cites, eh? -...
TRANSCRIPT
CITES, Eh? A Review of Canada’s
Implementation of CITES Under WAPPRIITA
By Ernest W. T. Cooper
&Nathalie Chalifour
June 2004
TRAFFIC North AmericaWorld Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street NWWashington DC 20037
© 2004 WWF. All rights reserved by World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
ISBN 0-89164-173-4
All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproducedwith permission. Any reproduction, in full or in part, of this publication must creditTRAFFIC North America.
The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflectthose of the TRAFFIC Network, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), or IUCN-The WorldConservation Union.
The designation of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation ofthe material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofTRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country,territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership are held byWWF. TRAFFIC is a joint program of WWF and IUCN.
Suggested citation: Cooper, E.W.T. and Chalifour, N. (2004). CITES, Eh? A Reviewof Canada's Implementation of CITES Under WAPPRIITA. TRAFFIC North Americaand World Wildlife Fund. Vancouver, B.C.
Front cover photos: sugar maple leaf (Acer saccharum) ©Ernie Cooper; timber wolf(Canis lupus), American black bear (Ursus americanus), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus)©Photodisc.
Visit www.traffic.org for an electronic edition of this report, and for moreinformation about TRAFFIC North America.
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.0 METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.0 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 TRADE VOLUME IN CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
3.2 CITES IN CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.0 LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 PROHIBITION OF TRADE CONTRARY TO CITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENFORCE THE CONVENTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.4 OTHER LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.0 ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.2 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
5.3 SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.4 ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
5.5 CO-ORDINATION OF NATIONAL CITES IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.6 DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.7 PUBLICATION OF THE CITES APPENDICES AND AMENDMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.8 PERMIT FORMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.9 RECORDS OF TRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.10 PUBLICATION OF CITES REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.11 IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.12 FINDINGS MADE PRIOR TO ISSUING PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.13 ISSUING PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
6.0 ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.2 ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.3 RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
6.4 MONITORING TRADE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
6.5 RESPONDING TO VIOLATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.6 RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.7 INTERAGENCY CO-OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.1 LEGISLATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.2 ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7.3 ENFORCEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
APPENDIX A: CITES BASICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
APPENDIX B: WAPPRIITA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
APPENDIX C: WAPTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
APPENDIX D: WAPPRIITA CONVICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
APPENDIX E: WAPT PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS EXEMPTION TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
5.1 NUMBERS OF CANADIAN CITES EXPORT PERMITS ISSUED ANNUALLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 NUMBERS OF CANADIAN CITES EXPORT PERMITS ISSUED ANNUALLY
(EXCLUDING MULTIPLE-USE PERMITS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
6.1 THE FIVE REGIONS OF ENVIRONMENT CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
LIST OF TABLES
5.1 PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL CITES MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 AMENDMENTS TO CITES APPENDIX III (1998–2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3 HISTORY OF CANADIAN CITES ANNUAL REPORTS (SUBMITTED AS OF MAY 2004) . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4 CANADIAN PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.5 CITES IMPORT PERMITS, TEMPORARY IMPORT/EXPORT CERTIFICATES AND
SCIENTIFIC CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CANADA, 1977–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.6 CITES EXPORT PERMITS ISSUED BY CANADA, 1977–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.7 FEDERALLY ISSUED CITES EXPORT PERMITS, 1989–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.1 ENVIRONMENT CANADA REGIONAL OFFICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED NATIONALLY BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA,1998–2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3 PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL WILDLIFE OFFICERS ACROSS CANADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4 REGIONAL FEDERAL GAME OFFICERS DEDICATED TO CITES ENFORCEMENT IN 2002,APPROXIMATE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS (FTES) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5 ENVIRONMENT CANADA WAPPRIITA INSPECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.6 INSPECTION RESULTS IN THE PACIFIC AND YUKON REGION, 1996–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6.7 AMERICAN ALLIGATOR (ALLIGATOR MISSISSIPPIENSIS) PRODUCTS AND
SIMILAR PRODUCTS FROM OTHER SPECIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
6.8 FINAL ACTIONS TAKEN AS A RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, AS ENTERED
INTO NEMISIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
6.9 ENVIRONMENT CANADA RESPONSES TO WAPPRIITA VIOLATIONS: INVESTIGATIONS,PROSECUTIONS AND CONVICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.10 ENVIRONMENT CANADA RESPONSES TO WAPPRIITA VIOLATIONS OTHER THAN
INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.11 ANNUAL CONVICTIONS FOR CITES-RELATED WAPPRIITA VIOLATIONS, BY REGION . . . . . . . . 70
LIST OF TEXT BOXES
5.1 ELEPHANT TRADE INFORMATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2 BLACK BEAR EXPORT PERMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
6.1 WAPTR SECTION 14 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.2 NEMISIS DEFINITIONS FOR RESPONSES TO VIOLATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
iii
iv
PREFACE
The goal of this report is to ensure that theConvention on International trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES) is implemented in Canada withmaximum effectiveness. It was thereforeimportant to identify the gaps in thisimplementation and provide recommendationsfor improvement. As a result this reportfocuses primarily on areas that are most inneed of improvement and may be perceived as
more critical than complimentary. It is notintended to disregard the progress made by thegovernment of Canada to execute theConvention, and any such impression would beunfortunate. Similarly, any and all criticalcomments are directed solely at governmentalprocesses and not at any of the individuals whoare attempting to implement CITES in Canadadespite very limited resources.
v
A large number of people made invaluablecontributions to this report. John Caldwell,Anna Chase, Murray Smith, Nathalie Zingerand Julie Thomson (of TRAFFIC) eachcontributed to the research. Crawford Allan,Simon Habel, Craig Hoover and Maija Sirolaof TRAFFIC; Stephen Nash (formerly) ofTRAFFIC; Steven Price of World WildlifeFund Canada; Dr. Jeff Marliave of theVancouver Aquarium; and Dr. John Taylor allprovided insight and helpful comments ondraft texts of the report.
Many people from Environment Canada,Canada Customs, the Canadian FoodsInspection Agency, the Royal CanadianMounted Police and other governmentdepartments generously took time out of theirschedules to provide interviews for TRAFFICNorth America and answer questions. Inparticular TRAFFIC North America thanksDiane Arsenault, Michael Bahls, StaceyBegon, Garry Bogdan, David Brackett, BillBresser, Gerry Brunet, André Bujold, MurrayBusch, Richard Charette, Paul Clydesdale,Lonny Coote, Janet Covich, Chuck Dauphiné,Robert Dean, John Dyck, Audrey Fanthorpe,Mike Fullerton, Lynn Gautier, Helen Gerson,
Al Giesche, Sandra Gillis, Ron Graham, GarryGrigg, Pat Hall, Dave Harvey, Éric-YvesHarvey, Doug Johnson, Bryan Jubinville, YvanLafleur, Kim Laird, Elaine Lalonde, JoseeLaurin, Bonnie Lidstone, Faron Lidstone, RodLivingston, Gerald MacDougall, LyndaMaltby, Kelly Marsden, Helen Millan, JohnMombourquette, Richard Monroe, PatrickO’Brian, Tim O’Neil, , Brian Petrar, StevePinksen, Howard Powles, Jean Robillard, JohnRussell, Brenda Ryan, Les Sampson, ShellyShaw, Adrianne Sinclair, Greg Sones, JudiStraby, Martin Thabault, Betrand von Arx,Robert Wenting, Dane Wesley, April White,Dave Williams, Brian Wong, John Wong andRosemarie Young.
TRAFFIC North America is also grateful tothe Director General of the Canadian WildlifeService Canadian Wildlife Service and theChair of the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) for reviewing this reportprior to publication.
The research and production of this reportwere made possible thanks to funding fromAGF Management Limited, the SchadFoundation, WWF-Canada and WWF-US.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
vi
Wildlife is crucially important to all of us,everywhere. Plants and animals provide uswith the very oxygen we breathe, with food,medicines and clothing, and with beauty,inspiration and a reminder that people aren’tthe only creatures on Earth. Increasingly,wildlife species are becoming the passengerson our global spaceship, largely at the mercyof the job done by the crew — people.
And by now, I suspect most people arebeginning to tire of conservationists’ repeatedwarnings that the crew, far from maintainingthe ship, is jeopardizing it. Certainly thebiggest threat to wildlife worldwide, namelyhabitat destruction, is an unshakeable humanresponsibility. But there are some examples ofstill-healthy habitats where the species thatshould be there are endangered or absent.Black rhinos, for example, have beenextirpated from most of their range, includingparks and reserves. And it isn’t the oceanhabitat’s fault that large predators such assharks, swordfish, tuna and toothfish haveexperienced significant declines. In thesecases, the culprit has been over-exploitation,unsustainable use and illegal trade, hurtingwildlife to be sure, but also crushing thelivelihoods of communities and localeconomies that depend on healthy populationsof these species.
However, not all wildlife trade is illegal orunsustainable. So, when coming up with aninternational instrument in 1973 to address theproblematic side of this issue, the challengewas to also recognize the positive side. Thatinstrument was the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species ofWild Fauna and Flora — mercifully abridgedto the acronym “CITES.”
CITES now includes 164 “parties,” or nationswhich have ratified it and this numbercontinues to grow. All of the most activecountries in terms of wildlife trade, includingCanada, are parties. CITES currently prohibitsinternational trade in more than 800endangered species, and ensures that the tradein more than 30,000 other species is conducted
at sustainable levels. As such, the Conventioncould be regarded as a relative bright spot inthe conservation landscape — a tool inventedby the crew that is actually helping to maintainthe ship. Not one species protected by CITEShas become extinct as a result of trade sincethe Convention came into effect 30 years ago.
TRAFFIC is an independent organization,founded in 1976 by the World ConservationUnion and later financially supported byWorld Wildlife Fund, to assist in theimplementation of CITES. The followingpages constitute the first TRAFFIC reportissued in Canada, and predictably, it reviewshow well we’re doing when it comes toimplementing CITES in this country.
I hope Canadians will actually read this reportfor three reasons. First, it is well written bysomeone who knows what he’s talking about.Before he joined TRAFFIC North America andWWF-Canada, Ernie Cooper worked for thefederal government inspecting shippingcontainers headed into and out of Canada, andtraining customs officers on how to identifyillegally traded wildlife species and parts.Ernie can spot an illegal snakeskin belt fromacross the room.
Second, I believe most Canadians stand to beinformed, and likely surprised, by what amajor player Canada has become in thebusiness of wildlife trade, by importingproducts from other countries, by serving as aconduit or flow-through for such productsenroute to elsewhere, and by exporting wildlifeproducts derived from Canadian species.
Finally, I hope people read this report becauseevery Canadian can become part of thesolution, by simply watching what you buy. Byavoiding illegal wildlife products yourself, youcease being simply a passenger on our planet,because you will have joined the crew.Welcome aboard.
Monte HummelPresident EmeritusWorld Wildlife Fund Canada
FOREWORD
AAFC Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada
AZA American Zoo and AquariumAssociation
CBSA Canada Border Services Agency
CCRA Canada Customs and RevenueAgency
CEC North American Commission forEnvironmental Co-operation
CEPA Canadian EnvironmentalProtection Act
CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency
CFS Canadian Forest Service
CITES Convention on International tradein Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora
CoP Meeting of the Conference of theParties to CITES
COSEWIC Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada
CMC Customs Mail Centre
CWA Canada Wildlife Act
CWS Canadian Wildlife Service
DFAIT Department of Foreign Affairsand International Trade
DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada(Department of Fisheries andOceans)
EPAM Environmental ProtectionAlternative Measures
EPB Environmental Protection Branch(of Environment Canada)
EPCO Environmental ProtectionCompliance Orders
EIPA Export and Import Permits Act
ETIS Elephant Trade InformationSystem
FTE Full-time equivalent (referring tostaffing)
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs andTrade
GDP Gross domestic product
HS The Harmonized CommodityDescription and Coding System
IATA International Air TransportAssociation
IUCN The World Conservation Union
JFO Joint-Forces Operation
LEMIS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’sLaw Enforcement ManagementInformation System
MBCA Migratory Bird Convention Act
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NAWEG North American WildlifeEnforcement Group
NEMISIS National EnforcementManagement Information Systemand Intelligence System
NEP National Enforcement Program
NGO Non-governmental organisation
RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police
SARA Species At Risk Act
SSC Species Survival Commission
SSP Species Survival Plan®
UNEP United Nations EnvironmentProgramme
UNEP-WCMC United Nations EnvironmentProgramme World ConservationMonitoring Centre
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAPPRIITA Wild Animal and Plant Protectionand Regulation of Internationaland Interprovincial Trade Act
WAPTR Wild Animal and Plant TradeRegulations
WWF World Wildlife Fund (known asWWF, the conservationorganization outside the UnitedStates and Canada)
WTI Wildlife and InternationalDivision [of EnvironmentCanada]
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
viii
In 1973, 21 countries formally recognized theconservation implications of internationalwildlife trade and the need for internationalcooperation to regulate cross-border flows ofwildlife by signing CITES. Canada was thetenth nation to ratify CITES, bringing thetreaty into force on July 9, 1975. As ofDecember 30 2003, 164 nations had ratified oracceded to CITES.
Canada, one of the wealthiest nations on earth,is both a major trading nation and a country ofvast natural resources. Because of theimportance of international trade to theCanadian economy, there is a strong borderinfrastructure for monitoring trade in drugs,tobacco, firearms and other potentialcontraband. These factors place Canada in agood position to successfully monitor trade inwildlife. The country not only has every reasonto implement CITES, but it also has theresources to do so.
This report provides an overview andevaluation of Canada’s implementation ofCITES. It explores whether Canada’s currentlegislative, administrative and enforcementsystems comply with its CITES obligations,and identifies areas where there is need forimprovement.
For the most part the basic needs of theConvention are being met, and in some areasthe Canadian government is doing anexemplary job of implementing CITES.However in other areas Canada’s execution ofCITES is weak.
In most cases the inadequacies in Canada’sCITES programme can be traced to insufficientresources directed at administering andenforcing the convention. CITES does notappear to be a priority for the Canadiangovernment as a whole or for EnvironmentCanada, the department charged with ensuringthat the Convention is effectively implemented.
Legislation• The Wild Animal and Plant Protection and
Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA) is avast improvement over the Export andImport Permits Act (EIPA) for implementing
CITES. It contains appropriate measures toprohibit trade contrary to CITES and enforcethe Convention by creating an enforcementstructure and providing substantial penalties.The legislation authorizes intergovernmentalagreements for co-operation, and thelegislation and regulations are easilyaccessible to the public on the Internet.
• WAPPRIITA surpasses the threshold fordomestic legislation to incorporate the non-self-executing provisions in CITES.
Administration• Environment Canada’s public planning
documents make no mention of CITESimplementation.
• Environment Canada has designated both aNational CITES Management Authority anda National CITES Scientific Authority, but atthe time of writing, both of these officeswere understaffed. This is a critical issue forthe National CITES Management Authoritywhich does not have the human and financialresources to effectively carry out all of itsresponsibilities.
• There is a lack of clarity regardinggovernmental procedures and policies for theimplementation of CITES in Canada.Environment Canada does not have a basicoverall policy for CITES implementation.
• Section 21(2) of WAPPRIITA requires thatthe government of Canada amend the WildAnimal and Plant Trade Regulations(WAPTR) not later than ninety days afterany change to a CITES appendix. SinceWAPPRIITA came into force, Canada hasrepeatedly missed deadlines related toincorporation of these changes, impacting itsability to effectively administer and enforceCITES in the country and diminishing theinternational effectiveness of the Convention.
• It is not clear if data from Canadian permitsare being compiled consistently, and asignificant quantity of data from foreignpermits is not making its way to the NationalCITES Management Authority.
• Canada has continually failed to meet thedeadlines for submitting CITES annual
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
reports, as required by CITES ArticleVIII(6)(b). Environment Canada has failed tomeet the Secretariat’s extensions to Canada’ssubmission deadlines. The country’s inabilityto submit annual reports on time isnegatively affecting international efforts toevaluate wildlife trade concerns.
• Canada has not published a public CITESannual report, as required by CITES ArticleVIII(8), since 1992.
• Environment Canada does not have a policyin place for implementing CITES Decisionsand Resolutions.
• The National CITES Management Authorityis meeting the Convention’s requirements tocomplete certain findings before issuingpermits.
• The National CITES Scientific Authority ismeeting the requirement to assess thecapability of importers to provideappropriate husbandry for species. Howeverthe definition of appropriate husbandry issubjective and Environment Canada does nothave a formal procedure in place forcompleting this finding.
• There has been a lack of clarity in theprocess by which non-detriment findings aremade in Canada. There has been no standardprocedure that the provinces, territories andFisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) arerequired to follow, nor have there been clearlines of national co-ordination. EnvironmentCanada’s plan to establish a national strategyfor conducting non-detriment findingsshould resolve these issues.
• The National CITES Management Authorityissues permits in a timely and efficientmanner. It has maintained this level ofservice to the Canadian public despite anescalating workload.
Enforcement• There is the equivalent of only 18 full-time
Federal Game Officers enforcing CITES inCanada. Of these officers, only 8(approximately) are responsible forconducting inspections and ensuring thattrade is conducted in compliance withCITES. These few officers are alsoresponsible for providing training to other
government agencies, conducting publicoutreach activities, answering queries fromimporters and brokers and so forth. Thesenumbers are insufficient for a large, wealthycountry actively engaged in wildlife trade.As a result Environment Canada is unable tomeet all of its enforcement responsibilities.
• The House of Commons StandingCommittee on Environment and SustainableDevelopment has previously criticizedEnvironment Canada for providinginsufficient resources for enforcement, andin 1999 Environment Canada recognized theneed for more than 100 additional wildlifeenforcement staff and more than $8 millionin additional annual funding.
• Limited resources are available for targetingand examining export shipments and thereforegoods are rarely inspected upon export.
• Passage of the personal and householdeffects exemption [WAPTR section 15] hasreduced the workloads for some officers inthe Wildlife Enforcement Divisionheadquarters and certain regions. Theexemption has resulted in a significantincrease in the time available for theseofficers. At the same time WAPTR section15 has reduced the interaction betweenEnvironment Canada and Canada Customsofficers in some areas, and it has createduncertainty about the nature of the productsbeing imported under the exemption as thereare no records kept on the nature or sourceof the items released under the exemption.
• The personal and household effects exemptionis meant to apply only to non-commercialCITES Appendix II imports from countriesthat do not require the prior grant of an exportpermit. However it is currently being treatedas a blanket exemption for imports comingfrom any country.
• In-depth analysis of Canadian inspectionresults was not possible. Data are notrecorded on the vast majority of imports ofnon-CITES wildlife and wildlife products sothere are no baseline data available forcalculation of inspection rates or inspectioneffectiveness within or among regions.Furthermore the data recorded by officers indifferent regions are not consistent anddetailed data on the percentage of
2
inspections that resulted in CITES detentionsand the numbers and types of products thatwere detained or seized were available foronly the Pacific and Yukon Region.
• Environment Canada is losing the expertiseto provide expert identification of wildlifeand wildlife products and, as a result, itsability to effectively enforce CITES isdiminishing.
• Environment Canada has done little toenforce WAPTR section 9 which requiresexports of live animals or plants fromCanada to be done in accordance with theIATA Live Animals Regulations andGuidelines for Transport and Preparation forShipment of Live Wild Animals and Plants.No charges have ever been brought forviolation of the regulation.
• Data entry into the National EnforcementManagement Information System andIntelligence System (NEMISIS) is notconsistent across Canada and the databasehas not been designed to meet the needs ofwildlife enforcement or effectively compileand report wildlife trade data.
• The department is providing its officers withgood training on the WAPPRIITAlegislation, self-defence and traditionalpolicing techniques. However it is notproviding comprehensive and consistenttraining on CITES, permit validation, theIATA Live Animals Regulations and speciesand product identification.
• Environment Canada has made a significantcontribution to both Canadian andinternational enforcement of CITES throughthe development and distribution of thedepartment’s series of identification guidesfor CITES species and products.
• Canada has not instituted the use of wildlifedeclaration forms so there is very littleinformation available about Canadian wildlifetrade that does not involve CITES species.This lack of data limits EnvironmentCanada’s ability to focus wildlife enforcementefforts where they are most productive andprovide a baseline for measuring enforcementeffectiveness and the impact of the personaland household effects exemption.
• Canada has not instituted the use of designatedports for wildlife imports and exports. Doing
so would possibly benefit some regionalefforts, but it is not clear whether they wouldsignificantly assist wildlife enforcement on anational scale and Environment Canada doesnot currently have the resources to dedicate tosuch a programme.
• Canada Customs is seeking to eliminatepaper permits from its activities. Ifsuccessful, Canada Customs officers wouldno longer validate CITES permits. Thiswould critically impact the capability ofCanada to implement CITES.
• Environment Canada’s response toWAPPRIITA violations has not beenconsistent across the country. The option toissue tickets for violations is not available inall provinces and territories and the record ofprosecutions and convictions forWAPPRIITA violations does not seem tocorrespond to the patterns of wildlife tradeinto Canada. The Ontario Region, which hasa significantly higher budget for wildlifeenforcement than any other region, hasproduced half of the CITES-relatedconvictions in Canada.
• There is no national plan for improvingpublic awareness of CITES in Canada.Nonetheless Environment Canada has madeexcellent efforts in raising public awarenessabout CITES and wildlife trade issues bymaking a great deal of information availablein publications, public displays and on itswebsite.
• Environment Canada has developed goodworking relationships with other governmentdepartments and agencies such as CanadaCustoms, CFIA, DFO, RCMP and theprovincial and territorial authorities. Manyof the successful prosecutions of CITES-related WAPPRIITA violations were theresult of enforcement actions completed inco-operation with other authorities,especially Canada Customs.
• Environment Canada has signed MOUsregarding the enforcement of WAPPRIITAwith Canada Customs and with the RCMP.However Environment Canada does not havean MOU with DFO and the 1991 MOU withDepartment of Agriculture is outdated.
• Environment Canada has signed MOUsregarding the implementation of
3
WAPPRIITA with some, but not all of theprovinces and territories.
• Environment Canada’s regional enforcementstaffs provide much of the interagencytraining conducted in Canada. Howeverregional enforcement officers have not beenprovided with comprehensive resourcematerials for use in CITES training orinstruction on training techniques. As aresult the CITES training provided to otheragencies by Environment Canada is notconsistent across the country.
Key RecommendationsThe full set of recommendations resultingfrom this study may be found in part 7 of thereport. The following (abbreviated)recommendations are the 10 most important.Execution of these would significantlyimprove Canada’s implementation of CITESand enhance the country’s role in internationalwildlife conservation.
1. The House of Commons StandingCommittee on Environment andSustainable Development should reviewthe financial and human resourcesavailable for the administration andenforcement of CITES in Canada.
2. Environment Canada should ensure that allrequired amendments to the WAPTRregarding changes made to the CITESAppendices and are made within the 90-day period required by WAPPRIITA.
3. Environment Canada should conduct areview of trade records to ensure that thedata from both Canadian and foreignpermits are being collected and the data
compiled for CITES annual reports meetthe criteria set in CITES Article VIII(6)(b).
4. The government of Canada must meet itsobligations to file CITES annual reports bythe deadline of October 31 of the followingyear, as required by the Convention.
5. Environment Canada should develop andmake public a policy and procedure forimplementing CITES Decisions andResolutions in Canada.
6. Environment Canada should develop andinstitute comprehensive trainingprogrammes on CITES and theidentification of wildlife products for allofficers actively involved in CITESenforcement.
7. Environment Canada should address thedeficiencies of NEMISIS including thedesign and performance of the databaseand the process by which data are entered.
8. Environment Canada should implement thepersonal and household effects exemption[WAPTR section 15] as it is written.Specifically the exemption should beapplied only to goods that come fromcountries that do not require the prior grantof an export permit for those goods.
9. Environment Canada should institute the useof wildlife declaration forms for Canada.
10. The government Canada must ensure thateither Canada Customs continues to verifyCITES permits, or that EnvironmentCanada is provided with the resourcesrequired to effectively assume allresponsibility for this activity.
4
This report provides an overview andevaluation of Canada’s implementation ofCITES. It explores whether Canada’s currentlegislative, administrative and enforcementsystems comply with its CITES obligationsand identifies areas where there is need forimprovement. Drawing upon over 25 years ofCITES experience held by the globalTRAFFIC network, the report provides asynopsis of the existing system ofimplementation, highlighting successes andfailures, and offers constructiverecommendations for improvement.
In an in-depth review of Canada’simplementation of CITES Douglas Hykle(1988) noted that there had been nocomprehensive assessments of Canada’sperformance in implementing the Conventionsince its inception. The adoption ofWAPPRIITA in 1996 significantly improvedCanada’s legislative capacity to implementCITES. WAPPRIITA has regulated the importand export of wild animals and plants into andout of Canada for more than six years.Although a few reports have consideredvarious aspects of Canada’s implementation ofCITES since Hykle’s work (for exampleChalifour [1996]) TRAFFIC North America is
unaware of any comprehensive reviews ofCanada’s implementation of the Conventionsince WAPPRIITA was passed.
This report is divided into eight parts. Thisintroduction concludes part 1. Part 2 describesthe methods used to research the report andpart 3 provides background, including a briefdescription of CITES and a short historicaloverview of Canada’s CITES implementationprior to the passage of WAPPRIITA. Parts 4, 5and 6 analyze the legislation, administrationand enforcement components of CITESimplementation in Canada. Part 7 concludeswith an assessment of CITES implementationin Canada and provides recommendationsresulting from the analysis and evaluation inthis report.
The implementation of CITES in Canada is theresponsibility of Environment Canada,therefore the report focuses primarily on theactivities of this government department. Thereport does not consider how Canadaimplements its international participatorycommitments under CITES, such asparticipating in meetings of the Conference ofthe Parties or contributing to the CITESSecretariat’s budget.
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
6
The information in this report was obtainedthrough literature reviews, Internet searchesand both verbal and written interviews.Published information on CITES in Canadawas distinctly lacking. Public CITES annualreports have not been published for a decade,and the WAPPRIITA annual reports are lackingin detail. Much of the data provided for thisreport had to be obtained through personalcontacts and requests for information, andmany times the solicited information wasunavailable or at least not easily accessible.
Information was obtained through verbal andwritten interviews with government staffinvolved in the implementation of CITES inCanada. These interviews were conductedbetween 1998 and 2004 with representativesfrom Agriculture Canada, Alberta Departmentof Sustainable Resource Development, BritishColumbia Ministry of Water, Land and AirProtection, Canada Customs, Canadian FoodInspection Agency (CFIA), Canadian ForestService (CFS), Environment Canada,Environment Yukon, Fisheries and OceansCanada (DFO), Manitoba Conservation, NewBrunswick Dept of Natural Resources andEnergy, Newfoundland and Labrador ForestResources and Agrifoods, NorthwestTerritories Wildlife and EconomicDevelopment, Nunavut Wildlife Service,Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, PrinceEdward Island Department of FisheriesAquaculture and Environment, Protection de laFaune, Société de la Faune et des Parcs, RoyalCanadian Mounted Police (RCMP), andSaskatchewan Department of Environment andResource Management
Before publication the report was offered forreview to the Director General of the CanadianWildlife Service, and David Brackett, Chair ofthe World Conservation Union (IUCN) SpeciesSurvival Commission and former DirectorGeneral of the Canadian Wildlife Service.
In some cases data provided from governmentsources corresponded to the fiscal year for theCanadian government, which runs from April 1to March 31. For example, ‘fiscal year2000–2001’ would refer to the period fromApril 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001.
All currency figures used in this report are inCanadian dollars followed (in brackets) with theUS dollar value at April 2004 conversion rates.
The name of the Canadian government bodyresponsible for Customs operations haschanged twice during the time period coveredin this report. Prior to 1999 Canadian customsborder services was the mandate of RevenueCanada. In 1999 the Canada Customs andRevenue Agency (CCRA) was established toadminister and enforce Canadian customs andtaxation responsibilities (Anon., 1999a). In2003 the Canada Border Services Agency(CBSA) was created to integrate the Customsprogram from the CCRA, the Intelligence,Interdiction and Enforcement program fromCitizenship and Immigration Canada, and theImport Inspection at Ports of Entry programfrom the CFIA (Anon., 2004a). In order tominimize confusion this report uses the genericterm ‘Canada Customs’ in place of RevenueCanada, CCRA and CBSA.
7
2.0 METHODS
8
Millions of wild animals and plants are tradedinternationally each year. The World CustomsOrganization reports that approximately 25 000to 30 000 primates, 9 million to 10 millionorchids, 2 million to 5 million live birds,500 000 wild parrots and parakeets, 10 millionreptile skins, 15 million furs, 7 million to 8 million cacti and more than 500 milliontropical fish are traded annually across nationalborders (Anon., 1998l). This list isvoluminous, but it does not reflect thesignificant volume of commercial trade intimber and food fish or the countless productsmade from wildlife parts and derivatives.
The trade in wild animals and plants and theirderivatives is estimated to be worth billions ofdollars every year. The majority of this trade isconducted legally, but a significant proportion isbelieved to be conducted contrary to domesticand international regulations (Anon., 2001a).
For many species overexploitation, illegalhunting and collection are major conservationthreats. Tigers (Panthera tigris), for instance,are poached for their bones, skins and otherparts. Although tigers are endangered for anumber of reasons, including loss of habitat,poaching is currently one of the mostimmediate threats to the tiger’s survival in thewild (Nowell, 2000). Approximately 85 percent of the world’s rhinoceroses areestimated to have been poached since 1970 fortheir horns, possibly giving rhinos theunfortunate distinction of being the mostrapidly depleted family for commerce (Nowellet al, 1992). Many other groups of species,such as crocodilians, fur-bearing mammals,parrots, primates, cacti and orchids, have beenoverexploited due to a demand for them as petsor trophies, or for parts or products made fromthem (Fitzgerald, 1989).
In 1973 21 countries formally recognized theconservation implications of internationalmarkets for wildlife and the need forinternational co-operation to regulate cross-border flows of wildlife by signing CITES. OnJuly 1, 1975, it entered into force after the 10thratification (Wijnstekers, 2001). Canada wasthe 10th nation to ratify CITES, bringing thetreaty into force on July 9, 1975. As ofDecember 30 2003, 164 nations had ratified or
acceded to CITES (Anon., 2003l).
The aim of the Convention is to prohibitinternational trade in endangered species, withlimited exceptions, and regulate commercialinternational trade in species vulnerable tooverexploitation due to trade. The treaty’spreamble recognizes that ‘internationalcooperation is essential for the protection ofcertain species of wild fauna and flora againstover-exploitation through international trade’(Anon., 1973). More information about CITESmay be found in Appendix A of this report.
The Convention has sometimes been hailed asthe most effective international instrument inthe conservation of biological diversity(Hemley, 2000). However CITES has alsoreceived its share of criticism (’t Sas-Rolfes,2000). As is the case with most internationaltreaties CITES’ success is dependent on howwell signatory countries implement theConvention’s rules. Although fullimplementation of CITES can be complex andexpensive, research and experience havedemonstrated that good will, collaboration andcreativity can go a long way towards makingeffective CITES implementation a reality(Allan, 1997).
3.1 Trade Volume in CanadaCanada is the second largest country in theworld, with a landmass covering almost 10million square kilometres. From east to westCanada encompasses six time zones. Its borderincludes three oceans, which give it the longestcoastline of any country. Canada shares 8 891kilometres of border with the United States(Anon., 2003b). The volume of trade in goodsacross Canada’s borders is significant andincreasing. In 2000 more than 12 millioncommercial shipments were imported into thecountry (that number is increasing by anaverage of 500 000 each year), and more than104 million travellers were processed byCanada Customs (P. Clydesdale, PacificRegion Commercial Analyst, Intelligence andContraband Division, Canada Customs, in litt.to E. Cooper, July 5, 2002). The value of theimport trade in 2000 was CAD356.7 billion(USD265.4) (Anon., 2002t).
9
3.0 BACKGROUND
Goods enter and leave the country by air, sea,rail and road and via the mail or courierservices. The majority of commercialshipments and travellers typically arrive inthree areas of Canada: south-western BritishColumbia (near the city of Vancouver),southern Ontario and southern Québec. In1995 the busiest ports (including commercialtraffic and travellers) were VancouverInternational Airport, Vancouver PacificHighway, both the Windsor Bridge andWindsor Tunnel on the Ontario border withMichigan (USA), Toronto’s PearsonInternational Airport, and Montréal’s MirabelInternational Airport (Anon., 1995).
In 1997, Pearson International Airport inToronto alone shipped 370 000 tonnes of aircargo (accounting for 44 percent of all aircargo carried into Canada) (Anon., 2001c). Infiscal year 2002-2003, Canada Customsofficers at Pearson Airport processed1 044 584 commercial shipments (an averageof approximately 2900 shipments per day) (J.Laurin, Senior Program Officer, CanadaCustoms, in litt. to E. Cooper, Sept. 16, 2003).Also in fiscal year 2002-2003, 1 625 559commercial shipments were imported throughthe Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, Ontario,(the busiest single port in Canada).Approximately 5000 trucks pass through thisport every day (J. Laurin in litt. to E. Cooper,Sept. 16, 2003).
In addition to cargo shipments and goodsaccompanying travellers, tens of thousands ofmail and courier parcels enter Canada each day.In fiscal year 2002-2003, more than 24 millioncourier shipments were imported into Canada(J. Laurin in litt. to E. Cooper, Sept. 16, 2003).
There is clearly a significant volume of trafficcrossing into and out of Canada that mayinclude CITES specimens. The high overallvolume of goods poses a major challenge forensuring that goods are being screened forcompliance with CITES.
3.2 CITES in Canada Canada, like all Parties to CITES, isresponsible for implementing the provisions ofthe Convention domestically. The fact thatCanada has signed an international agreementdoes not automatically make all the provisionsof that agreement part of its domestic legal
system. The government must incorporate themeasures into its domestic law. At a minimumCanada must legislate the ‘non-self-executingcommitments’ in CITES (de Klemm, 1993).
Every CITES Party has a unique set of factorsinfluencing that Party’s implementation of theConvention. The volume of international trade,production and consumption of wildlifeproducts, size and state of the economy,availability of resources and politicalcommitment to the objectives of CITES aresome of the factors to consider.
Canada is a country for which internationaltrade is very important. Exports of goods andservices account for 43 percent of thecountry’s gross domestic product (GDP)(Anon., 2000i). Rich in natural resources,Canada is an exporter of many wild animalsand plants and their products, such as furs, fishand timber. It is also an importer of wildanimals and plants, such as live birds, reptiles,primates, cacti and orchids, as well as productssuch as medicines containing derivatives ofwildlife as ingredients and fashion accessoriesmade of reptile skin (Anon., 2003k).
Under Canada’s Constitution, the conservationand management of wildlife are a sharedresponsibility between the federal and theprovincial and territorial governments. Theprovinces and territories have jurisdiction overwildlife within their borders, and the federalgovernment has jurisdiction over coastal andinland fisheries (including marine mammals)and migratory birds and wildlife on federal land(i.e., national parks). The federal governmentalso has jurisdiction over international andinterprovincial trade (Anon., 1867).
Canada’s vast size and large number of bordercrossing points, along with the jurisdictionaldivision of powers over wildlife, increase thecomplexity of regulating wildlife trade in thecountry. However, Canada has the advantage ofbeing a prosperous nation with resources toimplement its international commitments,particularly in comparison to many of thedeveloping nations that are Parties to CITES.In addition, because of the importance ofinternational trade to the Canadian economy,there is already a strong border infrastructurefor monitoring trade in drugs, tobacco,firearms and other potential contraband. Thesefactors place Canada in a good position tosuccessfully monitor trade in wildlife.
10
CITES is an international agreement to whichcountries join voluntarily. After joining, eachcountry must adopt its own domesticlegislation to make sure that CITES isimplemented at the national level.
4.1 BackgroundFrom the ratification of CITES in 1975 until1996 Canada implemented the Convention viathe Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA)—legislation that existed when the treaty wasratified. The EIPA is a statute used by CanadaCustoms on behalf of the Department ofForeign Affairs and International Trade(DFAIT) to regulate trade in certaincommodities. The EIPA contains an ExportControl List and Import Control List, and theact requires trade in those commoditiesincluded on these lists to be accompanied by apermit (Anon., 1970a). Upon ratification ofCITES the Canadian government added thespecies included on the CITES Appendices tothe Control Lists, thus requiring permits fortrade. It also designated Environment Canadaas the lead agency for administering CITESand created Management and ScientificAuthorities within Environment Canada. Inaddition to the EIPA the Game Export Actrequired permits for interprovincial transportand export of game killed in another provinceor territory, which could include CITES-listedspecies such as the American black bear(Ursus americanus) (Anon., 1970b).
One of the major problems with the EIPAsystem was that Environment Canada wasdesignated as the lead agency for administeringCITES under the EIPA, but it was not giventhe power to enforce the legislation. OnlyCanada Customs and the RCMP wereauthorized to enforce the EIPA. Therefore,although Environment Canada was responsiblefor detecting—and had the expertise to detect—violations of the EIPA relating to CITES-listed species, it did not have adequate powersof search and seizure, or the authority to bringcharges for violations. Instead EnvironmentCanada had to rely on Canada Customs andthe RCMP to follow through on their work.
This resulted in inefficient and ultimately lesseffective enforcement, because it requiredcontinued interagency co-ordination, andCITES was not afforded high priority withinCanada Customs or the RCMP (Hykle, 1988).
The Canadian government stated that relianceon the EIPA to implement CITES was atemporary measure, but it remained theprimary mechanism for CITES implementationfor more than 20 years. The delay indeveloping and implementing a system ofeffective CITES implementation was subject tocriticism, even from within government(Hykle, 1988, Anon., 1995).
In 1992 the federal government draftedWAPPRIITA to provide the legislative basis forachieving implementation of CITES (Anon.,2003r). Although WAPPRIITA received RoyalAssent in 1992, it did not come into force untilMay 14, 1996, when the enabling regulations—the Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations(WAPTR)—were passed.
In Guidelines for Legislation to ImplementCITES (de Klemm, 1993), two main non-self-executing (requiring domestic legislation)obligations are identified in CITES:
1. CITES Article II(4) requires Parties toprohibit trade in specimens of speciesincluded in the CITES Appendices except aspermitted by CITES.
2. CITES Article VIII(1) requires that Partiestake appropriate measures to enforce theConvention. The Convention mandates thatsuch measures include penalizing trade in orpossession of specimens in violation of therules and provide for confiscation or returnto the state of export of specimens importedin violation of the rules.
In short, the Parties to CITES are obligated toenact legislation that prohibits trade contrary tothe Convention and includes appropriatemeasures to enforce it. Failure to enact suchlegislation would be contrary to theConvention (de Klemm, 1993). Sections 4.2and 4.3 consider how WAPPRIITAincorporates these obligations.
11
4.0 LEGISLATION
4.2 Prohibition of TradeContrary to CITES
Subsection 6(2) of WAPPRIITA prohibits theimport and export of CITES specimens exceptwith a permit or where permitted by theregulations. In addition subsection 6(1) prohibitsthe import into Canada of an animal or plant, orany part thereof, that was taken or possessed incontravention of any foreign law; and section 8makes it an offence to possess specimens whichhave been imported in contravention of thelegislation or to offer CITES Appendix Ispecimens for sale (Anon., 1992b). Sections 1–7and 13 of the WAPTR implement theseelements of WAPPRIITA (Anon., 1996).1
Subsection 6(2) of WAPPRIITA aloneincorporates the first of the two non-self-executing provisions in CITES. Thussubsections 6(1), 6(2) and section 8collectively provide a legislative basis for theregulation of trade in specimens covered byCITES which goes beyond the basic obligationof prohibiting trade contrary to CITES.
In December 1999 the government of Canadapassed regulatory amendments to the WAPTRwhich added an exemption for the import andexport of personal and household effects,including tourist souvenirs. These amendmentsbrought the regulations in accordance with theexemption allowed under Article VII(3) of theConvention (J. Robillard, Deputy CITESAdministrator, Environment Canada, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
The definitions of ‘personal effects, householdeffects and tourist souvenirs’ are found insection 14 of the amendments. They are asfollows (emphasis added):
‘Personal effect’ means any of the followingthings that is imported into or exported fromCanada for other than commercial purposes:
(a) a plant or dead animal, or a part orderivative of one, that is owned andpossessed by an individual in theindividual’s ordinary country of residenceand that, at the time of its import orexport, is part of the individual’s clothingor accessories or is contained in theindividual’s personal baggage; and
(b) a tourist souvenir or a hunting trophy.
