured and entered into a
central data-base, with data confirming that trophy quality is
being maintained. Communities are trained to analyze and
collect date, and to set and manage quotas. Aerial surveys,
ground counts and other such measures are undertaken. The end
result is that communities are fully involved in managing their
wildlife, and their maturity and knowledge is indicated by the
fact that, where it is sensible, they are reducing quotas
although this reduces their income. That is sound, sustainable
management.
Rural development
As the elephant herd is sustained, local communities
prosper. In 1994, the program generated over US$2 million in
Zimbabwe, for the country's economic and ecological
development--an enormous amount for a country where the annual
average annual wages often fall below $150 per year. These
funds significantly contributed to improving the livelihoods of
some half a million people. With further USAID funding the
program is set to expand further and by the year 1999 should be
benefiting approximately 2 million people. These funds provide
food in years of crop failure, support development initiatives
and income generating projects such as schools, clinics, small
shops, and grinding mills; and promote additional conservation
efforts, such as the employment of local game guards and the
installation of wildlife water sources.
Governance and democracy
One of the most remarkable facts about CAMPFIRE is that it
has become an ideological movement whereby bureaucrats have
been devolving financial to communities below them--and for
bureaucrats to give up powers to such an extent is remarkable.
This fiscal devolution is illustrated graphically by financial
data which shows that in ten of the twelve primary wildlife
districts, fully 74% of income reached grassroots communities,
with the remainder being used for central wildlife management
and administration. There is probably no other development
project anywhere that has achieved such progress. Nothing is
perfect, and two districts have been excluded from this
analysis because they were reluctant to devolve authority and
finances. This reflects the temptation for local government to
`tax' its constituency, a temptation that is especially strong
in Zimbabwe as local government is given more and more
functions with less and less government grants to undertake
them. The fact that fiscal devolution occurred at all in these
circumstances is truly remarkable, and reflects the strength of
the CAMPFIRE approach and the commitment of people to it.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.003
Allegations of corruption
Because of grass-roots democracy and transparency CAMPFIRE
is particularly difficult to corrupt. Nonetheless the program
has been subject to a smear campaign based on alleged (not
proven) corruption involving $1,600 in Nyaminyami district. The
desperation of the smearers is reflected in the fact that the
money involved had nothing to do with USAID, nothing to do with
CAMPFIRE money, with the only connection being that a district
council involved in CAMPFIRE has allegedly misappropriated
money from a completely unrelated source.
In five years of looking at CAMPFIRE accounts in 12
districts in my role as CAMPFIRE Coordinator for the Zimbabwe
government, I found no blatant case of corruption. There were a
few instances where councils desperate for money for projects
like clinics used wildlife money for non-wildlife causes
instead of allocating these to producer communities. It was
pointed out to them that this ran counter to the CAMPFIRE
principles, and this was usually sufficient to rectify the
situation. There were also a few cases at lower levels where
community officials misused money. Here the transparency of
financial management process resulted in people being turned in
by their own communities before major losses occurred. I viewed
this as a sign of the success of the transparency and checks-
and-balances built into the program, rather than failure.
I hope that these few examples convey some of the
excitement and progress associated with community-based natural
resource management in southern Africa. There is a lot of
literature available for anyone who wished to pursue any of the
points made above, and we would naturally be willing to talk to
anyone about this new approach.
Conclusions
In conclusion, and returning specifically to the AECA, I
would like to reiterate my thanks for the funding provided
under this Act.
I point out that there are major transaction costs in
moving from the centralized to decentralized management that I
have discussed at some length, and believe that the AECA now
faces a strategic decision. Can the AECA allocate sufficient
funds to promote this transition given the high transaction
costs as illustrated by the size of the USAID budgets that
support this in several southern African countries?
However, even small mounts of money can be important in
removing bottlenecks. Even more important, is the fact that
such expenditure signifies an endorsement of a sustainable use
approach, and this might be the greatest contribution that the
AECA can make to the conservation of African elephants and
wildlife.
I would therefore urge the AECA to recognize that the
primary threats to elephants lie in competition for land, that
their future lies in making elephant management economically
sound, and that the AECA can greatly facilitate elephant
conservation by endorsing this approach.
Support in the form of small amounts of strategic funding
for (1) law enforcement and (2) CBNRM programs will still be a
major positive contribution. Funding the later, in particular,
is critical for long term sustainability in that it endorse a
pragmatic, African, utilization approach, and would be
especially valuable if complemented by an effort to explain the
rationale for sustainable community-based use to the American
public who are already a major market for elephants.
Allocating funds for frivolous and illogical projects like
elephant contraception would be wasteful and would send the
wrong message. After all, how can one justify birth control for
a so-called endangered/threatened species? And how can one
justify reducing productivity in a continent so starved of
resources?
Trade, not aid
CBCD programs depend upon obtaining economic return from
wild resources, which in turn requires open and functional
markets for these products. In the final analysis, trade, both
domestic and international will determine the future of the
programs. However, presently there is a misconception that
trade restrictions, such as the ban on trade in ivory and other
elephant products, are effective instruments that assist in
advancing sustainable development and protecting wildlife.
It has been argued by some that the existence of trade
restrictions has been resulted in a significant decline in
poaching and the stabilization of the elephant population. Our
experience is that the stabilization of elephant herds and the
decline in poaching has occurred in nations with sustainable
conservation programs.
Dr. Hugo Jachmann has recently published data showing that
investing in law enforcement has reduced the number of
elephants killed in the Luangwa Valley in Zambia from 10 each
day to less than 40 each year. This is the best data set on law
enforcement in existence. Interestingly, this data shows that
the amount of poaching is directly and inversely related to the
amount of money spent on law enforcement, especially on
performance-related bonuses. It also shows that external
factors like the ivory ban has no significant value as a
predictive variable, supporting the conclusion of a major study
done by IUCN/SSC that poaching is reduced primarily by spending
money on law-enforcement ``Four years after the CITES ban:
illegal killing of elephants, ivory trade and stockpiles''.
We would urge the AESA to recognize this and to support
trade if (and only if) products arise from a process that is
both ecologically and socio-economically sustainable and is
carefully regulated, thereby harnessing market forces to
promote elephant conservation.
``Animal lovers hail the ivory ban--but many African
conservationists hate it and say it hurts wildlife.'' US News
and World Report, Nov 25 1996
While on this point, we note that CAMPFIRE has been highly
successful but that the ban in trade in elephant products has
probably halved the income from wildlife. How much more
successful would such programs have been at conserving
elephants and uplifting rural people if they had been twice as
profitable?
I would also like to point out the massive opportunity
costs imposed on southern Africa by this ban, and the fact that
they cannot reap the rewards of their successful elephant
management programs. In general, we have been extremely
disappointed that those who clamored for the ivory ban have
done so little to compensate for the massive losses imposed, or
to assist in putting in place measures to ensure the
sustainable long-term management of elephants given the
realities of the competition for land. We are therefore doubly
grateful for the support provided to sustainable wildlife
management provided to the southern African region by the USA,
with significant funding provided by USAID and small but
strategic funding provided through the AECA.
