Bill that went before US congress

[veronique]

Couldn't download that one, since it's short one, copied it in a new thread.


Messages in Bulletin Board Discussion Area


Return to Bulletin Board
Date: Feb 15, 2007 11:20 AMAuthor: ICRI Administrator Subject: New bill (HR4928) introduced to address international coral reef tradeLast month, the Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004 (HR 4928) was introduced in the House by Congressman Ed Case of Hawaii. The introduced bill proposes to regulate the collection of ornamental corals and fish from U.S. coral reefs and regulate the international trade of coral reef species into and out of the U.S. The aim of the bill is to promote more responsible use of valuable coral reef resources, conserve coral reef biodiversity and protect coral reefs from destructive fishing and collection practices. Both U.S. and international coral reefs would benefit from the proposed measures. A copy of the bill is attached.
Towards this aim, the proposed bill advances several significant, new fisheries management approaches in an effort to relief coral reefs from the unsustainable collection of coral and reef fish, as well as
destructive fishing practices that harm the habitat.
New management approaches advocated in the bill include:

• shifting the burden of proof onto commercial users of resources,
• requiring demonstration of sustainable management and use,
• requiring an ecosystem-based approach to management, and
• requiring certification that no destructive fishing practices were used.

Key provisions of the proposed bill and potential relevance to management:

• For wild coral and ornamental fish: Before coral and ornamental fish can be collected, imported into or exported out of the U.S., a sustainable management plan must be pre-approved that demonstrates that the collection is sustainable and does not harm the functional role of the species in the ecosystem. This management approach "shifts the burden of proof," i.e. the burden of proof that no harm is being done would rest upon commercial users of the reef resources.
• For coral and ornamental fish from mariculture or cooperative breeding programs: Before coral and ornamental fish can be exported out of or imported into the U.S., the mariculture facility must be pre-qualified. The facility must demonstrate that it is operating in an environmentally appropriate manner that is not detrimental to the species in the wild and does not harm existing ecosystems, such as by introducing non-indigenous species or pathogens.
• For all coral reef species: Before any coral reef species, including non-ornamental species, can be imported into or exported out of the U.S., individual importers and exporters must certify that the collection did not involve destructive fishing practices, such as the use of poisons, explosives or dredging. This certification by individual importers and exporters is a self-certifying process, and would allow the U.S. to prosecute individuals for falsifying documents. However, exporters and importers may be more secure by participating in some certification scheme, such as that of the Marine Aquarium Council or an independent cyanide testing facility. The proposed bill may stimulate demand by exporters and importers for cyanide testing labs and increase their willingness to help pay for the testing costs. Such a requirement by importing countries would help source countries, many of whom are developing countries, implement their own laws against destructive fishing practices.
• Calls for a Federal Advisory Group: A federal Advisory Group - consisting of individuals representing public and private organizations affected by the proposed bill, including scientists, NGOs, collectors, traders, and those involved in mariculture and cooperative breeding programs -- would be formed to advise on the criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems. Topics may include: what a sustainable management should encompass, which collection methods should be considered as "destructive," and guidelines for the capture, commercial transport and handling of coral reef species. In addition to the use of poisons, explosives and dredging, other types of fishing practices could be considered as "destructive" or harmful to habitats, such as bottom-trawling.
• Calls for U.S. leadership in conserving coral reefs ecosystems and promoting an ecosystem-based approach: The Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Coral Reef Task Force and consultation with the Advisory Group, would coordinate a national strategy for the conservation and sustainable management of coral reef species and ecosystems. The proposed bill also calls for the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development to encourage policies and implement programs to promote the conservation and sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems in other parts of the world.
• Grant exceptions for scientific, museum, or zoological purposes: With prior approval, coral reef species may be collected, imported or exported for scientific purposes, museum purposes, or for zoological breeding or display.
• Includes enforcement and incentive provisions: The bill also proposes enforcement provisions, including penalties, fines or forfeitures of property which would fund a reward system to any person who provides information leading to an arrest or conviction for violations of prohibited activities under the bill.