‘Household effect’ means a plant or deadanimal, or a part or derivative of one, that isimported to or exported from Canada forother than commercial purposes and that
(a) is owned and possessed by anindividual in the individual’s ordinarycountry of residence and that forms partof the individual’s household belongingsthat are being shipped to or from Canada,to the individual’s new residence; or
(b) forms part of an inheritance from anestate that is imported to or exported from Canada.
‘Tourist souvenir’ means a dead animal,other than a hunting trophy, or a dead plant,or a part or derivative of one, that is listed incolumn I of an item of Schedule I and inrespect of which there is a reference toAppendix II or III of the Convention incolumn II of that item and that is beingimported into their ordinary country ofresidence by an individual who acquired,owned and possessed it outside theirordinary country of residence during asojourn from which they are returning.
Under subsection 15(1) of the amendedregulations an individual does not require animport or export permit issued for a CITES-listed species (including a part or derivative)that is a personal or household effect. Thereare three exceptions:
1. Permits are required for tourist souvenirsfrom a country where they were removedfrom the wild and where that countryrequires export permits.
2. Permits are required for dead plants andanimals (or parts or derivatives other thanfeathers) that are raw, unprocessed, semi-processed or simply dried.
3. Permits are required for hunting trophiesother than those referred to in subsection15(2), outlined below.
Subsection 15(2) of the amendments states thatresidents of Canada or the United States do notrequire import or export permits for black bearhides, skulls or meat, or the carcass or meat of
12
1 Sections 1–7 and 13 cover the following topics respectively: short title, interpretation, fauna and flora listed in anappendix to the convention, importation into Canada, exportation from Canada and possession exemptions.
sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis). Thisexemption applies only to fresh, frozen orsalted items that were acquired through legalhunting and only when importing or exportingbetween Canada and the United States.
The application of CITES to specimens thatare personal or household effects is covered byCITES Article VII(3) and ResolutionConference 10.6.
CITES Article VII(3) states:
The provisions of Articles III, IV and Vshall not apply to specimens that arepersonal or household effects. Thisexemption shall not apply where:
(a) in the case of specimens of a speciesincluded in Appendix I, they wereacquired by the owner outside his State ofusual residence, and are being importedinto that State; or
(b) in the case of specimens of speciesincluded in Appendix II:
(i) they were acquired by the owneroutside his State of usual residence andin a State where removal from the wildoccurred;
(ii) they are being imported into theowner’s State of usual residence; and
(iii) the State where removal from thewild occurred requires the prior grantof export permits before any export ofsuch specimens; unless a ManagementAuthority is satisfied that the specimenswere acquired before the provisions ofthe present Convention applied to suchspecimens.
Based on this language, Canada’s regulationsfor hunting trophies are narrower than theConvention’s text.
CITES Resolution Conference 10.6 (whichconcerns control of trade in tourist souvenirspecimens) recognizes that some species inboth Appendixes I and II continue to be soldwidely as tourist souvenirs. The resolutionurges Parties to make their best efforts tocomply fully with the purpose of the
Convention with respect to tourist souvenirslisted in Appendix II and in particular tocontrol export and import of specimens ofspecies likely to be adversely affected byheavy trade.
The wording of CITES Resolution Conference10.6 is imprecise, but CITES Article VII(3) isclear, and the definitions provided in theWAPTR amendments conform with—or aremore strict than—that text. Therefore it wouldappear that the obligation to prohibit tradecontrary to CITES is still met as long as theamendments are appropriately administeredand enforced.
4.3 Appropriate Measures toEnforce the Convention
Appropriate measures to enforce theConvention include a strong enforcementstructure as well as penalties for violating theact that will sufficiently deter violations.WAPPRIITA clearly meets both of theserequirements.
WAPPRIITA authorizes a strong enforcementstructure. Section 12 of WAPPRIITAauthorizes the Minister of the Environment todesignate officers to enforce the act, andsections 13 and 14 confer broad powers ofsearch and seizure, detention and inspectionupon the officers (Anon., 1992b). Theseofficers can be from Environment Canada orother government departments. Under theEIPA, only Canada Customs and the RCMPwere authorized to enforce the act. Theexpansion of enforcement powers toEnvironment Canada (and potentially othergovernment departments) was a significantchange in that it allowed for the build-up ofcapacity with wildlife expertise.
WAPPRIITA imposes significant penalties forviolating the act. Section 22 allows forcontraventions of the act to be prosecuted aseither summary or indictable offences.2 Anindividual may be fined up to CAD25 000(USD18 599), face imprisonment for up to sixmonths or both for summary violations of theact. For indictable offences, fines can reach up
13
2 Indictable offences are considered to be very serious and are usually tried by federally appointed judges. Convictionsresult in severe sentences. Murder and sexual assault are examples of crimes which would always be treated as indictableoffences. In comparison, summary offences are not considered to be as serious and result in less time-consuming legalprocedures and lesser sentences. Examples of offences which would always be treated as summary offences includecausing a disturbance or trespassing.
14
to CAD150 000 (USD111 553) orimprisonment for up to five years. Fines forcorporations are even higher—up toCAD50 000 (USD37 195) for summaryconvictions or CAD300 000 (USD223 160) forthe more serious indictable offences. A fineequal to profits gained by the illegal activitymay also be imposed. In addition section 23authorizes officers to bring charges by issuingpenalty tickets on the spot for designatedminor offences (Anon., 1992b).
WAPPRIITA allows fines imposed uponconviction for offences involving more thanone animal, plant or derivative to be computedin respect of each specimen, as though it wasthe subject of a separate complaint. Subsection22(4) allows an offence committed on morethan one day to be deemed a separate offencefor each day, allowing maximum fines to beimposed for each offence (Anon., 1992b). Bothof these provisions can substantially raise thepenalty ceiling.
The maximum penalties provided underWAPPRIITA are significantly higher than thepenalties available under the EIPA. The EIPAonly allows a maximum fine of CAD5000(USD3719), imprisonment for up to 12 monthsor both for summary offences and a maximumfine of CAD25 000 (USD18 599),imprisonment for up to 5 years or both forindictable offences.
In December 1999 WAPPRIITA wasstrengthened through an amendment to theWAPTR that made specific reference tolabelling. This amendment was made at leastpartly in response to an international effort tocrack down on manufactured medicinalproducts (pharmaceuticals) that list CITESAppendix I species such as the tiger in theiringredients. Determining the ingredients of amanufactured pharmaceutical product throughforensic analysis is not usually possible(Petrar, 1999). Therefore the packaging ofthese products frequently provides the onlysource of information as to the contents of theproduct.
CITES Article I(b) defines specimens ofanimals and plants as being ‘any readilyrecognizable part or derivative thereof.’
Resolution Conference 9.6 (Revised)clarifies this definition:
…that the term ‘readily recognizable part orderivative’, as used in the Convention, shallbe interpreted to include any specimenwhich appears from an accompanyingdocument, the packaging or a mark or label,or from any other circumstances, to be apart or derivative of an animal or plant of aspecies included in the Appendices, unlesssuch part or derivative is specificallyexempted from the provisions of theConvention.
Furthermore, CITES Resolution Conference11.5 urges
d) all Parties to treat any product claimingto contain tiger specimens as a readilyrecognizable tiger derivative andtherefore subject to the provisionsrelating to Appendix I species, asprovided for in Resolution Conf. 9.6(Rev.), and to enact legislation where itdoes not exist, to fully implement theseprovisions for such products;….
Section 20 of the amended WAPTR states:
Where a person imports into Canada orexports from Canada any thing that isidentified by a mark, label or accompanyingdocument that indicates that the thing is ananimal or plant, or a part or derivative ofone, that is listed in Schedule I [CITESAppendices I, II or III] or II, that thing is,unless there is evidence that raises areasonable doubt to the contrary, deemed tobe the thing so identified.
In other words, if a product includes CITES-listed animals or plants as ingredients on itspackaging, then the ingredients will beconsidered accurate for the purposes ofenforcement unless there is reasonableevidence to the contrary. For example the tigeris included in Appendix I of CITES. To importinto Canada a medicine that listed tiger in itsingredients would require the issuance ofCITES import and export permits unless therewas reasonable evidence that the ingredientsdocumentation was inaccurate.
Most Canadian law follows the principle thatan accused is ‘innocent until proven guilty’.However, WAPTR section 20 creates asituation wherein importers of products listingCITES species in their ingredients areconsidered guilty of a violation unless they can
prove themselves innocent.3 According toEnvironment Canada’s Deputy CITESAdministrator, the phrase ‘unless there isevidence that raises a reasonable doubt to thecontrary’ was added to render the regulation inline with the Charter of Rights; otherwise itwould not have been approved by JusticeCanada (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July26, 2002).
The amendment to the WAPTR improves thegovernment’s capability to enforce CITES inCanada. However the regulation does notcompel the need to document the contents of aproduct. In other words, the easiest way tocircumvent this regulation is to simply not listingredients on packaging or ship the packagingseparately from the product.
Section 20 of the amended WAPTR has beenused in at least one successful prosecution(under a guilty plea) in November 2000 (seeconviction number 37 in Appendix D).
4.4 Other LegislationThere are other pieces of Canadian legislationin addition to WAPPRIITA that relate to theimplementation of CITES. The Criminal Codecontains provisions that could be applied forenforcement of CITES. For example, if fraudor concealment is involved, criminal charges
could be brought in addition to (or in lieu of)charges under WAPPRIITA (Anon., 1985a).The Customs Act is also relevant to CITES inthat it empowers Customs Officers to inspectany shipments and monitor trade in anycommodity at the border. The Customs Actpermits Customs Officers to questiontravellers, commercial importers and carriersabout the goods they are importing and toinspect them, as well as to seize relevant itemsif there is evidence the act has beencontravened (Anon., 1985b).
Provincial and territorial wildlife laws alsohave relevance to CITES, particularly in thecase of exports of native Canadian wildlife.For instance most provinces and territories inCanada require permits for exports of fur-bearing mammals and big game (see, forexample, Anon., 1997c and Anon., 2000c).Some of these species, such as American blackbear are listed on CITES and therefore requireCITES export permits in addition. At least oneprovince (Québec) has modified its provincialwildlife regulations so that it could use CITESexport permits in lieu of its own provincialexport permit to satisfy the requirements of theprovincial legislation and thereby remove thenecessity of having to issue two permits for thesame shipment (J. Robillard, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 26, 2002).
15
3 This is an example of ‘reverse onus’.
16
5.1 BackgroundThe responsibility for administering CITES inCanada falls to Environment Canada. Since1999 this department has been operating undera banner of four priority areas covering itsentire mandate: clean environment, nature,weather and environmental predictions, andmanagement, policy and administration.Environment Canada spent approximatelyCAD792 million (USD589 million) during its1999–2000 fiscal year, with 39 percent spenton weather, 29 percent on clean environment,18 percent on nature and 14 percent onmanagement (Anon., 2000g).
The implementation of CITES falls within thenature section of Environment Canada’s work.The nature section has three articulated goals:conservation of biodiversity (notably theestablishment of the Species at Risk Act[SARA4] and managing snow geesepopulations), understanding and reducinghuman impacts on the health of theenvironment and conservation and restorationof priority ecosystems. CITES is notmentioned in the nature or any other section ofEnvironment Canada’s public planningdocuments (Anon., 2000h). An annualperformance report from Environment Canadacontains a summary of actions taken underWAPPRIITA (such as the number of permitsissued) but does not state the CITESimplementation budget, nor does it indicatewhere responsibility for CITES falls within thedepartment’s priorities (Anon., 2000g). InEnvironment Canada’s SustainableDevelopment Strategy 2001–2003 one of thedepartment’s identified roles in the naturepriority area is ‘representing Canada’s interestsin international arenas dealing with wildlife,ecosystem health and biodiversity’, but CITESis not mentioned specifically (Anon., 2001m).Environment Canada’s Estimates 2000–2001,which includes a part on future plans andpriorities, makes no mention of WAPPRIITAor CITES except to note that the departmentwill update Schedule I of WAPPRIITA inaccordance with changes to the CITESAppendices (Anon., 2000h).
TRAFFIC North America identified thefollowing administrative requirements for theadministration of CITES in Canada:
• establishment of a CITES managementauthority;
• establishment of a CITES scientificauthority;
• allocation of resources;
• co-ordination of national CITESimplementation;
• development of legislation, regulations and policies;
• publication of the CITES Appendices and amendments;
• recording of trade data;
• production of CITES reports;
• implementation of CITES Decisions andResolutions;
• establishment of permit forms;
• completion of findings prior to issuingpermits and
• issuance of permits.
5.2 Management Authority CITES Article IX(1)(a) requires that each Partydesignate one or more Management Authoritiescompetent to grant permits or certificates.
In Canada the jurisdiction over wildlifemanagement is divided between the federalgovernment and provincial and territorialgovernments (Anon., 1867). As a result CITESmanagement is also shared. The CanadianNational CITES Management Authority is partof the Canadian Wildlife Service, withinEnvironment Canada, located in Gatineau,Québec (Anon., 2001o). In addition there areManagement Authorities within the federalFisheries and Oceans Canada (formerlyDepartment of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO]),the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and theprovinces and territories. Provinces andterritories may have more than one permit-issuing office. All together there are
17
5.0 ADMINISTRATION
4 The goal of SARA is to protect Canadian wildlife at risk from becoming extinct and further the recovery of wildpopulations. SARA prohibits the killing, harassing or capturing of species officially listed as threatened, endangered orextirpated, as well as the destruction of their habitat (Anon., 2002s).
approximately 90 permit-issuing offices acrossCanada (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper July26, 2002). Alberta withdrew from CITESadministration in 1995 (J. Robillard, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).However, the province does provide contactpersons to assist the National Authorities inissuing CITES permits to Albertans (e.g. toanswer questions related to non-detrimentfindings or the legality of specimens) (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper May 31, 2004).
Prior to 2004 the National CITES ManagementAuthority consisted of a chief, three core staffand three support staff (J. Robillard, in.litt. toE. Cooper, July 26, 2002). As of May 2003 thechief position had been vacant since itscreation [for more than two years] (A. Sinclair,Acting Scientific Authority for CITES, in litt.to E. Cooper, May 6, 2003). As of January 1,2004, the Management and ScientificAuthorities were merged to form the Wildlifeand International Division (WTI) and a Chiefof the WTI was created. According toEnvironment Canada’s Deputy CITESAdministrator, an International Section willeventually be added to the WTI. TheManagement Authority position was stillvacant as of April 2004, with the DeputyAdministrator temporarily assuming theManagement Authority responsibilities (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper April 19, 2004).
The National CITES Management Authority’sfive or six staff are responsible for publishingthe CITES Appendices and amendments;compiling records of trade; compiling andpublishing CITES reports; implementingResolutions and Decisions; co-ordinatingnational CITES implementation; developinglegislation, regulations, policies and permitforms and issuing thousands of permits andcertificates per year. In addition the NationalCITES Management Authority responds tonumerous public enquiries, provides advice oninterpretation of the Convention toenforcement staff, promotes awareness ofCITES in Canada, co-ordinates ManagementAuthority functions relating to the Secretariatand other Parties and prepares for andparticipates in meetings of the Conference ofthe Parties to the Convention (CoPs) and theCITES Standing Committee (J. Robillard, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).
The office of the head of the ManagementAuthority within DFO is in Ottawa. DFO alsohas a CITES Administrator, who handlesexport permits and record keeping at thenational level, in Winnipeg (J. Robillard, in litt.to E. Cooper, September 18, 2001). The DFOCITES Administrator co-ordinates and trains ateam of regional designees, who haveresponsibility for issuing export permits formarine species. There are approximately 12such regional designees (P. Hall, DFO CITESAdministrator, Fisheries and Oceans Canada,pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, June 5, 2001).
The Management Authority for the CFS is theSenior Policy Advisor for International Affairs,in Ottawa (Anon., 2002q). The CFS, contraryto other Canadian CITES ManagementAuthorities, does not issue CITES exportpermits (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July26, 2002). Currently, the CFS ManagementAuthority acts solely as an advisor to theNational CITES Management Authority.Hypothetically, however, if a Canadian timberspecies was listed by CITES, and if someprovincial or territorial authorities opted not toaccept the responsibility for issuing exportpermits for that species, then the CFSManagement Authority would likely assumethat responsibility (M. Fullerton, Senior PolicyAdvisor for International Affairs, CFS, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, Feb 26, 2003).
The provincial and territorial ManagementAuthorities are located within the wildlifedepartments of provincial and territorialNatural Resource or Environment Ministries(see table 5.1).
5.3 Scientific Authority CITES Article IX(1)(b) requires each Party todesignate one or more Scientific Authorities.
The Scientific Authority of EnvironmentCanada works on a variety of issues—such asCITES, SARA, invasive species and so on—forwhich there is ad hoc staff. Prior to January2004, the CITES Scientific Authority consistedof the CITES Scientific Authority andInternational Co-ordinator, who reported to theChief of the Scientific Authority, plus twoadvisors on trade issues (one for plants and onefor animals) on trade issues and one additionalstaff under contract (T. Swerdfager, DirectorGeneral, Canadian Wildlife Service, in litt. to
18
19
Province or territory Management Authority Scientific Authority
Alberta Head of Enforcement Operations Provincial Wildlife Status BiologistCITES management Authority Fish & Wildlife DivisionAlberta Environment SRD CITES Scientific Authority
British Columbia Deputy Director Endangered Species SpecialistGovernment of British Columbia Fish & Wildlife Recreation & Allocation Fish & Wildlife Recreation & Allocation Ministry of Water, Land & Air ProtectionMinistry of Water, Land & Air Protection
Manitoba Permits/Legislative Clerk Chief, Biodiversity ConservationNon-game & Endangered Species Mgt. Wildlife BranchWildlife Branch Manitoba ConservationManitoba Conservation
New Brunswick Executive Director Program Manager, Big Game & FurbearersFish & Wildlife Branch Fish & Wildlife BranchDepartment of Natural Resources & Energy Department of Natural Resources & Energy
Newfoundland and Director, Inland Fish & Wildlife Division Endangered Species & Biodiversity SectionLabrador Department of Tourism, Culture & Recreation Inland Fish & Wildlife Division
Department of Tourism, Culture & Recreation
Northwest Territories Manager, Enforcement & Legislative Services Director Wildlife & FisheriesResources, Wildlife & Economic Resources, Wildlife & Economic Development Development
Nova Scotia Director, Wildlife Management Director, Wildlife ManagementDepartment of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources
Nunavut Senior Advisor, Legislation & Enforcement Director Wildlife & Environmental Protection Nunavut Wildlife Service, DSDDepartment of Sustainable Development
Ontario Director DirectorFish & Wildlife Branch Applied Research & Development BranchMinistry of Natural resources Ministry of Natural Resources
Prince Edward Island CITES Management & Scientific Authority CITES Management & Scientific Authority& Director & DirectorConservation & Management Division Conservation & Management DivisionDepartment of the Environment & Energy Department of the Environment & Energy
Québec CITES Management Authority — Animals CITES Scientific Authority — AnimalsDirection des permis et de la tarification Direction du développement de la fauneSociété de la faune et des parcs du Québec Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec
CITES Management & Scientific Authority CITES Management and Scientific Authority— Flora — FloraDirection du patrimoine écologique et du Direction du patrimoine écologique et du développement durable développement durableMinistère de l'Environnement Ministère de l'Environnement
Saskatchewan Legislation Administrator Legislation AdministratorWildlife Branch Wildlife BranchDepartment of Parks & Renewable Department of Parks & RenewableResources Resources
Yukon Director, Conservation DirectorProtection and Public Education Fish and Wildlife BranchDepartment of Environment Department of Renewable Resources
Table 5.1 Provincial and Territorial CITES Management and ScientificAuthorities
Source: Anon. (2002q)
E. Cooper, October 14, 2003). As of May 2003the chief position had been vacant since itscreation [for more than two years] (A. Sinclair,in litt. to E. Cooper, May 6, 2003). As reportedpreviously (see section 5.2, ‘ManagementAuthority’) as of January 1, 2004, theManagement and Scientific Authorities weremerged to form the Wildlife and InternationalDivision (WTI) and the CITES ScientificAuthority and International Co-ordinator nowreports to the Chief of the WTI (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper April 19, 2004).
DFO has a Scientific Authority for advising theDFO Management Authority with respect tonon-detriment findings for aquatic species (B.von Arx, CITES Scientific Authority andInternational Coordinator, EnvironmentCanada, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9,2001). Environment Canada’s CITES websitelists two representatives of DFO as theScientific Authority: Scientific Advisor, Speciesat Risk Program; and Director, FisheriesResearch Branch. The CFS also provides aScientific Authority: the Science Advisor,Biodiversity, Science Branch (Anon., 2002q).
Scientific Authorities are also designated in theprovinces and territories to determine whetherthe export of a specimen of a species fromtheir jurisdictions would be detrimental to thesurvival of the species in question (B. von Arx,pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).The Scientific Authorities for the provincesand territories are listed in table 5.1.
5.4 Allocation of ResourcesCurrently the National CITES ManagementAuthority has an operating budget (the costs ofrunning the office, not including salaries—office supplies, overhead, travel and so forth) ofapproximately CAD100 000 (USD74 382) (J.Robillard, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March9, 2001). The National Scientific Authority hasan operating budget of approximatelyCAD30 000 (USD22 316) (B. von Arx, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).
The DFO CITES Administrator reported in2001 that the time spent on CITES rangesfrom a small proportion to more than50 percent. There is a budget of CAD5000(USD3719) for CITES activities, such astraining for issuing permits (P. Hall, DFOCITES Administrator, Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, June 5,2001). The duties of the DFO ScientificAuthority require approximately 25 percent ofone full-time position (B. von Arx, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).
Provincial and territorial ManagementAuthorities are unlikely to spend more than25 percent of their time on CITES issues (J.Robillard, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March9, 2001). The budgets for CITESimplementation are part of the provincial orterritorial department budgets and vary fromjurisdiction to jurisdiction.
5.5 Co-ordination of NationalCITES Implementation
According to Environment Canada’s DeputyCITES Administrator, the National CITESManagement Authority co-ordinates theissuance of permits by the provinces andterritories through several means (J. Robillard,in litt. to E. Cooper, July 26, 2002):
• routine calls to and from the provincial andterritorial Management Authorities;
• copies of updated information on theconvention through CITES Notifications,Resolutions and Decisions;
• direction and interpretations to Canadianauthorities through regular mailings and
• notifying the provincial and territorialManagement Authorities of permit errorsand deviations from the prescribedprocedures.
The National CITES Management Authorityinitiated a programme of visiting and trainingthe provincial and territorial ManagementAuthorities in 1975. However this wassuspended from 1995 until 2001 because oflack of sufficient personnel in the nationalCITES office. This was also a period of severecutbacks in the budgets and personnel of allprovincial wildlife services, and hiring staff inthe national CITES office was stopped, thusreducing opportunities for training (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
In January 2002 the National CITESManagement Authority began issuing theCITES-Canada Monthly Newsletter (via emailand post) to the provincial and territorialManagement Authorities and other interested
20
parties (J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,March 27, 2002). This newsletter was intendedto include a summary of notifications from theSecretariat and other information pertinent toCITES implementation in Canada or thatprovincial, territorial and other federalagencies want to share (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 26, 2002). Unfortunately theproduction of the CITES-Canada MonthlyNewsletter has been sporadic.
Another positive step towards improving thecoordination of national implementation hasbeen the development of the Canadian CITESwebsite. The website was launched in December2001 and is maintained by the NationalScientific Authority (T. Swerdfager, in litt. to E.Cooper, October 14, 2003). The websiteprovides information on CITES and itsadministration in Canada including the overallstructure of CITES (with links to official CITESdocuments); permit requirements; WAPPRIITA;CITES listed animals and plants; the conf ofparties; relevant Canadian CITES authorities;and the CITES Control list (Anon., 2003c).
The Canadian Management Authorities met asa group in November 2001, at the 20thMeeting of the CITES ManagementAuthorities, Scientific Authorities andEnforcement Authorities. Previously there hadnot been an official meeting since 1994.According to Environment Canada’s DeputyCITES Administrator, the lack of meetingsbetween 1994 and 2001 was due to ‘morepressing priorities and budgetary cutbacks inthe provinces and territories’. Out-of-provincetravel is often a problem for provincial andterritorial authorities, and severalrepresentatives could not attend the November2001 meeting. Nonetheless, 40 participants,including representatives of federalgovernment departments other thanEnvironment Canada, attended the meeting.The participants at the November 2001meeting decided to have biennial meetings
from then on, approximately one year beforeeach CoP (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,December 6, 2001).5 The meeting has alsorevived awareness of the provincial andterritorial offices’ need for training. It wasdecided that training sessions would be offeredin the beginning of 2003, upon request (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
5.6 Development of Legislation,Regulations and Policies
The government of Canada has developedstrong legislation and regulations for theimplementation of CITES in the form ofWAPPRIITA and the WAPTR. The texts ofWAPPRIITA and the WAPTR are readilyavailable on Environment Canada’s website.6
In addition amendments to the WAPTR arepublished in the Canada Gazette, the officialnewspaper of the Canadian government.
Since 1975 the Canadian government hasprovided directives and procedures on how theConvention should be implemented to allprovincial, territorial and other federaldepartments involved in the administration ofCITES. According to Environment Canada’sDeputy CITES Administrator, this has beendone through written communications with thedifferent agencies on an ongoing basis and asthe need has arisen (J. Robillard, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 26, 2002). Since the adoption ofWAPPRIITA, Canada has elevated only oneprocedure to the policy level: the Bengali CatPolicy was approved on September 7, 1999(Anon., 2001e).7 This procedure deviatedfrom the CITES context and thereforewarranted a higher profile. The NationalCITES Management Authority intends torevise and consolidate all applicableprocedures into one document for easierreference. At that time some procedures mayneed to be elevated to policies (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
21
5 Federal, provincial and territorial CITES authorities subsequently met again as a group in November 2003 atEnvironment Canada’s 21st CITES Workshop.
6 http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/wappa/homepg.htm.7 According to the Deputy CITES Administrator, one would adopt a policy rather than a procedure when either (a) the
nature of a decision is not fully in line with the Convention and responds to a particular need or circumstance in theCanadian context or (b) it is important in the context in which it is situated. Procedures are generally of lesserimportance, follow the Convention guidelines and relate more to common operational needs of CITES (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper, March 6, 2003).November 2003 at Environment Canada’s 21st CITES Workshop.
5.7 Publication of the CITESAppendices andAmendments
The list of animals and plants included in theCITES Appendices are published both as acomponent of the WAPTR and in a separatedocument, the CITES Control List. After eachCoP the CITES Control List has been revisedto include the amendments made to theAppendices at that meeting. Successive issuesof the CITES Control List have been updatedand improved, and as a result the most recentversions (July 19, 2000) are much more usefuldocuments than earlier versions.
For example the format of the CITES ControlList reflects the taxonomy of animals andplants. The use of this document may thereforenot be intuitive for users unfamiliar withtaxonomic terms and species classification.Thus the inclusion of an index to scientificnames in CITES Control List No. 10 (1992)was an essential improvement.
The CITES Control List does not record everyspecies or subspecies included in the CITESAppendices. In a case where all members of ahigher taxon (for example family or order) areincluded in an Appendix, then the lower taxa(genus, species and so forth) are notspecifically listed. Where some members of ahigher taxon are included in Appendix I, andall others are in Appendix II, only the taxa inAppendix I are noted in the CITES ControlList. For example the CITES Control Listindicates that all species of snakes in thefamily Pythonidae (pythons) are included ineither Appendix I or II. It goes on to recordthat the Indian python (Python molurusmolurus) is included in Appendix I. Therefore,although it is not specifically mentioned, theAfrican rock python (Python sebae) musttherefore be included in CITES Appendix II.Considering the large number of species insome of the listed higher taxa (for example theOrchidaceae [orchids]), this format allows forthe use of much less space and paper. Howeverit also limits the usefulness of the document.For example a reader unfamiliar with snaketaxonomy would not intuitively recognize thatthe genus Calabaria was part of the family
Pythonidae (using the previous example) andwas thus included in CITES Appendix II. Thisissue was partially resolved by CITES ControlList No. 10 (1992), which added an Addendumof Genera listed in higher taxa.
Environment Canada has not always been timelyin publishing these documents. CITES ControlList No. 8 (1989) was not published until 24months after the amendments made at CoP 6—only three months before the start of the nextCoP. Similarly, CITES Control List No. 9 (1991)was published 15 months after CoP 7. This issuenow seems to have been resolved—the twoissues of the CITES Control List produced priorto 2003 were each been published within 3months of the preceding CoP.
In 2003 the CITES Control List was madeavailable on the Canadian CITES website in aversion identical to the legal version as writtenunder WAPPRIITA. The usefulness of thedocument has been improved through theavailability of a search tool (Anon., 2003f).The search feature enables a user to customizethe list they wish to view or print. The user candisplay a list of CITES species according toselected criteria including Appendix listing,taxa, and origin (Canadian or foreign).Detailed information is provided on Canadianspecies (T. Swerdfager, in litt. to E. Cooper,October 14, 2003).8
WAPPRIITA incorporates the CITES ControlList into Canadian law by reproducing it asSchedule I of the WAPTR. This means thatwhen the CITES listings are amended theWAPTR must be also be amended to reflectthose changes. Section 21(2) of WAPPRIITAstates, ‘The Governor in Council shall makeregulations specifying the animals and plantsthat are listed as “fauna” and “flora”,respectively, in an appendix to the Conventionand shall, not later than ninety days [emphasisadded] after any change to a list in an appendixto the Convention, amend the regulations toreflect that change.’
According to Environment Canada’s Directorfor the Species at Risk Branch, section 21(2) isinterpreted to mean that the 90-day limit startsfrom the date of the notification from theSecretariat concerning changes to the CITESAppendices and not from the date at which an
22
8 The site does not indicate how current the database is.
amendment was approved at a CoP (L. Maltby,Director, Species at Risk Branch, CWS,Environment Canada, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, November 21, 2003).
CITES Article XI indicates that amendments toAppendices I and II are normally made duringa CoP, and Article XVI states that Parties mayamend Appendix III at any time (Anon., 1973).At the time of writing there have been threeCoPs (CoP 10, CoP 11 and CoP 12) sinceWAPPRIITA came into effect (Anon., 2003n).During the same period there have been atleast 13 amendments to CITES Appendix III(see table 5.2). All of these amendments havenecessitated corresponding amendments to theWAPTR within 90 days. The final step of theregulatory process in Canada is to publish theamended regulations in the Canada Gazette.
CoP 10 was held June 9–20, 1997, at whichtime changes to the Appendices were agreed-to
(Anon., 2003n). The amended WAPTRreflecting these changes were published in theMarch 18, 1998 issue of the Canada Gazette—five months past the deadline set by section21(2) of WAPPRIITA (Anon., 1998b).
CoP 11 took place April 10–20, 2000 andagain the Appendices were changed (Anon.,2003n). The CITES Secretariat officiallycommunicated these changes to the Parties in anotification dated June 15, 2000 (Anon.,2000d). On September 13, 2000 EnvironmentCanada published the correspondingamendments to the WAPTR in the CanadaGazette (Anon., 2000b)—just within the90 day deadline.
CoP 12 was held November 3–15, 2002(Anon., 2003n). The CITES Secretariat’sofficial notification of the changes to theAppendices made at the CoP was datedFebruary 7, 2003 (Anon., 2003e). That
23
Date published inSpeciesa Listing countrya Date listeda Canada Gazetteb
Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Bolivia March 19, 1998 March 18, 1998Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Mexico April 29, 1998 Sept. 13, 2000Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Brazil July 26, 1998 Sept. 13, 2000Basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus) United Kingdom Sept. 13, 2000 Sept. 13, 2000Colophon beetles (Colophon spp.) South Africa Sept. 13, 2000 Sept. 13, 2000Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Peru June 12, 2001 Sept. 12, 2001Spanish cedar(Cedrela odorata) Peru June 12, 2001 Sept. 12, 2001Ramin (Gonystylus spp.) Indonesia Aug. 6, 2001 Sept. 12, 2001Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) Colombia Oct. 29, 2001 Dec. 19, 2001Spanish cedar(Cedrela odorata) Colombia Oct. 29, 2001 Dec. 19, 2001Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Australia Oct. 29, 2001 Dec. 19, 2001Almendro (Dipteryx panamensis) Costa Rica Feb. 13, 2003 April 21, 2004Sea cucumber (Isostichopus fuscus) Ecuador Oct. 16, 2003 April 21, 2004
Table 5.2 Amendments to CITES Appendix III (1998–2003)
a. Sources: UNEP-WCMC Database for Animals, UNEP-WCMC Database for Plants, CITES Notification No. 2001/22.b. Sources: Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 132, No. 6 (March 18, 1998); Part II, Vol. 134, No. 19 (September 13, 2000); Part II, Vol. 135, No. 19
(September 12, 2001); Part II, Vol. 135, No. 26 (December 19, 2001); Part II, Vol. 138, No. 8 (April 21, 2004).
document informed the Parties that the newAppendices would be valid as of February 13,2003. Environment Canada did not publish therequired amendment to the WAPT in theCanada Gazette until April 21, 2004—morethan a year past the deadline set byWAPPRIITA (Anon., 2004b).
Table 5.2 summarizes Environment Canada’srecord in amending the WAPTR for changes toCITES Appendix III. Most of the amendmentswere published in the Canada Gazette wellwithin 90 days of Appendix III to CITEScoming into effect. The worst exception wasthe Appendix III listing of bigleaf mahogany(Swietenia macrophylla) by Mexico in April1998 (Anon., 2003d). The correspondingWAPTR amendments were not published inthe Canada Gazette until September 2000,more than two years late (Anon., 2000b). Eventhen the Appendix III listing by Mexico wasincluded in the text as if it had previously beenpublished and not presented as a new listing.The National CITES Management Authoritybelieves that the Mexican listing of bigleafmahogany was not published in the CanadaGazette for such a long period because theywere waiting to receive more amendments andconsolidate all of them in one regulatoryamendment (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 26, 2002).
The most recent Appendix III listings (at thetime of writing) have been that of the almendrotree (Dipteryx panamensis) by Costa Rica,effective as of February 13, 2003 (Anon.,2002i) and an Ecuadorian sea cucumber(Isostichopus fuscus) effective October 16,2003 (Anon., 2003d). The Parties to CITESwere informed of these listings by theSecretariat in notifications dated Nov 15, 2002and August 15, 2003 respectively. The requiredamendments to the WAPT were not publishedin the Canada Gazette until April 21, 2004(Anon., 2004b)—long past the 90 day deadline.
The Director General of the CWS suggested toTRAFFIC North America that 90 days is a veryshort time to make regulatory changes. Hepointed out that the need to meet theobligations of the Convention must be balancedagainst the need for Canadian citizens to bemade aware of regulatory requirements. Hefurther indicated that this balance is achievedthrough extensive consultation before the
meeting and a streamlined regulatory processfor the changes to the Appendices (D. Brackett,Director General, CWS, Environment Canada,in litt. to E. Cooper, December 5, 2001).However the Deputy Director for TRAFFICNorth America has suggested that the need tocomply with the Convention and the need fornotice are not contrary. Complying with a 90-day deadline should enhance the public noticeprocess, not hinder it (C. Hoover, DeputyDirector, TRAFFIC North America, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, December 11, 2001).
5.8 Permit FormsCITES Resolution Conference 12.3 sets out anumber of criteria for standardizing CITESpermits and certificates to assist inspectionagencies in orderly and effective processing ofwildlife shipments, as well as reduce fraudrelating to permits. Annex 1 of the Resolutionspecifies information that permit forms areexpected to incorporate, including names andaddresses of importer and exporter, scientificname of the species in trade, source of thespecimen, quantity and unit of measure ofspecimen and the signature and franking stampof the issuing authority (Anon., 2002r). Notcoincidentally this information corresponds tothat required to be included in the CITESannual reports per CITES Article VIII(7)(Anon., 1973). Annex 2 of ResolutionConference 12.3 includes a standardizedCITES permit form (which can be used forexport, re-export, import or other purposes)that complies with the Resolution.
In January 2001 the National CITESManagement Authority implemented a newform for export permits. This new form is inthe recommended CITES format and onsecurity paper (J. Robillard, pers. comm. to N.Chalifour, March 9, 2001). Previously, Canadaused the EIPA form consisting of two separatedocuments to authorize imports and exports,neither of which conformed to the CITESformat or included space for the CITESsecurity stamp (Hykle, 1988). In late 2001 theNational CITES Management Authority’soffice started to automate the issuance ofpermits in phases (J. Robillard, pers. comm. toN. Chalifour, March 9, 2001). As of April 2004this process was almost complete. Accordingto Environment Canada’s Deputy CITES
24
Administrator, the remaining few CITESCertificates issued mostly to circuses, wouldbe soon be automated (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, April 19 2004).
The new permit form and automation arecritical to providing conformity with CITESstandards and to facilitate the collection of thedata needed to produce complete CITESannual reports.
5.9 Records of TradeCITES Article VIII(6) requires each Party tomaintain records of trade in specimens ofspecies included in the Appendices. ArticleVIII(6)(a) specifies that the records are toinclude the names and addresses of exportersand importers. Article VIII(6)(b) requires therecords to include
• names and addresses of exporters andimporters;
• number and types of permits andcertificates granted;
• states (countries) with which tradeoccurred;
• numbers and types of specimens traded;
• names of species as listed in Appendices I,II and III and
• size and sex of specimens involved (whereapplicable).
These records can be compiled from the datafrom permits issued in Canada in addition tothe data from foreign permits accompanyingimportations into Canada.
Data from Canadian Permits
The new CITES permit forms are designed toprovide all information needed to comply withCITES reporting requirements (J. Robillard,pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).Copies of CITES export permits issued by theprovinces and territories are forwarded monthlyto the National CITES Management Authority.Annual reports on the number of permitsnumbers issued by each of the provinces andterritories can be compared with the actualnumbers of permits received by the NationalCITES Management Authority to confirm thatall permits have been received (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper, January 18, 2002).
When the National CITES ManagementAuthority issues permits or receives copies ofexport permits they are filed and the data fromthe permits are entered in a computer database.The National CITES Management Authority isendeavouring to eliminate the backlog of permitsnot yet computerized (J. Robillard, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 26, 2002). As of April 2004, thebacklog consisted of year 2000 permits (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 19, 2004).
Data from Foreign Permits
Foreign CITES export permits presented toCanada Customs are supposed to be forwardedeither directly or through EnvironmentCanada’s regional offices to the NationalCITES Management Authority (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper, January 18, 2002). A reportby Canada Customs and Environment Canadafound that a large proportion of these permitsare not forwarded as required. The reportincludes a case study of the trade in bigleafmahogany. Of 233 CITES permitsaccompanying importations of bigleafmahogany into Canada 114 (51 percent) wereleft attached to the Customs entry documentsinstead of being forwarded to EnvironmentCanada (Anon., 2001d). The result isinaccurate statistical information reported tothe CITES Secretariat by Environment Canada.
Data for Personal and HouseholdEffects
As a result of the requirements of subsection15 of the amended WAPTR, personal andhousehold effects are being imported orexported without the issuance of CITESpermits, and Canadian authorities are notkeeping records of the volume or nature of theitems being traded (Yvan Lafleur, Director,Wildlife Enforcement Branch, EnvironmentCanada, in litt. to E. Cooper, January 18,2002). This may seem to contravene CITESArticle VIII(6), which requires Parties to keeprecords of all imports and exports of trade inCITES-listed specimens. However, accordingto Environment Canada’s Deputy CITESAdministrator, this requirement does notinclude those items or specimens that areexempted through regulations when thoseregulations are in line with the provisions ofthe Convention—in this case with ArticleVII(3) (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July26, 2002).
25
5.10 Publication of CITESReports
CITES Article VIII(7) requires each Party toprepare reports on its implementation of theConvention. These reports are to consist of anannual report on the trade data required byArticle VIII(6)(b) and a biennial report on thelegislative, regulatory and administrativemeasures taken to enforce the Convention.Article VIII(8) requires that this information isto be made available to the public unlessprohibited by law (Anon., 1973).