The sustainability of local communities management programs
will depend on adequate funding as well as the tolerance of
domestic and international trade regimes for carefully
controlled and sustainable trade in wildlife resources. In this
regard, we encourage further U.S. conservation efforts to
proceed in accordance with the framework of CITES.
As the U.S. considers the Reauthorization of the Africa
Elephant Conservation Act, we urge the policy makers to take
into account the effectiveness of CBCD programs in wildlife
conservation as they evaluate programs for assistance under the
Act. Since sport hunting is an important source of revenue for
the programs, we request your committee to consider the
exemption of sport hunting trophies from import restrictions in
line with the committee's original intentions.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you and members of this Subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on the African Elephant
Conservation Act and to express our support for the
Reauthorization Act of 1997.
------
Testimony of Barbara Jeanne Polo, Political Director, American Oceans
Campaign
(Testimony prepared with the assistance of Tanya
Dobrzynski, Living Resources Specialist)
Good morning. My name is Barbara Jeanne Polo and I am the
Political Director of American Oceans Campaign (AOC), a
national environmental organization dedicated to the protection
and restoration of marine ecosystems. On behalf of AOC, I would
like to thank Congressmen Saxton and Abercrombie, the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans,
and cosponsors of the ``Coral Reef Protection Resolution of
1997'' for holding this hearing on coral reef restoration and
protection.
This hearing is timely because 1997 has been declared the
International Year of the Reef, and also because coral reefs
around the world are suffering from overwhelming destruction
and calamitous declines. They need our attention and support.
Coral reefs make up a tiny percentage of the earth. Their
total land area is about equivalent to the size of Texas. They
thrive in clean, clear, warm waters of the tropical and
subtropical zones. Approximately 100 countries around the world
have coral reefs within their territorial waters. The United
States is one of these fortunate nations. In the U.S. these
exotic treasures can be found in the waters of Florida, Hawaii,
the Gulf of Mexico. They are also prominent features of the
U.S. affiliated territories and islands such as Puerto Rico,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern
Marianas.
Although many Americans cannot claim to have seen a coral
reef first hand, we have surely all seen these magically
colorful and labyrinthine structures displayed on the pages of
National Geographic or on the screens of our televisions. Their
colors are numerous and vibrant; their shapes reflect the
diversity of life on our entire planet, mirroring flowers, elk
horns, sponges and even human brains. Coral reefs are perhaps
the most glorious of marine ecosystems. They have inspired
artists, scientists, environmentalists, politicians, and
outdoor recreationalists alike to explore their mysterious
qualities.
Beauty is only the most apparent asset of the coral reef.
Composed of tiny animal and plant-like elements which have
taken thousands of years to produce the huge calcium carbonate
structures we recognize as reefs today, coral reef ecosystems
are the most productive and diverse ecosystems of the sea.
Although the total number of reef-based species is still
unknown, more than 3,000 different species can be found on a
single reef in the Pacific and more than 1,000 on a single reef
in the Caribbean. Overall, reefs provide the habitat for nearly
25 percent of all marine life. They provide nursery and
spawning grounds for nearly 15 percent of the world's fish
catch, vital habitat for threatened and endangered species,
such as sea turtles and manatees, and they protect coastal
animals and plants from the turbulence of tides and storms.
As the home of more than one third of the world's marine
fish species, coral reefs provide an abundant protein source
used to feed much of the world's population. On some Pacific
atolls, reef-based fish and other species account for 50
percent of the daily protein intake by locals. In the
Caribbean, approximately 180 of the 350 known species of reef-
related fish are commercially marketed. So valuable are these
ecosystems as ``fish-producers,'' they have been aptly touted
by Rodney Salm of the World Conservation Union as ``no-cost,
self-perpetuating fish farms which produce high-quality protein
from essentially empty sea water.''
Because of their ability to draw beach goers, divers,
sightseers and sport fishers, coral reefs directly and
indirectly generate billions of dollars in tourist revenue. In
fact, one of our premiere reefs, the Florida Keys Reef tract,
is the most-visited coral reef in the world, catering to an
average of four million tourists per year and contributing
billions in tourist dollars to the State's economy. In Hawaii
the income from coral-related diving alone is $20 million per
year.
In addition to their intrinsic beauty and vital ecological
and economic functions, coral reefs may hold the key to finding
the cures for cancer, AIDS, arthritis and other mentally and
physically debilitating conditions. It has already been
discovered that common reef-dwellers such as sea fans and sea
anemones contain antimicrobial, anti-carcinogenic, and cardio-
active properties. In addition, certain species of reef coral,
including Porites and Gorgonian corals, have been used to
construct bone grafts for patients requiring maxillofacial and
cranial surgery.
The values of coral reefs, therefore, are abundant.
Unfortunately, stress caused by a host of human induced changes
to their environment is taking a dramatic toll on coral reefs
in the U.S. and around the world. Scientists estimate that of
the existing reefs in the world, 10 percent have already
suffered irreversible damage and another 30 percent are likely
to be lost within the next decade if serious actions are not
taken to reverse the devastation wrought by human activities.
Among the most devastating of human activities are marine-
and land-based water pollution, overfishing, destructive
fishing practices, coastal development, and loss of habitat.
Coral reefs require clean, clear, water that is low in
nutrients. However, sediment and fertilizer runoff from coastal
development and agricultural production are polluting coral
reef waters, blocking the sun from the reef's plant-like
components and encouraging overgrowth of nutrient-loving algae,
which can smother reefs. Over-fishing of reef fish, sea urchins
and other ``grazers'' which commonly keep algal growth in check
is also leading to algal overgrowth on coral reefs. Loss of
mangroves and other fringing wetlands, which filter pollutants
from aquatic systems, exacerbates the problems of sediment,
nutrient and toxic pollution runoff.
Indeed, these threats sound even more grim when one
considers that coastal populations are expected to continue
increasing and exact even greater tolls on coral reef
ecosystems. Currently more than 60 percent of the world's
population--3.8 billion people--lives within 100 miles of the
coast. This figure is expected to rise to 75 percent within
three decades (Don Hinrichsen, The Amicus Journal, ``Pushing
the Limits...,'' 1996). These figures closely reflect current
and forecasted coastal population estimates of the United
States. Currently, 55 percent of all U.S. residents live and
work in 772 coastal counties contiguous to the coasts. This
figure is expected to rise to 75 percent by the year 2025
(Hinrichsen 1996).