 

[veronique]

part 2 answers

Here are the answers to several frequently asked questions about this proposed bill:

1. Does this bill propose to "ban" the marine aquarium trade? No, the purpose of this proposed bill is not to "ban" trade, but to "regulate" it. The international trade in many coral reef species is largely unregulated, illegal and unreported. Most countries do have laws that prohibit the use of poisons and other destructive fishing practices, but illegally collected reef animals are still entering the international trade. Major importers of coral reef animals, such as the U.S., are creating the demand that is driving the use of illegal and destructive practices, as well as overfishing.
   The first step in regulating an activity is usually to prohibit it; then the activity can be regulated through stipulating under what conditions a permit or license will be granted so that the activity may proceed. For example, driving a car is prohibited in the U.S., unless one has a license. Each state regulates what conditions must be met to receive a driver's license, such as age, physical ability, knowledge of driving rules, etc. This bill proposes that collection in U.S. waters and the import into and export out of the U.S. of coral reef species be regulated to promote sustainable management and to reduce the use of destructive practices, such as cyanide use.
2. Was this bill proposed by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force? No, the bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Ed Case of Hawaii. The Congressman's office issued a press release which is available at
   http://www.house.gov/case/press_releases/2004/2004-56.html. Congressman Case is very concerned about the health and status of Hawaiian reefs and the pressures placed on reefs from largely unregulated collection and the introduction of invasive species. Congressman Case is also concerned about the role that U.S. consumer demand is placing on international reefs and believes that the U.S. has a responsibility for promoting sustainable management internationally.
   In the press release, Congressman Case mentions that that the proposed bill builds upon previous recommendations made by the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. In introducing the bill, Congressman Case states, "The Coral Reef Conservation and Protection Act of 2004 I gratefully introduce today embodies the principal directions of the Task Force and more. It establishes a comprehensive scheme for the domestic and international protection of our world's coral reef ecosystems. The regime's key ingredients are the disallowal of any domestic taking, transport in interstate commerce, or import of the endangered marine life of our coral reefs, unless that life is collected in nondestructive ways or subject to sustainable management plans or otherwise exempted from coverage by administrative actions. Mr. Speaker, we have to start somewhere; our world's coral reefs are crying out for our help."
   Please note that in the U.S., the introduction of bills is the
   responsibility of the Legislative Branch of government. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force is an entity of the Executive Branch of the government and does not have the authority to introduce bills or legislation. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force can only make recommendations on the need for new measures.
3. Why is there concern about the international trade in coral reef animals? Extensive documentation shows that international trade in coral reef animals, for both the ornamental markets (aquaria, curios and jewelry) and food fish markets, is driving unsustainable collection and
   destructive fishing practices in many countries, including the U.S. This international trade is largely unregulated and in many cases illegal. Over 1500 species are collected from coral reefs for the marine aquarium trade alone. Many of these species are known to be inappropriate for the trade in that the animals do not survive in aquaria, grow too large, or are poisonous. Many other species are rare, endemic or endangered. International trade is also endangering the health of collectors through unsafe diving practices and the need to dive deeper as animals in shallow reefs are depleted.
   The U.S. is the number one importer of coral reef animals and products for marine aquaria, curio and jewelry -- the U.S. imports 60- 80% of the live coral, over 50% of the curio coral, and 95% of the live rock and reef substrate in international trade each year. As a major importer, the U.S. bears responsibility for addressing its role in this trade and promoting more responsible and sustainable trade. Evidence indicates that the import of coral reef animals in to the U.S. is increasing, especially of such products as live rock and coral, placing further pressures on reefs. For example, the trade in coral for aquaria has increased 400% since 1988, while the trade in liverock has increased 1700% during that same time period. Many of the ornamental fish imported into the U.S. are still caught with cyanide, causing further degradation of reefs. The International Working Group of the U.S. Coal Reef Task Force has continued to highlight the issues associated with the international trade of coral reef species and has developed a comprehensive strategy for addressing these trade issues. (For additional information, please see the report International Trade in Coral and Coral reef Species: The Role of the United States at http://coralreef.gov.international/documents.cfm) The working group has also produced an information sheet which gives an overview of what is known about the status of coral reefs and the international trade in coral reef animals.

 

[GreshamH]

HR 4928 was introduced in 2004 and didn't go anywhere. Why is it being posted now as a new bill on ICRI? I'm not up on how long a bill can float around, can the live this long?

 

[GreshamH]

explosives or dredging.

FWIW, this trade does not use bottom trawls, nor explosives to collect any MO. It's a falicy that has been repeated numerous times. If you have ever been in the water when a blast went off, you'd know what I'm talking about when I say NO bombs are used in the collection of MO> Food fish yes, MO no. MO needs to be ALIVE in order to be sold.