In addition, Resolution Conference 11.17stresses the importance of annual reports as theonly available means of monitoring theimplementation of the Convention and thelevel of international trade in CITES-listedspecies (Anon., 2000k). The Resolution states,‘Failure to submit an annual report by 31stOctober of the year following the year forwhich the report was due constitutes a majorproblem with the implementation of theConvention.’
Unfortunately many countries continually failto submit their reports in a timely fashion. InApril 2000 this problem was highlighted in areport produced by the United NationsEnvironment Programme World ConservationMonitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) andpresented to the 11th CoP as an annex to theSecretariat’s report on national reports(Caldwell, 2001).
In 2002 Environment Canada’s website listedthe following points in relation to CITESannual reports
• CITES annual reports compile data ontrade in CITES species based on CITESpermits issued by the ManagementAuthorities and those returned by customs.All importations, exportations and re-exportations are reported.
• Conference Resolution 11.17 providesguidelines for preparation of annualreports.
• These reports are very important becausethey are forwarded to the UNEP-WCMCdata processing centre by the CITESSecretariat.
• The amassing of all data from all Partiesallows continuous monitoring of the level
of international trade of the species listedin the Appendices.
• The annual reports must be submitted tothe CITES Secretariat by October 31 of theyear following the year for which thereport was due.
• A concise version of these reports isnormally published by the CanadianWildlife Service, but these versions are notcurrently available. (Anon., 2002i)5
Despite the sentiment expressed in EnvironmentCanada’s website Canada has been consistentlylate in filing CITES annual reports. Thegovernment of Canada has submitted a CITESannual report on time only once since 1985 (seetable 5.3) and as of September 2001 had notsubmitted an annual report to the Secretariatsince 1997 (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,September 10, 2001). The Secretariat grantedCanada extensions for the 1998 and 1999reports, moving their deadlines to November2001 and March 2002 respectively (J. Caldwell,Trade Database Manager, UNEP-WCMC, in litt.to E. Cooper via A. Barden, CITES ProgrammeOfficer, TRAFFIC International, January 24,2002). However the 1998 report was notsubmitted until February 2002—3 months late(J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March27, 2002)—and the 1999 report was submitted10 months late on January 2, 2003. EnvironmentCanada’s Deputy CITES Administrator hasreported that the 2000 report is expected to becompleted in the summer of 2004 (J. Robillard,in litt. to E. Cooper, April 19, 2004). The 2001report was submitted on May 7, 2003 (7 monthslate) (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 31,2003). Part 1 of Canada’s 2002 annual reportwas provided to the Secretariat on November 7,2003. The remaining data will be forwarded inJune 2004 (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 31, 2003).
Canada’s failure to submit annual reports hasimpacted international efforts to evaluatewildlife trade concerns. For example thefollowing statement was made in World Tradein Crocodilian Skins, 1997–1999 (Caldwell2001) (emphasis added):
All annual reports for the years up to1999 should have been submitted by 31October 2000 but, at the time of writing(June 2001), several reports that should
26
contain important crocodilian trade datahave still not been submitted. Theseinclude Guyana (most of 1999), Israel(1997, 1998 and 1999), Madagascar(1999), Malawi (1997 and 1998),Suriname (1997 and 1998), Thailand(1998 and 1999), Uganda (1997, 1998 and1999) and Zambia (1997) amongst theproducer countries, and Canada (1998and 1999) and Japan (1998 and 1999)amongst the major consumers.
The National CITES Management Authorityreports that Environment Canada is trying tocomply with the CITES reporting requirements,but they are very short of resources. The delay
in issuing the outstanding CITES reports is dueto the backlog of data to be entered in thecomputer database. In 1997 the decision wastaken to move the CITES permit database froma stand-alone computer to EnvironmentCanada’s wildlife enforcement database, theNational Enforcement Management InformationSystem and Intelligence System (NEMISIS ), sothat permit data could be available toenforcement officers. This conversion turned outto be a complicated and difficult process, whichtook several months to complete and wasfollowed by months of debugging. During thistime CITES permit data could not be entered.The data from tens of thousands of permits must
27
Report year Date due Submission date Status
1975 October 1976 May 1978 19 months late1976 October 1977 May 1978 7 months late1977 October 1978 October 1978 On time1978 October 1979 August 1979 On time1979 October 1980 May 1980 On time1980 October 1981 August 1981 On time1981 October 1982 August 1982 On time1982 October 1983 August 1983 On time1983 October 1984 August 1984 On time1984 October 1985 August 1985 On time1985 October 1986 December 1986 2 months late1986 October 1987 December 1987 2 months late1987 October 1988 March 1989 5 months late1988 October 1989 March 1990 5 months late1989 October 1990 November 1990 1 month late1990 October 1991 December 1991 2 months late1991 October 1992 February 1993 4 months late1992 October 1993 November 1994 13 months late1993 October 1994 March 1996 17 months late1994 October 1995 August 1996 10 months late1995 October 1996 January 1997 3 months late1996 October 1997 September 1997 On time1997 October 1998 February 1999 4 months late1998 October 1999 February 2002 3 months late
Extended to November 20011999 Extended to March 2002 January 2, 2003 10 months late2000 October 2001 — Overdue2001 October 2002 May 7, 2003 7 months late2002 October 2003 Part 1 was submitted 1 month late —
November 7, 2003 remaining is Overdue
Table 5.3 History of Canadian CITES Annual Reports (Submitted as of May 2004)
Sources: Canadian CITES annual reports, WAPPRIITA annual reports and UNEP-WCMC, J. Robillard in. litt. To E. Cooper. Pre 2002 datesconfirmed by J. Caldwell, Trade Database Manager, UNEP-WCMC, in litt. to E. Cooper via A. Barden, CITES Programme Officer, TRAFFICInternational, January 24, 2002.
be entered into the database every year, so avery large backlog of CITES reportsaccumulated (J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, March 27, 2002).
Once the NEMISIS database was functional,staff began entering data from both ends (theoldest and newest) of the accumulatedinformation. As of July 2002 the NationalCITES Management Authority had three staffand one temporary employee entering thesedata, with two staff working full-time only onthis project (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 8, 2002). The National CITESManagement Authority felt that using more staffwould speed up the process but this could resultin loss of consistency in data input (J. Robillard,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 27, 2002).
The National CITES Management Authority isworking to improve the NEMISIS module. Whenthe system is finally working well and all permitsare completely computerized, the managementauthority will offer system access to all provinces(T. Swerdfager, in litt. to E. Cooper, October 14,2003). Having the provinces issue permits on-line will greatly reduce the need to input dataafter the fact (J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, March 27, 2002).
CITES Article VIII(8) requires thatinformation in a country’s CITES annualreport is to be made available to the publicunless prohibited by law (Anon., 1973).However, the information contained inCanadian CITES annual reports is not readilyavailable to the Canadian public. EnvironmentCanada has not published public versions ofthe report since 1992, and no reports areavailable on the Environment Canada website(J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, September10, 2001). The National CITES ManagementAuthority intended to publish a “quinquennial”report for the years 1993 to 1997 in February2002 (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,January 21, 2002). As of May 2004 the reporthad not been completed.
5.11 Implementation ofDecisions and Resolutions
The Resolutions and Decisions made at CoPsresult in recommendations intended to improveCITES effectiveness. According to the Director
General of the CWS, Resolutions andDecisions are interpretations of theConvention—not obligations. Parties maychoose to accept them in whole or in part.Nonetheless compliance with them is highlydesirable for the effective functioning ofCITES. Resolutions and Decisions are passedby a two-thirds majority of Parties at a CoPmeeting.9 Thus most of the Parties intend tointerpret the Convention in the mannerrecommended, which provides a warning toany dissenting Parties. For example, ResolutionConference 10.21 (‘Transport of LiveAnimals’) recommends that Parties use theInternational Air Transport Association (IATA)Live Animals Regulations. The Resolution doesnot make it mandatory to do so, but it does givewarning that an importing Party may decide notto honour an export permit that does not requirethese conditions (D. Brackett, in litt. to E.Cooper, December 5, 2001).
It is TRAFFIC North America’s view that thereare, in fact, some Resolutions and Decisionsthat rise to the level of obligations. Thoughmost Resolutions and Decisions arerecommendations that can be ignored, manyResolutions seek to define and clarify the textof the treaty. For example the definition of theterm captive bred is contained in ResolutionConference 10.16 and is not something thatcan be ignored. Failure to comply with someResolutions and Decisions can have negativerepercussions on Parties that fail to properlyimplement the convention (C. Hoover, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, December 11, 2001).
CITES Resolutions and Decisions may beimplemented in Canada by amending theWAPTR where there is a reason to do so.However, according to the CWS DirectorGeneral, most often the intent of the Resolutionsand Decisions is implemented through changesin policy or procedure (D. Brackett, in litt. to E.Cooper, December 5, 2001).
For example in January 2002 the Secretariatinformed the Parties that pursuant to Decision11.16, the CoP recommended that all Partiesshould refuse trade in specimens of CITES-listed species with the countries of Fiji,Vietnam and Yemen (until further notice wasgiven) (Anon., 2002f, 2002g, 2002h). When
28
9 Early CoPs required only a simple majority, but every conference since the sixth has required a two-thirds majority.
29
queried as to how Canada would respond tothis recommendation, the National CITESManagement Authority indicated that in thepast Canada has refused to issue CITESpermits to authorize any exports to similarlyidentified countries and on import ensured thatshipments from these countries wereaccompanied by all required permits and thatthose permits were perfect. In other words thepermits would be scrutinized, and any errors,no matter how minor, would be used asgrounds to invalidate them. The NationalCITES Management Authority has received alegal interpretation indicating thatimplementing these recommendations would
not be inconsistent with the 1994 GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).According to Environment Canada’s DeputyCITES Administrator, Canada could refuse toaccept CITES permits from these countriesbecause these permits would not be ‘grantedby a competent authority in the country ofexport’ per WAPTR section 6.1 (J. Robillard,in litt. to E. Cooper, January 17, 2002).
Environment Canada does not have a specificpolicy in place for implementing Resolutionsand Decisions, and there is no simple methodavailable to track their implementation inCanada (L. Maltby, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,March 27, 2002).
Resolution Conference 10.10 on trade inelephant specimens was adopted during the10th CoP (June 1997).* The Resolution calledfor the establishment of a comprehensiveinternational system to monitor the illegal tradein elephant specimens. This Resolutioneventually resulted in the development of theElephant Trade Information System (ETIS),the design of which was approved during the40th meeting of the CITES StandingCommittee in March 1998 (Anon., 2003h).
In March 1998 the Secretariat circulated to allParties an Ivory and Elephant Product SeizureData Collection Form (Notification to theParties No. 1998/10) to be completed andreturned to the CITES Secretariat. In April1999 the Secretariat circulated explanatorynotes for the Ivory and Elephant ProductSeizure Data Collection Form (Notification tothe Parties No. 1999/36). These documentswere recirculated in November 1999(Notification to the Parties No. 1999/92)(Anon., 2003h).
In March 2002 the ETIS Manager contactedthe Canadian office of TRAFFIC NorthAmerica and requested assistance in collectingdata on Canadian seizures of elephantproducts. At the 11th CoP the Manager hadreceived a copy of an Executive Summary ofStop the Clock; a report by the Born FreeFoundation. The summary contains data on
elephant poaching and illegal trade in ivorythat had occurred globally since the 10th CoPin June 1997. According to the summary 143and 275 ivory items were seized in 1998 and1999, respectively, in Canada, and theCanadian Office of Enforcement was cited asthe source of data. However the government ofCanada only once officially communicatedinformation about an ivory seizure incident tothe CITES Secretariat. ETIS forms are to becompleted by government authorities and sentto the CITES Secretariat within 90 days of anivory seizure (L. Sangalakula, ETIS Manager,TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, in litt. to E.Cooper, March 20, 2002).
This request was forwarded to EnvironmentCanada’s Wildlife Division Headquarters, afterwhich the Director of the Wildlife EnforcementBranch indicated that they were not familiarwith ETIS and had not been made aware of theneed to complete ETIS reports (Y. Lafleur,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).The Wildlife Division then provided data onCanadian seizures by May 7, 2002. TheNational Chief of Inspections and Training alsoindicated at that time that officers will be askedto complete ETIS forms for each ivory seizurein the future (R. Charette, Chief of Inspectionsand Training, Wildlife Enforcement Branch,Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, May7, 2002). * Revised at the 11th CoP
Box 5.1 Elephant Trade Information System
5.12 Findings Made Prior toIssuing Permits
There are a number of findings that must bemade by the Management or ScientificAuthorities of a country before CITES permitsare issued. The five most vital findings are that
• an import permit has been issued for anAppendix I specimen before issuing anexport or re-export permit,
• an Appendix I specimen will not be usedfor primarily commercial purposes,
• for live animals a specimen will receivehumane treatment,
• a specimen was legally acquired and
• trade in a species will not be detrimental tothe survival of that species.
The most straightforward finding is the needfor a Management Authority to determine thatan import permit has been issued for anAppendix I specimen before issuing an exportpermit [per CITES Article III(2)(d)]. In thecase of a living specimen a ManagementAuthority must also determine that an importpermit has been issued for an Appendix Ispecimen before issuing a re-export permit [perArticle III(4)(c)]. Canada does not implementexemptions for preconvention [per ArticleVII(2)], captive-bred or artificially propagatedspecimens [per Article VII(4)]. Therefore noCITES export or re-export permits forAppendix I species are issued unless theNational Management Authority is satisfiedthat a valid import permit has been issued bythe country of import. The one exception is foranimals bred in captivity by Canadianregistered commercial breeders (J. Robillard,in litt. to E. Cooper, March 31, 2003).
Other findings are not as clear or easy tocomplete. They are nonetheless critical to theeffective implementation of the Convention.These findings are discussed in the followingsections.
Non-Commercial Findings
CITES Articles III(3)(c) and III(5)(c) state thatan import permit or certificate for introductionfrom the sea for an Appendix I species shall begranted only when a Management Authority ofthe state of import or introduction is satisfied
that ‘the specimen is not to be used forprimarily commercial purposes.’
The term primarily commercial purposes isdefined by Resolution Conference 5.10, whichincludes the following text (under generalprinciples):
2. An activity can generally be described as‘commercial’ if its purpose is to obtaineconomic benefit, including profit (whetherin cash or in kind) and is directed towardresale, exchange, provision of a service orother form of economic use or benefit.
3. The term ‘commercial purposes’ shouldbe defined by the country of import asbroadly as possible so that any transactionwhich is not wholly ‘non-commercial’ willbe regarded as ‘commercial’. In transposingthis principle to the term ‘primarilycommercial purposes’, it is agreed that alluses whose non-commercial aspects do notclearly predominate shall be considered tobe primarily commercial in nature with theresult that the importation of specimens ofAppendix I species should not be permitted.The burden of proof for showing that theintended use of specimens of Appendix Ispecies is clearly non-commercial shall restwith the person or entity seeking to importsuch specimens. (Anon., 1985d)
Resolution Conference 5.10 also providesexamples of categories of transactions whichare discussed to provide guidance in andcriteria for assessing the actual degree ofcommerciality of a particular case. Theexamples provided are
• purely private use,
• scientific purposes,
• education or training,
• biomedical industry,
• captive-breeding programmes and
• importation via professional dealers.
In Canada an applicant for an Appendix Iimport permit must complete an EnvironmentCanada Application for Permit to Import,available on-line at Environment Canada’sCITES website (Anon., 2003c). Completion ofthis document provides detailed information onthe source of the specimen and the purpose of
30
the importation: breeding of animals,reproduction of plants, education or scientificresearch, hunting trophy, part of a circus ortravelling exhibition, enforcement purposes,biomedical research or reintroduction into thewild. For applications involving breeding ofanimals or reproduction of plants the applicationspecifically asks whether the specimen is to beused for commercial purposes.
The information provided through completionof an Application for Permit to Importcorresponds to the requirements of ResolutionConference 5.10 and should provide theNational CITES Management Authority withenough information to determine whether aspecimen is to be used for ‘primarilycommercial purposes’.
If after a specimen has been imported it isdiscovered that the specimen was being usedfor commercial purposes, that would violatethe conditions of the permit and the importerwould be in violation of WAPPRIITA section 8(regarding possession of specimens incontravention of the act) (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, March 31, 2003).
Humane Treatment Findings
The text of the Convention states that an exportpermit [per Article III(2)(c)] or a re-exportpermit [per Article III(4)(b)] for an Appendix Ispecies, an export permit [per Article IV(2)(c)]or re-export permit [per Article IV(5)(b)], orcertificate for introduction from the sea [perArticle IV(6)(b)] for an Appendix II speciesshall be granted only when a ManagementAuthority of the state of export or re-export issatisfied that ‘any living specimen will be soprepared and shipped as to minimize the riskof injury, damage to health or cruel treatment’.
The transport of live animals is also the subjectof Resolution Conference 10.21, whichincludes the following recommendations:
d) for as long as the CITES Secretariat andthe Standing Committee agree, the IATA
Live Animals Regulations be deemed tomeet the CITES Guidelines in respect of airtransport;
e) except where it is inappropriate, the IATALive Animals Regulations should be used asa reference to indicate suitable conditionsfor carriage by means other than air;
f) the IATA Live Animals Regulations beincorporated into the domestic legislation ofthe Parties;
g) applicants for export Permits or re-exportcertificates be notified that, as a condition ofissuance, they are required to prepare andship live specimens in accordance with theIATA Live Animals Regulations fortransport by air and the CITES Guidelinesfor Transport of Live Specimens10 forcarriage by means other than air.
In Canada exporters are referred to IATA Live Animals Regulations when they receivetheir permits (this is indicated on the back ofeach permit).11
Both the IATA Live Animals Regulations andthe CITES Guidelines for Transport of LiveSpecimens have been incorporated intoCanadian legislation. Section 9 of the WAPTR states:
(1) Every person who exports from Canadaa live animal shall, where it is shipped byair, prepare it for shipment and ship it inaccordance with the IATA Live AnimalsRegulations, 22nd edition, published in 1995by the International Air TransportAssociation, as amended from time to time.
(2) Every person who exports from Canadaa live animal or plant shall, where it isshipped by land, sea or, in the case of a liveplant, air, prepare it for shipment and ship itin accordance with the Guidelines forTransport and Preparation for Shipment ofLive Wild Animals and Plants, as amendedfrom time to time, adopted in 1979 by theConference of Parties to the Convention on
31
10 CoP12 document 25, Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention Regular and Special Reports: Transport ofLive Animals notes that ‘the CITES Guidelines for transport and preparation for shipment of live wild animals and plantsare widely recognized to be out of date, and often not readily available to Management Authorities or the public.According to Resolution Conf. 10.21, under RECOMMENDS, paragraph d), these guidelines should nevertheless becomplied with, despite the parallel development of the IATA Live Animals Regulations for air transport’.
11 The IATA Live Animals Regulations specify the minimum requirements for the international air transport of animals.They provide detailed explanations for the housing and care that must be provided by airlines, shippers, agents and soforth (Anon., 2001k).
International Trade in Endangered Speciesof Wild Fauna and Flora and published in1980 under the sponsorship of the UnitedNations Environment Programme.
CITES Articles III(3)(b) and III(5)(b) state thatan import permit or a certificate forintroduction from the sea for an Appendix Ispecies shall be granted only when a ScientificAuthority of the state of import or introductionis satisfied that ‘the proposed recipient of aliving specimen is suitably equipped to houseand care for it’.
In addition, Resolution Conference 10.3provides that ‘the appropriate ScientificAuthority either make the findings required onthe suitability of the recipient to house and carefor live specimens of Appendix I species beingimported or introduced from the sea, or make itsrecommendations to the Management Authorityprior to the latter making such findings and theissuance of permits or certificates…’.
Environment Canada reports that applicationsto import living CITES Appendix I specimensare usually for either scientific purposes orbreeding that is as part of the Species SurvivalPlan® (SSP) programme.12 The Applicationfor Permit to Import form that all applicantsfor an Appendix I import permit mustcomplete includes sections detailing thehousing and care a specimen will receive inCanada and the experience the applicant has inbreeding the species. Applications are reviewedby the National CITES Scientific Authority,which assesses the capability of the importer toprovide appropriate husbandry for the speciesand reports this finding to the National CITESManagement Authority (B. von Arx, pers.comm., to E. Cooper, March 5, 2003). Thismay involve comparing the facilities thatwould be provided to suitable standards, if anyexist. Alternatively they check the success theimporter has had in keeping and breedingclosely related species. However EnvironmentCanada has no formal procedure establishedfor completing this finding (B. von Arx, pers.
comm., to E. Cooper, March 11, 2003).
Legal Acquisition Findings
The text of the Convention states that an exportpermit [per Article III(2)(b)] or re-exportpermit [per Article III(4)(a)] for an Appendix Ispecies or an export permit [per ArticleIV(2)(b)] or re-export permit [per ArticleIV(5)(a)] for an Appendix II species shall begranted only when a Management Authority ofthe state of export or re-export is satisfied that‘the specimen was not obtained incontravention of the laws of that State for theprotection of fauna and flora’.
Environment Canada reports that before exportpermits are issued, the issuing office verifiesthat the specimens in question were acquiredper provincial or territorial regulations. Formarine species DFO appraises all applicationsto ensure that the specimens have beenobtained in accordance with all applicablelaws, including the Fisheries Act. For re-exports a copy of the foreign CITES exportpermit must be provided before a re-exportpermit is issued. According to EnvironmentCanada’s Deputy CITES Administrator eachapplication is treated and evaluated separately,and different findings may be necessarydepending on each case (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, March 31, 2003).
Non-Detriment Findings
The text of the convention states that an exportpermit [per Article III(2)(a)] or certificate forintroduction from the sea [per Article III(5)(a)]for an Appendix I species shall be granted onlywhen a Scientific Authority of the state ofexport or introduction has advised that thisaction will ‘not be detrimental to the survivalof that species’. Furthermore the conventionstates that an import permit for an Appendix Ispecies [per Article III(3)(a)] shall be grantedonly when a Scientific Authority of the state ofimport has advised that the import will ‘be forpurposes which are not detrimental to thesurvival of the species involved’.13
32
12 The SSP programme of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) is a population management andconservation programme for selected species in zoos and aquariums in North America. Each SSP manages the breedingof a species within selected institutions to maintain a healthy and self-sustaining population that is both geneticallydiverse and demographically stable. (Anon., 2003p).
13 There is a distinction between Article III(3)(a) and Articles III(2)(a) and III(5)(a). The exporting country must determinethat an export will not be detrimental; the importing country determines if the import will be for purposes that are notdetrimental. In other words the importing country’s job is not to second-guess what the exporting country does but whatwill be done with the wildlife in the importing country (C. Hoover, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 10, 2003).
The Convention also states that an exportpermit [per Article IV(2)(a)] for an AppendixII species shall be granted only when aScientific Authority of the state of export hasadvised that this action will ‘not be detrimentalto the survival of that species’. Finally theConvention states that a certificate forintroduction from the sea [per Article IV(6)(a)]for an Appendix II species shall be grantedonly when a Scientific Authority of the state ofintroduction has advised that this action will‘not be detrimental to the survival of thespecies involved’.
In addition Resolution Conference 10.3presents a detailed outline of the role ofScientific Authorities and provides thefollowing recommendations:
g) the appropriate Scientific Authorityadvise on the issuance of export permits orof certificates for introduction from the seafor Appendix I or II species, stating whetheror not the proposed trade would bedetrimental to the survival of the species inquestion, and that every export permit orcertificate of introduction from the sea becovered by Scientific Authority advice;
h) the findings and advice of the ScientificAuthority of the country of export be basedon the scientific review of availableinformation on the population status,distribution, population trend, harvest andother biological and ecological factors, asappropriate, and trade information relatingto the species concerned;
i) the appropriate Scientific Authority of theimporting country advise on the issuance ofpermits for the import of specimens ofAppendix I species, stating whether theimport will be for purposes not detrimentalto the survival of the species;
j) the appropriate Scientific Authoritymonitor the status of native Appendix IIspecies and export data, and recommend, ifnecessary, suitable remedial measures tolimit the export of specimens in order tomaintain each species throughout its range ata level consistent with its role in theecosystem and well above the level at whichthe species might become eligible forinclusion in Appendix I.
In Canada most non-detriment findings forAppendix II species are made based on datacompiled by the provinces and territories—orin the case of marine species, by DFO.
Each province or territory must gather data,summarize them and provide the initial analysisof relevant population, harvest and tradeinformation applying to species in theirjurisdiction. This allows for verification that aspecimen was obtained in accordance with themanagement plan for the species (that is, withinestablished harvest levels). Permits are thenissued based on this verification. According tothe CITES Scientific Authority and InternationalCo-ordinator this process concerns specieswhich are not at risk (listed by the Committeeon the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada[COSEWIC] as being threatened orendangered)14 and where management plans orharvest regimes are known to be consistent withsustainable use (B. von Arx, pers. comm., to E.Cooper, March 30, 2003).
The CITES Scientific Authority for DFOreports that in the past the process for issuingnon-detriment findings has not been astructured process but has been based on themanagement regimes in place for the specificspecies. For Appendix II and III species, whenexports involve specimens legally harvested inaccordance with the conservation andmanagement measures in place, they areallowed on the basis that they are notdetrimental to the survival of the species.Applications for permits for Appendix Ispecies are rare and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. They tend to be very specific.One example would be a request for an importpermit for DNA samples from whales thatwere being analysed by a company in Canada.The samples were taken by non-lethalsampling, and DFO issued a non-detrimentfinding on the basis that no whales had beenkilled to get the samples (H. Powles, Director,Biodiversity Science, DFO, in litt. to E.Cooper, April 15, 2003).
The CITES Scientific Authority for DFO feelsthat the department needs to develop a moreformalized process for completing non-detrimentfindings for aquatic species, based at least in parton the guidelines produced by IUCN (H.Powles, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 15, 2003).
33
14 COSEWIC is a committee of experts that assesses and designates the conservation status of wild Canadian species,subspecies and populations of animals and plants (Anon., 2002u).
The National CITES Scientific Authority is notinvolved in conducting findings for mostspecies, but it does annually review the datafor Canadian export permits issued and theprovincial and territorial management plans orharvest regimes to ensure that each species isbeing harvested at a non-detrimental level.Unfortunately the lack of Canadian CITESreports for recent years has hampered theability to conduct this review. Instead theNational CITES Scientific Authority has had todepend on the import data for Canadianspecies compiled by other Parties (B. von Arx,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 30, 2003).
Before 2002 the National CITES ScientificAuthority had no policy or standard procedurefor making non-detriment findings (B. vonArx, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 5,2003). In 2002 the National CITES ScientificAuthority adopted the use of a slightlyadapted version of the checklist developed bythe IUCN to assist in completing non-detriment findings (Rosser and Haywood,2002). The National CITES ScientificAuthority has begun using this checklist tocomplete national non-detriment findings forspecies that are considered to be “particularlyvulnerable to public attention”. As of April2003 these species included grizzly bear(Ursus arctos), golden seal (Hydrastiscanadenis), American ginseng (Panaxquinquefolius), yew tree (Taxus spp.), andopuntia cacti (Opuntia spp.). These taxa werechosen for different reasons: grizzly bears inresponse to pressure from the public and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) tocomplete a non-detriment finding for thespecies; golden seal and American ginsengbecause the Scientific Authority had extraexpertise on those species available; yew treeand opuntia cacti as a result of discussions ofthese species by the CITES Plants Committeeor at the 12th CoP (B. von Arx, in litt to E.Cooper, May 7, 2003). The CITES ScientificAuthority and International Co-ordinatorstated that these findings will be reviewedregularly, depending on the availability of timeof Scientific Authority staff and the urgency ofthe issue (B. von Arx, pers. comm. to
E. Cooper, April 8, 2003).15 National non-detriment findings for polar bear (Ursusmaritimus) and bison (Bison bison) are inpreparation.
According to the CITES Scientific Authorityand International Co-ordinator thedevelopment of additional non-detrimentfindings will be based on lists of priorityspecies (separate lists for animals and plants)based on a combination of three criteria:presence or inference of international trade,level of threat based on the assessment ofCOSEWIC and socio-economic importance(B. von Arx, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,March 30, 2003). As of July 2003 the draftcriteria and list of priority species had beencompleted and distributed to the provincialand territorial Scientific Authorities forcomments (A. Sinclair, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 30, 2003).
In November 2003, federal, provincial andterritorial CITES authorities met at the 21stNational CITES Workshop. During theworkshop the Acting National CITESScientific Authority made a presentation on thedevelopment of a national strategy forcompleting all CITES non-detriment findingsusing the IUCN checklist. The presentationincluded draft criteria to identify priorityspecies requiring non-detriment findings and adraft list of priority species. The participants ofthe workshop agreed to establish a workinggroup to develop and implement the strategy(E. Cooper, pers. obs., November 21, 2003).
Non-detriment findings for export permitapplications involving Appendix I species arecompleted by the authority that has jurisdictionfor the specimen (the province, territory orDFO) on a case-by-case basis. However thereis no standardized way to complete theseassessments. The CITES Scientific Authorityand International Co-ordinator could not recallany examples of export permit applications forAppendix I species being accepted that did notinvolve scientific exchanges of dead parts orparts obtained in a non-lethal way, plus somecircus specimens (B. von Arx, in litt. to E.Cooper, April 8, 2003).
34
15 The non-detriment finding for grizzly bears was completed by the province of British Columbia with the National CITESScientific Authority, but it was mostly done by the province. All of the other non-detriment findings were completedsolely by the National CITES Scientific Authority (B. von Arx, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 7, 2003).
5.13 Issuing PermitsA summary of the permit-issuingresponsibilities of Canadian authorities isshown in table 5.4.
Import Permits
The National CITES Management Authorityissues all CITES Appendix I import permits.Before a permit is issued an applicant mustcomplete an application form andsupplementary questionnaire which aidsevaluation of the legitimacy of the importrequest. Generally the processing time forimport permits is between three and sixweeks, though often they are issued faster ifthe paperwork is straightforward (J.Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March27, 2002). The number of import permitsissued from 1977 to 2001 is shown in table5.5. Import permits are most commonlyissued for captive-bred species, personaleffects and hunting trophies legally obtainedabroad (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 26, 2002).16
Export Permits
The issuance of export permits is a priority forthe National CITES Management Authority.According to Environment Canada’s DeputyCITES Administrator, permits are normallyissued within two weeks of application (J.Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March27, 2002). Discussions between TRAFFICNorth America and a number of permitapplicants in both the commercial and non-commercial sectors confirmed that this is a fairestimate of how quickly the National CITESManagement Authority issues export permits.
DFO is responsible for issuing export permitsfor species covered by the federal Fisheries Act(Anon., 1985c). These include marinemammals, marine fish and marine invertebrates(J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March27, 2002). DFO issues permits from regionaloffices across the country, co-ordinated by theCITES Administrator in Manitoba. DFO hasbegun issuing multiple-use permits, which arepreauthorized permits given to industries for
35
Management Authority Permits issued
Environment Canada (National CITES • All import permitsManagement Authority) • All scientific certificates
• All temporary import/export certificates
• Export permits for artificially propagated plants
• Export permits for specimens not the responsibilityof another Management Authority (specimensoriginating in Alberta or specimens of exoticspecies originating in British Columbia)
DFO • Export permits for species covered by the federalFisheries Act: marine mammals, fish and marineinvertebrates
CFS • Does not issue permits
Province of British Columbia • Export permits for species indigenous to BritishColumbia
Province of Alberta • Does not issue permits
Provincial and territorial governments • Export permits for specimens originating within (other than Alberta and British Columbia) their jurisdiction (indigenous or exotic)
Table 5.4 Canadian Permit Issuing Authorities
16 CITES Appendix I animals and plants that are captive bred or artificially propagated (respectively) are deemed to beincluded in Appendix II, therefore import permits are not required by the Convention [see CITES Articles VII(4) &VII(5)]. However Canada has adopted domestic requirements for the international trade in captive-bred or artificiallypropagated specimens that are stricter than the Convention [per CITES Article XIV(1)(a)]. In Canada the permitrequirements for trade in captive-bred or artificially propagated specimens of Appendix I species are the same as anyother Appendix I specimen.
their completion. A limited number of permitsis provided to industries (primarily sturgeonprocessors), and copies must be returned toDFO (P. Hall, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour,June 5, 2001). The number of permits issuedby DFO for the years 1989–2001 is shown intable 5.6. The significant increase in numbersfor 1998 onwards coincides with the CITESAppendix II listing of all sturgeon species.
The provinces and territories are responsiblefor issuing export permits for speciesoriginating within their jurisdiction (withintheir borders) (Anon., 2001r). Alberta is theexception because that province withdrew fromissuing export permits in 1995 (Anon., 2001o).Residents of Alberta must apply to theNational CITES Management Authority forCITES permits. The British ColumbiaManagement Authority issues permits only forindigenous species, and residents of thatprovince wishing to export or re-export exoticspecies must also apply to the National CITESManagement Authority for permits. Permitissuance in some provinces is centralized Mostof their district offices in other provinces areauthorized to issue permits (J. Robillard, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9, 2001).
Each province and territory has one officialsignatory for export permits, usually thewildlife director for the jurisdiction (L.Gautier, National CITES ManagementAuthority, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, May29, 2001). In Newfoundland and Labrador,Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island andManitoba permits are issued and authorized bythe official signatory only, from one provincialoffice. The remaining jurisdictionspreauthorize permits and distribute them toregional and district offices for issuance byofficers in those offices (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, March 9, 2001).17 In some casespreauthorized permits are provided tocommercial operators to be completed bythem. The National CITES ManagementAuthority maintains a list of the provincial andterritorial officers with authority for issuingCITES permits. As of May 2001 27 persons
were authorized to issue CITES permits inOntario, 3 in Québec, 6 in Saskatchewan, 5 inthe Northwest Territories, 8 in Yukon Territory21 in British Columbia and 1 each for theremaining jurisdictions (J. Robillard, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
Permits are also issued by the CWS in Ontario,but only by one person. In 1992 the firstWildlife Inspector for the Ontario Region washired from the Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources. When he moved to the CWS theprovince requested that he continue issuingpermits for exotic species (and only in thegreater Toronto area). That arrangement hasremained in place since that time (J. Robillard,in litt. to E. Cooper, October 3, 2001).
The National CITES Management Authorityissues export permits for artificiallypropagated plants. Agriculture and Agri-FoodCanada (AAFC) used to manage this functionbut reversed the responsibility to EnvironmentCanada in 1996 (Anon., 2001o). In 1997 theinspection services of AAFC, DFO, HealthCanada and Industry Canada were combinedinto the Canadian Food and InspectionAgency (CFIA) (Anon., 1998k). Today theCFIA assists Environment Canada inprocessing the documentation for the exportof artificially propagated plants (Anon.,2001r). In particular they assist the NationalCITES Management Authority in validatingCITES inventory attachments to Canadianphytosanitary certificates that Canada uses asCITES certification of artificial propagation(Anon., 2000g).18
CITES Resolution Conference 12.3 (VII)recommends that any Party may considerphytosanitary certificates as certificates ofartificial propagation in accordance withCITES Article VII(5), notes that suchcertificates must include the scientific name ofthe species and the type and quantity of thespecimens and requires that the documentsinclude a stamp, seal or other specificindication stating that the specimens areartificially propagated. Canada registered its
36
17 According to Environment Canada’s Deputy CITES Administrator, pre-authorize means that blank application/permitforms are pre-stamped by the central provincial office and forwarded (couriered) to district offices where they would becompleted by applicants in the district offices. These forms remain under lock and key when not in use.
18 Phytosanitary certificates document the origin and inspection of plant shipments so that exports of plants and plantproducts meet the quarantine import requirements of other countries, thereby preventing the international spread ofdiseases and insects.
phytosanitary certificate as CITES certificationof artificial propagation with the CITESSecretariat in 1996 (J. Robillard, in litt. to E.Cooper, October 3, 2001). Phytosanitarycertificates identify plants only at a highertaxonomic level, therefore attachment of aCITES inventory to properly identify thespecies is necessary under the Convention.This inventory is stamped by the CFIA tovalidate it (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,March 6, 2003). The number of export permitsissued by the AAFC and the number ofphytosanitary certificates issued as certificatesof artificial propagation (combined) in theyears 1989–2001 are shown in table 5.6. Thenumbers for 1996 onwards includephytosanitary certificates.
In some cases the National CITESManagement Authority will issue CITESpermits authorizing multiple shipments(multiple-use permits). These permits areprimarily for artificially propagated Americanginseng and artificially propagated nurseryplants. Applications involving Americanginseng are only approved for cultivatedginseng when the applicants inform theNational CITES Management Authority of thenames and addresses of the growers theypurchase from. In the case of artificiallypropagated plants multiple-use permits aregranted only to nurseries registered in Canadawith the CFIA under the GreenhouseCertification Program.19 Originally under thisprogramme certified greenhouses could not use
37
Year Import permits Temporary import/export certificates Scientific certificates
1977 30 16 381978 36 56 301979 36 74 301980 36 46 361981 52 33 401982 52 43 471983 55 39 481984 38 48 511985 52 63 471986 85 71 421987 62 87 401988 74 88 411989 74 79 381990 114 82 351991 102 111 341992 114 95 381993 131 106 381994 130 142 341995 146 315 351996 174 250 381997 160 210 361998 193 239 361999 190 247 372000 188 216 362001 160 180 36
Table 5.5 CITES Import Permits, Temporary Import/Export Certificatesand Scientific Certificates Issued by Canada, 1977–2001
Sources: 1986–1999 CITES annual reports for Canada; 1996–1999 WAPPRIITA annual reports; J. Robillard, CITES Deputy Administrator,Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 2, 2003.
19 An MOU was signed between AAFC and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in January 1997 to establish theGreenhouse Certification Program that would allow low-risk, greenhouse-grown plants to move more freely betweenCanada and the United States (Anon., 1997a).
plants from the wild—otherwise diseases orpests could be introduced and the greenhousewould no longer be certifiable under theprogramme (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper,March 6, 2003). However greenhouses maynow use material from the wild as long as theplant is grown within a greenhouse for most oftheir growing cycle (T. Swerdfager, in litt. toE. Cooper, October 14, 2003).
Since 1998 the issuance of multiple-usepermits has made up a very large portion of theexport permits issued by the National CITESManagement Authority. Since the exemptionfor personal and household effects came intoforce in 2000, which removed the need to issueexport permits for most American black bearexports, multiple-use permits have accountedfor 74 percent of all export permits issued by
the National CITES Management Authority(see table 5.6).
Table 5.6 shows the numbers of CITES exportpermits issued by Canada from 1977 to 2001.Table 5.7 breaks down the numbers offederally issued CITES export permits issuedin from 1989 to 2001 by source.
Scientific Certificates
When CITES-listed species are being importedor exported for purposes of a non-commercialloan, donation or exchange between scientistsor scientific institutions registered by theNational CITES Management Authority, theauthority is allowed under CITES to waivepermit requirements and instead issue scientificcertificates. The number of scientificcertificates issued annually in Canada since
38
In September 1991 Canada listed the Americanblack bear in CITES Appendix III. InNovember 1992 the American black bear waslisted in CITES Appendix II (Anon., 2003d).This listing significantly affected export permitissuance in Canada. Before 1992 the averageannual number of export permits issued by thefederal, provincial and territorial ManagementAuthorities was fewer than 6000 (see table 5.6).In 1992 the number of export permits issued inCanada more than doubled.* In 1993 more than10 000 CITES export permits for black bearswere issued for non-resident hunters (Wenting1994). By 1999 the total number of exportpermits issued in Canada had increased to 22819, and more than half were for black bears.The large number of export permits required forblack bear hunting trophies severely increasedthe workload for permit-issuing offices (seefigure 5.1) (J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, March 27, 2002). It was partiallybecause of this increased workload that theprovince of Alberta withdrew from issuingexport permits in 1995 (G. Bogdan, Chief,Wildlife Enforcement Division, Prairie andNorthern Region, Environment Canada, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, September 21, 2001). Thisin turn greatly increased the workload of theNational CITES Management Authority, whichhad to begin issuing permits for Alberta
(J. Robillard, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March27, 2002). In 1998 and 1999 more than 60percent of the single-use export permits issuedby Environment Canada were for black bears(see table 5.7).