The scientific community has been raising concerns over the
loss of coral reefs within international forums for years. In
1994, following the recommendations of Agenda 21 and other
global efforts, the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI)
was proposed. This effort recognized that reefs around the
world are subject to similar threats and hoped to better
coordinate independent efforts to research, monitor, manage and
protect coral reefs. This effort started among eight countries
and has grown to include more than seventy countries worldwide.
Through a series of workshops, the development of a ``Call to
Action'', and a State of the Reefs Report, the ICRI effort has
chosen to focus on four major areas. These areas are coastal
management, capacity building, research and monitoring, and
review of activities.
As these areas of concern received greater attention, many
problems were identified. Those that were identified as the
most critical areas for concern and international coordination
include: a lack of coordinated coastal management to protect
reefs; funding for research and monitoring coral reef
ecosystems; building networks for getting critical information
to local, state and federal governments, to coral reef resource
users (like fishers) and to tourists and the general public;
and finally, analysis and evaluation of the programs that do
exist.
H. Con. Res. 8 supports the goals of ICRI and encourages
improvements in many reef-related U.S. activities. It resolves
that Congress will promote stewardship, encourage research and
education, and improve coordination of reef-related activities.
American Oceans Campaign strongly supports all of these goals
and hopes that through Congressional commitment, the means to
accomplish these ends will be identified.
The environmental community would like to recommend a few
minor corrections to H. Con. Res. 8, prior to passage. Please
include the Northern Marianas in the list of U.S. territories
where reefs are of vital economic importance. Please make a
distinction between underwater National Parks which feature
coral reefs such as the National Park System's Buck Island
Reef, administered by the Department of Interior and National
Marine Sanctuaries such as Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, administered by NOAA. Each provide important but
different contributions to the protection of U. S. coral reefs.
Add a final point (4) demanding and funding better
implementation and enforcement of provisions in existing
statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, the Magnusen-Stevens
Sustainable Fisheries Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act,
that will protect coral reef ecosystems.
There are many legislative avenues available to Congress to
help protect, educate, research and restore coral reef
ecosystems. Since the greatest threats to reefs are the result
of human action, regulation of those actions can relieve the
threats. Water pollution, destructive fishing practices, poorly
planned and managed coastal development, inappropriate trade
practices, and lack of protection for threatened species can be
addressed through new legislation or enforcement of current
law. We should be world leaders in this effort and H. Con Res.
8 demonstrates a commitment at the highest legislative levels
to make coral reef health a priority in this country. Chairman
Saxton and his cosponsors are providing the groundwork for the
Federal leadership we need to develop enforceable, secure
protection for coral reefs.
Reviewing the causes of and solutions to water quality
degradation in the Florida Keys can illustrate ways that
legislation will help to protect coral reefs. The Florida Keys
are experiencing a precipitous decline in water quality. Many
human activities and decisions have combined to cause this
degradation. There is a massive influx of agricultural run-off
from Florida Bay and the Everglades due to management decisions
to restore fresh water flows without an accompanying effort to
clean up the water. Coastal development continues in the
fragile southern Florida and Keys ecosystems loosening soils
that cause millions of pounds of sediments to flow into the
ocean and smother the reefs. This development is also
responsible for destroying the fringing mangrove forests that
act as natural filters for pollution and sediments before water
reaches the ocean. There are thousands of sources of
inadequately treated sewage pouring onto the reef from
cesspits, septic tanks, injection wells, and inadequate
treatment plants. These are necessary to ``treat'' the sewage
from 87,000 year-round residents and more than four million
tourists per year. The largest fleet of charter boats serves
the Florida Keys since it is the world's largest recreational
diving destination. These boats dump millions of gallons of raw
sewage into the ocean around the reefs.
All of these human activities that have caused massive
degradation of Florida keys water quality can be controlled
through legislation, many by merely enforcing existing
provisions of the Clean Water Act. Marine water quality
standards must be developed that take into account the
biological needs of the marine life in coastal waters. Point
and non-point sources of pollution must be required to stop
polluting beyond these standards. Rare and unique ecosystems,
such as coral reefs, should be designated as Outstanding
Natural Resource Waters and afforded an even higher level of
protection. Sources of polluted run-off such as cesspits,
septic tanks and agricultural fields must comply with
enforceable pollution prevention programs in the coastal
states. Sewage from boats must be stopped. No discharge zones
for boats must be designated and enforced. Mangroves are free,
natural filters of pollution and should be protected.
Protecting the wetlands, mangrove forests, and sea grasses that
provide the transition from land to sea is the least costly way
we can protect water quality. Treatment is far more expensive
and less effective than prevention.
Through oversight, Congress has the ability to emphasize
under-enforced provisions of the Clean Water Act that would
address standard setting, storm water discharges, boat
discharges, protection of wetlands and mangroves, and ocean
discharges of sewage to waters that support coral reefs.
Through new legislation Congress could strengthen coral reef
protection by improving polluted run-off control programs and
emphasizing the special nature of reefs. Finally, Congress can
give EPA and the states enough money to accomplish their Clean
Water Act goals, including enough money to build sewage
treatment plants that can control nutrients.
As part of our ``International Year of the Coral Reef''
agenda, American Oceans Campaign, in conjunction with the Clean
Water Network, is working on a report that will describe in
detail how the Clean Water Act can be instrumental in
protecting and restoring U.S. coral reefs. Many important
provisions of the Act have never been implemented and others
are not enforced. Better implementation and enforcement of the
Act, along with a few minor strengthening amendments will go
far to restore water quality necessary for healthy coral reefs.
Our report will be completed in June. We will provide it to
Congress at that time.
The Coastal Zone Management Act also has provisions for
addressing polluted run-off in the coastal zone and for
managing coastal development to minimize environmental damage.
The polluted run-off sections of this Act have always been
funded well below authorized levels. States have been asked to
develop plans to ensure that they have enforceable measures
that would stop polluted run-off in their coastal watersheds.
This is a necessary and laudable goal, however, there are no
models for this and the Federal government has provided
essentially no money to the states to help them comply with the
mandate. It is no wonder they have yet to get this critical job
done. Congress could appropriate enough money to coastal states
to enable them to develop their coastal polluted run-off
programs and target additional funds to implement the programs.
Marine species are under-represented in the lists of
threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act. This is largely due to the fact that it is difficult to
monitor species in the ocean. Coral reef ecosystems play a
critical role in the life cycles of 25% of all marine life.
Their component species need to be identified, studied,
monitored and protected when threatened. We need to ensure that
barriers to listing populations of marine invertebrates under
the Endangered Species Act are removed.
Reefs are natural areas that generate fish. Many commercial
fish species live and breed in coral reef ecosystems.
Therefore, lots of fishing takes place on reefs. Many fishing
methods are taking a toll on reefs that will eventually destroy
the reef and the fisheries. Highly destructive fishing methods,
including use of cyanide, dynamite or surfactants to stun fish
are common place. Cyanide and surfactants are poisons. They
kill or stun the desired catch as well as the rest of the life
on the reef. There is also concern that they would affect the
eventual consumer of the fish. These techniques are often
employed to capture fish for the tropical fish aquaria trade.