They should seek to regulate the shrimp trades in other countries, and our own, which does use bottom trawls. The Sea of Cortez is ripped apart daily and literal TONS of "by-catch" are shovelled over board. The amount of by-catch is incredible and would make you sick if you ever got to witness it yourself.

The lumping of the curio trade with MO is wrong as well. We strive to keep our small corals alive, while the curio trade strives to kill and ship the largest coral head they can find. We strive to keep all our animals alive, while the curio trade by definition strives to kill them. While some of curio is used in aquaria (typically FO systems), the majority is sold to people that want put the dead carcass up for display!

While I support regulation of the trade (to help end CN use), this bill is(was) not the vehicle.

 

[GreshamH]

correction - a single use of trawls would be for the by-catch, like the chambered nautilus. Not that many are even imported though.

 

[Henrye]

Based on the post above, and having not read the actul legisation, I'm struck by seemingly good intentions leading to bad law. Certainly, areas of concern such as the use of cyanide and harvesting of species which will barely survive, if at all,removal from reefs make sense. However, shifting the burden of proof onto private commercial enterprise, and expecting extensive environmental impact statements to be deveoped in the private sector, is bound to fail. This fragmented business has no where near the resources to comply with complex requests and presentations to secure approval for importation and sale to US ratilers.

BTW, who will enforce the prposed regulations? Is it the Dept. of Interior, Commerce, or other? And which agencies will need to coordinate? Is this to be a combined US Customs service, USDA, EPA, or other agency operation? Where will the expert inspectors and review officials come from?

It seems to me that enacting well meaning recommendations to protect marine environments appears to be a responsible strategy, but, as the US is generally unable to cooperate with other countries on environmental issues, how this specific attempt to regulate foreign activites in the harvest and sale of marne life (other than for consumption, which is still pretty ineffective), I cannot see how this could ever work.

Henry

 

[meschaefer]

HR 4928 was introduced in 2004 and didn't go anywhere. Why is it being posted now as a new bill on ICRI? I'm not up on how long a bill can float around, can the live this long?

Bills can live on for years before they ever are ever passed.. The usual process is that the bill is proposed by one or more members of each of the houses of congress.. Often it is a joint bill introduced by a member of each house. Before the bill gets to the floor of either the houses, it usually goes through the concerned comittees, who will make changes to it or comment on it before it goes to the floor for a vote, often the bill must be passed by the comittee before it is voted on by congress, but that is not always the case. As the bill needs to pass both houses, it needs to do this in both the Senate and the House. By the time the bill passes (if it does in fact pass) both commitees and both houses, it is usually altered to such an extent that it needs to be reconciled as the bill that passes the Senate may be very different then the one that passes the House. It is then reconciled in a joint commitee made of members of both houses. If they can agree on a final set of terms for the bill, it goes back to both houses to be voted on again. If it passess it is then sent to the president to either be signed, or vetoed.

As said depending on the legislation, this process can take years,

 

[meschaefer]

I just read the 28 pages of the bill, and I would support the bill. While it does place some restriction and hurdles for the export and import of reef species, none of these are insurmountable. While the industry is fragmented, there are a lot of mariculture and aquculture facilites that are major operations that have the rsources to impplement these policies. If they do not, they need to work with the local governments where these species are collected, the export of these species are a major source of revenue, and the local government should be involved in the management of these species.

The only restriction placed on the retailer and buyers of these items, is to not "knowingly" violate the provisions of this act. If you import livestock that is in violation of the provision, but you are unaware that the livestock is in violation of the provision, you yourself are not in violation of the provision.

Finally, the act does not specify wich agency is to coordinate the enforcment efforts, that is left to the secretary of state to decide how to enforce international importation, and the secretary of the interior to regulate domestic stocks.

 

[ellebelle]

The lumping of the curio trade with MO is wrong as well. We strive to keep our small corals alive, while the curio trade strives to kill and ship the largest coral head they can find. We strive to keep all our animals alive, while the curio trade by definition strives to kill them.

Agreed, but the reality is that plenty of people DO kill the animals they put in their tanks through lack of knowledge. And, but taking things off of the reefs and putting them into our tanks, we are still taking an animal out of it's natural environment and potentially impacting that ecosystem.

I think this is pretty good legislation. I have my doubts on how well it's going to be able to be upheld, but I think it's a good step.