The majority of black bear export permitsissued in Canada are for personal (non-commercial) shipments destined for the UnitedStates. The exemption for personal andhousehold effects [subsection 15(2) of theamended WAPTR], which came into force in2000, states that residents of Canada or theUnited States do not require import or exportpermits for black bear hides, skulls or meatthat are destined for the United States. As aresult of the exemption the number of exportpermits issued in Canada has been reducedfrom approximately 23 000 to about 13 500(see figure 5.1) (J. Robillard, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 9, 2002). If it were not for thelarge volume of multiple-use permits nowbeing issued by the National CITESManagement Authority, the numbers of CITESexport permits issued in Canada would beclose to the numbers issued before the blackbear was listed (see figure 5.2).* This initial increase was in response to the Appendix III listing ofthe black bear. The Appendix II listing did not take place until latein 1992 and all subsequent CITES export permits for black bearwere in response to this listing.
Box 5.2 Black Bear Export Permits
1977 has remained relatively constant (seetable 5.5).
Temporary Import/Export Certificate
Under CITES Article VII importers andexporters of ‘specimens which form part of atravelling zoo, circus, menagerie, plantexhibition or other travelling exhibition’ maybe exempt from obtaining CITES permits if thespecimens are preconvention or captive bred,registered with the CITES ManagementAuthority and appropriately cared for. Underthese conditions temporary import/exportcertificates may be issued. The numbers oftemporary import/export certificates issued inyears 1977–2001 are shown in table 5.5.
Permit Security
Because some provinces are decentralized intheir permit issuance they can use the mail or a
courier service to send prestamped applicationforms (blank permits) to each of their districtoffices. The provincial headquarters office thatdistributes these forms maintains a record of thenumbers of prestamped (and sometimesprenumbered) applications being sent out. Theseare kept under lock and key when not in use (J.Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 26, 2002).
The procedure for multiple-use permitsrequires permit holders to return all copiesused to make shipments. According toEnvironment Canada’s Deputy CITESAdministrator files are verified for compliancewith the procedure on an ad hoc basis, and afull review is performed at the time anapplication is received to renew a permit. If thepermit holder has not fully complied with theprocedure his application for renewal may berefused (J. Robillard, in litt. to E. Cooper, July26, 2002).
39
Table 5.6 CITES Export Permits Issued by Canada, 1977–2001
Year Fed AL BC MA NB NF NS ON PE QU SA NT YK NV TOT
1977 62 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a — 918
1978 28 34 406 136 0 0 2 171 0 1683 6 4 28 — 2498
1979 54 100 593 96 2 0 3 268 0 1881 14 12 96 — 3119
1980 95 128 771 71 1 0 0 260 0 2225 4 20 87 — 3662
1981 263 131 670 86 0 0 0 393 0 2258 9 9 118 — 3937
1982 269 99 763 101 2 0 2 607 0 1342 13 18 104 — 3320
1983 313 126 750 101 1 0 1 663 0 1342 15 22 140 — 3474
1984 306 135 825 133 1 0 2 606 0 1406 6 21 156 — 3597
1985 922 130 845 82 3 2 3 734 0 1261 13 14 174 — 4183
1986 1704 103 857 142 3 0 3 974 10 1236 22 34 168 — 5256
1987 1844 146 760 101 3 0 1 1024 25 1 278 49 24 208 — 5463
1988 2231 145 707 114 2 1 4 888 11 1369 35 43 158 — 5708
1989 2264 112 703 137 0 1 1 671 14 1399 70 55 191 — 5618
1990 2384 128 765 157 3 1 2 511 35 957 42 74 163 — 5222
1991 2714 208 739 165 44 1 4 683 47 1032 48 39 164 — 5888
1992 3986 662 1399 799 536 69 9 4455 35 1941 286 38 164 — 14 379
1993 3211 1254 1563 1260 957 57 24 5618 3 2697 1095 44 191 — 17 974
1994 4191 1472 1615 1806 1274 80 25 5883 0 2561 1089 54 196 — 20 246
1995 4950 —- 1935 1690 1196 92 54 6451 2 2648 1123 76 165 — 20 382
1996 6771 — 2221 1722 1154 119 52 4526 3 1990 1288 92 162 — 20 100
1997 9405 — 2262 2116 1165 129 59 5446 0 1782 492 69 198 — 23 123
1998 8472 — 2084 1630 1547 102 63 5697 3 1999 718 95 242 — 22 652
1999 9169 — 2386 1958 1699 143 58 3490 3 2612 923 153 225 3 22 822
2000 7135 — 1867 1218 403 92 34 932 1 1038 649 110 254 2 13 735
2001 7039 — 1524 1099 67 116 30 1155 0 1300 726 140 196 3 13 395
Total 71 691 5113 29 010 16 920 10 063 1005 436 52 106 192 41 237 8735 1260 3948 8 250 671
Note: Fed = federal, AL = Alberta, BC = British Columbia, MA = Manitoba, NB = New Brunswick, NF = Newfoundland and Labrador, NS =Nova Scotia, ON = Ontario, PE = Prince Edward Island, QU = Québec, SA = Saskatchewan, NT = Northwest Territories, YK = Yukon, NV =Nunavut, TOT = total, N/a = not available.Source: J. Robillard, CITES Deputy Administrator, Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 2, 2003.
40
Table 5.7 Federally Issued CITES Export Permits, 1989–2001
Environment Canada
Single Multiple-use Ontario Agriculture/Date permits permits Region DFO phytosanitary Total
1989 24 — n/a 51 2189 22641990 n/a — n/a n/a n/a 23841991 29 — n/a 63 2622 27141992 14 — n/a 65 3907 39861993 11 — n/a 66 3134 32111994 11 — 126 47 4007 41911995 1690 — n/a 57 3203 49501996 2280 — n/a 98 4393a 67711997 7786 — 244 76 1299b 94051998 2828c 5185 279 146 34 84721999 3575d 4410 268 141 775 91692000 1340 5313 255 148 79 71352001 1206 5209 349 186 89 7039Total 20 794 20 117 1521 1144 25 731 71 691
a. Includes 1 064 phytosanitary certificates.b. Includes 1 299 phytosanitary certificates.c. Includes 1 911 export permits for black bear (68 percent of all single permits issued by Environment Canada).d. Includes 2 285 export permits for black bear (64 percent of all single permits issued by Environment Canada).Note: N/a = not available.Source: J. Robillard, CITES Deputy Administrator, Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 2, 2003.
Figure 5.1 Numbers of Canadian CITES Export Permits Issued Annually
Source: Compiled from data provided by J. Robillard, CITES Deputy Administrator, Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 2, 2003.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
2000: American black bear includedin exemption for personal andhousehold effects
1992: American black bear listed inCITES Appendix II
41
Figure 5.2 Numbers of Canadian CITES Export Permits Issued Annually(Excluding Multiple-Use Permits)
Source: Compiled from data provided by J. Robillard, CITES Deputy Administrator, Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 2, 2003.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
2000: American black bear includedin exemption for personal andhousehold effects
1992: American black bear listed inCITES Appendix II
42
6.1 BackgroundCITES Article VIII(1) states:
1. The Parties shall take appropriatemeasures to enforce the provisions of thepresent Convention and to prohibit trade inspecimens in violation thereof. These shallinclude measures:
(a) to penalize trade in, or possession of,such specimens, or both; and
(b) to provide for the confiscation or returnto the State of export of such specimens.
Resolution Conference 11.3 further emphasizesthe importance of enforcing the Conventionand states that the CoP is ‘[c]onvinced thatenforcement of the Convention must be aconstant concern of the Parties if they are tosucceed in fulfilling the obligations of theConvention’. Resolution Conference 11.3 goeson to make the following recommendations:
a) all Parties:
i) ensure strict compliance and control inrespect of all mechanisms and provisions ofthe Convention relating to the regulation oftrade in animal and plant species listed inAppendix II, and of all provisions ensuringprotection against illegal traffic for thespecies listed in the Appendices;
ii) in case of violation of the above-mentioned provisions, immediately takeappropriate measures pursuant to ArticleVIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention inorder to penalize such violation and to takeappropriate remedial action;
iii) inform each other of all circumstancesand facts likely to be relevant as regardsillegal traffic and also of control measures,with the aim of eradicating such traffic.
It is difficult to analyse the effectiveness ofenforcement programmes. Illegal activities are,by their nature, unreported and difficult toquantify. Accurately assessing the effectivenessof enforcement actions in preventing thoseactivities is therefore a significant challenge. Ifvery few violations are being caught it couldindicate either that illegal activities are closelycontrolled or that the enforcement activities are
not effective. Conversely, if many violationsare detected, it could indicate efficientenforcement or rampant illegal trade.
TRAFFIC North America identified thefollowing requirements for the enforcement ofCITES in Canada:
• establishment of Canadian enforcementauthorities,
• allocation of resources,
• monitoring of trade,
• responding to violations,
• raising public awareness and
• nteragency co-operation.
6.2 Enforcement AuthoritiesEnvironment Canada
Environment Canada is the lead agency forenforcing WAPPRIITA in Canada. There isapproximately 60 full-time staff, including 45to 50 full-time wildlife enforcement positionsacross Canada (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to N.Chalifour, March 9, 2001). At least 14 to 16(depending on assignments) of these arereporting to the Wildlife Enforcement Branchheadquarters in Gatineau, Québec (E. Lalonde,Environment Canada, in litt. to E. Cooper,June 9, 2003). The rest are distributed amongstthe five regions of Environment Canada (seefigure 6.1 and table 6.1). Headquartersenforcement staff (the Director of the WildlifeEnforcement Branch or the Chiefs ofIntelligence, Operations or Inspections andTraining) do not have line authority over theregional field officers. Regional officers reportthrough the chain of command to a RegionalDirector General, who reports in turn to theDeputy Minister of the Environment.
The potential problems caused by a lack ofline authority between headquarters and theregions were partially mitigated in September2000 by the adoption of a policy to clarify theroles of the different offices (Anon., 2000j).According to this policy headquarters isresponsible for the overall management of theenforcement programme—with participationfrom the regions—and the regional offices areresponsible for coordinating and delivering
43
6.0 ENFORCEMENT
operational activities. Specifically headquartersis responsible for
• developing national policies andprocedures,
• coordinating national programmeactivities,
• coordinating activities with centralagencies and foreign countries,
• assisting the regions in fulfilling theirresponsibilities and
• leading the assessment of the programme.
The regions are responsible for
• implementing national policies andprocedures through the delivery ofinspections and investigations,
• coordinating their activities withprovincial and regional agencies and
• assisting headquarters in fulfilling itsresponsibilities.
This policy facilitates the delivery of a nationalprogramme that is consistent in general terms.However due to the organisational structure ofEnvironment Canada, regional priorities canaffect enforcement funding and activities,resulting in a national programme that isinconsistent across the country.
Within Environment Canada WAPPRIITA wasoriginally the responsibility of CWS. In the1990s a decision was made to transfer theenforcement component of the CWS to theEnvironmental Protection Branch (EPB). By1997 this transfer was complete atheadquarters and in three regions. However theOntario and Atlantic regions of EnvironmentCanada did not make the transfer (Burnett,1999). As a result the structural organisation ofEnvironment Canada’s wildlife enforcementcapacity was not uniform across the country. In2001 the decision to integrate the enforcementcomponents of the CWS and EPB wasreversed. As of April 2002 all EnvironmentCanada wildlife enforcement personnel were
44
Figure 6.1 The Five Regions of Environment Canada
Prairie &NorthernRegion
QuebecRegion
Pacific &YukonRegion
OntarioRegion
AtlanticRegion
back in the CWS (R. Charette, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, June 14, 2002).
Federal Game Officers (Environment Canadawildlife enforcement officers) are designatedwith the authority to enforce WAPPRIITA bythe Minister of the Environment as per section12 of the act. The powers of WAPPRIITAenforcement officers are specified in sections13–18. Officers are responsible for enforcingboth CITES and regulations for theinterprovincial transport of wildlife. In additionFederal Game Officers enforce the CanadaWildlife Act (CWA) and the Migratory BirdConvention Act (MBCA) (Anon., 2001j). Table6.2 shows that between 1998 and 2001, the vastmajority of the wildlife enforcement actionsreported by Environment Canada wereresponses to violations—or potentialviolations—of WAPPRIITA. The proportion ofreported WAPPRIITA actions decreased from90.1 percent of all activities in 1998–1999 to82.7 percent in 1999–2000 and then to72.6 percent in 2001–2002.20 According to theDirector of the Wildlife Enforcement Branch,MBCA actions are recorded only when apotential violation is involved, thus the actual
time spent on the two acts is closer to50 percent WAPPRIITA and 50 percent MBCA(Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).In the near future Federal Game Officers willalso be enforcing SARA (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002).21
RCMP
The RCMP is the national police force ofCanada. In addition to providing federalpolicing across Canada the RCMP providespolice services to the 3 territories, 8 provinces(excluding Ontario and Québec),approximately 198 municipalities and 192 FirstNations communities (Anon., 2003o). TheRCMP has 15 314 officers and a budget ofapproximately CAD2.3 billion (USD1.7billion) per year (Sgt. P. O’Brien, FederalEnforcement Branch, RCMP, in litt. toE. Cooper, June 19, 2002).
The RCMP receives its authority from theRCMP Act. Section 18 of the RCMP Actauthorizes the RCMP to enforce federal acts—of which there are approximately 260,including WAPPRIITA (Anon., 1985e).
45
Regional enforcement Region Jurisdiction headquarters Additional regional offices
Atlantic Nova Scotia Sackville, New Brunswick Dartmouth, Nova ScotiaNew Brunswick Moncton, New BrunswickPrince Edward Island St. John’s, NewfoundlandNewfoundland and Lewisporte, NewfoundlandLabrador
Ontario Ontario Burlington, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario Pacific and Yukon British Columbia North Vancouver, Prince George,
Yukon British Columbia British ColumbiaWhitehorse, Yukon
Prairie and Northern Alberta Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Calgary, AlbertaSaskatchewan Edmonton, AlbertaManitoba Winnipeg, ManitobaNorthwest Territories Yellowknife, Nunavut Northwest Territories
Québec Québec Québec City, Québec Montréal, Québec
Table 6.1 Environment Canada Regional Offices
Source: T. Kenway, Regional Intelligence Officer, Prairie and Northern Region, Environment Canada, in. litt. to E. Cooper, March 15, 2002; L.Sampson, Enforcement Coordinator for Wildlife Trade, Atlantic Region, Environment Canada, in. litt to E. Cooper, March 18, 2002; M.Thabault, Federal Game Officer, Environment Canada, Québec Region, in. litt to E. Cooper, March 15, 2002; A. White, Wildlife Awareness andOutreach section, CWS, Ontario Region, in. litt to E. Cooper, March 21, 2002; J. Wong, Regional Intelligence Officer, Pacific and YukonRegion, Environment Canada, in. litt to E. Cooper, March 15, 2002.
20 The federal government of Canada operates on a fiscal year that runs from April 1 of one year through to March 31 ofthe following year.
21 SARA received Royal Assent on December 12, 2002. The new act will come into force by an order in council once theregulations required under the act have been developed.
Within the RCMP the Federal InvestigationUnit focuses on public health and safety,consumer protection and environmentalprotection. In the area of environmentalprotection the unit is dedicated to the policingof WAPPRIITA (Anon., 2001i). Also theRCMP’s Customs and Excise Branch isresponsible for investigating smuggling insituations where items were imported but noCustoms office was involved or where thereare no Customs records of the importation(Anon., 2001f). This branch of the RCMPinvestigates offences under the Customs Actthat require police techniques or involveisolated areas or aboriginal reserves.
However wildlife enforcement has not been ahigh priority for the RCMP, especially sincethe force eliminated its specialized MigratoryBirds Unit in 1987 (Burnett, 1999; Y. Lafleur,in litt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
Canada Customs
Canada Customs manages 276 clearance areasfor the importation of goods into Canada.These include land border offices, inlandalternate service sites (essentially bondedwarehouses or Customs Houses), airports,vessel clearance stations, rail border sites andCustoms mail centres (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002). As of 2001
46
Table 6.2 Enforcement Activities Conducted Nationally by EnvironmentCanada, 1998–2001
Activities CWA MBCA WAPPRIITA All ActivitiesNo. % No. % No. % No. %
Inspections 3 0.1 133 3.3 3938 96.7 4074 100Investigations 2 0.2 200 18.3 888 81.5 1090 100Prosecutions 0 0.0 142 89.3 17 10.7 159 100Convictions 0 0.0 133 90.5 14 9.5 147 100Others 3 0.1 250 6.5 3574 93.4 3827 100
All activities 8 0.1 858 9.2 8431 90.7 9297 100
Fiscal Year 1998–1999
Activities CWA MBCA WAPPRIITA All ActivitiesNo. % No. % No. % No. %
Inspections 4 0.1 82 2.6 3109 97.3 3195 100Investigations 1 0.1 271 30.8 607 69.1 879 100Prosecutions 1 0.2 409 94.7 22 5.1 432 100Convictions 0 0.0 374 97.6 9 2.4 383 100Others 2 0.0 317 9.0 3217 91.0 3536 100
All activities 8 0.1 1453 17.2 6964 82.7 8425 100
Fiscal Year 1999–2000
Activities CWA MBCA WAPPRIITA All ActivitiesNo. % No. % No. % No. %
Inspections 5 0.2 279 11.5 2146 88.3 2430 100Investigations 9 1.9 253 52.8 217 45.3 479 100Prosecutions 1 0.3 270 92.2 22 7.5 293 100Convictions 1 0.4 239 96.0 9 3.6 249 100Others 10 0.0 651 9.0 2157 91.0 2818 100
All activities 26 0.4 1692 27.0 4551 72.6 6269 100
Fiscal Year 2000-2001
there was a total of 4844 Canada Customs stafflocated in these areas (Y. Lafleur, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
Canada Customs officers are not designated asofficers under WAPPRIITA and thereforecannot specifically enforce the act. Howeversection 101 of the Customs Act allows CanadaCustoms officers to detain items that have beenimported or are about to be exported until theofficer is satisfied that the goods have been dealtwith in accordance with any act of Parliamentthat prohibits, controls or regulates theimportation or exportation of goods—includingWAPPRIITA (Anon., 1985b). Canada Customsplays a crucial role in CITES enforcement. Co-operation between Environment Canada andCanada Customs is critical for effective CITESimplementation in Canada.
CFIA
The CFIA is separate from Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada, but the agency is theresponsibility of the Minister of Minister ofAgriculture and Agri-Food (Anon., 2002d).CFIA inspectors are available on a call-outbasis every day, at all hours of the day, at allmajor ports of entry. CFIA veterinarians are oncall 24 hours a day (Dr. R. Livingstone,Vancouver Regional Veterinarian, CFIA, in litt.to E. Cooper, March 8, 2002).
CFIA inspectors and veterinarians are notdesignated as officers under WAPPRIITA andhave no powers to enforce the act. In the pastAgriculture Canada inspectors were active inmonitoring shipments of most animals andplants imported into Canada and wereimportant partners for Environment Canada.Since the formation of the CFIA the agency isfocused on animal and plant health issues andno longer inspects animal shipments of noagricultural significance (such as ornamentalfish or most live reptiles and amphibians forthe pet trade). Canada Customs officers oftenused to refer suspected CITES items to theCFIA for identification if Environment Canadastaff were unavailable. This is now much lesscommon: since the personal and householdeffects exemption came into effect CanadaCustoms officers are detaining far fewer items.As a result of these factors CFIA andEnvironment Canada inspection staff areinteracting less, and the CFIA has much lessimpact on the implementation of CITES in
Canada (Dr. R. Livingstone, in litt. to E.Cooper, March 8, 2002).
Provincial and Territorial WildlifeEnforcement Officers
There are approximately 1573 full-time and 390part-time or seasonal provincial and territorialwildlife enforcement officers in Canada (seetable 6.3). A number of provincial and territorialofficers have been designated with powers ofenforcement under WAPPRIITA via MOU’ssigned with Environment Canada. MOU’s havebeen signed with (as of May 2004) Alberta,British Columbia, Manitoba the NorthwestTerritories Nunavut Prince Edward IslandSaskatchewan and Yukon (Anon., 1997b, 1998a,1998c, 1998d, 1998i, 1998j, 1999d and 2003m).These MOU accomplish several things:
• They allow Environment Canada tobroaden its mandate to include theprovincial agencies, thereby expandingwhat can be accomplished with the limitedresources available.
• They create a heightened awarenesswithin the provincial and territorialagencies and encourage greater liaisonbetween the federal and provincial orterritorial agencies, as well as theformation of joint investigations.
• They provide the provincial agencies withgreater powers (and therefore investigativetools that are only available to lawenforcement officers via federallegislation) which can complement theirprovincial statute investigations.
• They provide the opportunity to combinefederal and provincial charges potentiallyresulting in higher penalties, includingimprisonment, which serves to heightenpublic awareness and deter those whowould commit illegal acts.
Provincial and territorial officers are importantpartners for Environment Canada, primarily forthe enforcement of the MBCA and section 7 ofWAPPRIITA (regulating interprovincialtransport of wildlife). However provincial andterritorial officers may also assist in efforts toenforce CITES as it applies to indigenous(CITES-listed) species taken in Canada andthen exported. See for example convictions 17(R. v. Sibbitt), 20 (R. v. Yuen) and 29 (R. v.Kaartinen) in Appendix D.
47
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
The Conservation and Protection (C&P)directorate of DFO is responsible for enforcingthe Fisheries Act of Canada and correspondingregulations. This responsibility is carried outby fishery officers and marine enforcementofficers who work from Canadian Coast Guardvessels. These officers have full enforcementpowers and responsibilities as outlined in theFisheries Act, the Criminal Code of Canadaand the Constitution Act when enforcing theFisheries Act and regulations. In additionaboriginal fishery guardians are employed bytheir First Nations administration to enforcethe aboriginal fishery for their particular
nation. The aboriginal enforcement officershave limited powers to enforce the act andregulations, and these powers vary amongdifferent areas, territories, First Nations bands,various pending agreements with thegovernment and other parameters (B.Jubinville, Detachment Supervisor, SpecialInvestigations Unit, Conservation andProtection, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, inlitt. to E. Cooper, May 27, 2003).
There are approximately 500 DFOenforcement officers in Canada, stationed onall three coasts and in the interior of thecountry.22 Many officers are term employees,and a large number of cadets in the system are
48
Province or territory Description Full-time officers Part-time or seasonal officers
Alberta Conservation Officers 136British Columbia Conservation Officers 125Manitoba Natural Resources Officers 140 128New Brunswick Conservation Officers 210Newfoundland and 140 field officers, approximately 70Labrador 70 of whom do enforcementNova Scotia Conservation Officers 33 30Northwest Territories There are 82 staff members 36
appointed as officers, but only 36 Wildlife Officers actively involved in field enforcement.
Nunavut Wildlife Officers 34 Ontario Conservation Officers 281Prince Edward Island Conservation Officers 8Québec Agents de protection de la faune 330 170Saskatchewan Conservation Officers 158 56Yukon Conservation Officers 12
Combined Conservation Officer– 6technicians and senior staff who spend some time in the field.
Total 1573 390
Table 6.3 Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Officers Across Canada
Sources : S. Begon, Assistant to Chief Conservation Officer, British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Conservation OfficerService, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, June 2, 2003; M. Busch, Acting Director of Enforcement Services, Alberta Department of SustainableResource Development, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, May 27, 2003; R. Dean, Assistant Director, Operations Division Headquarters, ManitobaConservation, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 16, 2003; D. Harvey, Director of Enforcement and Compliance, Saskatchewan Department ofEnvironment and Resource Management, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 27, 2003; F. Lidstone, Senior Policy Planning and Research Analyst,Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Resources and Agrifoods, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, May 27, 2003; G. MacDougall, Head, Investigationsand Enforcement, Prince Edward Island Department of Fisheries Aquaculture and Environment, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 13, 2003; J.Mombourquette, Director of Enforcement Division, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 13, 2003; R.Monroe, Director of Law Enforcement, Regional Support Services Branch, New Brunswick Dept of Natural Resources and Energy, in litt. to E.Cooper, May 13, 2003; S. Pinksen, Senior Advisor, Legislation and Enforcement, Nunavut Wildlife Service, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 13, 2003.J.Russell, A/Director, Conservation Officer Services, Conservation Officer Services Branch, Environment Yukon, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 13,2003; G. Sones, Director, Provincial Enforcement Branch, Field Services Division, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, in litt. to E. Cooper,May 14, 2003; D. Williams, Manager, Compliance Division, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Northwest Territories, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, June 2, 2003; Éric Yves Harvey, Vice-président à la Protection de la Faune, Société de la Faune et des Parcs via N.Zinger, Directrice, Bureau du Québec, WWF, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 28, 2003.
22 DFO officers in the interior of the country mainly deal with habitat protection issues.
officers in training and have yet to acquire apermanent position. The number of officersvaries according to funding pressures (B.Jubinville, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 27, 2003).
Although DFO has CITES administrativeresponsibilities, DFO officers are not designatedas enforcement officers under WAPPRIITA andtherefore have no authority to enforce the act(Anon., 1992b). The department is not activelyinvolved in CITES enforcement (Y. Lafleur,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).However DFO does provide importantadministrative support for permit issuance formarine species. Their management authoritysupports Environment Canada investigationsdealing with these specimens and contributes toCITES awareness programmes (R. Charette, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
6.3 ResourcesResources Available
It is self-evident that the enforcement of CITESrequires resources. A sufficient number ofenforcement officers must be employed andtrained, enforcement activities must be assignedsome level of priority within government andsuitable operational budgets must be provided.
The wildlife enforcement component ofEnvironment Canada has approximately 60staff, including the regional chiefs,administration and support staff. There areapproximately 35 Federal Game Officersworking in the field. Some of these officerswork primarily on CITES issues, and others donot work on CITES at all. On average onlyone-half of their time is dedicated to CITES.The rest of their time is spent enforcing theMBCA, CWA and non-CITES-related sections
of WAPPRIITA (interprovincial transport).When officers are assigned to these (non-CITES) responsibilities they are not generallyavailable for CITES-related activities. Forexample an officer who is in the field checkingduck hunters or patrolling a National WildlifeArea cannot respond to a CITES violation atan airport elsewhere in that region. As a resultthere are only the equivalent of 18 full-timeFederal Game Officers enforcing CITES inCanada (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,March 26, 2002) (see table 6.4).
According to the Director of the WildlifeEnforcement Branch these officers are too busyreacting to be proactive, and as a result long-term priorities often cannot be fully delivered.There are not enough officers available to beable to commit to more than one or two long-term investigations at the same time, nor arethere available resources to complete suchprogramme goals as maintaining the presentpartnerships or developing a better partnershipwith the CFIA (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 23, 2002).
Federal Game Officers are responsible forthree basic activities: inspections,investigations and intelligence gathering(Anon., 2003k):
• Inspections are conducted to identifyspecimens, check for valid permits anddetain illegal shipments.
• Investigations collect information andevidence for identifying, apprehending andprosecuting suspected offenders.
• Intelligence gathering involves collecting,evaluating, collating, analysing anddisseminating intelligence on current,
49
Region Inspections Investigations Intelligence Total
Atlantic 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.0Ontario 2.5 2.5 0.7 5.7Pacific and Yukon 2.0 0.7 0.7 3.4Prairie and Northern 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.5Québec 2.0 2.0 0.5 4.5Canada 8.3 7.0 2.8 18.1
Table 6.4 Regional Federal Game Officers Dedicated to CITESEnforcement in 2002, Approximate Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)
Source: R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, June 25, 2002.
suspected and potential wildlife violationsas a support service for inspections andinvestigations.
In three regions (Pacific and Yukon, Québecand Ontario) these activities are performed byofficers designated as inspectors, investigatorsand intelligence officers. In the other tworegions (Prairie and Northern, Atlantic) officersact as both inspectors and investigators. ThePrairie and Northern Region has a dedicatedintelligence officer, but in the Atlantic Regionthis function is performed by an officer who isalso responsible for inspections andinvestigations (L. Sampson, EnforcementCoordinator for Wildlife Trade, AtlanticRegion, Environment Canada, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, June 10, 2002). The Ontario Regionhas put additional resources into a specialoperations programme. The investigations thatfall under special operations are normallyinternational, involve illegal commercial tradeand are long and complicated, and the intent isto prosecute by indictment (A. Giesche,National Coordinator, Special Operations,Ontario Region, Environment Canada, pers.comm. to N. Chalifour, June 14, 2001).
Environment Canada’s total budget for wildlifeenforcement in Canada decreased during the1990s, stabilized in 1997 and increased slightlyto its present level. As of 2001 this budget wasroughly CAD5.2 million (USD3.9 million) (Y.Lafleur, pers. comm. to N. Chalifour, March 9,2001). These funds pay for salaries, capital costs(such as vehicles) and operational costs. Fieldofficers require CAD15 000 (USD11 156) toCAD20 000 (USD14 874) per year to coverexpenses (such as travel or equipment purchases)(Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March26, 2002). The projected budgets for fiscal year2003–2004 were as follows (Y. Lafleur, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 23, 2002):
• Headquarters:CAD1 500 000 (USD1 115 476),
• Atlantic Region:CAD629 000 (USD467 744),
• Ontario Region:CAD1 400 000 (USD1 041 006),
• Québec Region:CAD640 000 (USD475 860),
• Prairie and Northern Region:CAD851 000 (USD632 805) and
• Pacific and Yukon Region:CAD817 000 (USD607 523).
However, the budget that is actually receivedby enforcement can vary greatly depending onother priorities, unexpected expenses andspecial projects (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, March 26, 2002). Funds originallybudgeted for enforcement may be held backand used for other purposes. As a resultenforcement offices may receive less fundingthan they are originally budgeted for.
Resources Required
It is very difficult to determine what resourcesare required to enforce CITES in Canada.Illegal activities are by their nature covert, andthere is no way to accurately estimate thenumber of WAPPRIITA violations occurring inCanada annually. It is tempting to estimate thetotal level of illegal activity from the number ofviolations discovered and recorded byenforcement officers. However there is no wayto know what percentage the recorded numbersare of the total number of violations. Theprevalence of detected violations is thereforenot a useful tool for evaluating what resourcesare needed to enforce CITES. According to theDirector of the Wildlife Enforcement Branch abetter approach is to determine the level ofservice that needs to be achieved and determinewhether that level of service is being met (Y.Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
In May 1998 the House of Commons StandingCommittee on Environment and SustainableDevelopment issued a report entitled EnforcingCanada's Pollution Laws: The Public InterestMust Come First! The report criticizedEnvironment Canada’s enforcement of theCanadian Environmental Protection Act(CEPA) and the pollution preventionprovisions of the Fisheries Act (Anon., 1998e).
In the report the standing committee noted thatat the time Environment Canada employed 60regional pollution enforcement officers. In1996–1997 those officers conducted 1479inspections (701 under CEPA and 778 underthe Fisheries Act), 78 investigations (53 CEPA,25 Fisheries Act) and 10 prosecutions (5CEPA, 5 Fisheries Act). The report went on tosay that Canadians were not getting the levelof environmental protection that they expectedand deserved, and there was a lack of both
50
human and financial resources to meet theworkload (Anon., 1998e).
To put this in perspective: in 1998–1999 (datawere not available to TRAFFIC North Americafor 1996–1997) the 45 or 50 regional wildlifeenforcement staff conducted 4074 inspections(3938 WAPPRIITA, 3 CWA, 133 MBCA),1090 investigations (888 WAPPRIITA, 2 CWA,200 MBCA) and 159 prosecutions (17WAPPRIITA, 142 MBCA) (Anon., 2003u). Itwould appear that the wildlife enforcementworkload was as high (or higher) as that forpollution enforcement and was being met withfewer resources. If the available resources didnot meet the pollution enforcement workload,then the resources for wildlife enforcementwere most likely equally insufficient.
Environment Canada apparently agreed thatthe resources for wildlife enforcement wereinsufficient. One of the standing committee’srecommendations was that the Minister of theEnvironment should seek (and the governmentof Canada should grant) additional resourcesfor enforcement of environmental legislation(Anon., 1998e). In response EnvironmentCanada developed the National EnforcementProgram (NEP) Business Case (in September1999) which focused on the enforcement ofboth federal pollution and wildlife lawsadministered by Environment Canada. TheNEP Business Case reviewed EnvironmentCanada’s wildlife enforcement programme anddetermined that the resources required toeffectively meet the workload of theprogramme were far greater than presentlevels. As a result the NEP Business Caserequested more than 100 additional staff andmore than CAD8 million (USD6 million) inadditional annual funding (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002).
Subsequently the Department made a requestto Cabinet for additional funds forEnvironment Canada’s Wildlife EnforcementBranch. However the request was notforwarded to the Treasury Board (T.Swerdfager, in litt. to E. Cooper, October 14,2003). EPB received approximatelyCAD45 million (USD33 million) over fiveyears in new funds for pollution enforcement,but nothing for wildlife enforcement (Y.Lafleur, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 3,2002).
After these additional funds were received a
decision was made at a high management levelof the EPB to temporarily financially assist thewildlife enforcement programme byreallocating CAD1 million (USD 0.7 million)of the new funds to wildlife enforcement. Thisreallocation financed the creation of 2 newenforcement positions in each region plus 2 atheadquarters—a total of 12 new officers.Unfortunately the funds were committed onlyon an annual basis. When the wildlifeenforcement programme was moved out of theEPB and back to the CWS in April 2002 it wasdecided that the loan would be cut in half in2003 and terminated in 2004 (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002). If thesefunds cannot be recovered from other sourcesthe result could be the loss of the 12 newofficers, which will have an impact on theenforcement of CITES (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 23, 2002).
When SARA comes into force additionalresources will be allocated to the wildlifeenforcement programme to provide for at leastone new officer per region (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002). Accordingto the Director of the Wildlife EnforcementBranch, SARA will result in increasedworkload and need for training, which willexceed the proposed allocation (Y. Lafleur, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
6.4 Monitoring TradeMonitoring and documenting the species andproducts in trade is one of the primary goals ofCITES. According to the Director of theWildlife Enforcement Branch the role ofenforcement officers is to ensure that the tradeis done legally and actions are taken to reduceillegal activities (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 23, 2002). An associated responsibility is todocument and report on the volume andcomposition of wildlife trade in Canada.
Wildlife trade in Canada is monitored byEnvironment Canada wildlife inspection staffswho work closely with Canada Customs.CITES enforcement would be unfeasible inCanada without the assistance and co-operation of Canada Customs. An importantrole for Environment Canada staff is to ensurethat Canada Customs detects the goods thatneed to be inspected (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 23, 2002).
There is the equivalent of 8.3 Environment
51
Canada Federal Game Officers conductingCITES inspections across the country (see table6.4).23 The primary job of these officers is toinspect goods imported into Canada to ensurecompliance with CITES. They are alsoresponsible for providing training to othergovernment agencies, conducting publicoutreach activities, answering queries fromimporters and brokers and so forth (R. Charette,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Goods may also be inspected upon export, butthis is much less common. The NationalCITES Management Authority can add aspecial condition to Canadian CITES permits(in box 5 on the permit) that would invalidatethe permit if not processed by Canada Customsat the moment of export from Canada (R.Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 12,2002). This condition is used at the request ofthe Wildlife Enforcement Branch so thatenforcement officers can inspect someshipments that are of special concern, such aslive falcons or CITES Appendix I species (R.Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 4, 2003).
Although Canada Customs has the authority toinspect goods being exported, the agency has alimited capability for targeting or examinationof export shipments. According to CanadaCustoms, export examinations are generallylimited to commodities that may be subject tothe Export and Import Permits Act under the‘Strategic Control’, ‘Armaments’ and ‘HighTechnology’ areas and this rarely results inmaterials being identified as containing CITESgoods (Paul Clydesdale, Canada Customs, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 5, 2002).
Wildlife products may enter Canada via themail, couriers, personal vehicles or luggageand on the person of a traveller or incommercial cargo shipments (by air, land orsea). Shipments of wildlife products rangefrom single items to commercial importationsof thousands of boxes of diverse products. In2000 more than 12 million commercialshipments (of all commodity types, not justwildlife) were imported into Canada and morethan 100 million travellers were processed byCanada Customs. The number of shipmentsand travellers entering Canada is increasing
each year. The number of commercialshipments alone increases by approximately500 000 annually (P. Clydesdale, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 5, 2002).
Federal Game Officers responsible formonitoring trade must complete the followingactions (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,July 12, 2002):
• Determine which imports or exports shouldbe inspected (targeting).
• Arrange (with Canada Customs) to haveimports or exports detained for inspection.
• Verify documentation of, physicallyinspect (with or without the assistance ofCanada Customs) goods being imported orexported, or both.
• Identify wildlife or wildlife products todetermine whether CITES permits arerequired for import or export.
• Verify that permits are valid and accurate.
• Respond to violations (such as detentionsor seizures of products, initiation of aninvestigation, and so on).
• Complete necessary administrative duties(completing inspection reports).
• Input information on activities intoNEMISIS.
In addition to inspecting imports or exportsofficers may also inspect goods alreadyimported into Canada, although this isuncommon. For example in 1998 TRAFFICNorth America published a report on theavailability of traditional Chinese medicinescontaining CITES Appendix I species in majorcities in North America (Gaski, 1998). Inresponse, officers in the Pacific and YukonRegion conducted on-site inspections of 110retail stores selling traditional Chinesemedicine in Vancouver and Victoria, BritishColumbia (Dyck et al, 1998).
Targeting
It is both physically and economicallyinfeasible to inspect every shipment that isimported to or exported from Canada annually.Shipments must be assessed to determine therisk that they might contain products of
52
23 Officers may be assigned to inspections duties on a part-time or full-time basis. All together these assignments total 8.3full-time positions as shown in see table 6.4.
concern. High-risk imports are then targetedfor inspection (P. Clydesdale, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 5, 2002).
In some cases shipments are specificallytargeted for potential CITES violations. Inother cases shipments considered a high riskfor CITES violations may be targeted fordifferent concerns (P. Clydesdale, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 5, 2002). Although theshipment is inspected for a reason other thanpotential CITES violations, the result may bethe discovery of CITES infractions. Forexample one of the highest priorities forCanada Customs is the illicit drug trade. At theCustoms Mail Centre (CMC) in Vancouver,British Columbia mail from certain Asiancountries is considered a high risk forsmuggling illicit drugs, and it is targetedaccordingly. Wildlife products are oftendiscovered in these packages when they areinspected by Canada Customs staff, and theyare then referred to Environment Canada (M.Bahls, Superintendent Marine MOVAC,Canada Customs, Vancouver, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, July 5, 2002).
Canada Customs targets imports for CITES atthe request of Environment Canada. They maybe targeted because the importer or exporterhas a history of non-compliance or becausethe commodities being imported are a highrisk for CITES-listed species (such astraditional medicines or shipments of livereptiles). Part of the targeting process is toestablish instructions for the Canada Customsofficer who first encounters a targetedshipment. Typically the officer is instructed toprovide Environment Canada with the detailsof the import so that the need for a physicalinspection can be determined (P. Clydesdale,in litt. to E. Cooper, July 5, 2002).
TRAFFIC North America was unable todetermine whether the targeting process is usedconsistently and effectively by EnvironmentCanada in all regions.
Inspections
Environment Canada’s Compliance andEnforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislationstates that the purpose of an inspection is toverify compliance with wildlife acts andregulations (Anon., 2002j). The first priorityfor Environment Canada’s wildlife inspection
staff is to check CITES-regulated goodsentering Canada to ensure compliance with theConvention (Anon., 1998f). Inspections are themost common enforcement activity conductedby Environment Canada officers (see table6.2), and almost all WAPPRIITA inspectionsare CITES related (R. Charette, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, July 12, 2002).
Environment Canada’s wildlife inspectionpersonnel have broad powers. During aninspection officers may inspect wildlife or theirparts or products. They may also open andexamine receptacles, containers or packages;take samples and examine and copy records.They may enter and inspect premises (otherthan a private dwelling) if they have reasonablegrounds to believe that the premises containwildlife, their parts or products, or recordsrelevant to WAPPRIITA or its administration.To inspect a private dwelling officers mustobtain the consent of the occupant or present awarrant prepared by a justice of the peace(Anon., 2002j).