U.S. hobbyists are the largest consumers of reef fish for
aquariums and are usually unaware that their hobby is killing
the reefs they so admire. Outreach to the public on the effects
of these practices could help to engender a market-based
partial solution to inappropriate fishing methods.
Dynamite blasts stun and kill fish in the vicinity of the
reef so they are more easily collected, but also destroy the
infrastructure of the reef itself. These methods may be
successful for an individual fisher in the short run, but they
destroy the future of the fishery for us all. Dynamite fishing
also destroys the ability of coral reefs to protect coastal
areas from fierce coastal storms. Once a reef has been breached
by dynamite, ocean currents, previously held at bay, can sweep
into fragile shorelines and erode them even in calm seas.
Other fishing practices that are destructive to reefs but
less obvious are those that target particular species that are
necessary to carry out a ``job'' critical to the well being of
reefs. Grouper and sea urchins live in coral reefs. Both are
prized commercial fisheries. Both eat algae. When grouper and
sea urchins are harvested out of a coral reef, the algae grow
out of control. Uncontrolled algae smother the hard coral
species by blocking sunlight and depleting available oxygen.
Eventually they destroy the productivity of the reef. Under the
Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act, areas such as reefs
should be designated as essential fish habitat and made off-
limits to this kind of destructive fishing. If certain areas of
coral reefs were designated as marine reserves and these
species which fill critical niches in the ecosystem were
protected, everyone would have healthier fisheries over the
long term.
Designation of marine reserves is becoming more and more
common around the world, particularly in communities and
countries that are very economically dependent on healthy reef
fisheries. Marine reserves are very controversial in this
country. Through the National Marine Sanctuary Program, a very
small marine reserve has been designated, over great
opposition, in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary Plan. This
reserve is small, and likely to be inadequate to do the job of
regenerating fisheries in the area. If we use this tiny attempt
to judge the success of marine reserves, we are doing a
disservice to science. As Regional Fishery Management Councils
are revisiting their fishery management plans over the next two
years in response to the mandate under the Sustainable
Fisheries Act, Congress should encourage them to use marine
reserves and essential fish habitat designation to protect the
future of our fisheries and our coral reefs.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary also offers an
opportunity to address water pollution since it has a Water
Quality Protection Program element. This program, headed by
USEPA funds water quality research and monitoring. Through this
project water pollution sources can be positively identified.
If managed correctly, identification will only be the first
step, not the last. Once identified, Congress, the state and
local governments must fund corrective measures.
NOAA has taken the lead in the U. S. in carrying out the
goals of the International Coral Reef Initiative. They have
laudable and lofty goals to promote science for improved
management, to foster sustainable coastal development, and to
spread information about coral reefs. To accomplish these
goals, NOAA needs to coordinate with other Federal, state,
local, academic and non-governmental partners. They need to
research, monitor and assess U.S. reefs. They need to identify
management priorities. They need to find sustainable methods
for utilizing reef resources. They need to get information to
the most important communities and users. To carry out all of
these programs they need money.
In closing, American Oceans Campaign would again like to
express our appreciation to the sponsors of Congressional
resolutions to protect coral reefs. They have opened the door
to ongoing dialog about stronger measures that can be taken by
the Federal Government, or on the state and local levels.
Attached to this testimony is a letter signed by many national,
regional and local groups interested in reef protection, asking
for a series of field hearings to explore solutions to existing
coral reef threats. We look forward to a continuing search for
ways to ensure a long and healthy future for these exquisite
natural resources.
Thank you.
------
* AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN *
* CENTER FOR MARINE CONSERVATION * CORALATIONS, INC.*
* CORAL FOREST * THE COUSTEAU SOCIETY *
* ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL *
* FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY * GREENPEACE *
* MISIOAE1N INDUSTRIAL DE PUERTO RICO, INC. *
* NATIONAL AQUARIUM IN BALTIMORE * THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
* OCEANWATCH * REEFKEEPER INTERNATIONAL * REEF RELIEF *
* SAVE OUR SEAS * SIERRA CLUB * WORLD WILDLIFE FUND *
The Honorable James Saxton
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
March 10, 1997
Dear Chairman Saxton:
We, the undersigned organizations, would like to thank you
for the efforts you have made to promote the restoration and
protection of coral reef ecosystems through introduction of the
``Coral Reef Protection Resolution of 1997,'' (H. Con. Res. 8).
We are also encouraged by the scheduling of the Congressional
Hearing on coral reefs to be held by your Subcommittee on March
13. In addition, we feel there is an equally important need to
convene hearings at the regional level in order to promote
information sharing and enhance the national understanding of
how coral reef systems affect and support local communities.
As you know, coral reefs around the world are in a state of
crisis that promises to bring these underwater treasures to
collapse unless many of the problems they face are addressed.
Scientists estimate that 30 percent of the world's reefs could
see irreversible declines in the next decade if the problems of
overfishing, polluted runoff, and siltation due to non-
conservation-minded development are not ameliorated. Continued
declines would surely wreak ecological and economic havoc, as
coral reefs are home to 25 percent of all marine life and
contribute billions of dollars to coastal economies annually.
The coral reefs of the Florida Keys, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas, Guam, American Samoa
and other U.S. affiliated islands are exhibiting many of the
same symptoms of stress and illness due to anthropogenic
effects as others around the world. Therefore, we urgently
request that the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans conduct a series of hearings, including
field hearings in cooperation with state-level governments, in
southern Florida, the Hawaiian islands, and other U.S.
affiliated islands in the Caribbean and the Pacific, related to
the dangers facing coral reefs. These hearings should cover a
wide range of the critical issues threatening coral reef health
today, including: land-based pollutants, over fishing,
destructive fishing practices (muro ami, cyanide, and dynamite
fishing), vessel groundings, sedimentation, loss of fringing
wetlands, and coastal development.
We are confident that with 1997 being the International
Year of the Reef, the national interest and enthusiasm for
coral reefs is piqued. Therefore, now is the time to conduct
national discussions relating to the plight of coral reefs
nationwide and the means to protect them.
Again, we are encouraged that your Subcommittee has acted
so promptly in the 105th Congress to focus national attention
on the dangers facing coral reefs. We look forward to hearing
from you soon regarding our request.
Warmest Regards,
Tanya Dobrzynski
American Oceans Campaign
Washington, D.C.
Lynn Davidson
Environmental Solutions International
Washington, D.C.
Alexander Stone
ReefKeeper International
Miami, FL
Mark Chiappone
The Nature Conservancy
Coral Gables, FL
John Ogden
Florida Institute of Oceanography
St. Petersburg, FL
Gerald Leape
Greenpeace
Washington, D.C.