 

[House of Laughter]

I have not read the whole bill - will do soon, but does it anywhere set provisions for putting back something that is collected? Similar to the logging industry where trees need to be planted in other areas in order to log in some others? That would make most sense but how would you regulate? Perhaps the MO farmers could use the the propagation companies to "restock" the reef they are taking from? or to build in another area - I mean don't they do with with Christmas trees etc?

Shouldn't be that hard.

House

 

[GreshamH]

While it does not state which certifiaction agency it would be, MAC was mentioned.

IIRC Mr Case's sister at the time of the introduction of this bill was the landlord for MAC in HI. Seems like a conflict of interest to me since they're the only certification scheme out there. There is no CDT in place, and none the US government agencies have approved the one Dr Rubec put designed for PI (which was used for a few years, voluntary though).

FWIW, at the time of introduction, this was a lame duck bill. He had no co-sponsors. I was blown away to see he finally got some others on board.

Most MO farms abroad do have a restoration conponent. It is required in Indonesia. I know the Tongan farm does as well.

I'm short on time as usual, but there's a lot more to this bill

 

[GreshamH]

Agreed, but the reality is that plenty of people DO kill the animals they put in their tanks through lack of knowledge. And, but taking things off of the reefs and putting them into our tanks, we are still taking an animal out of it's natural environment and potentially impacting that ecosystem.

I think this is pretty good legislation. I have my doubts on how well it's going to be able to be upheld, but I think it's a good step.

So even though the curio trade kills far more acro <read: old large colonies, ones the MO trade does not go after> and corals then the MO trade could even shake a stick at, it's still ok to lump them together? They're being lumped to skue the data. The numbers they used wouldn't have any where near the impact if the removed the curio data. Saying MO uses bombs to collect fish is an utter LIE. Why was it put in there? Simply to skue the real data and play on emotions! Food fish collected that way are for local consumption, not for export. Just how would this bill stop that? We don't support that with our money, they don't come to the US. Almost all the cyanide caught reef food fish are sold into Asia, NONE enter the US. The bill lumps them in as well to further the impact on the reader. Why not put forth a bill lacking the lies? Maybe then more would support it. The underlying message of the bill is good, but the method Mr Case chose to get there is wrong. Typical

If passed as it, and tomorrrow, the entire import COC would be shut down UNTIL it proved itself. The only ones that would enter, would be MAC stuff. It's really funny that MAC implemented a mariculture and coral scheme just before this bill was introduced :lol:

 

[meschaefer]

For those that are interested here is a link to a report issued by the United Nations in 2003, detailing the marine aquarium trade. It is informative reading, and a good place to start if you are going to intelligently discuss this issue.

From Ocean to Aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species

 

[GreshamH]

For those that are interested here is a link to a report issued by the United Nations in 2003, detailing the marine aquarium trade. It is informative reading, and a good place to start if you are going to intelligently discuss this issue.

From Ocean to Aquarium: the global trade in marine ornamental species

I disagree. That report has more flaws then the bill. I have read that report, and have debated it to death years ago

That report is another place where the lie of MO being collected with bottom trawls and explosives is repeated. There's far more to it then just that, but being I haven't read that <cough> report in years, I'll have to re-read it to tell you all the other flaws.

As an importer for almost a decade, I have first ahnd experience with all this. My stint as an importer, and helping export stations was directly working with the original whistle blower on the trade (Steve Robinson), so do not think I am pro trade biased I am against using lies to prove a point. The truth is all you need!

 

[meschaefer]

I don't want to come off that I am debating you, nor am I inclined too. But if you don't like that report, do you have another source of information that we could look to.

 

[GreshamH]

Unfortunatly not really. You can find a lot of information on Reefs.org's Industry Behind The Hobby forum, but you can find just as much miss information, as well as a whole lot more of fighting and flaming.

I have been in a perfect spot to get a lot of the inside information on this. Most of it has been via private emails, but a fair chunk came from me following the money trails, Board of Director members, compairing mission statements and logos, etc.

Take the UN report. Look at the aknowledgements. The first to be listed are all MAC employees (well many are ex employees now with lots to say about it). The report even has a foot note of:

The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory
organizations.The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal
status of any country,territory,city or area or its authority,or concerning the delimitation of its
frontiers or boundaries.

Kinda sounds like UNEP wanted to distance themselves from the actual numbers and contributors