If during an inspection officers have reason tobelieve that a violation is occurring or hastaken place, then the officers are to respondwith an appropriate action. The officers maydecide to act immediately or to initiate afurther investigation (Anon., 2002j).
In the case of imports and exports officersmust determine if permits are required. Ifpermits are included in the shipment they mustbe examined to ensure that they are valid andaccurate. When inspecting goods that havealready entered the country (for example in aretail store) officers must determine thepossibility of possession or transportationviolations (Anon., 1992b, sections 6, 7 and 8;Dyck et al, 1998).
An inspection could start (and possibly end)with an examination of the paperworkaccompanying a shipment, a partial inspectionto find specific items or to deal with specificissues resulting from the paperworkexamination, or a complete physicalexamination of every item in a shipment.Considering that a single commercial shipmentcould contain thousands of cartons andhundreds of thousands of items, a physicalinspection can take days. Conversely aninspection of one item in a mailed packagecould take minutes. Inspections of imports and
53
54
exports in customs bonded areas are typicallyconducted with Canada Customs staff inattendance (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, July 12, 2002).
The effort directed at inspecting wildlifeshipments entering or exiting Canada is notconsistent across the country. Thisinconsistency is the result of several factors:
• The regional reporting structure ofEnvironment Canada results in differingregional enforcement priorities(R. Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,July 12, 2002) (see section 6.2,‘Enforcement Authorities: EnvironmentCanada’, in this report).
• Imports may be targeted using differentcriteria in the different regions (P.Clydesdale, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 30,2002).
• The type of imports and exports and thecountry source of imports vary amongregions (P. Clydesdale, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 30, 2002).
• Shipments are not necessarily inspected inthe region for which they are destined. Forexample shipments of traditional Chinesemedicines destined for Ontario may beinspected in the Pacific and Yukon Region,where they first land in Canada(L. Sampson, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,June 10, 2002).
• The working relationship betweenEnvironment Canada and Canada Customsmay differ among regions, which affectsthe efficiency of the inspection processeither positively or negatively (R. Charette,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 12, 2002).
• The number and experience of inspectionstaff vary among the regions (see‘Inspections and Biological Expertise’below).
The numbers of WAPPRIITA inspectionsconducted in Canada for fiscal years1999–2000 and 2000–2001 are shown byregion in table 6.5.24 Two kinds of inspections
were originally recorded in NEMISIS (see‘Data Management’ below): field or siteinspections, and administrative or verificationinspections. Apparently the definitions of thesetwo actions were not clear, and officers acrossCanada were inconsistent in entering theirinspections data. In 2002 the definition of aninspection was rewritten, and the two kinds ofinspections became on-site inspections and off-site inspections (Anon., 2002o). The definitionof an inspection was rewritten as follows:
An inspection is a process that involvesverification of compliance with theenvironmental or wildlife legislationadministered, in whole or in part, byEnvironment Canada (EC). TheEnforcement Officer (EO) must havereasonable grounds to believe that, on thepremises or in the documents that he/sheintends to inspect, there are activities,markings, materials, substances, records,books, electronic data or other documentsthat are subject to the environmental orwildlife legislation.
…For an activity to be considered aninspection, the EO must have reasonablegrounds to believe that, on thetransport/vehicule [sic] or in thedocuments that he/she intends to inspect,there are markings, materials, substances,records, books, electronic data, or otherdocuments that are subject to theenvironmental or wildlife legislation.
An on-site inspection was defined as ‘…one ormore visits to the site of a facility or a plant, orin a vehicle, a ship or a transporter (all owned,leased or controlled by the regulatee) toconduct any activity/operation required toverify the regulatee’s compliance with oneregulation/permit/ manifest. Visits can alsotake place at an airport, a border or a port ofentry’.
An off-site inspection was defined as ‘…anyactivity that is not conducted at the site of afacility/plant/vehicle/ship/transporter (that isowned, leased or controlled by the regulatee)
24 This table was compiled from data provided by Environment Canada. It was then offered for review by the regions. TheOntario Region subsequently indicated that the original figures used by Environment Canada were inaccurate and providedcorrections which were incorporated in the final table (R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 27, 2002). As a result thetotal number of WAPPRIITA inspections shown in table 6.5 does not precisely match the total number of WAPPRIITAinspections shown in table 6.2.
or at the airport/border/port ofentry to verify compliance with oneregulation/permit/manifest. For example,inspections done at the Enforcement Officer’splace of work or in a laboratory’.
Both on-site and off-site inspections caninvolve physical verification, documentverification or both.
Table 6.5 shows that between fiscal years1999–2000 and 2000–2001 the numbers ofinspections recorded in the Prairie and Northern,Ontario, and Atlantic regions droppedsubstantially (by at least one-half). This dropwas primarily due to the personal and householdeffects exemption [WAPTR section 15] cominginto force. In the case of Ontario staff changes(loss of inspection staff and replacement withless experienced personnel) also may have hadan effect. The number of inspections completedin the Pacific and Yukon and Québec regionsrose slightly during this period. The efforts ofthese regions were already focused oncommercial wildlife shipments and internationalmail before the personal and household effects
exemption. As a result the exemption had muchless effect on the number of inspectionsconducted in these regions (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Further analysis of Canadian inspection resultsis not possible. Data are not recorded on thevast majority of imports of non-CITES wildlifeand wildlife products, so the total number ofwildlife shipments imported into Canada is notknown. Without these baseline data it is notpossible to calculate an inspection rate or useinspection figures as a tool to measureeffectiveness within or between regions. Forexample one region could conduct twice asmany inspections as any other region, but thesignificance of that fact would differ greatly ifthat region had 10 times more or 10 timesfewer wildlife shipments.
In addition the inspection data recorded byofficers in different regions are not consistent.For example if Canada Customs refers thepaperwork for a shipment to EnvironmentCanada for review, but no physicalexamination is conducted, officers in the
55
Table 6.5 Environment Canada WAPPRIITA InspectionsFiscal Year 1999–2000
Field or site Administrative or Percentage of all Region inspections verification inspections Total inspections
Pacific and Yukon 864 4 868 27%Prairie and Northern 675 20 695 22%Ontario 584 506 1192 37%Québec 282 43 325 10%Atlantic 126 5 131 4%All Canada 2531 578 3211 100%
Source: Anon. (2002x) (with corrections).
Fiscal Year 2000-2001
Field or site Administrative or Percentage of all Region inspections verification inspections Total inspections
Pacific and Yukon 902 5 907 42%Prairie and Northern 315 3 318 15%Ontario 248 281 544 25%Québec 337 16 353 16%Atlantic 29 10 39 2%All Canada 1831 315 2161 100%
Note: These data could include inspections conducted for enforcing both CITES and the interprovincial transport (of provincially andterritorially regulated wildlife) components of WAPPRIITA and WAPTR. However most (if not all) of these data refer to activities related to CITESenforcement.Source: Anon. (2002y) (with corrections).
Pacific and Yukon Region would not recordthis as an inspection (R. Graham, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 12, 2002), whereas officers inOntario would record this as an administrativeinspection (L. Coot, Environment Canada,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 11, 2002).25
Detailed data on WAPPRIITA inspections inCanada—such as the percentage of inspectionsthat resulted in CITES detentions or thenumbers and types of products that weredetained or seized—were not available fromEnvironment Canada.26
However, data for the Pacific and Yukon Regionwere available in the form of a series ofregional documents which summarize thedetentions made by Canada Customs in theregion (Merz, 1996; White, 1997, 1998, 1999,2000, 2001). Data from these documents forthe years 1995–2000 are summarized in table6.6. These data provide a glimpse of thevolume of trade in CITES species and productsinto Canada. They also suggest that a very highpercentage of the inspections conducted in thePacific and Yukon Region result in CITESdetentions. This high ‘hit’ rate is likely theresult of effective targeting and not indicativeof the proportion of wildlife shipments thatinvolve CITES violations. However this cannotbe confirmed without data on the total number
of wildlife shipments imported into the region.27
Inspections and Biological Expertise
Once enforcement officers find wildlife orwildlife products they must identify them todetermine whether the species is regulated byCITES. Without accurate identification furtherenforcement actions cannot proceed andwildlife trade cannot be monitored. Theapproximately 30 000 species of animals andplants listed by CITES may be traded as live ordead specimens, raw parts or products of greatdiversity (such as clothing, tourist curios,timber, foodstuffs, medicines, jewellery and soon). Table 6.7 provides examples of thediversity of forms in which a single species(American alligator [Alligatormississippiensis]) may be traded. Identifyingwildlife and wildlife products requires a levelof biological expertise—at the very leastknowledge of taxonomy (the classification ofanimals and plants) and morphology (anatomy).This expertise needs to be developed andupdated as new species and new products areroutinely introduced into trade and species areadded to the CITES Appendices.
In 1992 Environment Canada began hiringWAPPRIITA inspection staff in anticipation ofWAPPRIITA coming into force. The firstwildlife inspector was hired in the Pacific and
56
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Shipments referred by Canada Customs 1718 2215 2204 2146 2538Shipments of CITES-listed items 896 922 756 765 451Items examined 185 224 160 815 226 981 130 217 202 976Items detained for CITES violations 165 776 125 720 51 141 92 932 96 753
Table 6.6 Inspection Results in the Pacific and Yukon Region, 1996–2000
Source: Merz, 1996; White, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
25 This issue is under review as the department looks at standardizing NEMISIS input across the country (R. Graham, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 12, 2002). See also the discussion under ‘Data Management’ elsewhere in this report.
26 Goods that are held by the authorities until it is determined whether or not they imported, exported or possessed inviolation of WAPPRIITA are considered detained. For example if a traveller entering Canada declared a snakeskin purseto Canada Customs, the purse may be detained until the species of snake is identified and its status under CITES isdetermined. Goods that are discovered in clear violation of the act may be seized. For example if an elephant ivorycarving (CITES Appendix I) was found concealed in the luggage of a traveller entering Canada in a clear attempt tosmuggle, then the item would be seized and prosecution could result.
27 These data also suggest that almost everything that is examined is found to be in violation of CITES, giving the falseimpression that CITES violations are the norm for wildlife shipments into the region. For most commercial shipmentsonly the number of items detained or seized were recorded, not the total number of items in the shipment.
Yukon Region in 1992. By 1994 there wereinspectors in the Pacific and Yukon, Québecand Ontario regions. Each was a biologist withexperience with CITES and wildlife trade. By1999 there were seven biologists working aswildlife inspectors—two in the QuébecRegion, three in the Ontario Region, one in thePacific and Yukon Region and one atheadquarters (the Chief of Inspections andTraining). These officers played a key role insupporting enforcement actions and providingexpertise to less experienced officers and topartners. As of July 1, 2002 only the two inQuébec and one at headquarters remained. Theothers have left wildlife enforcement and havebeen replaced by non-biologists with limitedidentification experience. This extensive loss ofexpertise in CITES and the identification ofwildlife and wildlife products has led to a lossof credibility for Environment Canada withsome of their partners (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E.Cooper, July 23, 2002).
Wildlife Transport Requirements
WAPTR section 9 requires that anyone whoexports live animals or plants from Canada mustdo so in accordance with the IATA Live AnimalsRegulations and Guidelines for Transport and
Preparation for Shipment of Live Wild Animalsand Plants (see ‘Humane Treatment Findings’under section 5.12 of this report, ‘Findings MadePrior to Issuing Permits’).28
Environment Canada officers do not receivetraining on the application of the IATA LiveAnimals Regulations or the Guidelines forTransport and Preparation for Shipment ofLive Wild Animals and Plants. Copies of theIATA Live Animals Regulations are distributedto regional offices by headquarters when neweditions are published, and copies of theguidelines have been distributed when receivedfrom the National CITES ManagementAuthority (R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper,July 4, 2003).
Environment Canada officers have theauthority to inspect and stop shipments intransit through Canada if the specimens arethreatened by the conditions of their transport.This has happened only once, and the importercorrected the situation (R. Charette, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 4, 2003).
Limited resources mean that very few wildlifeexports are ever inspected by EnvironmentCanada, and as noted previously officers do
57
Products Imported Similar Species or Products
Whole stuffed or dried animals, dried heads Other crocodilians, large lizards
Hunting trophies (for example heads, skulls, skins) Hunting trophies from other crocodilians
Leather items (coats, bags, purses, shoes, wallets) Leather from other crocodilians, other reptile leathers(lizard, snake, turtle), other exotic leathers (ostrich,scaly anteater), textured cowhide, manufacturedimitations
Claws and feet (as curios or used as belt buckles) Claws and feet from other crocodilians, large lizards
Teeth (as curios or used in jewellery) Teeth from other crocodilians; canine teeth from bears,large cats, primates, pigs, seals and sea lions;manufactured imitations
Fresh meat Meat from other species of animals
Dried meat Meat from other species of animals
Meat products (such as sausage) Meat products from other species of animals
Other foodstuffs (such as canned chilli) Meat from other species of animals
As ingredients in packaged medicine Ingredients from other species of animals
Table 6.7 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Products andSimilar Products from Other Species
Sources for Alligator products: Anon., 2002a; Anon., 2002b; Anon., 1999c; Anon., 2003a; Anon., 2003i.
28 The Guidelines for Transport and Preparation for Shipment of Live Wild Animals and Plants were originally adopted bythe Parties at the second CoP in San José, Costa Rica in 1979, and their use was reinforced in Resolution Conference10.21 (Anon., 1997e).
not receive training on live animal and planttransport requirements. As a result there isminimal, if any, enforcement of this regulation.As of July 2003 no charges had been made forviolation of WAPTR section 9.
Data Management
NEMISIS is the electronic database used byEnvironment Canada for tracking andmanaging enforcement activities. FederalGame Officers are required to enter the resultsof all enforcement activities into the database.Results of inspections include the location andreason for the inspection, transport details,information on the importer, the volume andnature of the species and products involved andthe outcome of the inspection. The outcomewould include details about any violations
detected, the items that were detained or seized(if any) and the final actions of the officer(such as referral of the case for investigation,see table 6.8) (R. Charette, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, July 2, 2002).
Officers should be able to track the results ofenforcement activities across Canada andgenerally coordinate their activities nationallythrough NEMISIS. For example an officershould be able to very quickly determinewhether an importer has a record of CITESviolations. NEMISIS should provide acomplete and detailed record of their activities,and a search of the database should providecomplete data on enforcement results (thenumber of inspections conducted in a region,number of products detained, and so forth)
58
Code Action32 Ministerial order34 EPCO35 EPAM1010 Referred to investigations1020 Referred for compliance promotion1021 Referred to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1030 Referral to municipal government department1040 Referral to provincial government department1050 Referral to foreign government1060 Referral to other federal government department1070 Referral to other agency2010 Inspector’s verbal direction2020 Inspector’s written direction2030 Inspector’s verbal warning3010 No action taken3020 Limitation period expired3030 Seizure3040 Written warning (warning letter)3050 (null)3060 Removal order3070 Offence notice3080 Forfeiture3090 No violation4001 Prosecution5010 Ticketed6010 Compliance letter7050 Unsolved7060 Warning retracted
Table 6.8 Final Actions Taken as a Result of Enforcement Activities, asEntered into NEMISIS
Source: R. Charette, in. litt. to E. Cooper, June 3, 2003
(R. Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 2,2002). A key requirement for NEMISIS is thecapability to record data on the differentspecies of animals and plants listed by CITES(approximately 30 000) and the multitude ofdifferent products and derivatives that theymay be traded as.
In January 2002 TRAFFIC North Americarequested information on the regionalenforcement activities for the years 1999–2000and 2000–2001 from Wildlife EnforcementBranch headquarters. This should haverequired a simple search of NEMISIS.However the initial NEMISIS search resultswere inaccurate, and the data had to becirculated to the different regions to becorrected and verified. The entire process tookweeks and required a great deal of effort byenforcement staff. In April 2002 TRAFFICNorth America made a request for informationon Canadian seizures of elephant ivory. Againthe initial NEMISIS report was inaccurate, andthe data were collected only after input fromthe regional offices (R. Charette, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002). In June 2003TRAFFIC North America requested thenumbers of items detained or seized by eachregion as a result of CITES enforcement forthe years 1998–2001. Headquarters staff couldnot provide this information from NEMISIS,and three regions (Ontario, Prairie andNorthern, and Pacific and Yukon) respondedthat they would only respond to an Access toInformation Request through the Access toInformation Act because they could not affordto do the search (R. Charette, in litt. to E.Cooper, June 20, 2003).
All officers in all regions have not beenentering data routinely, and not all of the datahave been recorded in a consistent format.Different regions and different officers haveentered their data using different strategies anddefinitions. NEMISIS has been in operationsince the mid-1990s, but some regions did notrequire complete data input until 1999 or 2000.As of 2000 NEMISIS allowed officers tosearch for information on Canadian CITESpermits, but as of April 2004 there was still abacklog of permits from 2000 which had notbeen entered into the system (J. Robillard, inlitt. to E. Cooper, April 19, 2004).
A critical problem with NEMISIS is that it was
designed to meet the data management needsfor all of the acts enforced by EnvironmentCanada (the CWA, the MBCA, WAPPRIITAand CEPA). These acts are dissimilar inlanguage and scope, require differentenforcement activities and therefore havediverse data management requirements. Forexample WAPPRIITA enforcement necessitatesthe collection of taxonomic data on theapproximately 30 000 species of animals andplants listed by CITES plus information on theform in which they are traded (live, dead, partsor products). None of the other acts have thisrequirement. Unfortunately it appears that thedata management requirements for CEPA arethe priority for the development of NEMISIS,and as a result the needs for wildlifeenforcement are not being effectively met.
Wildlife Enforcement Branch headquartersreports that they are attempting to correct theproblems with NEMISIS. They are working tostandardize definitions of the terms used andthe format of data entry. They would like oneperson in each region to be responsible for dataentry into NEMISIS in an effort to ensureconsistent data and also free up time forenforcement officers. In addition a committee(with representation from each region andheadquarters) has been established to discussthe types and content of regular NEMISISreports to be produced for distribution (forexample four seasonal reports and one annualreport in addition to reports in response tospecific requests) (R. Charette, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Departmental Training
Environment Canada has a policy requiring allenforcement personnel to receive continuing,comprehensive training to assist them incarrying out their duties. The department alsostates that it recognizes that training isimportant at every level, from field officers tomanagement (Anon., 1998e).
Starting in 1996 Environment Canada FederalGame Officers were required to complete amultiweek advanced wildlife enforcementofficer course at the RCMP training depot inRegina, Saskatchewan (the training providedby the RCMP). After being run twice thecourse was cancelled because its content didnot meet the needs of Environment Canada’sofficers (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E.
59
Cooper, July 3, 2002). To be appointed awildlife enforcement officer, however,Environment Canada policy requires each newofficer to have a wildlife enforcement courseor the equivalent training plus experience(R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 24,2002).
In 1997 Environment Canada headquarters, inconsultation with the regions, developed acourse on WAPPRIITA and the WAPTR.Completion of this three-day course is requiredfor all personnel before they can be designatedas enforcement officers for WAPPRIITA.Initially the course was held in Toronto,Montréal and Vancouver to allow officers fromdifferent regions to attend. Currently the courseis presented to new officers as required (R.Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 3,2002). The contents of the course have beenchanged slightly since 1997. The contents as of2002 were as follows (R. Charette, in litt. toE. Cooper, July 24, 2002):
• Module 1: Introduction,
• Module 2: The Legal Framework forWAPPRIITA,
• Module 3: The Powers of a WAPPRIITAOfficer,
• Module 4: Import Offences,
• Module 5: Export Offences,
• Module 6: Interprovincial TransportOffences,
• Module 7: Possession Offences,
• Module 8: New Regulations,
• Module 9: Regulatee Responsibilities,
• Module 10: Permits,
• Module 11: The Classification of Animalsand Plants,
• Module 12: Taking Care of the Evidence,
• Module 13: Prosecutions,
• Module 14: Working Relationships and
• Module 15: Course Review, Written Testand Course Evaluation.
The majority of Federal Game Officers carryside-arms and are therefore required to completetraining in non-lethal force (such as use ofbatons and pepper spray) and handguns before
they are issued weapons. All officers must thenpass an annual qualification to ensure theircompetency to carry a handgun (R. Charette,pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002).
There is no nationally compulsory trainingrequired for Federal Game Officers whoenforce CITES other than WAPPRIITA andweapons training. However officers mustreceive training in traditional enforcementactivities—such as conducting surveillance orcovert investigations—before they may beinvolved in those activities (R. Charette, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002).
Although CITES is a complex internationalinstrument regulating the trade in more than 30000 species which are traded in a multitude ofparts and products, the last comprehensivenational CITES training workshop was held inthe Pacific and Yukon Region in 1993 (R.Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, July 3,2002). Environment Canada officers receiveonly a one-hour introduction to CITES as partof their WAPPRIITA training. TheWAPPRIITA course also provides only onehour of training on animal and plant taxonomy(Anon., 1997f).
Some, but not all, officers have attended one-week training sessions on the safe handling ofreptiles and on the identification of butterflies,turtles and crocodilians (R. Charette, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, July 3, 2002). In 1997some officers completed a specialized course onhealth and safety issues related to inspectingwildlife trophy shipments (Anon., 2001p).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)provides an annual in-service trainingprogramme for wildlife inspectors to maintainand improve their wildlife law enforcementtechniques and skills. The course reviewsnational and international law enforcementactivities, policies, significant legal issues andofficer safety techniques (Anon., 2002n).According to the National Chief ofInspections and Training, since 1996 or 1997Environment Canada has had an agreementwith the USFWS to send one or two Canadianofficers to this training (if space is available).These officers may participate as trainees ortrainers (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, July 3, 2002).
Environment Canada officers are provided with
60
a CD-Rom on Customs training which includesinstructions on permit validation (T. Swerdfager,in litt. to E. Cooper, October 14, 2003).However many officers have not receivedcomprehensive training on permit validation orspecies and product identification, and theofficers that have been trained do not receiveregular opportunities to maintain or upgradetheir expertise (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, July 3, 2002). These same officers arecurrently conducting inspections, identifyingwildlife products, validating permits andtraining other government personnel (forexample Canada Customs). This contradictsEnvironment Canada’s stated policy requiringthat all enforcement personnel receivecomprehensive training to assist them incarrying out their duties.
Reference Materials
The CITES Control List (see part 5.7 of thisreport, ‘Publication of the CITES Appendicesand Amendments’) is available to allenforcement officers. Canada Customs officershave access to internal memoranda whichprovide specific information pertaining toCITES and WAPPRIITA and include basicinstructions on how to process CITESdocuments, exportation requirements ofCITES-controlled goods, the addresses andtelephone numbers for the regional andheadquarters offices of Environment Canadaand so forth (Anon., 2001g; Anon., 2001h).
Environment Canada has also produced anumber of identification guides for CITESspecies and products, illustrating the types ofgoods that may be encountered. To dateidentification guides for birds, crocodilians,turtles and tortoises, butterflies, sturgeons andpaddlefish, tropical woods and huntingtrophies have been published. One copy ofeach published guide has been distributed to allCITES Management Authorities and copies areavailable (for a fee) to the general public andall developed countries offering training toenforcement officers. Less developed countriesonly need to pay for handling and shippingcosts. These guides are also available on theInternet (Anon., 2003j).
Personal and Household EffectsExemption
The job of monitoring compliance at the
border changed with the passage of thepersonal and household effects exemption inDecember 1999 [WAPTR section 15] (see alsosection 4.2 of this report). The exemptionaffected CITES enforcement in a number ofways, both positively and negatively:
• The personal and household effectsexemption has made WAPPRIITA morecomplicated to enforce.
• The exemption is not being implementedcorrectly.
• Products made from CITES Appendix Ispecies may be entering Canada as a resultof misidentifications.
• The exemption creates an opportunity forsmugglers to ‘launder’ commercial goodsas personal goods.
• As a result of the exemption contactbetween Environment Canada officers andCanada Customs officers at airports andborder crossings has been reduced.
• The exemption has reduced the workloadfor some Environment Canada officers.
These issues are discussed in detail below.
WAPPRIITA is more complicated to enforce.The personal and household effects exemptionhas undoubtedly made the enforcement ofWAPPRIITA more complicated. This isespecially true for Canada Customs officersstationed at the airports and border crossingsacross the country, who are responsible for theinitial inspection of personal goods beingimported into Canada. Before the exemptioncame into force these officers needed todetermine whether an item was made from aspecies listed by CITES. If they were not surethe item could be detained until anEnvironment Canada officer could examine it.Now Canada Customs officers must not onlydetermine whether a specimen is from aCITES-listed species, but they must alsoascertain whether it is for personal orcommercial use, which appendix it belongs to,whether it fits the definition of a touristsouvenir, whether the species requires a permitfrom the originating country and whether thespecies was taken from the wild. They alsohave to know that the exception does not applyto live specimens. Environment Canada hasresponded to this issue by producing and
61
distributing a chart explaining the applicationof WAPTR section 15 (see section 6.7,‘Interagency Co-operation’ and Appendix E inthis report).
Environment Canada feels that rather thanbeing more complicated, the personal andhousehold effects exemption allows CanadaCustoms officers to concentrate on violationsinvolving CITES Appendix I species—whichshould be the priority for every country—andtraining can concentrate on the CITESAppendix I species that are most frequentlybrought before the officers involved(Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March26, 2002). But this suggests that personal
CITES Appendix II items are entirely exemptunder WAPTR section 15 and that enforcementof Appendix II is no longer a concern.
The exemption is not being implementedcorrectly. According to WAPTR section15(1)(a) the personal and household effectsexemption does not apply to goods fromcountries that require the prior grant of animport permit for those goods. Thus theopportunity for Canada Customs officers toconcentrate on Appendix I species shouldapply only to exports from countries that donot require the prior grant of an import permit.However WAPTR section 15(1)(a) is beingenforced only when an inspecting officer has
62
These definitions apply to WAPTR sections 14to19.
Commercial purpose: ‘any activity related tothe sale, offering for sale, purchase, trade orbarter of any animal or plant, or any part orderivative of one, without regard to itsquantity or weight, including
a) any display, performance or exhibit of sucha thing for gain or profit; and
b) the use of any such thing for the purpose ofsoliciting sales.’
Customs officer: ‘has the meaning assignedto the word “officer” in subsection 2(1) of theCustoms Act.’
Household effect: ‘a plant or dead animal, ora part or derivative of one, that is imported toor exported from Canada for other thancommercial purposes and that
a) is owned and possessed by an individual inthe individual’s ordinary country ofresidence and that forms part of theindividual’s household belongings that arebeing shipped to or from Canada, to theindividual’s new residence; or
b) forms part of an inheritance from an estatethat is imported to or exported from Canada’.
Hunting trophy: ‘a dead animal or a part orderivative of one that an individual acquiredand possessed through legal hunting’.
Personal baggage: ‘where an individual usesa commercial passenger conveyance to enter
or depart from Canada, all hand-carried itemsand all checked baggage of the individual and,where an individual uses any other type ofconveyance to enter or depart from Canada,baggage that is being carried in or on the samevehicle, vessel or aircraft as the individual.’
Personal effect: ‘any of the following thingsthat is imported into or exported from Canadafor other than commercial purposes:
a) a plant or dead animal, or a part orderivative of one, that is owned andpossessed by an individual in theindividual’s ordinary country of residenceand that, at the time of its import or export,is part of the individual’s clothing oraccessories or is contained in theindividual’s personal baggage; and
b) a tourist souvenir or a hunting trophy’.
Pet: ‘a living animal that an individual ownsas a personal pet and that is listed in Part I ofSchedule I but not in Schedule II.’
Tourist souvenir: ‘a dead animal, other than ahunting trophy, or a dead plant, or a part orderivative of one, that is listed in column I ofan item of Schedule I and in respect of whichthere is a reference to Appendix II or III of theConvention in column II of that item and thatis being imported into their ordinary countryof residence by an individual who acquired,owned and possessed it outside their ordinarycountry of residence during a sojourn fromwhich they are returning’.
Box 6.1 WAPTR Section 14 Definitions
prior knowledge that a permit is required or atthe request of the exporting country. Officersare not provided with a list of countries towhich the exemption does or does not apply,and they do not normally verify whetherexporting countries require import permits.Because of the diversity of legislation inforeign countries Environment Canada’sWildlife Enforcement Branch usually only actsunder this section at the request of the countryof origin (Y. Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper,January 18, 2002). In other words the personaland household effects exemption is beingapplied to non-commercial CITES Appendix IIitems coming from any country. Thus WAPTRsection 15 is essentially being used as ablanket exemption, which is not how theregulation is written.
Products made from CITES Appendix I speciesmay be entering Canada. Most CITES-listedpersonal goods entering Canada are notexamined by Environment Canada officers, andit seems very likely that Appendix I items maybe entering the country as a result ofmisidentifications by inexperienced CanadaCustoms officers. The lack of documentationabout the items allowed into Canada under theexemption makes it impossible to know oneway or the other.
Smugglers may ‘launder’ commercial goods aspersonal goods. This is a difficult issue toaddress because the definitions of commercial,personal and household effects in the WAPTRare imprecise and leave it up to an inspectingofficer to determine whether an importation isfor personal or commercial purposes. If thedefinitions provided by WAPTR section 14provided a number of items (such as six oreight) at or above which the shipment wouldbe presumed commercial, then the burden toprove otherwise would shift to the importer.
Reduced interaction between the EnvironmentCanada and Canada Customs officers. Asstated previously, Canada Customs officers areresponsible for the initial inspection ofpersonal goods being imported into Canada,and as a result of the personal and household
effects exemption the majority of CITESAppendix II items are now being released bythese officers. This has reduced the need forinteraction between Environment Canada andCanada Customs at locations wherecommercial imports are not common (such aspassenger airports and some border crossings).The consequences are a lowered profile forCITES and an impaired capability forEnvironment Canada to ensure that goods arebeing correctly identified and the exemption isbeing properly implemented.
In 2003 the Pacific and Yukon Region began aproject to raise the profile of EnvironmentCanada with their enforcement partneragencies at the Vancouver InternationalAirport. The region located an inspector at theairport during normal office hours, Monday toFriday, for a six-month trial period starting thethird week of April. For other hours theyimplemented a duty officer pager programmethat operates seven days a week from 7 A.M.until 10 P.M. Environment Canada’sSupervisor of Inspections for the region feltthat having a person on site at the airportwould cut down their response time for doinginspections as well make their partners lesswary about calling them (R. Graham, in litt. toE. Cooper, May 22, 2003).
Effect on the workload of Environment Canadaofficers. The personal and household effectsexemption has had a positive impact on theworkloads of officers in at least certain regionsof the country. The number of inspections andother enforcement actions decreaseddramatically in the Prairie and Northern,Atlantic and Ontario regions after theimplementation of WAPTR section 15 (seetables 6.6, 6.10, and 6.11). In the AtlanticRegion this has meant that officers can directmore time towards investigating significantviolations (L. Sampson, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, June 17, 2003). The effect was muchless in the Pacific and Yukon and Québecregions because a greater proportion of theworkload in these regions involved commercialimports and international mail (Y. Lafleur,
63
29 Before WAPPRIITA came into force CITES enforcement focused primarily on international mail and personalimportations. In the 1990s increased effort was applied in the Pacific and Yukon Region towards commercialimportations, but this did not decrease the effort on international mail and personal importations. However the totalnumber of inspections, and of items detained or seized, increased dramatically and a smaller percentage of this total wasa result of personal importations.
pers. comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).29
Prior to the personal and household effectsexemption Wildlife Enforcement Branchheadquarters had one person dealing full-timewith complaints about detentions. According tothe Director of the Wildlife EnforcementBranch the number of complaints has beenreduced by 90 percent since the exemptioncame into effect. As a result of the reducedworkload they no longer require a full-timeposition to answer complaints, and have beenable to add one full-time equivalent (FTE) tothe intelligence programme. Overall theopinion of headquarters staff is that as a resultof the exemption more officers can concentrateon more serious cases (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Declaration Forms for Wildlife Imports
In the United States most imports or exports ofwildlife and wildlife products require thecompletion of a wildlife declaration form.Failure to do so is a violation of U.S. legislationand can result in prosecution. These formsrequire the importer or exporter to providenames of the species being traded and details onthe source, purpose, quantity, transport, port ofentry and so on of the shipment (C. Hoover, inlitt. to E. Cooper, June 18, 2003).
The data gathered through this process areentered into the USFWS’s Law EnforcementManagement Information System (LEMIS).Access to this system allows U.S. authorities toanalyse the flow of wildlife into and out of thecountry and focus targeting, inspection andinvestigation efforts where they will be themost productive. These data also provide abaseline against which the effectiveness ofwildlife enforcement can be measured. Thissystem also provides one of the few sources ofdata on the trade in non-CITES species, whichis invaluable for identifying species for possibleinclusion in the CITES Appendices (C. Hoover,in litt. to E. Cooper, June 18, 2003).
The use of wildlife declaration forms would beespecially valuable to Canadian authoritiesbecause of the limited number of Federal GameOfficers in the country. Wildlife declarationforms could also provide a method to recordthe volume and nature of the goods importedinto Canada under the personal and householdeffects exemption [WAPTR section 15].
The use of wildlife declaration forms is
provided for in section 19 of WAPPRIITA.Section 19(1) states [emphasis added]:
“Any individual who imports into Canada orexports from Canada an animal or plant, or apart or derivative of one, and who is exemptfrom holding a permit under theseRegulations shall, on the request of anofficer or a customs officer under subsection(2), make a declaration at the time of importor export on a form provided for thatpurpose by the Minister.”
Section 19(2) states [emphasis added]:
“The officer or customs officer shall requesta declaration where the Minister requires itin order to obtain information relating to theimplementation of the Convention.”
Section 19(3) provides a comprehensive list ofthe data to be provided on such a form.
There are no plans to implement the use ofwildlife declaration forms in Canada, althoughthe Director of the Wildlife EnforcementBranch feels that the potential exists to developforms to address issues regarding species ofspecific concern (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Designated Ports for Wildlife Imports
Some countries have designated ports forimports of live animals which allow foridentification, permit checking and healthcontrols to be focused where appropriateexpertise and facilities are available (C. Allan,Regulation Support Co-ordinator, TRAFFICInternational, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 18,2002). The United States has designatedspecific ports through which all shipments ofwildlife must be imported or exported(C. Hoover, Deputy Director, TRAFFIC NorthAmerica, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 18,2002). If Canada did likewise it wouldtheoretically allow Environment Canada toconcentrate resources at these points, therebymaximizing the enforcement capability of thedepartment as it is applied to CITES. Thisconcentration of resources and expertise wouldalso ensure that commercial importers andexporters would have access to efficientservice in processing shipments. According tothe Director of the Wildlife EnforcementBranch designated ports could allow legalwildlife trade to be processed faster and moreeasily, but illegal trade would still be the
64
65
problem it is now (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Most of the Environment Canada enforcementofficers that routinely deal with CITES issuesare already stationed in or near the majorCanadian cities that would be obvious choicesas designated ports (see table 6.1), and mostlikely the majority of all wildlife productsimported into Canada already enter throughthese locations. It is unclear how much benefitwould be gained by designating ports inCanada. The benefit would likely be greatest inOntario, which has many busy bordercrossings with the United States (Marlatt,2003). However an in-depth analysis of thetrade through the various Canadian ports andthe availability of enforcement officers isneeded before the value of designated portscan be ascertained.
Harmonized Commodity Descriptionand Coding System
The Harmonized Commodity Description andCoding System (referred to as the HarmonizedSystem or HS) is an international goodsclassification system (Antweiler, 1995). An HSCode or tariff classification for a specificcommodity has 10 digits. In the CanadianCustoms Tariff the first 6 digits are international(used by all countries), the 7th and 8th areCanadian (established by the Department ofFinance Canada) and the 9th and 10th are thestatistical suffix generated by Statistics Canada(H. Gerson, Senior Program Officer,Admissibility Programs Division, CanadaCustoms, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 19, 2002).
In Canada traders are required to account forall of the goods they import. This includesreporting the correct 10-digit HS Codes for allimportations valued at more than CAD1 600(USD1190). Specific HS Codes at the 6-digitinternational level for some CITES speciesgroups, such as primates, cetaceans andreptiles (live and meat), are in the 2002Customs Tariff. There are also some 10-digitHS Codes that are specific to CITES species(such as for mahogany [Swietenia spp.]), andthere are many HS Codes that include CITESgoods (for example dried shark fin). HS Codesmay not be required at time of release ofgoods, but must be submitted after goods haveentered the country, so the use of HS Codes toflag CITES specimens is not helpful at this
time. As of the spring of 2002, however,mandatory 10-digit HS Codes were requiredbefore release of commercial shipments valuedat CAD1 600 (USD1190) or more, thus thiscould become an important tool for screeningshipments for CITES relevance (H. Gerson, inlitt. to E. Cooper, March 19, 2002).
A joint Canada Customs–Environment Canadastudy of CITES-related reporting andcompliance identified errors in HS Codereporting that are sufficiently inaccurate to be acause of concern (Anon., 2001d). Anexamination of accounting records, includingHS Codes, for more than 1000 records oftropical wood imports revealed a 65 percenterror rate for HS Codes reported. Country oforigin was also incorrectly reported on23 percent of the reviewed records for tropicalwoods, and quantities of tropical woodsimported were incorrectly reported on57 percent of the records. Quantity errors weresignificant. For example the quantity of bigleafmahogany sawn wood imported during 1999that was reported on accounting documentswas more than 15 times greater than the actualquantities imported as determined from thereview of the invoices, and the quantity ofbigleaf mahogany veneer reported was actually4.5 times less than the actual quantityimported. Reasons for these largediscrepancies in quantities include differenttypes of punctuation used by differentcountries, improper or no use of conversionfactors for different units of quantities reportedand frequent use of the numeral “1” to fill inthe quantity field.
If the problem of inaccurate coding were to beaddressed, then HS Codes could offer animportant tool for simplifying the process ofscreening for CITES goods and compilingaccurate wildlife trade data. However HSCodes would first have to be amended toprovide separate codes for various CITESgoods. Changes at the 6-digit level requireinternational co-operation, and it can take aslong as seven years to implement changes tothe Customs Tariff. Changes at the 7th and 8thdigit level require legal changes by theDepartment of Finance Canada and would takeabout one year. Changes at the statistical suffixlevel (9th and 10th digits) can be made quicklyand easily once the recommendations aresubmitted to Statistics Canada (H. Gerson, in
litt. to E. Cooper, March 19, 2002).
Verification of CITES Permits
Canada Customs officers routinely verifyCITES permits without input fromEnvironment Canada staff. The operationalpolicy guidance for Canada Customs officersincludes a series of instructions in the CustomsD-Memorandum relating to verification ofCITES permits. The memorandum instructsofficers to verify the permit quantity anddescription against the goods or Customsdocuments, check dates and ensure the permitis an original and that it has been signed by theappropriate issuing agency. Where there aredoubts concerning validity, Canada Customsofficers are to detain the goods and contactEnvironment Canada. When a permit is verifiedit is stamped by the officer (to cancel thepermit) and is to be forwarded to the NationalCITES Management Authority (M. Bahls, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, March 12, 2002).
There is a very limited number of FederalGame Officers, and Environment Canada haslittle choice but to rely on Canada Customsofficers to verify most CITES permits.Unfortunately Canada Customs officers receivelimited and nationally inconsistent training onCITES (see ‘Interagency Training’ undersection 6.7, ‘Interagency Co-operation’, in thisreport). Furthermore a report by CanadaCustoms and Environment Canada found thatpermits are not always forwarded as required(see ‘Data from Foreign Permits’ in section5.9, ‘Records of Trade’, in this report). Of 233CITES permits accompanying importations ofbigleaf mahogany into Canada 114 (51percent) were not forwarded to EnvironmentCanada (Anon., 2001d). Few wildlife exportsare inspected before they leave the country sothe extent to which Canadian CITES importpermits are verified is unknown.
In May 2004, Canada Customs published anotice that as of May 17, 2004, the agencywould cease to collect permits for certainprograms administered on behalf of HealthCanada (Anon., 2004c). The notice included
the following text:
[Canada Customs] has reviewed the work ithas undertaken on behalf of OtherGovernment Departments (OGD) at theborder and, in line with our strategy for theborder, we want to eliminate paper permitsfrom border processes in favour of targetingbased on risk management principles andsharing information from our database.