David M. Pittenger
National Aquarium in Baltimore
Baltimore, MD
Cliff McCreedy
Oceanwatch
Vienna, VA
Larry Williams
Sierra Club
Washington, D.C.
Craig Quirolo
Reef Relief
Key West, FL
Carl Stepath
Save Our Seas
Hanalei, HI
Tundi Agardi
World Wildlife Fund
Washington, D.C.
Mary Ann Lucking
CORALations
San Juan, P.R.
Rick Schwabacher
The Cousteau Society
Washington, D.C.
Wendy Weir
Coral Forest
San Francisco, CA
Jorge FemaAE1ndez Barto
MisioAE1n Industrial de
Puerto Rico, Inc.
Autorey, P.R.
Jack Sobel
Center for Marine Conservation
Washington, D.C.
------
Testimony of Rafe Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit this
testimony for the record.
Scientists estimate that more than two-thirds of the
earth's coral reefs are threatened or in decline. Damaged or
destroyed reefs can be found along the shores of more than 93
countries including the United States and its territories.
Over-fishing, destructive fishing practices, land-based sources
of marine pollution, and sedimentation linked to deforestation
are the primary causes of the decline in coral reefs.
Accidental ship grounding or anchor damage can occur even in
protected marine sanctuaries like those of the Florida Keys.
Global warming due to increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases may result in sea level rise and higher ocean
temperatures; both of which have the potential to be highly
destructive to corals.
Reef destruction is viewed among policy-makers and resource
managers as a serious loss of economic potential worldwide.
Coral reefs protect coastlines from the ravages of storms and
waves. Unchecked coastal erosion can cause serious economic
instability along developed coastlines. Coral reefs are
recreational and educational commodities and lucrative sources
of revenue and jobs for both the fishing and tourism
industries. As host to an awe-inspiring biodiversity, reefs are
among the most important food reservoirs in the ocean. What is
more, coral reefs constitute an untapped source for potentially
valuable medicinal and industrial compounds. Scientists are
astounded by the unique chemical structures of marine
byproducts, and early results have yielded compounds with anti-
microbial, anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer properties.
To combat the serious threats to coral reefs worldwide, the
U.S. spearheaded efforts to establish the International Coral
Reef Initiative (ICRI) in 1994, and hosted the Global
Secretariat until July 1996. ICRI was designed as a partnership
of governments, local communities, scientists, conservation
groups, resource users, and private interests aimed at
protecting, managing and monitoring coral reef resources
including associated ecosystems like sea grass beds and
mangroves. ICRI has grown rapidly over the past three years
from a small group of founding partners to a large consortium
in which over 73 countries participate. By design, ICRI project
ownership and leadership is intentionally devolved to a
regional or national level where local resource users shape
policies to achieve action appropriate to their specific
circumstances.
Within the U.S., the Departments of State and Interior,
NOAA, USAID, NSF, and EPA comprise integral parts of the
federal effort to stop the destruction of coral reefs. When the
activities of academic institutions, non-governmental
organizations and dive, tourism, and travel industry interests
are also considered, the result is a productive alliance. It is
this broad, multi-tiered, coordinated effort that has made the
International Coral Reef Initiative effective. During President
Clinton's recent visit to Australia's Great Barrier Reef, he
praised the International Coral Reef Initiative as ``a shining
example of what we can achieve....our effort to save the
world's reefs is a model for the work that we can do together
in other environmental areas''.
Within the 1995 Call to Action and Framework for Action,
ICRI partners endorsed a fourfold strategy to save coral reefs
around the world. First, efforts are being devoted to improving
our knowledge of the status of coral reef ecosystems and how
they operate. It is important to gather information on
population and community dynamics and on the physiological
processes at work in coral reef ecosystems. Scientists are
trying to discover the causes and cures for diseases and other
phenomena that are responsible for killing 50-80% of the
elkhorn corals off South Florida, 90% of the coral cover in a
Venezuelan national park, and widespread coral bleaching events
witnessed in the Caribbean and Pacific Basin--to list only a
few examples.
One of the key achievements of the ICRI is the
establishment of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
(GCRMN). The aim of the GCRMN is to document the current status
of coral reefs around the world so that thoughtful and informed
conservation and sustainable use strategies can be developed.
The second goal of ICRI is to formulate management
strategies with conservation and sustainable use objectives.
ICRI partners aim to establish reef management policy that
protects, manages, monitors, and restores fragile reef
ecosystems. International ICRI activities have included a major
diplomatic campaign and a series of global and regional
workshops which have been convened in the Pacific, Tropical
Americas, South and East Asian Seas, East Africa and the
Western Indian Ocean to develop action plans for the
conservation and sustainable use of coral reefs.
ICRI has been an important catalyst for regional
cooperation in the Caribbean to develop a strategy to conserve
the queen conch, a reef associated species which has been over-
fished. To address this problem, a highly successful conference
was held in 1996 and attended by representatives from 18
Caribbean governments who agreed to begin work on a common
management strategy for the queen conch and to consult on other
regional fishery issues in the future.
As the third part of the ICRI strategy and complimentary to
our focus on sustainable management, participants are also
working to decrease the threats to reef ecosystems. Initiative
partners must expand efforts to reduce the physical changes
inflicted on fragile reef communities whether they are due to
land-based or marine pollution, ship and anchor impact, alien
species, temperature and sea level fluctuation, or destructive
fishing practices.
The Department of State hosted a global conference in 1995
which adopted the Global Program of Action (GPA) on the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based
Activities. This initiative reflects ICRI objectives and
launches long-term efforts to deal with land-based marine
pollution including municipal, industrial and agricultural
wastes, sewage and wastewater, heavy metals nutrients and
sediments.
The increased use of cyanide to harvest fish for aquarium
and restaurant demands is a serious threat to some of the
world's most diverse coral reefs. The practice of cyanide
fishing began in the Philippines and is rapidly spreading
throughout the Pacific Basin. This process kills many of the
target fish as well as other non-target fish and corals. The
U.S. is working with established international organizations,
foreign governments, conservation groups, and representatives
from both the aquarium fish and cyanide industries to halt this
destructive practice. As a result of U.S. efforts, the cyanide
industry is actively working on an improved, non-destructive
test which would detect trace amounts of cyanide long after
fish capture.
The final objective of ICRI is to successfully educate the
general public, industry, and policy makers of the threats to
coral reefs. The participants in the International Coral Reef
Initiative have been instrumental in the design and endorsement
of the 1997 International Year of the Reef. As part of this
year-long effort, over thirty countries, academic and
government agencies, and NGOs have launched efforts to sponsor
workshops, develop national action plans, and strengthen
public-private partnerships to address the global degradation
of coral reef ecosystems. For example, Colombia has launched
its Year of the Reef program with the announcement of the
discovery of a new species of black coral. Brazil will focus
world attention on the only reefs found in the South Atlantic
and their significance due to an abundance of unique life
forms. Oman has published a series of articles detailing plans
to protect its coral reefs, and the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme has launched its own 1997 Pacific Year of
the Coral Reef.