If Canada Customs succeeds in eliminatingpaper permits from its activities, that wouldmean that Canada Customs officers would nolonger validate CITES permits.
6.5 Responding to ViolationsAccording to Environment Canada’sCompliance and Enforcement Policy forWildlife Legislation, enforcement officers havea number of ways to respond to an allegedviolation of WAPPRIITA (Anon., 2002j):
• no action,
• warnings,30
• directives to remove wildlife fromCanada,31
• tickets,
• seizure of goods and
• prosecutions.
The choice of response depends in part on thenature of the violation and the intent of thealleged violator (Anon., 2002j). For example atechnical omission on a CITES permit requiresa far less serious response than the deliberatesmuggling of Appendix I species.
The responses to WAPPRIITA violations thatwere taken by Environment Canada in fiscalyears 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 aresummarized in tables 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11.32
Between these years the number of actionscompleted in the Prairie and Northern, Ontario,and Atlantic regions dropped substantially.Much of this drop was due to WAPTRsubsection 15 (personal and household effects
66
30 There is no legal provision within WAPPRIITA or the WAPTR that allows for warnings. A warning would be given for aminor technical violation that does not warrant a more serious response.
31 Per WAPPRIITA section 18. This removal must take place in accordance with the WAPTR.32 Note that the data in these tables are from NEMISIS. The enforcement responses described in NEMISIS are not exactly
the same as the responses listed in the Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation.
exemption) coming into force (Y. Lafleur, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Table 6.10 shows the numbers of responses byEnvironment Canada to WAPPRIITAviolations in addition to investigations andprosecutions for fiscal years 1999–2000 and2000–2001.33 Note that the data in this tableare from NEMISIS, and the enforcementresponses described do not match theresponses listed in the Compliance andEnforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation(see above).
The “other” category in table 6.10 includes anyof the actions listed in table 6.8 other thaninvestigations, prosecutions directives, referralto others or written warnings (R. Charette, inlitt. to E. Cooper, June 3, 2003). Examplescould be where no action was taken or where aticket was issued. Considering that actionslisted in the “other” category far outnumber allother actions it would be far more informativeif Environment Canada presented its data withthis category broken down. In particular it
would be valuable to know how many ticketswere issued for WAPPRIITA violations. Todate the option for issuing tickets is availableonly in Manitoba, New Brunswick, NovaScotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island andQuébec (Anon., 2003s). In these jurisdictionstickets may be issued for offences that pose noserious or continuing threat to Canadianecosystems or to the survival of the speciesinvolved. Offences that could be ticketedinclude failure to comply with terms andconditions of permits or failure to maintainrecords as required by regulation.34
Tickets are issued through provincial andterritorial court procedures under the authorityof the Contraventions Act (Anon., 1992a). ForEnvironment Canada to be able to issue ticketsan agreement has to be signed with each of theprovinces and territories. According to theDirector of the Wildlife Enforcement Branchthe Department of Justice is responsible fornegotiating these agreements, and EnvironmentCanada has no say in these negotiations (Y.
67
Region Investigations Prosecutions Convictions
Pacific and Yukon 70 5 3Prairie and Northern 483 10 7Ontario 29 7 7Québec 13 0 0Atlantic 12 0 0
All Canada 607 22 17
Table 6.9 Environment Canada Responses to WAPPRIITA Violations:Investigations, Prosecutions and Convictions
Fiscal Year 1999–2000
Source: Anon. (2000w).
Region Investigations Prosecutions Convictions
Pacific and Yukon 11 3 2Prairie and Northern 149 3 2Ontario 21 7 3Québec 13 1 1Atlantic 23 10 1
All Canada 217 22 9
Fiscal Year 2000–2001
Note: Includes CITES and interprovincial transport violations.Source: Anon. (2002y).
33 These responses could be a result of an investigation.34 Ticketable offences are described in the Contraventions Act (Anon., 1992a).
68
Table 6.10 Environment Canada Responses to WAPPRIITA ViolationsOther than Investigations and Prosecutions
Fiscal Year 1999–2000
Region Directives Referral to others Written warnings Other Total
Pacific and Yukon 1 21 49 812 883Prairie and Northern 0 461 2 647 1110Ontario 1 2 86 846 935Québec 1 4 0 169 174Atlantic 86 6 1 13 106
All Canada 89 494 138 2487 3208
Source: Anon. (2000w).
Fiscal Year 2000–2001
Region Directives Referral to others Written warnings Other Total
Pacific and Yukon 0 4 2 884 890Prairie and Northern 0 132 8 288 428Ontario 0 14 58 450 522Québec 0 8 0 262 270Atlantic 6 6 0 22 34
All Canada 6 164 68 1906 2144
Source: Anon. (2002y).
Lafleur, in litt. to E. Cooper, June 12, 2003).
Investigations
Environment Canada’s Compliance andEnforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislationdirects enforcement officers to conductinvestigations when they have reasonablegrounds to believe that an offence has been, isbeing or is about to be committed underWAPPRIITA (Anon., 2002j).
According to the Justice Institute of BritishColumbia (Anon., 1998h) the objectives of aninvestigation include:
• determining whether an offence wascommitted or disproving the allegation,
• determining whether the evidence gatheredwill be admissible in court,
• establishing the appropriate burden ofproof and
• formulating the grounds to bring a charge.
Investigations may be a straightforwardprocess that can be concluded by a single
officer, or they may be complex and requiresignificant resources. For example OperationREVERENCE involved marketing waterfowland illegal guiding operations (not CITES-related) in the Wallaceburg, Ontario area. Theinvestigation was conducted by the specialoperations programme of the Ontario Regionover many years. In the concluding year theinvestigation used 28 outside undercoverofficers plus several support staff (A. Giesche,in litt. to E. Cooper, June 14, 2001). Anotherexample is the investigation that resulted in R.v. Deslisle (see conviction no. 38 in AppendixD) which involved authorities in threecountries (J. Dyke, Supervisor ofInvestigations, Pacific and Yukon Region,Environment Canada, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, July 15, 2001).
Not every investigation results in aprosecution. For example Table 6.9 shows thatin 1999–2000 Environment Canada nationallyconducted 607 investigations, which resulted in22 prosecutions (17 convictions) of individualsor companies. The number of investigationsdropped in 2000–2001 to 217, although the
69
Environment Canada provided the followingdefinitions of these responses (R. Charette, inlitt. to E. Cooper, April 2 and June 3, 2003):
Investigation: ‘an investigation is thegathering and analyzing, from a variety ofsources, of evidence and information relevantto a suspected violation where there arereasonable grounds to believe that an offencehas, is or is about to occur with regards to theenvironmental or wildlife legislationadministered, in whole or in part, byEnvironment Canada. An investigation resultsfrom an on-site or an off-site inspection, or anoccurrence, and where there is reasonableground to believe that an offence has, is or isabout to occur.
For reporting purposes, one investigationpotentially encompasses multiple components:acts, regulations, permits, sites, regulatees,alleged offenses and counts that are linked, orperceived to be linked.
The Start Date of the investigation is the datethe investigation is approved by management.
For statistical purposes: prior to the fiscalyear 1998–1999, no national standard wasapplied. From fiscal year 1998–1999 to fiscalyear 2001–2002 (inclusively), investigationswere compiled by regulation and by suspect.’
Verbal Direction: ‘a verbal administrativeorder from the Enforcement Officer which
obliges the regulatee responsible for a possibleviolation of the environmental protectionlegislation administered, in whole or in part,by EC to take all reasonable emergencymeasures to remedy any dangerous conditionand/or to reduce any danger to theenvironment. A verbal direction must befollowed by a written direction.’
Written Direction: ‘a written administrativeorder from the Enforcement Officer whichobliges the regulatee responsible for a possibleviolation of the environmental protectionlegislation administered, in whole or in part,by EC to take all reasonable emergencymeasures to remedy any dangerous conditionand/or to reduce any danger to theenvironment.’
Referral to others: ‘transfer of informationon a case to another agency.’
Written Warning: ‘a formal written notice toinform the regulatee that a field/siteinspection, an administrative verificationand/or an investigation was conducted forwhich a violation under the environmentallegislation administered, in whole or in part,by EC was observed. In addition, this noticeof violation includes the request for correctiveaction to be undertaken by the regulatee.’
Others: ‘any other enforcement action notdescribed in NEMISIS.’
Box 6.2 NEMISIS Definitions for Responses to Violations
number of prosecutions remained steady at 22.The drop in the number of investigationsinitiated in the Prairie and Northern Regionwas due to WAPTR subsection 15 (thepersonal and household effects exemption)coming into force (B. Petrar, Regional SpecialInvestigations Coordinator, EnvironmentCanada, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 18, 2002).This is likely true for the drop reported byother regions.
It is important to note that each region does notuse the same definitions of an investigation.For example Table 6.9 shows that the Prairieand Northern Region seems to record more
activities as investigations than the otherregions do.35 This suggests that EnvironmentCanada does not have a clear definition ofwhat constitutes an investigation, and as aresult TRAFFIC North America has concernsabout the consistency and accuracy of the dataprovided by the department.
Prosecutions
The most serious response to a violation isprosecution. According to EnvironmentCanada’s Compliance and Enforcement Policyfor Wildlife Legislation prosecution may berecommended under the following conditions:
35 The Prairie and Northern Region attributes their higher numbers to discrepancies in data entry methods among regions(B. Petrar, in litt. to E. Cooper, May 22, 2003).
• there is or has been serious damage to aCanadian ecosystem or species;
• the actions of the accused are or have beendetrimental to the survival of the species orthe management of the site involved;
• the accused knowingly committed anoffence or provided false or misleadinginformation, pretending to comply with anAct; or
• the accused obstructed an officer incarrying out duties or responsibilities underlegislation (Anon., 2002j).
The potential penalties for violatingWAPPRIITA are discussed in section 4.0 ofthis report (‘Legislation’). It is important forpenalties to be sufficient to act as a deterrentagainst further violations. To date the extent towhich sufficiently severe penalties have beenhanded down has been mixed. For example inR. v. Chow (see conviction no. 2 in AppendixD) the accused received only a CAD10 000(USD7438) fine for smuggling tortoises withan estimated value of CAD250 000(USD185 938) (Wenting and Johnson, 1996).By contrast the highest penalty for a CITES-related violation to date has been a fine ofCAD50 000 (USD37 195) plus 90 days in jail,three years’ probation, 50 hours’ communityservice and a three-year prohibition on theimportation of birds (see R. v. Flikkema,conviction no. 31 in Appendix D of thisreport). This case was the result of aninvestigation by the Ontario Region’s specialoperations programme (A. Giesche, in litt. toE. Cooper, June 14, 2001).
Table 6.11 lists the numbers of CITES-relatedWAPPRIITA convictions in the years
1996–2002 by region. During this period therewere a total of 56 convictions across Canada.Overall one would expect that the number ofconvictions in Canada would be lowest in 1996(the year WAPPRIITA was implemented) andwould increase in later years. This is more orless what has happened for the first few years.The number of convictions peaked in 2000 andthen declined in 2001 and 2002.
More than one-half (55 percent, 31convictions) of the convictions in Canada have occurred in the Ontario Region. TheOntario Region has also put significantly more resources towards CITES investigationsand prosecutions than any other region (R.Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, June 14,2002).
In contrast only 9 percent (5 convictions) ofthe convictions in Canada have occurred in theQuébec Region. This is surprising consideringthat the volume of wildlife trade into Québec isconsidered to be second only to Ontario (R.Charette, pers. comm. to E. Cooper, June 14,2002). Convictions are not necessarily anaccurate indicator of enforcement effort;however the Québec Region has consistentlyrecorded a low number of enforcement actionsin comparison to most other regions (see tables6.9, 6.10 and 6.11). These data could indicate alow level of CITES violations in Québec, butthey are more suggestive of the lack ofresources devoted towards CITES enforcementin the region.
It is worth noting that in the years since section20 of the WAPTR (the labelling provision)came into effect only one conviction under thatsection has been concluded. The one
70
Percentage of Region 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Total all convictions
Atlantic 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 5%Québec 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 9%Ontario 4 1 1 3 8 10 4 31 55%Prairie and Northern 0 0 2 2 3 0 1 8 14%Pacific and Yukon 1 1 2 1 3 1 0 9 16%
All Canada 5 3 6 9 15 11 7 56 100%
Table 6.11 Annual Convictions for CITES-Related WAPPRIITAViolations, by Region
Source: compiled from case precedent information (see Appendix D).
conviction recorded was R. v. Uniglobe Importand Export Company Ltd. (see conviction no.37 in Appendix D). In a second case the chargewas contested and, as part of the defence, thelabelling provision was challenged as aviolation of the Canadian Charter of Rightsand Freedoms. If it had been successful thechallenge could have resulted in the repeal ofsection 20. However the judge ruled onNovember 9, 2001 that there was reasonabledoubt as to whether the defendant committedthe offence as charged. The defendant wasacquitted and the constitutionality of WAPTRsection 20 was not ruled upon (Low, 2001).
There may have been a reluctance to prosecuteunder WAPTR section 20 while theconstitutionality of the regulation was inquestion. Now that this issue is no longerpending it would seem reasonable to expectfurther prosecutions for importing productslisting CITES species in the ingredients.
Unfortunately there are concerns about theaccuracy of the data provided by EnvironmentCanada. Reviews of the information listed inAppendix D of this report and EnvironmentCanada’s WAPPRIITA case history summary(Anon., 2003t) found that between March 31,1999 and April 1, 2000 (the fiscal year forEnvironment Canada) there were 11convictions for CITES-related violations and 2convictions for interprovincial transportviolations of WAPPRIITA.36 Between March31, 2000 and April 1, 2001 there were 13convictions for CITES-related violations and 5convictions for interprovincial transportviolations. In total there were at least 13WAPPRIITA convictions in fiscal year1999–2000 and 18 convictions in fiscal year2000–2001. However the data provided toTRAFFIC North America (table 6.9) list 17WAPPRIITA convictions in 1999–2000 andonly 9 convictions in 2000–2001. Thediscrepancy for fiscal year 1999–2000 could bedue to gaps in the information listed inAppendix D and Environment Canada’sWAPPRIITA case history summary. HoweverEnvironment Canada’s data for fiscal year2000–2001 appear to be incomplete.
6.6 Raising Public Awareness
Environment Canada’s Compliance andEnforcement Policy states that provision ofthorough information, education andconsultation with the public is the mosteffective way of ensuring they abide by thelaw. Environment Canada therefore has apublic awareness programme aimed atpromoting WAPPRIITA. Environment Canadaofficials meet regularly with other federal andprovincial agencies, as well as industrial,aboriginal, environmental and other groups andthe general public to exchange informationabout WAPPRIITA (Anon., 2002j).
There is, however, no national approach forimproving CITES awareness. Most awarenessefforts have been achieved through ad hocprojects of enthusiastic officers (Y. Lafleur, inlitt. to E. Cooper, July 23, 2002).
In February 2002 the North American WildlifeEnforcement Group (NAWEG) of the NorthAmerican Commission for Environmental Co-operation (CEC) held a trinational (Canada, theUnited States and Mexico) WildlifeEnforcement Activities and Public Participationconference in Washington, D.C. The goal of theconference was to look at opportunities andmechanisms for public participation in wildlifeenforcement issues in the participatingcountries and to ‘develop recommendations forbuilding partnerships between agencies and thepublic’ (Anon., 2001n). As a result of thisconference the Office of Enforcement(Gatineau) has designated a staff person as acontact for NGOs in an effort to improvecommunications between enforcement and thepublic (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. to E. Cooper,March 26, 2002).
Publications
DFAIT issues a brochure entitled ‘Bon Voyage,But…Information for the Canadian Traveller’to all recipients of new passports (Anon.,2001p). The CFIA publishes a brochureentitled ‘Be Aware You Must Declare’. Bothbrochures provide information on WAPPRIITAand CITES, and both are widely circulated inairports and other government offices acrossCanada (A. White, Wildlife Awareness andOutreach section, CWS, Ontario Region, in litt.to E. Cooper, March 13, 2002).
71
36 Note that Appendix D of this report includes several CITES-related convictions that are not listed in EnvironmentCanada’s document (Anon., 2003t).
Environment Canada has produced a numberof materials aimed at increasing publicawareness of CITES. In 1994 the NationalCITES Management Authority and the Pacificand Yukon Region jointly produced a full-colour brochure entitled ‘CITES and theTraveller’ which provided basic information onCITES implementation in Canada. Thebrochure has been distributed nationally eversince. It was originally produced in French andEnglish and has been translated intoVietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, Korean andSpanish (Anon., 2001o). In 2001 the brochurewas revised and updated.
The department has produced and distributednationally two full-colour posters promotingcompliance with CITES and WAPPRIITA. Theposters have been translated from French andEnglish and distributed in Vietnamese,Chinese, Japanese and Korean, and they arecommonly seen at Canada Customs offices andborder crossing points.
In 1995 the Pacific and Yukon Regionproduced a short video (approximately fiveminutes long) also entitled ‘CITES and theTraveller’. The video was distributed nationallyfor use in training and awareness efforts andwas made available in French, English,Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese and Korean.
In 1997 the Ontario Region developed andproduced a brochure entitled ‘Rules andRegulations for Endangered species—Importand Export’ (in English and French) for nationaldistribution. The brochure focused on providinginformation to commercial importers andexporters of wildlife and wildlife products(Anon., 2001p). The brochure was revised in2002. In 1997 Environment Canada, OntarioRegion, in partnership with World Wildlife FundCanada Canada, produced a trilingual (English,French, Chinese) brochure that explainedWAPPRIITA and discussed how the act appliesto traditional medicines containing wildlifeingredients (Anon., 2001p). These brochures arestill being distributed, but they are in verylimited supply—approximately 100 were stillavailable in the Ontario Region in 2003(A. White, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 14, 2003).
Internet
Environment Canada has made a great deal of
information available on its Internet website(Anon., 2003c). The site provides informationabout CITES, WAPPRIITA, permitrequirements and so forth.
The websites for DFAIT (Anon., 2002c), theCFIA (Anon., 2002d) and Canada Customs(Anon., 2002p) mention CITES and referviewers to Environment Canada.
Permanent Exhibits
Environment Canada regional offices haveplaced exhibits about CITES in most majorCanadian airports and at many U.S.-Canadaborder crossing points.
The Pacific and Yukon Region has twodisplays at the Vancouver airport that provideviewers with the option of watching a shortvideo (an abbreviated version of the videoreferred to above) in a choice of differentlanguages. The region also has displays at thePacific Highway border crossing, the PacificEnvironmental Science Centre and theVancouver Passport Office.
The Prairie and Northern Region has displaysat all five regional international airports and atall major border crossings (G. Bogdan, Chief,Wildlife Enforcement Division, EnvironmentCanada, Prairie and Northern Region, in litt. toE. Cooper, March 13, 2002).
In Québec the Mirabel and Dorval airportshave displays in the passenger departure areasand at commercial customs. Another display islocated in the commercial customs area at theLacolle port of entry between Québec and thestate of New York (the busiest border crossingin Québec) (M. Thabault, Federal GameOfficer, Environment Canada, Québec Region,in litt. to E. Cooper, March 14, 2002).
In Ontario there are two interactive displays(created in partnership with WWF Canada) atPearson International Airport in Toronto. Thesedisplays gather information from the travellersvia a touch screen–computer interface. Otherdisplays are located at Canada-U.S bordercrossings and permanent travel awarenessposters are displayed in all passport offices inOntario (Anon., 2001p).
The Atlantic Region has a display in place atHalifax International Airport. Additionaldisplays have been set up at the Nova Scotia
72
Museum of Natural History (Halifax, NovaScotia), the Shubenacadie Wildlife Park(Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia), the OaklawnFarm Zoo (Aylesford, Nova Scotia), theMagnetic Hill Zoo (Moncton, New Brunswick)and the Cherry Brook Zoo (St John, NewBrunswick) (Anon., 2002w).
Outreach
The regional offices also conduct outreach tovarious constituencies. Staff members areactive in making presentations at diverse publictrade shows and providing interviews withlocal media (Anon., 2001p). Officers fieldhundreds of telephone calls from members ofthe public seeking information on CITES,WAPPRIITA and wildlife trade. The QuébecRegion has a toll-free line to a communicationsstaff person who has received basic training onCITES and WAPPRIITA (M. Thabault, in litt.to E. Cooper, March 14, 2002).
In the Prairie and Northern Region much efforthas been directed to the Asian community andthe trade in traditional medicine (G. Bogdan,in litt. to E. Cooper, March 13, 2002). In 1998the Pacific and Yukon Region conductedinspections of 110 retailers of traditionalChinese medicine in Vancouver and Victoria.Each outlet was provided with a packagecontaining information in English, French andChinese on CITES and WAPPRIITA(Dyck etal, 1998).
The Ontario Region is unique in that it hasestablished a full-time public outreachposition. The purpose of this position is toinitiate and foster cooperative partnerships forpromoting compliance with federal wildlifeprotection legislation. This staff personcontributes to a variety of public informationand outreach projects and activities, includingthe co-ordination of events, exhibitorganization, responding to public enquiries aswell as developing outreach programmeinformation, products and activities (A. White,in litt. to E. Cooper, March 13, 2002).
6.7 Interagency Co-operation The importance of interagency co-operation isemphasized in CITES Resolution Conference11.3, ‘Compliance and Enforcement’, whichmakes the following recommendation: ‘a)Management Authorities coordinate with
governmental agencies responsible forenforcement of CITES, including Customs andPolice, by arranging training activities andjoint meetings, and facilitating the exchange ofinformation through, for example, theestablishment of inter-agency committees atnational level…’.
The importance of interagency cooperationwas also noted by the House of CommonsStanding Committee on Environment andSustainable Development. RecommendationNo. 13 of the standing committee’s report onpollution enforcement (Anon., 1998e) stated,‘The Committee recommends that the Ministerof the Environment, in negotiating partnershipswith other departments or agencies such asCanada Customs and the RCMP, ensure as amatter of priority that adequate resources andmechanisms are put in place to enable theparties to effectively discharge their obligationsand responsibilities.
Environment Canada works internationallywith the authorities of the United States andMexico through participation in NAWEG,which also represents North American wildlifeenforcement with Interpol and the TrilateralCommittee for Conservation and Managementof Wildlife and Ecosystems (Anon., 2001r).
Nationally (as discussed previously) a numberof federal, provincial and territorialdepartments are involved in activities that mayhave a direct bearing on the efficient andeffective enforcement of WAPPRIITA. Theseinclude Canada Customs, CFIA, DFO, RCMPand the provincial and territorial authorities.Environment Canada states that WAPPRIITAis enforced in co-operation with all of theseagencies (Anon., 2001r). Furthermore thedevelopment of partnerships with otherenforcement agencies is part of EnvironmentCanada’s Compliance and Enforcement Policy(Anon., 2002j). A common mechanism forcoordinating activities between two or moredepartments is an MOU, which provides aclear statement of the responsibilities and rolesof each jurisdiction, ensuring efficient use oflimited resources.
Other than Environment Canada, only theRCMP has the authority to enforceWAPPRIITA. Historically the RCMP has notfocused much attention on WAPPRIITA for anumber of reasons: limited dedicated
73
resources, other priorities, a vague MOU withEnvironment Canada, training problems and alack of understanding of WAPPRIITA. Alsothe federal government’s downsizing initiativeduring the 1990s created a period ofuncertainty for officers of both the RCMP andEnvironment Canada. The responsibilities ofthe two departments were brought intoquestion, and the threat of job losses surfaced.The result was reduced opportunities and lessinterest in cooperation (Sgt. P. O’Brien, in litt.to E. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
On February 21, 2003 a new MOU betweenEnvironment Canada and the RCMP regardingWAPPRIITA (and also CEPA, the MBCA andthe CWA) was signed (Sgt. T. O’Neil, FederalEnforcement Branch, RCMP, in litt. toE. Cooper, April 11, 2003). This MOU definesthe basis on which the parties will co-operateand provides opportunities for co-operationbetween Environment Canada and the RCMP;it confirms the commitment of the parties toco-ordinate continuing efforts in specific areassuch as criminal investigations, regulatoryinspections, exchange of intelligence anddelivery of training. These are positive stepswhich broaden the mandates of both partiesand allow for extended co-operation, which hasbeen lacking previously. Under the MOUEnvironment Canada has primaryresponsibility for WAPPRIITA, but the RCMPis responsible for organized crime involvement(organized crime is a priority for the RCMP)or when special investigative techniques arerequired. Investigations can shift jurisdictionsor involve organized crime groups without theknowledge of the investigators, thus it will beimportant for Environment Canada and theRCMP to join in more joint-forces operations(JFOs). These operations will allow for a showof good faith by both groups and provide theframework for a more co-operativerelationship. Developing the new MOU hasresulted in new contacts and discussions forworking together and identifying possibletraining needs (Sgt. P. O’Brien, in litt. toE. Cooper, March 26, 2002).
Environment Canada has an MOU withCanada Customs covering common issues anda specific MOU with Canada Custom’sinvestigations section (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 8, 2002). An MOU thatwould allow the appointment of some Canada
Customs investigators as officers underWAPPRIITA has been under negotiation(R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 24,2002). Environment Canada signed an MOUwith the Department of Agriculture (nowAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada) in 1991,which has not been altered since the passage ofWAPPRIITA and the creation of the CFIA. Itwas originally planned that annexes addressingspecific projects or area of activities wouldexpand the MOU. However the resources havenot been available to complete the work anddesign these annexes (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 8, 2002). EnvironmentCanada does not have an MOU with DFO toenforce WAPPRIITA (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 8, 2002).
Environment Canada has signed MOUs witheight provincial or territorial jurisdictions:Saskatchewan (1997), Yukon (1997), Alberta(1998), Manitoba (1998), the NorthwestTerritories (1998), British Columbia (1998),Prince Edward Island (1999) and Nunavut(2003). These MOUs define the roles andresponsibilities of the Canadian and provincialor territorial governments for implementingWAPPRIITA and provide guidelines forconsultation, public awareness, informationsharing, financial considerations, supplementalagreements, administration and annual review,reporting and (with the exception of those withManitoba and Nunavut) conflict resolution.They specify that the provinces and territorieswill normally lead enforcement activitiesrelated to the export and interprovincialtransport of species listed in their respectivewildlife acts while Canada will normally leadactivities related to the import of wildlife(Anon., 1997b, 1998a, 1998c, 1998d, 1998i,1998j, 1999d and 2003m).
According to the WAPPRIITA 2001 AnnualReport MOUs are being developed with mostof the remaining provincial and territorialjurisdictions (Anon., 2003s). As of October2003, no additional MOUs had been signed(T. Swerdfager, in litt. to E. Cooper, October14, 2003).
A review of the successful prosecutions ofCITES-related WAPPRIITA violations (seeAppendix D) found numerous references toenforcement actions completed in co-operationwith other federal departments (notably
74
Canada Customs), provincial and territorialauthorities and foreign governments. There isno mention of any co-operative activitiesbetween Environment Canada and the RCMP.However the majority of cases related tounlawful imports and occurred at the Canadianborder or international postal points.WAPPRIITA violations discovered by CanadaCustoms officers at these points would bepassed directly to Environment Canada. Thesecases may suggest a lack of co-operationbetween Environment Canada and the RCMP,but that is not accurate. There have been jointoperations when the activities underinvestigation were related to other criminalactivities or when work needed to be done inother countries where RCMP officers wereavailable (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm to E. Cooper,March 8, 2002).
Although the CFIA is not involved with CITESimplementation there is an overlap of interestsbetween the agency and Environment Canada.One particular issue that needs to be dealt withis the use of euthanasia to dispose of detainedanimals. CFIA inspectors may euthanizeCITES-listed animals or destroy productsbecause they do not have the appropriatehealth or phytosanitary certificates forcompliance with CFIA import requirements.R. v. Alicandro (see conviction no. 44 inAppendix D) is an example. The live birds thatwere the subject of the prosecution wereeuthanized by the CFIA.
In many cases when CITES-listed species aredetained, according to the Director of theWildlife Enforcement Branch, the options are todestroy the animals or go through a long,complex process to house the specimens outsidethe country. Returning an animal to the countryof origin or sending it to another country isdifficult: CITES requirements must be met, aswell as the costs of transportation and permitsor certificates required by other departments. Asa result the costs may be out of proportion withthe importance of the specimens when thelimited resources available to enforcementofficers are considered (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm.to E. Cooper, March 8, 2002).
The Vancouver Regional Veterinarian reportsthat in general CFIA staff make an effort not todestroy CITES species that have been takenfrom the wild or have particular value (Dr. R.
Livingstone, in litt. to E. Cooper, March 8,2002). CITES species have often been detainedand quarantined at local zoos or aquariums.However the decision whether to destroy ananimal is up to the individual because it is notcovered by the original MOU betweenEnvironment Canada and the Department ofAgriculture (Y. Lafleur, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, March 8, 2002).
In most cases euthanasia of CITES species iscounter-intuitive to the conservation goals ofCITES. Guidelines for the disposal ofconfiscated live animals (including euthanasia)are provided in CITES Resolution Conference10.7 (Disposal of confiscated live specimens ofspecies included in the Appendices).
Interagency Training
It is apparent that effective and productiveinteragency co-operation on CITES enforcementnecessitates that the staff of each department oragency has some level of knowledge of CITESand wildlife trade. Given the small number ofFederal Game Officers, and the reliance on theassistance of other agencies (especially CanadaCustoms), interagency training should be apriority in Canada.
Basic training for entry-level Canada Customsofficers is conducted at the Canada CustomsCollege in Rigaud, Québec. Officers receiveone seminar on CITES that is approximatelyfour hours in duration (R. Charette, pers.comm. to E. Cooper, June 24, 2002). Despiterecommendations to increase the training timeon CITES (Hykle, 1988; Chalifour, 1996) andthe passage of WAPPRIITA the time spent onCITES has remained the same constant.
Environment Canada’s Office of Enforcementhas been working with Canada Customs todevelop a website that will provide a three-hour interactive training course on CITESenforcement for Canada Customs officers. Thecourse provides basic CITES information, areview of the major taxonomic groups listedby the Convention, fraud detection andprocedures for permit validation. The CanadaCustoms website has been developed in thethree official languages of CITES (English,French and Spanish) and is available to othercountries. A compact disk version is alsoavailable (R. Charette, pers. comm. toE. Cooper, March 27, 2002).
75
In addition Environment Canada’s Office ofEnforcement has provided training on thepersonal and household effects exemption[WAPTR section 15] and has distributed achart explaining the application of theseregulations (R. Charette, pers. comm. to E.Cooper, March 27, 2002) (see Appendix E).37
The Ontario Region publishes a short, biannualnewsletter for distribution to Canada Customsofficers and staff of other relevant governmentdepartments. The intent is to keep othergovernment department officers up to date onCITES, permit-related issues, tips,prosecutions and answers to questions (A.White, in litt. to E. Cooper, April 25, 2002).
Much of the interagency training conducted inCanada is provided by regional EnvironmentCanada enforcement staff. For example in1998 the following regional training wasprovided across Canada:
• Atlantic Region: 5 training sessions givento Canada Customs officers (Anon.,1999e);
• Ontario Region: 22 training sessions toCanada Customs personnel at variousCustoms offices in the region (Anon.,2001p);
• Prairie and Northern Region: trainingprovided to 107 Canada Customs officers,4 RCMP officers, 10 SaskatchewanConservation Officers, 2 USFWS officersand 2 U.S. Customs officers (B. Petrar, inlitt. to E. Cooper, March 25, 2002) and
• Pacific and Yukon Region: training inWhitehorse, Yukon for Yukon territorialConservation Officers, Parks Canadawardens, RCMP officers and CanadaCustoms officers, plus training for summerstudents assigned to Customs cruise shipterminals in Vancouver (Anon., 2001p).
Regional training has specific benefits: Itpromotes regional interagency co-operationand communication and develops linksbetween individual officers, and the trainingsyllabus can focus on regional issues andpriorities. The risk attached to regionallyfocused efforts is that the training content andfacilitation provided may not be consistentacross Canada. Environment Canada has notprovided regional enforcement officers withcomprehensive educational materials for use inCITES training, nor have officers receivedinstruction on training techniques.
76
37 This document makes no mention that the personal and household effects exemption applies only to imports fromcountries that do not require the prior grant of an import permit. This furthers concern that Environment Canada istreating this as a blanket exemption for all non-commercial CITES Appendix II items rather than the more narrow intentof the specific language.
In 1975 Canada became one of the firstcountries to bring CITES into force. By nowthe country should not be merely meeting allof the requirements for executing theConvention; it should be doing so in a mannerthat sets an example for Parties that are stilldeveloping their own programmes.
For the most part the basic needs of theConvention are being met, and in some areasthe Canadian government is doing anexemplary job of implementing CITES.However in other areas Canada’s execution ofCITES is weak.
In most cases the inadequacies in Canada’sCITES programme can be traced to insufficientresources directed at administering andenforcing the convention. CITES does notappear to be a priority for the Canadiangovernment as a whole or for EnvironmentCanada, the department charged with ensuringthat the Convention is effectively implemented.
7.1 LegislationWAPPRIITA is a vast improvement over theEIPA for implementing CITES. It containsappropriate measures to prohibit trade contraryto CITES and enforce the Convention bycreating an enforcement structure and providingsubstantial penalties. The legislation authorizesintergovernmental agreements for co-operation,and the legislation and regulations are easilyaccessible to the public on the Internet.
WAPPRIITA surpasses the threshold fordomestic legislation to incorporate the non-self-executing provisions in CITES. Thepenalty and enforcement structure inWAPPRIITA provides a model approach thatother Parties should be encouraged to follow.
TRAFFIC North America has no suggestionsfor changes to WAPPRIITA. Possibleamendments to the WAPTR are discussedunder the administration and enforcementtopics that follow.
Recommendation:
1. Other Parties to CITES should considerWAPPRIITA as a model for developing orstrengthening domestic legislation forimplementing CITES.
7.2 AdministrationEnvironment Canada’s public planningdocuments make no mention of CITESimplementation. Because detailed informationon CITES implementation is not included in itsplanning documents, Environment Canada isnot allowing the public to see where CITESimplementation falls within the department’srelative priorities.
Management and Scientific Authorities
Environment Canada has designated both aNational CITES Management Authority and aNational CITES Scientific Authority, but inrecent years neither office has had a fullcomplement of staff. Even with all positionsfilled, both of these offices are understaffed.This is particularly critical for the NationalCITES Management Authority, which does nothave the human and financial resources toeffectively carry out all of its responsibilities.As a result Canada is not meeting all of itsobligations under CITES.
Co-ordination of National CITESImplementation
The restoration of national meetings ofCanadian CITES authorities, the creation ofthe CITES-Canada Monthly Newsletter, thedevelopment of the Canadian CITES websiteand the possible reinstitution of trainingsessions for provincial and territorialauthorities were all positive steps towardsimproving the co-ordination of national CITESimplementation. Unfortunately the capabilityof the National CITES Management Authorityto provide comprehensive training withoutadditional resources is doubtful. Insufficientstaff restricted the capability to providetraining from 1995 to 2001, and no additionalpersonnel have been added since.
Development of Legislation,Regulations and Policies
Environment Canada can be commended forthe efforts that have been made to developlegislation and regulations for implementingCITES in Canada. However there is still a lackof clarity regarding governmental proceduresand policies for the Convention. The plannedrevision of CITES procedures into one
77
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
document will be a good step towardsresolving this concern. Currently EnvironmentCanada has put in place only one CITESpolicy (on Bengali cats). The department doesnot have a basic overall policy for CITESimplementation.
Publication of the CITES Appendicesand Amendments
The CITES Control List is a very welldesigned document that meets a need foranyone involved in CITES administration orenforcement. Its inclusion on the CanadianCITES website has made it both readilyavailable and more useful due to the searchfeatures provided.
Section 21(2) of WAPPRIITA requires thegovernment of Canada to amend the WAPTRnot later than ninety days after any change to aCITES appendix. Since WAPPRIITA cameinto force CITES Appendices I and II havebeen changed at CoP 10, CoP 11 and CoP 12.Environment Canada met the ninety daydeadline for the changes made at CoP 11.However the department missed the deadlinefor the changes made at CoP 10 and CoP 12 byfive months and over a year (respectively).
Environment Canada has had a better record ofmeeting the deadlines for amending theWAPTR in regard to CITES Appendix IIIlistings. However, the department failed topublish the CITES Appendix III listing ofbigleaf mahogany until more than two yearsafter the species was listed by Mexico and in2003/2004 it missed the deadlines for theAppendix III listings of an Ecuadorian seacucumber and the almendro tree by six monthsand over a year (respectively).
Administration and enforcement of the CITESAppendices is a basic and critical requirementof CITES. Failure to meet the ninety daydeadline to amend the WAPTR restricts thecapability of Canadian authorities to meet thisrequirement, compromises the conservationgoals of the Convention and violatesCanadian law.
Records of Trade
It is not clear if data from Canadian permitsare being compiled consistently, and asignificant quantity of data from foreignpermits is not making its way to the NationalCITES Management Authority. The
computerization of the permit issuance processwill help to resolve the first issue, especially ifthe provinces and territories begin to issuepermits on the same system (NEMISIS).
CITES Annual Reports
Canada’s continued inability to meet thedeadlines for submitting CITES annual reports,as required by CITES Article VIII(6)(b), meansit is failing to fulfill a fundamental obligationof the Convention. This process has beenhampered by the conversion of the permitdatabase to NEMISIS. However Canada’shistory of submitting CITES reports was poorlong before the conversion, and EnvironmentCanada has failed to meet the Secretariat’sextensions to Canada’s submission deadlines.The country’s continued failure to submitannual reports on time is detrimentallyaffecting international efforts to evaluatewildlife trade concerns.
A second and related concern is that Canadahas not published a public CITES annualreport since 1992, as required by CITESArticle VIII(8).
Implementation of Decisions andResolutions
Implementation of Decisions and Resolutionsis integral to the effectiveness of CITES,however the Parties are not obligated toimplement them under the Convention. Itseems unlikely that the government of Canadawould legislate on issues or situations that arenot yet known and that could conceivably goagainst Canadian interests. ThereforeEnvironment Canada’s assertion that Decisionsand Resolutions are best implemented by theCanadian government through changes inpolicy or procedure is a reasonable position.
Unfortunately there is a gap betweenEnvironment Canada’s position and thedepartment’s actual capability to implementDecisions and Resolutions effectively andconsistently. Environment Canada does nothave a policy in place for implementingDecisions and Resolutions. The result has beenpoor application of some Decisions andResolutions (for example ResolutionConference 10.10: Trade in ElephantSpecimens and ETIS) and the public’s inabilityto track Canada’s implementation of Decisionsand Resolutions.
78
Findings Made Prior to Issuing Permits
The National CITES Management Authority ismeeting the Convention’s requirements tocomplete certain findings before issuingpermits. It ensures that an import permit hasbeen issued before issuing export or re-exportpermits for Appendix I specimens, thatAppendix I specimens will not be used forprimarily commercial purposes and thatspecimens were legally acquired. Exportersare referred to the IATA Live AnimalsRegulations, and applicants for Appendix Iimport permits are required to provideinformation detailing the housing and care aspecimen will receive in Canada.
The National CITES Scientific Authority ismeeting the requirement to assess thecapability of importers to provide appropriatehusbandry for species. However the definitionof appropriate husbandry is subjective andEnvironment Canada does not have a formalprocedure for completing this finding.
Historically there has been a lack of clarity inthe process by which non-detriment findingshave been made in Canada. There was nostandard procedure that the provinces,territories and DFO were required to follow,nor were there clear lines of national co-ordination. It was therefore difficult todetermine whether the process was consistentacross the country. This concern wasexacerbated by the difficulty in reviewing thedata for permits issued in Canada (due to thelack of current CITES reports) and theunavailability of non-detriment findings to thepublic. Environment Canada’s plan to establisha national strategy for conducting non-detriment findings using the IUCN checklistshould resolve these issues.
Permit Issuance
The National CITES Management Authorityissues permits in a timely and efficient manner.It has maintained this level of service to theCanadian public despite an escalating numberof permit requests created by the CITES listingof the American black bear and the decisionsof Alberta, British Columbia (partially) and theCFIA to stop issuing permits.
Recommendations
2. Environment Canada should explicitlyinclude CITES implementation as one of the
activities in the nature section of its publicplanning documents and articulate theCITES budget and programmatic activitiesin those documents.