H. Con. Res. 8 and H. Con. Res. 87
There is a limited window of opportunity to reduce the
serious threats facing coral reefs. ICRI has made great strides
in the past three years, providing a strong and well-accepted
framework for future efforts both in protecting our national
reef treasures and in fostering similar action around the
world. The Department of State supports two resolutions which
foster the sustainable use of coral reef ecosystems. H. Con.
Res. 8, expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the
significance of maintaining the health and stability of coral
reef ecosystems, was introduced by Mr. Saxton (R-NJ) and
recognizes the importance of protecting this vital resource. On
March 11, Mr. Miller (D-CA) introduced H. Con. Res. 87,
expressing the sense of the House that the United States and
the United Nations should condemn coral reef fisheries that are
harmful to coral reef ecosystems and promote the development of
sustainable coral reef fishing practices worldwide. This
resolution encourages continued international cooperation and
promotes ICRI efforts to save coral reefs.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me submit
testimony for the record on this important environmental issue.
------
Statement of Jean-Michel Cousteau
``The Importance of Protecting the Health and Vitality of
Coral Reefs''
I would like to applaud the commitment the United States
has made to protecting coral reefs through helping create the
International Coral Reef Initiative, creating National Marine
Sanctuaries where coral reefs exist, supporting the
International Year of the Coral Reef and now this Resolution.
I have had the good fortune of traveling extensively and
witnessing first hand many coral reefs around the world. I have
seen the vital connections between the health of coral reefs
and the quality of peoples lives where loss of reef resources
has caused hardship for local communities. I have also observed
how activities such as cutting forests, agricultural runoff,
pollution, overfishing, and destructive fishing can affect the
vitality of coral reefs, again with negative impact on people.
Likewise, coral reefs themselves are interconnected on wide
geographic scales through fish migrations, the dispersal and
recruitment of fish and shellfish larvae, and as people travel
to exploit or enjoy the reef's resources. Although the United
States may have relatively few coral reefs within its
territorial boundaries, it is appropriate that attention be
given to coral reefs worldwide because they are all connected
in one way or another.
I would like to address a couple of issues of particular
interest to me--management and education. Papua New Guinea is
one of the few countries that has a constitution which
specifically addresses the protection of natural resources for
future generations. Many other countries in Asia, the South
Pacific and Caribbean, though, have Ministries of the
Environment which are dedicated to the sustainable management
of natural resources, including coral reefs. In spite of noble
proclamations about protecting coral reefs, in every country I
have visited I can site examples of reefs severely
overexploited or stressed from human mismanagement.
Extensive deforestation in Indonesia has released nutrients
and sediments which stress reefs. In Papua New Guinea I have
seen reefs reduced to rubble from dynamite fishing and local
people missing limbs from premature explosions. In Haiti, a 10
foot high wall of conch shells called the pink cliffs, extends
along a coastline for almost a mile. Fishermen now lament the
collapse of their fishery and believe the conch population has
moved, denying that overharvest is the cause.
Although there doesn't seem to be scientific consensus on
direct cause and effect to explain the decline in Florida's
coral reefs, human activity both in the sea and on land is
certainly involved. The most devastated reefs I have ever
witnessed surround the tiny country of Nauru which has had one
of the highest per capita income in the world. Mining and
resultant destruction of over 80% of the landscape provided
money, but has eliminated the natural heritage for future
generations. Young people with whom I have spoken, and who have
no need or incentive to work, told me their greatest wish would
be to be able to dive and enjoy healthy and productive coral
reefs.
In my opinion the common denominator in these examples of
mismanagement is that national policies are ineffective unless
people are educated about reefs. People need to appreciate the
value of coral reefs to humanity, how a coral reef functions,
why reefs are vulnerable to human impact and how they can be
managed sustainably under the reality of local conditions.
Thus, education is absolutely critical in helping protect coral
reefs--education at the international and national level,
education at the level of village children and everything in
between.
As you may know, education has been my primary activity
during my professional career. The focus was originally film,
however my team and I are now expanding our activities to a
variety of other media and strategies. Children should have a
good understanding of coral reefs because they will inherit,
and have the responsibility to manage what we leave them. To
address this need, we have recently produced a CD-ROM entitled
Cities Under the Sea: Coral Reefs, which, through the power of
the computer, offers young people the opportunity to learn and
explore at their own pace. At the other extreme, we are
implementing educational programs in Fiji for village children
to give them an awareness of coral reefs.
Among the most frequent users of coral reefs are sport
divers. We believe they should be outspoken proponents for the
sustainable management of reefs, well-educated about reef
ecology, and actively involved in reef monitoring. To this end,
we have created our ``Ambassadors of the Environment'' program.
This is an educational program which prepares dive masters and
instructors to educate sport divers and motivate them to get
involved in responsible stewardship. In addition, we are
working with the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network to use
divers as ``watch dogs'' of the reef, alerting the scientific
and management communities of possible changes and threats.
Ecotourism is a term commonly applied to a host of
activities, many of which are not particularly environmentally-
sensitive. I am presently involved in a resort in Fiji and
structuring it so that it will serve as a model for responsible
development elsewhere. Since such resorts and dive operations
commonly result in diver impact on corals, fish and shellfish
depletion, sewage impact on reefs and coastal disruption, we
believe there needs to be an exploration of alternatives which
are more sustainable. At this resort, we are demonstrating that
there is another way by attempting to practice what we have
preached for so many years.
We are implementing constructed wetlands to treat waste and
enable us to use it as a resource for fertilizing the
landscape. Of course, reclaiming these nutrients prevents them
from polluting the reef as well. This treated resource also
enables us to create edible landscaping, where much of our food
can be organically grown on site. We have no air conditioning,
rather, high-thatched roofs, louvered windows and the shade of
abundant trees provide all the cooling needed for comfort. The
use of solar water heating, as well as water and energy
conservation, keep expenses down and protect the environment.
Integrated pest management reduces the use of pesticides. None
of the fish served in the restaurant come from reefs. Guests
are involved in reef monitoring and mangrove restoration
programs and we are working with the local communities on a
number of programs, from recycling to establishing marine
reserves. We have implemented collaborative projects with the
Fijian Departments of Energy, Fisheries and Education as well
as the University of the South Pacific.
We see this experiment in practical ecology as the best way
to obtain convincing evidence that humanity and nature can co-
exist. Our data is now proving that economic success and
environmental responsibility are feasible. It is an educational
experience for everyone involved: the guests, local people, our
collaborators and certainly, ourselves.
We believe every coastal development or activity which
impacts or depends on coral reefs should strive to protect the
very resource which attracts tourists, provides resources or
offers spiritual and cultural enrichment for local people. One
of the reasons this is not happening is that people are not
informed of the importance of reefs, the connections of reefs
to themselves and options for sustainable management.
Our programs in education and sustainable management could
be replicated elsewhere and I would be happy to share our
experiences with others who have similar objectives.
In summary, I believe we have to carefully manage our coral
reef resources in the United States and throughout the world.
As the country with the most-traveled population, we have an
obligation to educate our citizens to their responsibilities in
our coastal waters and their responsibilities as they engage in
commerce and recreation in the coastal waters of other
countries. With education and management we can protect the
vital coral reef resources for future generations.
I am pleased that H. Con. Res. 8 addresses many of the
important issues facing coral reefs and particularly support
the Resolution's attention to better coordination among the
many parties involved in coral reef research, use and
management. Our experience in Fiji has shown that this somewhat
laborious process is the only way consensus regarding long-term
protection can take place.
------
Statement of David C. Murchison, President, Southern Africa Wildlife
Trust
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee in connection with its consideration of
H.R. 39, the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act
of 1997.
The Southern Africa Wildlife Trust supports this measure,
except that it would favor an increase in the amount of funds
authorized to be appropriated to a minimum of $2 million per
year until 2002.
The Southern Africa Wildlife Trust is a foundation
organized under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code to
carry out wildlife conservation projects in the southern Africa
region. In the period since adoption of the 1988 statute,
projects to protect and conserve the African elephant have
received our priority attention. One such project is a grant
under the 1988 Act designed to reduce commercial poaching of
the elephant in Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The
amount of grant funds we are authorized to receive for this
project from the African Elephant Conservation Fund is
approximately $64,000. These grant funds are augmented by
contributions received from the private sector, principally the
Philadelphia Safari and Conservation Club, the Dallas Safari
Club, the Houston Safari Club and the African Safari Club of
Washington. In addition, services in kind are provided by the
Trust's officers and directors without compensation.
The project consists of a program of Awards for Meritorious
Service to Wildlife Conservation presented to eligible scouts
and rangers in the wildlife departments of Botswana, Tanzania,
Zambia and Zimbabwe. Each award includes a laminated
certificate of commendation, a medal to be worn on the
recipient's uniform, a pair of high quality binoculars for use
on future missions, and an honararium in foreign currency
equivalent to U.S. $100.00. To qualify for the award, a scout
or ranger must have participated in a hostile engagement with
armed commercial poachers; he must have exhibited personal
bravery in the course of the encounter; and the anti-poaching
operation must have been a successful one, with the poachers
being captured, killed or put to flight. The names of personnel
receiving the award are then inscribed on a bronze Roll of
Honor plaque displayed at the headquarters offices of the
wildlife departments.
Since its adoption, this awards program has enjoyed an
extraordinary level of public acceptance in the southern Africa
region. It has received the strong endorsement of the
governments of Botswana, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, as well
as our own government, and the consensus continues to be that
it has greatly improved the morale of anti-poaching personnel
and the quality of enforcement operations. Our monitoring in
the field confirms that the incidence of poaching has been
reduced since enactment of the 1988 Act, and we are satisfied
that an important contributing factor has been the increased
determination and dedication of anti-poaching personnel in
these areas of high elephant population.
Of course, this grant project is but one of some sixty
conservation projects authorized by the Fish & Wildlife Service
in seventeen elephant range states. I have observed a number of
these grant projects in operation. It would be difficult indeed
to find better examples of efficient and effective
implementation of Congressional action than the Service is
providing in these instances. Considered individually or as a
group, there can be little question that they fully carry out
the intent of Congress. Today the elephant is more secure as a
result, and the threat of extinction present in the 1980s has
been slowed in important degree. H.R. 39 will provide the basis
for a continuation of this sound grant administration.
A larger question is whether the legislative authority
should be continued until 2002. In the Trust's view, the answer
is an emphatic ``yes.''
In June of this year, the conference of CITES parties will
take place in Harare. We have received unconfirmed reports that
vast ivory stocks in the Far East now have been largely
depleted, and that proposals may be made and pressed at the
conference that will likely stimulate a resumption of high
international ivory demand. In such event, the commercial
poachers can be expected to resume their unrelenting attacks on
the elephant, and once again that magnificent animal will be
targeted for extinction. It is thus essential that the
legislative basis for meaningful response be continued.
Many conservationists are fearful that the conditions of
the 1980s will return. In the space of that single decade,
Africa's elephant population was cut literally in half by
commercial poachers--from approximately 1.3 million in 1979 to
fewer than 650 thousand on the entire continent by the end of
the eighties.
In Kenya, for example, where sportshunting had been stopped
for many years and Richard Leakey had been appointed to head
the wildlife service, the elephant population dropped
precipitiously from 130,000 to only 16,000, an eight-fold
decrease in less than a decade.
The incentive for all of this killing in Kenya, as well as
in other range states, was the price of ivory, which at
wholesale had skyrocketed to $90 or more, with no sign of a
softening of demand.
In Japan, its insatiable demand for ivory had reached 75
percent of total world consumption. At this level, Japan's
consumption required the killing of at least 53,000 elephants
annually, more than three times Kenya's total elephant
population.
It was against this background that the United States,
through the Congress and President Bush, stepped in to halt
international behavior that was at once reprehensible and
incredibly shortsighted.
Even now, it is unclear whether the Japanese, by agreeing
to the ivory ban, gave up their obsession for ivory piano keys,
ivory chess sets, ivory seals and other ivory products deemed
of greater value than living elephants, or whether the existing
substantial inventory in Japan of elephant tusks simply was
sufficient to satisfy domestic demand for awhile. Whatever the
fact, reports from the Far East now suggest a revival of
earlier demand and a corresponding willingness to resume the
slaughter. At the CITES meeting, we suspect the truth will
emerge so that appropriate action by the United States and
other signatories will be possible. If not, this Subcommitee
should consider looking into the matter, since it bears an
important relationship to H.R. 39 and the bill's purpose to
promote longterm elephant conservation.
The Trust believes that, in view of the twin needs of
continuing the funding of worthwhile grant projects at an
optimum level while maintaining the ability to deal effectively
with the evident threat of resumed international poaching
operations, the Subcommittee should authorize appropriations in
H.R. 39 at a level of at least $2 million annually. A lesser
amount will not provide reasonable assurance that gains under
the 1988 Act can be preserved.