3.The House of Commons StandingCommittee on Environment and SustainableDevelopment should review the financial andhuman resources available for theadministration of CITES in Canada. Thereview should include consultation withappropriate government departments,agencies and stakeholder groups andconsider the resources presently allocatedversus the resources needed to effectivelyadminister and co-ordinate theimplementation of CITES in Canada; theimpact of past budget cuts and the impact ofnon-CITES-related responsibilities on theability of staff to administer the Convention.
4. The National CITES Management Authorityshould institute a comprehensive trainingprogram for provincial and territorial staffinvolved in the issuance of CITES permits.
5. Environment Canada should develop ageneral policy for implementing CITES inCanada, expedite the revision of CITESprocedures and ensure that all CITESpolicies and the revised CITES proceduredocument are available to the public.
6. Environment Canada must streamline theprocess for amending the WAPTR regardingchanges made to the CITES Appendices andensure that all required amendments aremade within the 90-day period required byWAPPRIITA.
7. Environment Canada should annuallyconduct a review of trade records to ensurethat the data from both Canadian andforeign permits are being collected and thedata compiled for CITES annual reportsmeet the criteria set in CITES ArticleVIII(6)(b).
8. Environment Canada should facilitate accessto NEMISIS by all federal, provincial andterritorial CITES permit-issuing offices andprovide the training and infrastructure toensure that all Canadian CITES permits areissued via that database.
9. Environment Canada should work inpartnership with Canada Customs to developand implement an effective strategy to
79
ensure that all foreign permits are promptlyforwarded to the National CITESManagement Authority.
10. The government of Canada must meet itsobligations to file CITES annual reports.Environment Canada needs to provide theNational CITES Management Authoritywith the resources to
• accelerate the completion of outstandingCITES annual reports and ensure thatfuture reports are completed by thedeadline of October 31 of the followingyear, as required by the Convention;
• expedite the completion and publicationof outstanding Canadian public CITESreports and ensure that in future thesereports are published annually.
11. Environment Canada should develop andmake public a policy and procedure forimplementing CITES Decisions andResolutions in Canada.
12. The National CITES Scientific Authorityshould ensure that a national strategy forconducting non-detriment findings usingthe IUCN checklist is established and thatall non-detriment findings completed forCanadian species should be made availableto the public.
7.3 EnforcementCanada has met the most basic requirementsfor enforcing the Convention. The means toenforce CITES and prohibit trade in specimensin violation of the Convention, as well asmeasures for penalizing violations, are inplace. However CITES is not enforced withsufficient effectiveness or consistency acrossCanada.
Resources
The greatest impediment to CITES enforcementin Canada is insufficient resources.
18 full-time Federal Game Officers enforcingCITES is woefully insufficient for a large,wealthy country like Canada which is activelyengaged in wildlife trading. As a resultEnvironment Canada is unable to meet all of itsenforcement programme goals, and long-termpriorities are not being fully delivered. Thissituation is likely to worsen in coming years.The volume of trade into Canada rises every
year, and CITES becomes more complex toenforce each time new species are included inthe Convention. Furthermore the workloads ofFederal Game Officers will increase with thepassage and implementation of SARA, and theWildlife Division is facing the loss of CAD1million (USD0.7 million) in funding that hasbeen provided as an annual loan from theEnvironmental Protection Branch since 2000.
The House of Commons Standing Committeeon Environment and Sustainable Developmenthas already criticized Environment Canada forproviding insufficient resources forenforcement, and Environment Canada hasrecognized the need for more than 100additional wildlife enforcement staff and morethan CAD8 million (USD5.9 million) inadditional annual funding.
Additionally, regional enforcement budgets maybe used for non-enforcement priorities, furthernegatively affecting Environment Canada’sability to successfully implement CITES.
Monitoring Trade
Environment Canada has focused itsenforcement efforts primarily on monitoringthe importation of wildlife and wildlifeproducts into Canada.
Among the approximately 18 full-time FederalGame Officers enforcing CITES in Canadathere is the equivalent of 8.3 officersresponsible for conducting inspections andensuring that trade is conducted in compliancewith CITES. These officers are alsoresponsible for providing training to othergovernment agencies, conducting publicoutreach activities, answering queries fromimporters and brokers and so forth. If it wasnot for the assistance and co-operation ofCanada Customs, CITES enforcement wouldnot be possible in Canada.
Goods may also be inspected upon export, butthis is much less common. Both EnvironmentCanada and Canada Customs have limitedresources for targeting and examining exportshipments.
Targeting
It is not possible for Canadian authorities toinspect every shipment that is imported to orexported from Canada. Therefore shipmentsmust be assessed to determine the risk that
80
they might contain products of concern andhigh-risk imports are targeted for inspection.Canada Customs will target imports for CITESat the request of Environment Canada becausethe importer or exporter has a history of non-compliance or the commodities being importedare a high risk for CITES-listed species.Unfortunately whether the targeting process isused consistently and effectively byEnvironment Canada in all regions was notdetermined.
Inspections
Under WAPPRIITA Environment Canada’sFederal Game Officers have broad powers toconduct inspections of wildlife. The mostcommon enforcement activity conducted bythese officers is the inspection of wildlifeproducts entering Canada to ensure compliancewith CITES.
Between fiscal years 1999–2000 and2000–2001 the numbers of inspectionsrecorded in three regions (Prairie andNorthern, Ontario and Atlantic) droppedsubstantially as a result of the entry into forceof the personal and household effectsexemption [WAPTR section 15]. The numberof inspections completed in the other regions(Pacific and Yukon, Québec) did not declineduring this same period because the efforts ofthese regions were already focused oncommercial wildlife shipments andinternational mail.
In-depth analysis of Canadian inspection resultswas not possible. Data are not recorded on thevast majority of imports of non-CITES wildlifeand wildlife products, thus there are no baselinedata available for calculation of inspection ratesor inspection effectiveness within or amongregions. Furthermore the data recorded byofficers in different regions are not consistent,and detailed data on the percentage ofinspections that resulted in CITES detentionsand the numbers and types of products thatwere detained or seized were available for onlythe Pacific and Yukon Region.
The summaries produced by the Pacific andYukon Region for detentions made by CanadaCustoms during the years 1995–2000 are veryuseful documents. It is unfortunate that similardocuments are not available for later years andfor all regions.
Inspections and Biological Expertise
The ability to accurately identify animals,plants and the myriad of different productsderived from them is crucial for a country tomount an effective wildlife inspectionprogramme. This capability needs to bedeveloped and updated to match changes inwildlife trade and the CITES Appendices.
In recent years Environment Canada’s WildlifeEnforcement Division has lost the majority ofthe regional officers who had biologicaltraining and expertise in taxonomy andmorphology. These officers have been replacedwith officers of limited experience.Environment Canada is losing the expertise toprovide expert identification of wildlife andwildlife products and, as a result, its ability toeffectively enforce CITES is diminishing.
Wildlife Transport Requirements
WAPTR section 9 requires that anyone whoexports live animals or plants from Canadamust do so in accordance with the IATA LiveAnimals Regulations and Guidelines forTransport and Preparation for Shipment ofLive Wild Animals and Plants.
Other than distributing copies of the IATAregulations and the guidelines to regionaloffices Environment Canada has done little toenforce WAPTR section 9. Federal GameOfficers do not receive training on theapplication of these documents, and, becauseof limited resources, few wildlife exports areinspected. No charges have ever been broughtfor violation of the regulation.
Data Management
NEMISIS is the electronic database used byEnvironment Canada for tracking andmanaging enforcement activities.
Between January 2002 and June 2003TRAFFIC North America submitted requeststo Environment Canada for information onregional enforcement activities, Canadianseizures of elephant ivory and the numbers ofitems detained or seized by each region from1998 to 2001. None of these requests could bemet via NEMISIS.
Data entry into NEMISIS is not consistentacross Canada, and the database has not beendesigned to effectively meet the needs ofwildlife enforcement or efficiently compile and
81
report wildlife trade data. NEMISIS is notmeeting the data management needs ofEnvironment Canada.
Wildlife Enforcement Branch headquarters hasreported that they are attempting to correct theproblems with NEMISIS, and a committee ofregional and headquarters staff has beenformed to establish the types and content ofregular NEMISIS reports to be produced fordistribution.
Departmental Training
Environment Canada has stated that it has apolicy requiring all enforcement personnel toreceive comprehensive training to assist themin carrying out their duties.
The department is providing its officers withgood training on the WAPPRIITA legislation,self-defence and traditional policingtechniques. However it is not providingcomprehensive and consistent training onCITES, permit validation, the IATA LiveAnimals Regulations and species and productidentification. Federal Game Officers are notreceiving the training they need to meet theirresponsibilities for monitoring wildlife tradeand providing advice and training to othergovernment departments and agencies.
Reference Materials
Environment Canada has made a significantcontribution to both Canadian and internationalenforcement of CITES through thedevelopment and distribution of thedepartment’s series of identification guides forCITES species and products.
Personal and Household EffectsExemption
Passage of the personal and household effectsexemption [WAPTR section 15] has bothbenefited and impaired the enforcement ofCITES in Canada.
The greatest benefit has been the reduction inworkloads for some officers in the WildlifeEnforcement Division headquarters and certainregions. The exemption has resulted in asignificant increase in the time available forthese officers to spend on important cases.
At the same time WAPTR section 15 hasreduced the interaction between EnvironmentCanada and Canada Customs officers in some
areas, and it has created uncertainty about thenature of the products being imported under theexemption. As a result of the exemption CITESAppendix I specimens may be entering thecountry or commercial goods may be being‘laundered’ as personal goods. Unfortunatelythese concerns cannot be resolved becausethere are no records kept on the nature orsource of the items released under theexemption.
The greatest problem is in the way the personaland household effects exemption is beingenforced. The exemption is meant to applyonly to non-commercial CITES Appendix IIimports from countries that do not require theprior grant of an export permit. However it iscurrently being treated as a blanket exemptionfor imports coming from any country. This isnot how the exemption is written, and to treatit as such is a misapplication of bothWAPPRIITA and CITES.
Declaration Forms for Wildlife Imports
Canada has not instituted the use of wildlifedeclaration forms despite the legalauthorization to do so provided by section 19 ofWAPPRIITA. As a result there is very littleinformation available about Canadian wildlifetrade that does not involve CITES species. Thislack of data limits Environment Canada’sability to focus wildlife enforcement effortswhere they are most productive and provide abaseline for measuring enforcementeffectiveness and the impact of the personal andhousehold effects exemption. The lack of datacollection also prevents Canada from sharinginformation on the trade in non-CITES specieswhich would be of great value to internationalefforts to implement the Convention.
Designated Ports for Wildlife Imports
Designated ports for wildlife imports wouldpossibly benefit some regional efforts, but it isnot clear whether they would significantlyassist wildlife enforcement on a national scale.Designated ports would potentially allow theconcentration of resources at these points, butEnvironment Canada does not currently havethe resources available to dedicate to theselocations. Furthermore it is not clear ifcommercial importers and exporters wouldreceive more efficient service in processingshipments or if they would be subjected to
82
increased costs by having to route shipmentsthrough inconveniently located ports.
Harmonized Commodity Descriptionand Coding System
The use of HS Codes has the potential to assistefforts towards compiling wildlife trade data andenforcing CITES in Canada. However theproblems of inaccurate coding would need to besolved and HS Codes would need to be amendedto target commodities of highest priority.
Verification of CITES Permits
The verification of CITES permits is afundamental requirement for the effectiveenforcement of the Convention. CITES permitsin Canada are commonly verified by CanadaCustoms officers, who receive minimaltraining on the Convention. Few wildlifeexports are inspected, and there is evidencethat a large proportion of foreign CITESpermits that accompany wildlife imports arenot correctly dealt with.
If Canada Customs is successful in eliminatingthe verification of paper permits from itsactivities the capability of Canada toimplement CITES will be critically impactedgiven the limited number of EnvironmentCanada Federal Game Officers available toassume this responsibility.
Responding to Violations
Environment Canada’s response toWAPPRIITA violations has not been consistentacross the country. The option to issue ticketsfor violations is available only in Manitoba,New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, PrinceEdward Island and Québec. Furthermore therecord of prosecutions and convictions forWAPPRIITA violations does not seem tocorrespond to the patterns of wildlife trade intoCanada. This may be symptomatic of the lackof sufficient resources available for CITESenforcement by Environment Canada. TheOntario Region, which has a significantlyhigher budget for wildlife enforcement thanany other region, also produces half of theCITES-related convictions in Canada.
Environment Canada is not actively enforcingsection 20 (on labelling) and (as notedpreviously) section 9 (wildlife transportrequirements) of the WAPTR.
Environment Canada does not collect anddistribute data on WAPPRIITA violationsconsistently and accurately. The different regionsdo not use the same definition of aninvestigation, and the data provided by thedepartment for fiscal year 2000–2001 wereincomplete (see also ‘Data Management’ above).
Raising Public Awareness
Environment Canada’s Compliance Policystates that provision of thorough information,education and consultation with the public isthe most effective way of ensuring they abideby the law. There is, however, no national planfor improving CITES awareness. Mostawareness efforts have been achieved byregional officers and on an ad hoc basis.Nonetheless Environment Canada has madeexcellent efforts towards raising publicawareness about CITES and wildlife tradeissues by making a great deal of informationavailable in publications and public displaysand on its website. The websites for DFAIT,the CFIA and Canada Customs also refer toCITES. Both DFAIT and the CFIA publish andcirculate brochures that provide information onWAPPRIITA and CITES.
Currently outreach is handled primarily byregional Federal Game Officers, and this takesthem away from their primary responsibilities.The exception is in the Ontario Region, whichhas established a full-time public outreachposition, thereby allowing officers toconcentrate on enforcement activities.
Interagency Co-operation
Environment Canada has developed goodworking relationships with other governmentdepartments and agencies such as CanadaCustoms, CFIA, DFO, RCMP and theprovincial and territorial authorities. Thepartnership with Canada Customs has beenparticularly effective. Many of the successfulprosecutions of CITES-related WAPPRIITAviolations were the result of enforcementactions completed in co-operation with otherfederal departments (notably CanadaCustoms), provincial and territorial authoritiesand foreign governments.
Environment Canada has signed an MOU withCanada Customs covering common issues anda specific MOU with the Canada Custom’s
83
investigations section. Environment Canadahas signed an MOU with the RCMP thatdefines the basis on which the parties will co-operate regarding WAPPRIITA enforcement.
Environment Canada does not have an MOUwith DFO, and the 1991 MOU with theDepartment of Agriculture was establishedbefore the passage of WAPPRIITA and thecreation of the CFIA. As a result CFIAinspectors may euthanize CITES-listed animalsor plants because they do not have theappropriate health or phytosanitary certificatesfor compliance with CFIA importrequirements. The destruction of livingspecimens should only be considered inconsultation with the guidelines provided inCITES Resolution Conference 10.7 (Disposalof confiscated live specimens of speciesincluded in the Appendices).
Between 1997 and 2003 Environment Canadasigned MOUs with five provinces and all threeterritories. As of May 2004 MOUs have stillnot been signed with Ontario, Quebec, NovaScotia, New Brunswick or Newfoundland andLabrador.
Interagency Training
To date the CITES training provided to CanadaCustoms has been insufficient. This problemhas been partially addressed through the on-line, interactive CITES training course that hasbeen developed by Environment Canada andCanada Customs. Environment Canada hasalso provided training to Canada Customs staffon the personal and household effectsexemption [WAPTR section 15].
Environment Canada’s regional enforcementstaff provide much of the interagency trainingconducted in Canada. This promotes regionalinteragency co-operation and communicationand develops links between individual officers,and the training syllabus can focus on regionalissues and priorities. However regionalenforcement officers have not been providedwith comprehensive resource materials for usein CITES training or instruction on trainingtechniques. As a result the CITES trainingprovided to other agencies by EnvironmentCanada is not consistent across the country.
Recommendations
13. Environment Canada should ensure that theCAD1 million (USD0.7 million) loan for
wildlife enforcement from theEnvironmental Protection Branch iscontinued or replaced from another source
14. The House of Commons StandingCommittee on Environment andSustainable Development should reviewthe financial and human resources availablefor the enforcement of CITES in Canada.The review should include a consultationexercise with appropriate governmentdepartments, agencies and stakeholdergroups and consider the following:
• the resources presently allocated versusthe resources needed to effectivelyenforce WAPPRIITA,
• the impact of past budget cuts,
• the impact of non-CITES-relatedresponsibilities on the ability of staff toenforce WAPPRIITA as it applies toCITES and
• the financial and human resource needsfor wildlife enforcement as documentedin Environment Canada’s NationalEnforcement Business Plan.
15. Environment Canada should ensure thatregional enforcement budgets are not cut tofund non-enforcement priorities and thatregional enforcement offices receive theirtotal annual budget.
16. Environment Canada and Canada Customsshould work together to expand theirinspection efforts to include a greateremphasis on wildlife exports.
17. Environment Canada should work withCanada Customs to ensure that the processfor targeting high-risk wildlife shipments isused to maximum effectiveness acrossCanada.
18. Environment Canada should prepare anddistribute annual reports that summarizesthe data compiled from CITES inspectionsin each region, including the numbers,types and origins of species and productsexamined, detained or seized.
19. Environment Canada should develop andinstitute comprehensive trainingprogrammes on CITES and on thebiological and taxonomic expertiserequired for the identification of wildlife
84
products. The former should be mandatoryfor all officers involved with CITESenforcement, and the latter should berequired for all officers actively involved inconducting inspections and making speciesidentifications.
20. Environment Canada should provideofficers with training on the wildlifetransport requirements provided by theIATA Live Animals Regulations andactively enforce section 9 of the WAPTR.
21. Environment Canada should address thedeficiencies of NEMISIS:
• A review of the design and performanceof the database should be conducted, andNEMISIS should be modified to bettermeet the needs of wildlife enforcement.Consideration should be given to creatinga stand-alone WAPPRIITA database.
• A review of the process by which data areentered into NEMISIS should beconducted, and a strategy should beimplemented that ensures complete andconsistent data entry and easy, accurateretrieval of these data.
22. Environment Canada should prepare anddistribute annual reports that clearlyexplain and summarize the enforcementactivities carried out in each region.
23. Environment Canada should implement thepersonal and household effects exemption[WAPTR section 15] as it is written.Specifically the exemption should beapplied only to goods that come fromcountries that do not require the prior grantof an export permit for those goods.Officers should be supplied with aroutinely updated list of the countries towhich the exemption applies.
24. Environment Canada should institute theuse of wildlife declaration forms forCanada as per section 19 of WAPPRIITA:
• A programme for instituting the use ofwildlife declaration forms should bedesigned and implemented incollaboration with the Canada Customs.
• The WAPTR should be amended torequire the completion of wildlifedeclaration forms for wildlife imports and exports.
• A procedure should be implemented toensure that the data collected throughwildlife declaration forms are accuratelyentered into NEMISIS.
• Wildlife trade data collected via wildlifedeclaration forms should be madepublicly available.
25. Environment Canada and Canada Customsshould complete a feasibility study forestablishing designated ports forcommercial wildlife shipments. The studyshould include discussion andrecommendations on the needs for andeffectiveness of designated ports toimprove the effectiveness of CITESenforcement in Canada, and it shouldinclude consideration of the humanresources and equipment necessary foradequately screening shipments forcompliance with CITES.
26. Environment Canada should conduct astudy, in conjunction with CanadaCustoms, into the use of HS Codes toassist CITES enforcement efforts. Thestudy should include a discussion of therelative value of HS Codes and makerecommendations for resolving theproblems of inaccurate coding andamending the codes to target commoditiesof highest priority.
27. The government Canada must ensure thateither Canada Customs continues to verifyCITES permits, or that EnvironmentCanada is provided with the resourcesrequired to effectively assume allresponsibility for this activity.
28. Environment Canada should ensure thatCanada Customs officers receive adequatetraining on permit verification andhandling.
29. Environment Canada should activelypursue agreements with Alberta, BritishColumbia, Newfoundland and Labrador,Saskatchewan, Nunavut, Yukon andNorthwest Territories to enable the optionto issue tickets for WAPPRIITA violations.
30. Environment Canada should conduct areview of Canada’s record of respondingto WAPPRIITA violations and ensure thatthese responses are consistent across thecountry.
85
31. Environment Canada should activelyenforce WAPTR section 20 (on labelling)and in so doing establish the viability ofthe regulation through case precedents.
32. Environment Canada should establish full-time public outreach positions in eachregion (except Ontario, which already hassuch a position) with responsibility forraising public awareness of federal wildlifeprotection legislation.
33. Environment Canada should establish thefollowing interagency agreements:
• an MOU with the CFIA that clearlydefines the basis on which the two bodiesco-operate, with the goal of improvingthe effectiveness of CITES enforcementin Canada and ensuring that livespecimens are disposed-of in accordancewith CITES Resolution Conference 10.7.
• an MOU with DFO that establishes a
closer working relationship and definesthe basis on which the two departmentscould assist each other’s enforcementefforts and
• completion of the outstanding MOUs onthe implementation of CITES and theenforcement of WAPPRIITA withOntario, Québec, Nova Scotia, NewBrunswick and Newfoundland andLabrador. At the very least these MOUsshould outline the roles andresponsibilities of each party, as has beenestablished with Alberta, BritishColumbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, Yukonand the Northwest Territories.
34. Environment Canada should ensure that theregional CITES training it provides to othergovernment agencies and departments isconsistent in content and presentation acrossthe country.
86
Allan, C. (1997). Making CITES Work: Examples of Effective Implementation and Enforcement.TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Anon. (1867). Constitution Act, 1867: Part VI: Distribution of Legislative Powers. Government ofCanada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1970a). Export and Import Permits Act. R.S., c. E-17, s. 1., as amended. Government ofCanada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1970b). Game Export Act, Chapter G-1 (Repealed, 1992, c. 52, s. 29). Government ofCanada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1973). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(amended 1979). CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (1985a). Criminal Code (R.S. 1985, c. C-46). Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1985b). Customs Act [R.S., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.)]. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1985c). Fisheries Act (R.S. 1985, c. F-14), as amended. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1985d). Resolution Conference 5.10: Definition of ‘Primarily Commercial Purposes’. CITESSecretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (1985e). Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (R.S. 1985, c. R-10). Government of Canada,Ottawa.
Anon. (1992a). Contraventions Act 1992, c. 47. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1992b). Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act (1992, c. 52). Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1995). Risk Assessment: Commercial CITES Imports and Exports. The Outspan GroupConsultants, Amherst Island, Ontario.
Anon. (1996). Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and InterprovincialTrade Act—Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1997a). Canada and the U.S. Establish Greenhouse Certification Program. Agriculture andAgri-Food Canada news release, Ottawa. http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/news/1997/n70108e.html.
Anon. (1997b). Canada – Saskatchewan Memorandum of Understanding for the CooperativeManagement and Administration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation ofInternational and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). EnvironmentCanada/Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, Ottawa/Regina.
Anon. (1997c). Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 S.O. 1997, Chapter 41. Statutes of Ontario,Toronto.
Anon. (1997d). Resolution Conference 10.2 (Revised): Permits and Certificates. CITES Secretariat,Geneva.
Anon. (1997e). Resolution Conference 10.12: Transport of Live Animals. CITES Secretariat,Geneva.
Anon. (1997f). WAPPRIITA Trainers Manual. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (1998a). Canada – Alberta Memorandum of Understanding for the Cooperative Managementand Administration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of Internationaland Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). Environment Canada/Alberta NaturalResources Service, Ottawa/Edmonton.
87
REFERENCES
Anon. (1998b). Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 132, No. 6, Registration SOR/98-134, 26 February,1998. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1998c). Canada — Manitoba Memorandum of Understanding for the CooperativeManagement and Administration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation ofInternational and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). Environment Canada/ManitobaNatural Resources, Ottawa/Winnipeg.
Anon. (1998d). Canada — Northwest Territories Memorandum of Understanding for theCooperative Management and Administration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection andRegulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). EnvironmentCanada/Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife and EconomicDevelopment, Ottawa/Yellowknife.
Anon. (1998e). Enforcing Canada’s Pollution Laws: The Public Interest Must Come First! ThirdReport. Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. House ofCommons of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (1998f) Inspections. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/wild_inspec.asp. Viewed May 2002.
Anon. (1998g) Intelligence. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/wild_intel.asp. Viewed August 2002.
Anon. (1998h). Introduction to Investigative Skills and Processes. Justice Institute of BritishColumbia, Vancouver.
Anon. (1998i). Memorandum of Understanding. Environment Canada/British Columbia Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks, Ottawa/Victoria.
Anon. (1998j). Memorandum of Understanding. Environment Canada/Yukon Department ofRenewable Resources, Ottawa/Whitehorse.
Anon. (1998k). The Canadian Food and Inspection Agency Annual Report 1997–98. CFIA, Ottawa.http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/ar/ar98/toce.shtml. Viewed July 2002.
Anon. (1998l). Wild Fauna and Flora. World Customs Organization. Brussels, Belgium.
Anon. (1999a). Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Act 1999, c. 17. Government of Canada,Ottawa.
Anon. (1999b). CITES Permits and Certificates. Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Washington.
Anon. (1999c). Jungle Adventures. Clabrook Farm, Inc., Christmas, Florida.www.jungleadventures.com. Viewed January 2001.
Anon. (1999d). Memorandum of Understanding for the Cooperative Management andAdministration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act. Environment Canada/Government of Nunavut, Ottawa/Charlottetown.
Anon. (1999e). Wildlife Trade Section, 1998 Annual Report, Atlantic Region. Environment Canada,Sackville, New Brunswick.
Anon. (2000a). About CITES: Protected Species. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.http://www.cites.org/CITES/eng/index.shtml. Viewed September 2002.
Anon. (2000b). Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 134, No. 19, Registration SOR/2000-325, 23 August,2000. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2000c).C.C.S.M c. W130 The Wildlife Act. Continuing Consolidation of the Statutes ofManitoba, Canada. Winnipeg.
88
Anon. (2000d). CITES Notification No. 2000/034, Concerning: Amendment of Appendices I and IIand Appendix III. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2000e). CITES Notification No. 2000/037, Concerning: Appendices I and II and AppendixIII. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2000f). CITES Notification No. 2000/050, Concerning: Appendices I and II. CITESSecretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2000g). Environment Canada Performance Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2000.Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2000h). Estimates 2000–2001, Part III—Plans and Priorities. Environment Canada, Hull,Quebec.
Anon. (2000i). Opening Doors to the World. Ottawa: Department of Foreign Affairs andInternational Trade.
Anon. (2000j). Policy Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities Between Headquarters and RegionalEnforcement Offices. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2000k). Resolution Conference 11.17 (Revised): Annual Reports and Monitoring of Trade.CITES Secretariat, Geneva
Anon. (2001a) About TRAFFIC. Traffic International, Cambridge, U.K. http://www.traffic.org/about/.Viewed November 2002.
Anon. (2001b). Canada Fact Sheet. Communications Canada, Ottawa.http://www.communication.gc.ca/facts/canadagen_e.html. Viewed March 2002.
Anon. (2001c). Cargo: Moving Freight Forward. Greater Toronto Airports Authority.http://www.gtaa.com/cargo/. (Viewed February 2001.)
Anon. (2001d). CCRA/EC Study Investigates CITES-Related Reporting and Compliance (Summaryfor Canadian Enforcement Officers). Canada Customs and Revenue Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2001e). CITES Permit Policy—Bengali Cat. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/cites/html/eng/sct4/sct4_2a_e.htm. Viewed January 2002.
Anon. (2001f). Customs and Excise Program. RCMP, Ottawa. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/customs.htm. Viewed December 2002.
Anon. (2001g). Customs Memorandum D19-7-1. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Ottawa.
Anon. (2001h). Customs Memorandum D19-13-1. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Ottawa.
Anon. (2001i). Federal Investigation Unit. RCMP, Ottawa. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/ott-fiu.htm. Viewed December 2001.
Anon. (2001j). Legislation and Court Decisions. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/homepage/wildlife/english/legis.htm. Viewed August 2002.
Anon. (2001k). Live Animals Transport By Air. International Air Transport Association,http://www.iata.org/cargooperations/liveanimals/index. Viewed. March 2003.
Anon. (2001l) Summary Report of NEMISIS Workshop. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://can-chil.gc.ca/English/Activities/work/2000wp/2000wp.cfm.Viewed May 2002.
Anon. (2001m) Sustainable Development Strategy 2001–2003. Environment Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2001n). Tri-National Conference on Wildlife Enforcement Activities: In Search of BetterAvenues for Public Participation, Agenda. North American Wildlife Enforcement Group,Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Montreal, Quebec.
Anon. (2001o). WAPPRIITA 1996 Annual Report. Environment Canada Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/wappa/an_rpt96/reg_e.html. Viewed October 2002.
89
Anon. (2001p). WAPPRIITA 1997 Annual Report. Environment Canada Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/wappa/an_rpt97/reg_e.html. Viewed October 2002.
Anon. (2001q). WAPPRIITA 1998 Annual Report. Environment Canada Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/wappa/an_rpt98/reg_e.html. Viewed October 2002.
Anon. (2001r). WAPPRIITA 1999 Annual Report. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2002a) All American Gator Products. All American Gator Products, Pembroke Park, Florida.www.allamericangator.com; Viewed January 2001.
Anon. (2002b). Alligator Bob’s Premium Meat Snacks. Robert N. Young and Associates Inc.,Thonotosassa, Florida. www.gatorbob.com; Viewed January 2001.
Anon. (2002c). Bon Voyage, But... information for the Canadian Traveller 2001/2002. Department ofForeign Affairs and International Trade, Ottawa. http://www.voyage.gc.ca/Consular-e/Publications/bon_voyage_but-e.htm. Viewed March 2002.
Anon. (2002d). The Canadian Food Inspection Agency: Contributing to the Quality of Canadian Life.CFIA, Ottawa.http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/prog/agence.shtml.Viewed July 2002.
Anon. (2002e). CITES Form 20 (2002/05/30), Application for Permit to Import. EnvironmentCanada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2002f). CITES Notification No. 2002/003, FIJI—Recommendation to suspend trade. CITESSecretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2002g). CITES Notification No. 2002/004, VIET NAM —Recommendation to suspend trade.CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2002h). CITES Notification No. 2002/005, YEMEN—Recommendation to suspend trade.CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2002i). CITES Notification No. 2002/060, Appendix III. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2002j). Compliance and Enforcement Policy for Wildlife Legislation. Environment Canada,Hull, Quebec. http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/enforce/pol_1_e.cfm. Viewed July 2002.
Anon. (2002k). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora:Annual Reports. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/cites/html/eng/sct4/sct4_4_e.htm. Viewed February 2002.
Anon. (2002l). Environment Canada Statistical Report: National Wildlife Enforcement Activities foryear 98–99. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec. http://www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/wild_stats.asp.Viewed August 2002.
Anon. (2002m) Import and Export under CITES. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/cites/pages_e/index_e.htm. Viewed March 2002.
Anon. (2002n). In-Service Training for Wildlife Inspectors. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,Washington. http://training.fws.gov/catalog/LAW3.HTML. Viewed February 2002.
Anon. (2002o). Minutes of October 29, 2002 teleconference. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2002p). Related sites—Wildlife and Endangered Animals. CCRA, Ottawa. http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/customs/general/other_sites/wild-e.html. Viewed March 2002.
Anon. (2002q). Relevant Authorities. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/eng/sct7/resul_e.cfm. Viewed September 2002.
Anon. (2002r). Resolution Conference 12.3: Permits and Certificates. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.
Anon. (2002s). SARA Royal Assent. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.ec.gc.ca/press/2002/021212_b_e.htm. Viewed April 2003.
90
Anon. (2002t). Table 228-0033—Imports, Customs-Based, by Province of Clearance, Monthly(Dollars _ 1M). Statistics Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2002u). Welcome. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct6/index_e.cfm. Viewed March 2003.
Anon. (2002v). What can I bring into Canada? CFIA, Ottawa.http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/publications/canada/canadae.shtml. ViewedMarch 2002.
Anon. (2002w). Wildlife Trade Section, 2001 Annual Report, Atlantic Region. Environment Canada,Sackville, New Brunswick.
Anon. (2002x).Wildlife Legislations, Regional and National Enforcement Statistics, Fiscal Year1999–2000. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2002y). Wildlife Legislations, Regional and National Enforcement Statistics, Fiscal Year2000–2001. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2003a). Alligator Products. www.alligatorproducts.com. Viewed January 2001.
Anon. (2003b). The Atlas of Canada: Facts about Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/facts/supergeneral.html. Viewed April 2003.
Anon. (2003c). CITES. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/eng/sct0/index_e.cfm. Viewed April 2003.
Anon. (2003d) CITES-Listed Species Database. UNEP–WCMC, Cambridge, UK.http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/species.html. Viewed October 2003.
Anon. (2003e). CITES Notification No. 2003/002, Resolutions, Decisions and Appendices I, II andIII in effect after the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. CITES Secretariat,Geneva.
Anon. (2003f). Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora:Control List. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/eng/sct8/index_e.cfm. Viewed May, 2003.
Anon. (2003g). Decisions of the Conference of the Parties. CITES Secretariat, Genevahttp://www.cites.org/eng/decis/intro.shtml. Viewed June 2003.
Anon. (2003h). The Elephant Trade Information System (ETIS). CITES Secretariat, Geneva.http://www.cites.org/eng/programme/ETIS/part_I/ETIS.shtml#background. Viewed March2003.
Anon. (2003i). Gator Goods Alligator Products. Gator Goods Alligator Products, Pompano Beach,Florida. http://www.geocities.com/mikem059/gatorgoods Viewed January 2001.
Anon. (2003j). Law Enforcement: CITES Identification Guide. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/enforce/species_e.cfm. Viewed April 2003.
Anon. (2003k). Law Enforcement: Our Activities. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/enforce/act_e.cfm. Viewed April 2003.
Anon. (2003l). List of Contracting Parties (in order of entry into force). CITES Secretariat, Geneva.http://www.cites.org/eng/parties/chronolo.shtml. Viewed April 2003.
Anon. (2003m). Memorandum of Understanding for the Cooperative Management andAdministration of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act (WAPPRIITA). Environment Canada/Government of Nunavut,Ottawa/ Iqaluit.
Anon. (2003n). Resolutions of the Conference of the Parties in Effect after the 12th Meeting. CITESSecretariat, Geneva. http://www.cites.org/eng/resols/index.shtml. Viewed March 2003.
91
Anon. (2003o). Royal Canadian Mounted Police: about the RCMP. RCMP, Ottawa.http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/about/index_e.htm. Viewed March 2003.
Anon. (2003p). Species Survival Plan® Fact Sheet. American Zoo and Aquarium Association, SilverSpring, Maryland. http://www.aza.org/ConScience/ConScienceSSPFact/. Viewed March2003.
Anon. (2003q). The Structure of CITES. CITES Secretariat, Geneva.http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/org.shtml. Viewed June 2003.
Anon. (2003r). WAPPRIITA. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.cites.ec.gc.ca/eng/sct4/index_e.cfm. Viewed March 2003.
Anon. (2003s). WAPPRIITA 2001 Annual Report. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada,Hull, Quebec.
Anon. (2003t). WAPPRIITA Case History 1–68. Environment Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Anon. (2003u). Wildlife Acts, National Enforcement Statistics. Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.http://www.ec.gc.ca/enforce/wild_stats.asp. Viewed January 2003.
Anon. (2003v). World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/docs/rankorderguide.html. August 2003.
Anon. (2004a). About the CBSA. Canada Border Services Agency. Http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency/menu-e.html. Viewed May 2004.
Anon. (2004b). Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 138, No. 8, Registration SOR/2004-61, 30 March,2004. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Anon. (2004c). Customs Notice N-572, Collection of Permits for Health Canada. Canada BorderServices Agency, Ottawa.
Antweiler, W., Jr. (1995). Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HarmonizedSystem). Policy Analysis Division, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration,University of British Columbia. http://pacific.commerce.ubc.ca/trade/HS.html. ViewedJanuary 2002.
Burnett, J. A. (1999). A Passion for Wildlife: A History of the Canadian Wildlife Service,1947–1997. The Canadian Field Naturalist 113(1):1–214.
Caldwell, J. (2001). World Trade in Crocodilian Skins, 1997–1999. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK, under contract to theInternational Alligator and Crocodile Trade Study.
Chalifour, N. (1996). Canada’s Role in the Tiger Trade. World Wildlife Fund, Toronto, Canada.
de Klemm, C. (1993). Guidelines for Legislation to Implement CITES. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland,UK. 107 pp.
Dyck, J., Graham, R., and Cooper, E. (1998). Retail Inspection Project, Traditional ChineseMedicines, Final Report. Environment Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Fitzgerald S. (1989). International Wildlife Trade: Whose Business Is It? World Wildlife Fund,Washington D.C. 459 pp.
Gaski, A. L. (ed.). (1998).While Supplies Last: The Sale of Tiger and Other Endangered SpeciesMedicines in North America (1996–1997). TRAFFIC North America, Washington, DC.
Hemley, G. (2000). International Wildlife Trade: A CITES Sourcebook. World Wildlife Fund,Washington, D.C. 166 pp.
Hykle, D. (1988). An Evaluation of Canada’s Implementation and Enforcement of CITES: TheConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Master’sthesis. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
92
Lincoln, R., Boxshall, G., and Clark, P. (1998). A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics.2d ed. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Low. R. R. (2001). Regina v. Kwok Shing Enterprises Ltd., Reasons for the Judgement of theHonourable Judge R.R. Low. File No. 112514-1. Provincial Court of British Columbia,Vancouver.
Marlatt, C. (2003). Canada and the United States Border Crossings.http://www.craigmarlatt.com/craig/canada/canada&the_world/canada&us_border_crossings.html. Viewed April 2003.
Merz, L. (1996). CITES Detentions by Canada Customs for Environment Canada, Pacific and YukonRegion. Summary for the Year of 1995. Environment Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Nowell, K. (2000). Far from a Cure: The Tiger Trade Revisited. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge,U.K.
Nowell, K., Wei-Lien, C., and Chia-Jai, P. (1992). The Horns of a Dilemma: The Market for RhinoHorn in Taiwan. TRAFFIC International, Cambridge, UK.
Petrar, B. J. (1999). Searching for Tigers in Canada: Limitations of Forensic Analysis. Proceedingsof the International Association of Forensic Sciences, 15th Triennial Meeting, Los Angeles,California. August 1999. P. 278.
Rosser, A. R., and Haywood, M. J. (Comps) (2002). Guidance for CITES Scientific Authorities:Checklist to Assist in Making Non-detriment Findings for Appendix II Exports. OccasionalPaper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 27. World Conservation Union, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K. 145 pp.
’t Sas-Rolfes, M. (2000). Assessing CITES: Four Case Studies. In Endangered Species: ThreatenedConvention—The Past, Present and Future of CITES. Hutton, J. & Dickson, B. eds.Earthscan Publications, London, UK. 202 pp.
Wenting, R. (1994). CITES Aspects of Controlling Trade in Bear Parts: Canadian Perspectives. InRose, D. A. and Gaski, A. L. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on theTrade of Bear Parts for Medicinal Use. TRAFFIC USA, Washington, DC. Pp. 25-30.
Wenting, R., and Johnson, B. (1996). News Release from Canada: 105 Endangered Tortoises Find aNew Home. Herp Hut. http://members.aol.com/gonyosoma/article2.html. Viewed January 2002.
White, Gloria. (1997). CITES Detentions by Canada Customs for Environment Canada, Pacific andYukon Region. Summary for the Year of 1996. Environment Canada, Vancouver, BritishColumbia.
———. (1998). CITES Annual Summary of Detentions by Canada Customs for EnvironmentCanada, Pacific and Yukon Region. Summary for the Year of 1997. Environment Canada,Vancouver, British Columbia.
———. (1999). CITES Annual Summary of Detentions by Canada Customs for EnvironmentCanada, Pacific and Yukon Region. Summary for the Year of 1998. Environment Canada,Vancouver, British Columbia.
———. (2000). CITES Annual Summary of Detentions by Canada Customs for EnvironmentCanada, Pacific and Yukon Region. Summary for the Year of 1999. Environment Canada,Vancouver, British Columbia.