An example of conservation gains achieved with funds from
the African Elephant Conservation Fund was the great elephant
rescue of 1992-3. In that two-year period, Zimbabwe suffered
its most severe drought in many decades. The death toll of
wildlife was staggering. In Gonarezhou National Park, in the
southeast lowveld, hundreds of elephants died of thirst or
starvation, and hundreds of others faced a similar fate or
death by culling unless a major rescue operation could be
organized. Under a grant issued by the Fish & Wildlife Service,
a former officer of Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks,
Clem Coetsee, developed a removal and relocation system that
has forever changed elephant conservation principles. Under the
Coetsee system, an entire family group can be darted from a
helicopter, using haloperidol and trilafon, two relatively new
tranquilizers. The immobilized elephants are first loaded onto
capture trucks and then transferred to modified shipping
containers on larger tractor-trailers. After receiving an
antidote, the elephants are moved to predetermined new
habitats. During the drought, Coetsee moved slightly fewer than
a thousand elephants and thus averted a disaster of immense
proportions. None of this would have been possible in the
absence of funding from the Fish & Wildlife Service.
The conservation significance of the Coetsee system cannot
be overstated. For the first time in the memory of man, entire
family groups can be moved instead of culled. The Trust is
currently hard at work researching opportunities to apply the
system, and it is working closely with experts in the southern
Africa region to identify and implement these opportunities,
particularly in areas having pockets of excess elephants that
can be moved elsewhere. Both Zimbabwe and South Africa have
organized capture and removal teams in their wildlife
departments. Given the resources and technical help, it is
expected that other countries will follow suit. Today, in many
elephant range states, elephant populations cannot be sustained
in traditional habitats. New habitats must be identified to
receive these animals, unless they are to be dispatched on the
culling grounds. Fortunately, there are many such habitats,
both publicly and privately owned. To be sure, high
translocation costs and other factors raise a myriad of
problems, and solutions are often hard to come by. In the
future, the African Elephant Conservation Fund can be an
invaluable source of help in improving the system--and thereby
achieving the objectives of H.R. 39.
The Gonarezhou rescue is but one example of grant projects
under the African Elephant Conservation Fund that have
contributed importantly to elephant conservation. There are
many others. Taken together, they justify approval of H.R. 39,
with the amendment we recommend.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee.
------
Testimony of The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA)
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) appreciates
the opportunity to submit these comments in strong support of
H.R 39, legislation to reauthorize the African Elephant
Conservation Act (AECA) through the year 2002, and House
Concurrent Resolution 8, expressing the importance for
maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems.
H.R 39--African Elephant Conservation Act
AZA would like to thank Congressman Don Young and
Congressman Duke Cunningham for introducing the reauthorization
legislation so early in the session, and for the Subcommittee's
early commitment to moving this critical bill to the House
floor in 1997.
The AZA represents virtually every professionally operated
zoological park, aquarium, wildlife park, and oceanarium in
North America, as well as over 6,000 individual members. More
than 119 million people visit the AZA's 180 zoos and aquariums
each year, more than attend all professional baseball,
basketball, football, and hockey games combined.
In the view of AZA, the African Elephant Conservation Act
(AECA) and its subsequent Conservation Fund, is extremely
important because it is the only continuous source of money to
assist African countries in their conservation efforts to
protect and manage this important species. The AECA money has
been used to finance over 50 conservation projects in 17 range
states throughout Africa, providing for $5,434,025 in
programmatic funding and $8,651,332 in matching funds. The
funds have allowed for enhanced habitat protection--anti-
poaching equipment, and the management of these magnificent
creatures. The AZA echoes Dr. Maple's testimony. The AECA
deserves continued strong support from this Subcommittee and
Congress because it is a good example of an effective public-
private partnership. In fact, AZA urges the Administration to
at least double its request of $1 million.
In 1979, the African elephant population stood at 1.3
million--only to see its number drop dramatically to
approximately 700,000 in 1988 largely due to the worldwide
demand for ivory. Today, there are between 286,000 to 500,000
elephants in 17 range states throughout Africa. Congress passed
the AECA in 1988 to address the growing concerns for the
welfare of elephant populations in Africa, and the ivory
trade--a direct threat to the survival of many elephant
populations. Following the enactment of the law in 1989, the
U.S. imposed a ban on the importation to the U.S. of African
ivory. At that time, the United States consumed 30 percent of
all ivory traded in the world. At the height of the ivory
trade, approximately 800 tons was being exported from Africa
each year, translating to about 80,000 elephant deaths.
By taking the lead to protect the African elephant, both at
home and abroad, the United States, (and those nations that
followed our lead), have given certain African elephant
populations the time--and protection--needed to rebound to
sustainable population levels. The AECA has proven itself
effective. The Act helps to protect the species from
uncontrolled slaughter, while the Fund continues to make
available monies for important conservation efforts that have
made a difference.
While the AZA has not been a recipient of AECA funds, our
members continue to work with 136 of these magnificent
creatures to educate our visitors on the elephant's
intelligence, complex social and family structure, and their
importance to their ecosystem. Our role and that of our
institutions is to educate our visitors. We hope you agree that
your role is to guarantee that financial support will be
available for other countries and organizations to protect the
elephants in wild for generations to come.
House Concurrent Resolution 8--Coral Reef Protection
The American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) also would
like to comment in strong support for H.Con.Res. 8, a
resolution to recognize the significance of maintaining the
health and stability of coral reef ecosystems around the world.
We especially thank Chairman Saxton for introducing this
resolution early in the session to coincide with the ongoing
efforts celebrating 1997 as the International Year of the Reef
(IYOR) and thereby recognizing the importance of coral reef
conservation.
Aside from the rainforests of Asia and South America, coral
reef ecosystems are the most biologically diverse environments
on Earth. They provide habitat for 25 percent of all marine
life. With ten percent of the world's reefs already seriously
degraded and a much greater percentage threatened, particularly
in areas adjacent to human populations, H.Con.Res. 8 will help
to bring greater attention to coral reef conservation.
Furthermore, reefs are essential to the economic health of
millions of aquatic animals and the nations of the world that
depend on them. In AZA institutions, coral reef exhibits are
one of the most popular exhibits in AZA aquariums today.
Since September 1996, the AZA and its members have been
actively involved with the Commerce and State Departments in a
public awareness campaign to promote coral reef conservation,
and support efforts to highlight 1997 as International Year of
the Reef (IYOR). AZA, in concert with a number of its member
institutions, The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Martin and Chris
Kratt of the PBS children's wildlife series ``Kratts'
Creatures'', has sponsored a regional/national poster contest
geared toward elementary schools children. The winner will be
announced on 3 April at the National Zoo.
In addition, as part of AZA's coral reef efforts, we have
assembled an education kit that will be distributed to our 180
institutions for use by teachers. The kit consists of four
parts: The Coral Forest Teacher's Guide, a 5-minute and a 20-
minute edited version of the ``Fragile Ring of Life'' video (a
video produced with AID funds for the Year of the Reef), a
slideshow presentation, and a copy of the International Year of
the Reef public service announcement. This dynamic Educator's
Kit will be distributed to AZA institutions this spring.
Coral reef environments are threatened increasingly by
human activity. This legislation will assist in raising the
awareness to protect these fragile ``rings of life.''
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0189.082
<all>