———. (2001). CITES Annual Summary of Detentions by Canada Customs for EnvironmentCanada, Pacific and Yukon Region. Summary for the Year of 2000. Environment Canada,Vancouver, British Columbia.
Wijnstekers, W. (2001). The Evolution of CITES: A Reference to the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES Secretariat, Geneva. 483 pp.
93
94
OverviewCITES monitors, regulates and/or prohibits theinternational trade in specimens of species ofanimals and plants through an internationalpermitting system. Countries grant permits onlyif particular conditions are met, and thesepermits must be presented before specimens ofspecies subject to the Convention may crossinternational borders. The level of trade controlexerted by CITES depends on the level of threatfrom trade faced by the species. (For detailedinformation on CITES see Wijnstekers [2001].)
CITES AppendicesSpecies of concern are listed in three Appendices,each of which sets different restrictions on theinternational trade in those species:
Appendix I
Species listed in Appendix I are those that arethreatened with extinction. Trade in Appendix Ispecies is permitted only in very limitedcircumstances. Commercial trade in Appendix Ispecies is generally prohibited, althoughartificially propagated Appendix I plants orcaptive-bred Appendix I animals may be tradedaccording to Appendix II rules. Both an importpermit from the importing country and an exportpermit or re-export permit from the country ofexport are required for trade in Appendix Ispecimens (Anon., 1973). There are more than800 species listed on Appendix I (Anon., 2000a).
Appendix II
Species that are not currently threatened withextinction but could become so if trade is notregulated are listed in Appendix II. Species mayalso be listed on Appendix II because theycannot easily be distinguished from otherspecies listed on Appendix I or II. Trade inAppendix II specimens requires a CITES exportpermit issued by the exporting country, which isonly to be granted after the exporting countryhas made a number of determinations, includinga finding that the export will not be detrimentalto the survival of the species. In the event of re-export a CITES re-export permit is required(Anon., 1973). The majority of species listed byCITES are in Appendix II (Anon., 2000a).
Appendix III
Individual countries may list species in
Appendix III when those countries wish toexert control over the export of certain nativespecies. If an Appendix III specimen originatesfrom the listing nation a CITES export permitfrom that nation is required for export. If thespecimen originates from another country theshipment requires a certificate of origin. Acertificate of origin or re-exportation must alsoaccompany shipments of Appendix IIIspecimens from non-listing nations (Anon.,1973). There are more than 200 species listedon Appendix III (Anon., 2000a).
CITES OrganizationSecretariat
CITES is administered by a Secretariat based inGeneva, Switzerland. The Secretariat’s essentialrole is to help member nations to implement theConvention. CITES Article XII outlines theSecretariat’s functions (Anon., 1973).
Animals Committee and PlantsCommittee
The purpose of these committees is to provideadvice on scientific issues in the trade inanimals or plants, thereby assisting with thedecision-making process about these species(Anon., 2003q).
Nomenclature Committee
The Nomenclature Committee recommendsstandard names for animals and plants andreviews the CITES Appendices and otherdocuments to ensure the correct use ofzoological and botanical nomenclature. Thecommittee verifies that changes in the namesof species do not change the extent ofprotection for those species (Anon., 2003q).
Standing Committee
The Standing Committee is composed of Partiesrepresenting six geographical regions: Africa,Asia, Central America and the Caribbean,Europe, North America and South America. Thecommittee also includes representatives fromthe Depository Government (Switzerland), theParty that hosted the last CoP and the Partyhosting the next CoP. The purpose of theStanding Committee is to co-ordinate theimplementation of the Convention betweenCoPs and complete tasks assigned to it duringthe CoP (Anon., 2003q).
95
APPENDIX A — CITES BASICS
The Parties
As of December 30, 2003 164 countries haveentered CITES into force. These countries arereferred to as the Parties (Anon., 2003q).Collectively they are the Conference of theParties.
Meeting of the Conference of theParties (CoP)The Convention requires the Secretariat to call aCoP every two years. CoPs are attended bydelegations from each Party. At these meetingsthe Parties may amend the Appendices (by two-thirds majority if more than half of the Partiesare present) and make recommendations toimprove the implementation of the Convention(Anon., 1973). These recommendations take theform of Decisions and Resolutions intended toclarify the interpretations of the Convention text.
Decisions
Decisions of a CoP are generally short-terminstructions to committees, working groups orthe Secretariat (Anon., 2003g).
Resolutions
Resolutions of a CoP are long-term Decisions,terms of reference, recommendations orinterpretations of the Convention that are putinto practice to improve the implementation ofthe Convention (Anon., 2003g).
Introduction from the SeaThe term introduction from the sea refers to asituation where a species is collected in amarine environment that is not within thejurisdiction of a state (country). In that case anintroduction from the sea certificate is issuedby the CITES Management Authority of thecollecting state. This certificate must then bepresented to obtain the necessary permit(s) forexport (Anon., 1999b).
National AuthoritiesEach Party is required to designate at least oneat least one Management Authority and oneScientific Authority.
Management Authority
The primary function of the ManagementAuthority is to issue import, export and re-export permits and certificates according tothe rules of CITES (Anon., 1973). To issuethese permits the Management Authority mustmake a number of findings, as well as
consider recommendations made by theScientific Authority.
In addition to issuing permits ManagementAuthorities are responsible for managing thecustody and return to the country of origin ofconfiscated living specimens and designatingrescue centres, if necessary (Anon., 1973).
Management Authorities issue certificates ofcaptive breeding when they are satisfied that ananimal specimen was bred in captivity or a plantspecimen was artificially propagated. TheManagement Authority is also responsible forregistering scientific institutions. Registeredscientific institutions can move CITESspecimens across borders with less paperwork,but only for non-commercial loans anddonations or exchanges of herbarium specimens,other preserved, dried or embedded museumspecimens and live plant materials labelled by aManagement Authority (Anon., 1973).
Scientific Authority
The primary function of the ScientificAuthority is to take into account species dataand advise the Management Authorityregarding the issuance of permits. TheScientific Authority is also responsible foradvising the Management Authority whether aproposed recipient of a living Appendix Ispecimen is suitably equipped to house andcare for it (Anon., 1973).
Range StateThe term range refers to the geographicaldistribution of a species or group (Lincoln etal, 1998). Therefore a range state for a speciesis a country that encompasses all or part of therange of that species.
TradeCITES Article I defines trade as export, re-export (export of a specimen that haspreviously been imported), import andintroduction from the sea (see below). Theterm trade refers to any export, import orintroduction from the sea of a specimen,whether it is for commercial purposes or not.
Commercial Trade
Trade is considered ‘commercial’ if its purposeis to obtain economic gain through resale,exchange or other economic benefit (Anon.,1985d). This is contrasted with trade for non-commercial ‘personal’ use. Appendix B
96
1992, c. 52
[W.8.5]
An Act respecting the protection of certainspecies of wild animals and plants and the
regulation of international and interprovincialtrade in those species.
[Assented to 17th December, 1992]
Her Majesty, by and with the advice andconsent of the Senate and House of Commonsof Canada, enacts as follows:
SHORT TITLE
Short title
1. This Act may be cited as the Wild Animaland Plant Protection and Regulation ofInternational and Interprovincial Trade Act.
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
2. In this Act,
“animal” means any specimen, whether livingor dead, of any species of animals that is listedas “fauna” in an appendix to the Convention,and includes any egg, sperm, tissue culture orembryo of any such animal;
“Convention” means the Convention oninternational trade in endangered species ofwild fauna and flora, made on March 3, 1973in Washington, D.C., United States and ratifiedby Canada on April 10, 1975, as amendedfrom time to time, to the extent that theamendment is binding on Canada;
“conveyance” means any vehicle, aircraft orwater-borne craft or any other contrivance thatis used to move persons or goods;
“distribute” includes sell;
“Minister” means the Minister of theEnvironment;
“officer” means a person, or a person whobelongs to a class of persons, designatedpursuant to section 12;
“plant” means any specimen, whether living ordead, of any species of plant that is listed as“flora” in an appendix to the Convention, andincludes any seed, spore, pollen or tissueculture of any such plant;
“prescribed” means prescribed by regulation;
“transport” includes send.
BINDING HER MAJESTY
Binding on Her Majesty
3. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in rightof Canada or a province.
PURPOSE
Purpose
4. The purpose of this Act is to protect certainspecies of animals and plants, particularlyby implementing the Convention andregulating international and interprovincialtrade in animals and plants.
AGREEMENTS
Federal-provincial agreements
5. The Minister may enter into an agreementwith the government of any province toprovide for the cooperative managementand administration of this Act and to avoidconflict between, and duplication in,federal and provincial regulatory activity.
PROHIBITIONS
Importation
6. (1) No person shall import into Canadaany animal or plant that was taken, or anyanimal or plant, or any part or derivative ofan animal or plant, that was possessed,distributed or transported in contraventionof any law of any foreign state.
Importation and exportation
(2) Subject to the regulations, no personshall, except under and in accordance witha permit issued pursuant to subsection10(1), import into Canada or export fromCanada any animal or plant, or any part orderivative of an animal or plant.
Interprovincial transport
(3) Subject to the regulations, no personshall, except under and in accordance with apermit issued pursuant to subsection 10(1),transport from one province to anotherprovince any animal or plant, or any part orderivative of an animal or plant.
97
APPENDIX B — WAPPRIITA
Transport requiring provincial authorization
7. (1) Where the transportation out of aprovince of an animal or plant, or any partor derivative of an animal or plant, ispermitted by the province only if theperson who transports it holds a permitissued by a competent authority in thatprovince, no person shall, except under andin accordance with such a permit, transportany animal, plant or part or derivative of ananimal or plant from that province toanother province.
Provincial prohibitions
(2) No person shall transport from aprovince to another province any animal orplant, or any part or derivative of an animalor plant, where the animal or plant wastaken, or the animal, plant, part orderivative was possessed, distributed ortransported, in contravention of anyprovincial Act or regulation.
Possession
8. Subject to the regulations, no person shallknowingly possess an animal or plant, orany part or derivative of an animal or plant,
(a) that has been imported or transportedin contravention of this Act;
(b) for the purpose of transporting it fromone province to another province incontravention of this Act or exporting itfrom Canada in contravention of this Act;or
(c) for the purpose of distributing oroffering to distribute it if the animal orplant, or the animal or plant from whichthe part or derivative comes, is listed inAppendix I to the Convention.
Documents
9. Every person who imports into Canada,exports from Canada or transports fromone province to another province an animalor plant, or any part or derivative of ananimal or plant, shall keep in Canada, inthe prescribed manner and for theprescribed period, any documents that arerequired to be kept by the regulations.
FEDERAL PERMITS
Issuance
10. (1) The Minister may, on application andon such terms and conditions as theMinister thinks fit, issue a permitauthorizing the importation, exportation orinterprovincial transportation of an animalor plant, or any part or derivative of ananimal or plant.
Application for permit
(2) An application shall be made in theform and on the terms and conditions thatthe Minister requires, contain all theinformation that the Minister requires andbe accompanied by the prescribed fees.
Revocation or suspension
(3) The Minister may, after giving a personwho holds a permit an opportunity to makerepresentations, revoke or suspend thepermit for contravention of any term orcondition of the permit.
Misrepresentation
11. No person shall knowingly furnish anyfalse or misleading information or makeany misrepresentation with respect to anymatter in this Act.
ADMINISTRATION
Officers
12. (1) The Minister may designate suchpersons or classes of persons as theMinister considers necessary to act asofficers for the purposes of this Act or anyprovision thereof, and where the person tobe designated is an employee, or the classof persons to be designated consists ofemployees, of the government of aprovince, the Minister shall only designatethat person or class with the agreement ofthat government.
Powers of peace officers
(2) Officers designated under subsection(1) have, for the purposes of this Act, allthe powers of a peace officer, but theMinister may limit, in any manner theMinister considers appropriate, the powersthat certain officers may exercise for thepurposes of this Act and, where those
98
powers are so limited, they shall bespecified in the certificate referred to insubsection (3).
Certificate to be shown
(3) On entering any place under this Act,an officer shall, on request, show theperson in charge or the occupant of theplace a certificate, in the form approved bythe Minister, certifying that the officer hasbeen designated pursuant to this section.
Obstruction
(4) No person shall knowingly make anyfalse or misleading statement either orallyor in writing to, or obstruct or hinder, anofficer who is carrying out duties orfunctions under this Act or the regulations.
Detention
13. Any thing that has been imported into or isabout to be exported from Canada, or hasbeen transported, or is about to betransported, from a province to anotherprovince, may be detained by an officeruntil the officer is satisfied that the thinghas been dealt with in accordance with thisAct and the regulations.
Inspections
14. (1) For the purpose of ensuring compliancewith this Act and the regulations, an officermay at any reasonable time enter andinspect any place in which the officerbelieves, on reasonable grounds, there isany thing to which this Act applies, orthere are any documents relating to theadministration of this Act or theregulations, and the officer may
(a) open or cause to be opened anycontainer that the officer believes, onreasonable grounds, contains such athing;
(b) inspect any such thing and takesamples free of charge;
(c) require any person to produce forinspection or copying, in whole or inpart, any document that the officerbelieves, on reasonable grounds, containsany information relevant to theadministration of this Act or theregulations; and
(d) seize any thing by means of or inrelation to which the officer believes, onreasonable grounds, this Act or theregulations have been contravened or thatthe officer believes, on reasonablegrounds, will afford evidence of acontravention of this Act or theregulations.
Conveyance
(2) For the purpose of carrying out aninspection under subsection (1), an officermay stop a conveyance or direct that it bemoved to a place where the inspection maybe carried out.
Dwelling-place
(3) An officer may not enter a dwelling-place except with the consent of theoccupant or under the authority of awarrant issued under subsection (4).
Warrant
(4) Where on ex parte application a justiceof the peace is satisfied by information onoath that
(a) the conditions for entry described insubsection (1) exist in relation to adwelling-place,
(b) entry to the dwelling-place isnecessary for any purpose in relation tothe administration of this Act or theregulations, and
(c) entry to the dwelling-place has beenrefused or there are reasonable groundsfor believing that entry will be refused,
the justice may issue a warrant authorizingan officer to enter the dwelling-placesubject to any conditions that may bespecified in the warrant.
Search without warrant
15. For the purpose of ensuring compliancewith this Act and the regulations, an officermay exercise the powers of search andseizure provided for in section 487 of theCriminal Code without a warrant if theconditions for obtaining a warrant existbut, by reason of exigent circumstances, itwould not be feasible to obtain a warrant.
99
Custody of things seized
16. (1) An officer who detains or seizes a thingunder section 13, 14 or 15 or under awarrant issued under the Criminal Codemay retain custody of the thing or transfercustody of it to such person as the officermay designate.
Perishable things
(2) Where a thing referred to in subsection(1) is perishable, the officer may dispose ofit or destroy it and any proceeds realizedfrom its disposition shall be paid to thelawful owner of the thing unless proceedingsunder this Act are instituted within ninetydays after the detention or seizure.
Abandonment
17. The owner, importer or exporter of anything detained or seized under this Actmay abandon the thing to Her Majesty inright of Canada.
Notice to remove
18. (1) Where an officer believes, onreasonable grounds, that any thing is beingor has been imported into Canada incontravention of this Act or theregulations, the officer may, whether or notthe thing is detained or seized, require, bydelivering a notice in the prescribed formand manner, that it be removed fromCanada in accordance with the regulations.
Deadline for removal
(2) Where a notice to remove a thing isdelivered, the removal shall be carried outwithin the period specified in the notice or,if no such period is specified in the notice,within ninety days after its delivery.
Forfeiture
19. (1) Where a person is convicted of anoffence under this Act, the convicting courtmay, in addition to any punishmentimposed, order that any thing detained orseized, or any proceeds realized from itsdisposition, be forfeited to Her Majesty.
Forfeiture on consent
(2) Where the owner of a thing detained orseized under this Act consents to itsforfeiture, it is thereupon forfeited to HerMajesty.
Automatic forfeiture
(3) Where a thing is detained or seizedunder this Act, it, or the proceeds realizedfrom its disposition, is forfeited to HerMajesty
(a) in the case of a thing that has beendetained under section 13, if the thinghas not been removed within the periodprescribed by the regulations;
(b) in the case of a thing that has beenseized, if ownership of the thing cannotbe ascertained within thirty days after theseizure; and
(c) in the case of a thing that is thesubject of a notice under section 18, ifthe thing has not been removed fromCanada in compliance with that section.
Return of thing where no forfeitureordered
(4) Where the convicting court does notorder the forfeiture of a detained or seizedthing under subsection (1), the thing, or theproceeds realized from its disposition,shall be returned to the lawful owner of thething or the person in whose possessionthe thing was at the time of the detentionor seizure.
Exception
(5) Where a person is convicted of anoffence under this Act, any thing seized orany proceeds realized from its disposition,may be retained until the fine is paid or thething may be sold under execution insatisfaction of the fine and the proceedsapplied, in whole or in part, in payment ofthe fine.
Disposition by Minister
20. (1) Where a sample has been takenpursuant to paragraph 14(1)(b) or a thinghas been forfeited or abandoned under thisAct, it shall be dealt with and disposed ofas the Minister may direct.
Costs
(2) The importer or exporter, as the casemay be, and the owner of any thingdetained, seized, abandoned or forfeitedunder this Act are jointly and severally liablefor all the costs of inspection, removal,
100
detention, seizure, abandonment, forfeitureor disposition incurred by Her Majesty thatexceed the proceeds realized from thedisposition of the thing under this Act.
Regulations
21. (1) The Governor in Council may makeregulations for carrying out the purposes ofthis Act, including regulations
(a) respecting the issuance, renewal,revocation and suspension of permits andthe circumstances in which persons maybe exempted from holding such permits;
(b) respecting the exemption of animalsand plants, and parts and derivatives ofanimals and plants, from the operation ofany provision of this Act;
(c) amending the definitions “animal”and “plant”
(i) for the purposes of subsection 6(1),
(ii) for the purposes of subsection 6(2),
(iii) for the purposes of subsection 6(3),
(A) in order to protect species that aresubject to the legislative authority ofParliament, or
(B) at the request of the minister whois responsible for the protection ofwild animal or plant species of thegovernment of the province intowhich the animal or plant is to betransported, where that minister is ofthe opinion that the transport wouldbe harmful to the environment of thatprovince, and
(iv) for the purposes of section 7, inorder to protect species of animals andplants in a province, other than thosespecies that are subject to the legislativeauthority of Parliament, at the requestof the minister who is responsible forthe protection of wild animal or plantspecies of the government of theprovince;
(d) specifying the places and times atwhich, and the manner in which, animalsand plants, classes of animals and plantsand parts and derivatives of animals andplants may be imported into Canada andexported from Canada;
(e) respecting the marking of animals andplants, and parts and derivatives ofanimals and plants, and the packaging foranimals, plants and parts and derivativesof animals and plants for importation intoor exportation from Canada or fortransportation from one province toanother province;
(f) prescribing the documents to be keptby persons mentioned in section 9 andthe manner of keeping the documentsand the period for which they are to bekept;
(g) specifying the terms and conditionsunder which animals and plants, andparts and derivatives of animals andplants, are to be removed from Canadaunder section 18;
(h) prescribing the manner in which theproceeds resulting from the payment offines or the execution of orders under thisAct shall be distributed;
(i) prescribing the fees or charges to bepaid in connection with theadministration of this Act and the termsand conditions of paying such fees andcharges; and
(j) generally to implement theConvention.
Idem
(2) The Governor in Council shall makeregulations specifying the animals andplants that are listed as “fauna” and“flora”, respectively, in an appendix to theConvention and shall, not later than ninetydays after any change to a list in anappendix to the Convention, amend theregulations to reflect that change.
OFFENCE AND PUNISHMENT
Offence and punishment
22. (1) Every person who contravenes aprovision of this Act or the regulations
(a) is guilty of an offence punishable onsummary conviction and is liable
(i) in the case of a person that is acorporation, to a fine not exceedingfifty thousand dollars, and
101
(ii) in the case of a person other than aperson referred to in subparagraph (i),to a fine not exceeding twenty-fivethousand dollars or to imprisonment fora term not exceeding six months, or toboth; or
(b) is guilty of an indictable offence andis liable
(i) in the case of a person that is acorporation, to a fine not exceedingthree hundred thousand dollars, and
(ii) in the case of a person other than aperson referred to in subparagraph (i),to a fine not exceeding one hundred andfifty thousand dollars or toimprisonment for a term not exceedingfive years, or to both.
Subsequent offences
(2) Where a person is convicted of anoffence under this Act a second orsubsequent time, the amount of the fine forthe subsequent offence may,notwithstanding subsection (1), be doublethe amount set out in that subsection.
Fines cumulation
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), anyfine imposed on a conviction for anoffence involving more than one animal orplant, or part or derivative of an animal orplant, may be computed in respect of eachanimal, plant, part or derivative as thoughit had been the subject of a separatecomplaint or information and the fineimposed shall then be the sum payable inthe aggregate as a result of thatcomputation.
Continuing offence
(4) Where an offence under this Act iscommitted or continued on more than oneday, it shall be deemed to be a separateoffence for each day on which the offenceis committed or continued.
Additional fine
(5) Where a person has been convicted ofan offence under this Act and the court issatisfied that as a result of the commissionof the offence monetary benefits accrued tothe person, the court may order the personto pay, notwithstanding the maximum
amount of any fine that may otherwise beimposed under this Act, an additional finein an amount equal to the court’sestimation of the amount of thosemonetary benefits.
Orders of court
(6) Where a person is convicted of anoffence under this Act, in addition to anypunishment imposed, the court may,having regard to the nature of the offenceand the circumstances surrounding itscommission, make an order containing anyone or more of the following prohibitions,directions or requirements:
(a) prohibiting the person from doing anyact or engaging in any activity that could,in the opinion of the court, result in thecontinuation or repetition of the offence;
(b) directing the person to take any actionthe court considers appropriate to remedyor avoid any harm to any animal or plantto which any provision of this Act appliesthat resulted or may result from thecommission of the offence;
(c) directing the person to publish, in anymanner the court considers appropriate,the facts relating to the commission ofthe offence;
(d) directing the person to pay theMinister or the government of a provincean amount of money as compensation, inwhole or in part, for the cost of anyremedial or preventive action taken by orcaused to be taken on behalf of theMinister or that government as a result ofthe commission of the offence;
(e) directing the person to performcommunity service in accordance withany reasonable conditions that may bespecified in the order;
(f) directing the person to post a bond orpay into court an amount of money thecourt considers appropriate for thepurpose of ensuring compliance with anyprohibition, direction or requirementmentioned in this subsection;
(g) directing the person to submit to theMinister, on application by the Ministerwithin three years after the date of theconviction, any information respecting
102
the activities of the person that the courtconsiders appropriate in thecircumstances; and
(h) requiring the person to comply withany other conditions that the courtconsiders appropriate for securing theperson’s good conduct and for preventingthe person from repeating the offence orcommitting other offences under this Act.
Suspended sentence
(7) Where a person is convicted of anoffence under this Act and the courtsuspends the passing of sentence pursuantto paragraph 737(1)(a) of the CriminalCode, the court may, in addition to anyprobation order made under thatparagraph, make an order directing theperson to comply with any prohibition,direction or requirement mentioned insubsection (6).
Imposition of sentence
(8) Where a person whose sentence hasbeen suspended fails to comply with anorder made under subsection (7) or isconvicted, within three years after the dayon which the order was made, of anotheroffence under this Act, the court may, onthe application of the prosecution, imposeany sentence that could have been imposedif the passing of sentence had not beensuspended.
Limitation period
(9) Proceedings by way of summaryconviction in respect of an offence underthis Act may be instituted at any timewithin, but not later than, two years afterthe day on which the Minister becameaware of the subject-matter of theproceedings.
Minister’s certificate
(10) A document purporting to have beenissued by the Minister, certifying the dayon which the Minister became aware of thesubject-matter of any proceedings, shall bereceived in evidence and, in the absence ofany evidence to the contrary, shall beconsidered as proof of that fact withoutproof of the signature or the officialcharacter of the person appearing to havesigned it.
Private prosecutions
(11) Any person who has attained the ageof majority may, where the AttorneyGeneral of Canada does not intervene,institute proceedings to which this Actapplies.
TICKETABLE OFFENCES
Procedure
23. (1) In addition to the procedures set out inthe Criminal Code for commencing aproceeding, proceedings in respect of anyprescribed offence may be commenced byan officer
(a) completing a ticket that consists of asummons portion and an informationportion;
(b) delivering the summons portion of theticket to the accused or mailing it to theaccused at the accused’s latest knownaddress; and
(c) filing the information portion of theticket with a court of competentjurisdiction before or as soon aspracticable after the summons portionhas been delivered or mailed.
Content of ticket
(2) The summons and information portionsof a ticket shall
(a) set out a description of the offenceand the time and place of its allegedcommission;
(b) include a statement, signed by theofficer who completes the ticket, that theofficer has reasonable grounds to believethat the accused committed the offence;
(c) set out the amount of the prescribed finefor the offence and the manner in whichand period within which it may be paid;
(d) include a statement that if the accusedpays the fine within the period set out inthe ticket, a conviction will be enteredand recorded against the accused; and
(e) include a statement that if the accusedwishes to plead not guilty or for anyother reason fails to pay the fine withinthe period set out in the ticket, theaccused must appear in the court and atthe time set out in the ticket.
103
Notice of forfeiture
(3) Where any thing is seized under this Actand proceedings relating to the thing arecommenced by way of the ticketingprocedure described in subsection (1), theofficer who completes the ticket shall givewritten notice to the accused that if theaccused pays the prescribed fine within theperiod set out in the ticket, the thing, or anyproceeds realized from its disposition, shallthereupon be forfeited to Her Majesty.
Consequences of payment
(4) Where an accused to whom thesummons portion of a ticket is delivered ormailed pays the prescribed fine within theperiod set out in the ticket,
(a) the payment constitutes a plea ofguilty to the offence described in theticket and a conviction shall be enteredagainst the accused and no further actionshall be taken against the accused inrespect of that offence; and
(b) any thing seized from the accusedunder this Act relating to the offencedescribed in the ticket, or any proceedsrealized from its disposition, are forfeitedto Her Majesty and may be disposed ofas the Minister directs.
Regulations
(5) The Governor in Council may makeregulations prescribing
(a) offences under this Act to which thissection applies and the manner in whichthose offences may be described intickets; and
(b) the amount of the fine for aprescribed offence, which amount shallnot exceed one thousand dollars.
GENERAL
Officers, etc., of corporations
24. Where a corporation commits an offenceunder this Act, any officer, director oragent of the corporation who directed,authorized, assented to or acquiesced orparticipated in the commission of theoffence is a party to and guilty of theoffence and is liable on conviction to thepunishment provided for the offence,
whether or not the corporation has beenprosecuted or convicted.
Offences by employees or agents
25. In any prosecution for an offence underthis Act, it is sufficient proof of the offenceto establish that it was committed by anemployee or agent of the accused, whetheror not the employee or agent is identifiedor has been prosecuted for the offence,unless the accused establishes that theoffence was committed without theknowledge or consent of the accused andthat the accused exercised all due diligenceto prevent its commission.
Venue
26. A prosecution for an offence under thisAct may be instituted, heard anddetermined in the place where the offencewas committed or the subject-.matter ofthe prosecution arose, where the accusedwas apprehended or where the accusedhappens to be, or is carrying on business.
Unpaid fees or charges
27. Where any fee or charge imposed underthis Act is unpaid, the fee or charge, as thecase may be, may be recovered from theperson on whom it was imposed as a debtdue to Her Majesty.
Report to Parliament
28. The Minister shall annually prepare areport with respect to the administration ofthis Act during the preceding calendar yearand shall cause a copy of the report to belaid before each House of Parliament onany of the first fifteen days that the Houseis sitting after its completion.
REPEAL
29. [Repeal]
COMING INTO FORCE
Coming into force
*30. This Act or any provision thereof shallcome into force on a day or days to befixed by order of the Governor in Council.
*Note: the Act entered into force on May 14, 1996”
104
REGULATIONS RESPECTING THEPROTECTION OF CERTAIN SPECIES OFWILD ANIMALS AND WILD PLANTS ANDTHE REGULATION OF INTERNATIONALAND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE INTHOSE SPECIES
SHORT TITLE
1. These Regulations may be cited as theWild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations.
INTERPRETATION
2. In these Regulations,
“Act” means the Wild Animal and PlantProtection and Regulation of International andInterprovincial Trade Act;
“artificially propagated” means grown fromseeds, spores, pollens, tissue culture or otherpropagules under controlled conditions;
“bred in captivity” means
(a) in the case of sexual reproduction, bornor otherwise produced in a controlledenvironment of parents that mated orwhose gametes were otherwise transmittedunder controlled conditions, and
(b) in the case of asexual reproduction,produced or developed under controlledconditions;
“competent authority” means the authority,body or person in a country or province who islegally competent to authorize the export fromthat country, or the transportation out of or intothat province, of an animal or plant or any partor derivative of an animal or plant.
FAUNA AND FLORA LISTED IN ANAPPENDIX TO THE CONVENTION
3. (1) The animals listed in column I of anitem of Part I of Schedule I are listed as“fauna” in the appendix to the Conventionspecified in column II of that item.
(2) The plants listed in column I of an itemof Part II of Schedule I are listed as “flora”in the appendix to the Conventionspecified in column II of that item.
IMPORTATION INTO CANADA
4. For the purposes of subsection 6(1) of theAct,
(a) “animal” means any specimen,whether living or dead, of any wildspecies of the animal kingdom (kingdomAnimalia), and includes any egg, sperm,tissue culture or embryo of any suchanimal; and
(b) “plant” means any specimen, whetherliving or dead, of any wild species of theplant kingdom (kingdom Plantae), andincludes any seed, spore, pollen or tissueculture of any such plant.
5. For the purposes of subsection 6(2) of theAct and in respect of importation,
(a) “animal” means any specimen,whether living or dead, of any species ofanimal listed as “fauna” in an appendix tothe Convention or listed in Schedule II,and includes any egg, sperm, tissueculture or embryo of any such animal; and
(b) “plant” means any specimen, whetherliving or dead, of any species of plantlisted as “flora” in an appendix to theConvention, and includes any seed, spore,pollen or tissue culture of any such plant.
6. (1) A person who imports into Canada ananimal or plant that is listed as “fauna” or“flora” in Appendix II to the Conventionbut is not listed in Schedule II, or any partor derivative of any such animal or plant,is exempted from holding a permit issuedunder subsection 10(1) of the Act wherethe person has obtained, before import, apermit, certificate or written authorizationthat satisfies the requirements of theConvention and is granted by a competentauthority in the country of export.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person whoimports into Canada an animal or plant thatis listed as “fauna” or “flora” in AppendixIII to the Convention but is not listed inSchedule II, or any part or derivative of anysuch animal or plant, is exempted fromholding a permit issued under subsection10(1) of the Act where the person hasobtained, before import, a certificate that
105
APPENDIX C — WAPTR
satisfies the requirements of the Conventionand is granted by a competent authority inthe country of export.
(3) Where a person imports into Canada ananimal or plant referred to in subsection(2) and listed in a subitem of column I ofSchedule I, or any part or derivative of anysuch animal or plant, from a country ofexport listed in column III of that subitem,the person is exempted from holding apermit issued under subsection 10(1) of the Act where the person has obtained,before import, a permit or certificate thatsatisfies the requirements of theConvention and is granted by a competentauthority in that country.
EXPORTATION FROM CANADA
7. For the purposes of subsection 6(2) of theAct and in respect of exportation,
(a) “animal” means any specimen,whether living or dead,
(i) of any species of animal listed as“fauna” in an appendix to theConvention, and includes any egg,sperm, tissue culture or embryo of anysuch animal, and
(ii) of any wild species of the animalkingdom (kingdom Animalia), or anyegg, sperm, tissue culture or embryo ofany such animal, the transportation ofwhich out of a province is regulated orprohibited by the province; and
(b) “plant” means any specimen, whetherliving or dead,
(i) of any species of plant listed as“flora” in an appendix to theConvention, and includes any seed,spore, pollen or tissue culture of anysuch plant, and
(ii) of any wild species of the plantkingdom (kingdom Plantae), or anyseed, spore, pollen or tissue culture ofany such plant, the transportation ofwhich out of a province is regulated orprohibited by the province.
8. (1) This section applies only in respect ofanimals and plants that are not listed as“fauna” or “flora” in any appendix to theConvention.
(2) A person who exports from Canada ananimal or plant to which this section applies,or any part or derivative of any such animalor plant, is exempted from holding a permitissued under subsection 10(1) of the Actwhere the thing being exported istransported out of a province that does notprohibit such transportation and that
(a) allows such transportation only if theperson has obtained a permit orcertificate issued by a competentauthority in the province that authorizessuch transportation; or
(b) does not require provincialauthorization for such transportation.
9. (1) Every person who exports from Canadaa live animal shall, where it is shipped byair, prepare it for shipment and ship it inaccordance with the IATA Live AnimalsRegulations, 22nd edition, published in1995 by the International Air TransportAssociation, as amended from time to time.
(2) Every person who exports from Canadaa live animal or plant shall, where it isshipped by land, sea or, in the case of alive plant, air, prepare it for shipment andship it in accordance with the Guidelinesfor Transport and Preparation for Shipmentof Live Wild Animals and Plants, asamended from time to time, adopted in1979 by the Conference of Parties to theConvention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna andFlora and published in 1980 under thesponsorship of the United NationsEnvironment Programme.
INTERPROVINCIAL TRANSPORT
10. For the purposes of subsection 6(3) of theAct and in respect of a province into whichan animal or plant is to be transported,
(a) “animal” means any specimen,whether living or dead, of any wildspecies of the animal kingdom (kingdomAnimalia) the transportation of whichinto that province is regulated orprohibited by the province, and includesany egg, sperm, tissue culture or embryoof any such animal; and
(b) “plant” means any specimen, whetherliving or dead, of any wild species of the
106
plant kingdom (kingdom Plantae) thetransportation of which into that provinceis regulated or prohibited by theprovince, and includes any seed, spore,pollen or tissue culture of any such plant.
11. An animal or plant, or any part orderivative of an animal or plant, isexempted from the operation of subsection6(3) of the Act where all requiredprovincial permits have been obtained.
12. For the purposes of section 7 of the Actand in respect of a province out of whichan animal or plant is to be transported,
(a) “animal” means any specimen,whether living or dead, of any wildspecies of the animal kingdom (kingdomAnimalia) the transportation of which outof that province is regulated or prohibitedby the province, and includes any egg,sperm, tissue culture or embryo of anysuch animal; and
(b) “plant” means any specimen, whetherliving or dead, of any wild species of theplant kingdom (kingdom Plantae) thetransportation of which out of thatprovince is regulated or prohibited by theprovince, and includes any seed, spore,pollen or tissue culture of any such plant.
POSSESSION EXEMPTIONS
13. (1) Every animal or plant listed as “fauna”or “flora” in Appendix I to the Convention,and any part or derivative of the animal orplant, is exempted from the operation ofparagraph 8(c) of the Act where
(a) the person who possesses it establishesa reasonable probability that it or, in thecase of a part or derivative, the animal orplant from which it comes, was taken fromits habitat before July 3, 1975;
(b) the person who possesses itestablishes a reasonable probability thatit was legally imported into Canada; or
(c) the person who possesses itestablishes a reasonable probability thatthe distributing of it or the offering todistribute it would be in accordance withany applicable federal and provinciallaws that relate to the conservation andprotection of the animal or plant.
(2) Every animal listed as “fauna” inAppendix I to the Convention, and any partor derivative of the animal, is exemptedfrom the operation of paragraph 8(c) of theAct where the animal was bred in captivityor is part of a captive breeding program.
(3) Every plant listed as “flora” in AppendixI to the Convention, and any part orderivative of the plant, is exempted from theoperation of paragraph 8(c) of the Act wherethe plant was artificially propagated or ispart of an artificial propagation program.
EXEMPTIONS
Interpretation
14. The definitions in this section apply in thissection and sections 15 to 19.
“commercial purpose” means any activityrelated to the sale, offering for sale, purchase,trade or barter of any animal or plant, or anypart or derivative of one, without regard to itsquantity or weight, including
(a) any display, performance or exhibit ofsuch a thing for gain or profit; and
(b) the use of any such thing for thepurpose of soliciting sales.
“customs officer” has the meaning assigned tothe word “officer” in subsection 2(1) of theCustoms Act.
“household effect” means a plant or deadanimal, or a part or derivative of one, that isimported to or exported from Canada for otherthan commercial purposes and that
(a) is owned and possessed by anindividual in the individual’s ordinarycountry of residence and that forms partof the individual’s household belongingsthat are being shipped to or from Canada,to the individual’s new residence; or
(b) forms part of an inheritance from anestate that is imported to or exportedfrom Canada.
“hunting trophy” means a dead animal or apart or derivative of one that an individualacquired and possessed through legal hunting.
“personal baggage” means, where an individualuses a commercial passenger conveyance toenter or depart from Canada, all hand-carrieditems and all checked baggage of the individual
107
and, where an individual uses any other type ofconveyance to enter or depart from Canada,baggage that is being carried in or on the samevehicle, vessel or aircraft as the individual.
“personal effect” means any of the followingthings that is imported into or exported fromCanada for other than commercial purposes:
(a) a plant or dead animal, or a part orderivative of one, that is owned andpossessed by an individual in theindividual’s ordinary country of residenceand that, at the time of its import orexport, is part of the individual’s clothingor accessories or is contained in theindividual’s personal baggage; and
(b) a tourist souvenir or a hunting trophy.
“pet” means a living animal that an individualowns as a personal pet and that is listed in PartI of Schedule I but not in Schedule II.
“tourist souvenir” means a dead animal, otherthan a hunting trophy, or a dead plant, or a partor derivative of one, that is listed in column Iof an item of Schedule I and in respect ofwhich there is a reference to Appendix II or IIIof the Convention in column II of that itemand that is being imported into their ordinarycountry of residence by an individual whoacquired, owned and possessed it outside theirordinary country of residence during a sojournfrom which they are returning.
Personal Effects and Household Effects
15. (1) Subject to sections 16 and 18, anindividual is exempt from holding an importor export permit issued under subsection10(1) of the Act for any animal or plant, orany part or derivative of one, that is listed inSchedule I but not in Schedule II orSchedule III and that is a personal effect ora household effect, except
(a) in the case of a tourist souvenir, whereit was acquired in a country whereremoval from the wild occurred and wherethat country requires the prior grant of anexport permit before any export of it;
(b) in the case of the export of a deadplant or dead animal, or a part orderivative of one, other than feathers, thatis raw, unprocessed, semi-processed orsimply dried; and
(c) in the case of a hunting trophy other
than one referred to in subsection (2).
(2) Subject to sections 16 and 18, anindividual who is ordinarily resident inCanada or the United States is exemptfrom holding an import or export permitissued under subsection 10(1) of the Actfor the export from Canada to the UnitedStates or the import into Canada from theUnited States of a hunting trophy that is ina fresh, frozen or salted condition and thatwas acquired and possessed by theindividual through legal hunting, where thehunting trophy consists of
(a) the hide, the hide with paws andclaws attached, the skull or meat,excluding organs, of a black bear (Ursusamericanus); and
(b) the carcass or meat of a sandhillcrane (Grus canadensis).
16. The exemption referred to in subsection15(1) does not apply in respect of theimportation or exportation of sturgeoncaviar by an individual, if the quantity ofcaviar being imported or exported isgreater than 250 g per individual.
Pets
17. Subject to section 18, an individual who isordinarily resident in a country other thanCanada and who imports a pet into Canadafor other than commercial purposes andsubsequently exports the pet from Canadais exempt from holding a permit issuedunder subsection 10(1) of the Act if
(a) the individual has obtained from thecompetent authority of the individual’sordinary country of residence a permit,certificate or other written documentauthorizing the export from, andsubsequent import into, that country ofthe pet; and
(b) the permit, certificate or other written document meets the requirementsof the Convention and is in conformitywith the resolutions passed by the Partiesto the Convention regarding themovement of pets.
Exemption Conditions
18. (1) An individual is exempted undersubsection 15(1) or (2) from holding apermit under subsection 10(1) of the Act on
108
the condition that the individual not sell ordispose of the plant or animal or the part orderivative of one that is the subject of theexemption within 90 days after the date ofimport or export, as the case may be.
(2) An individual is exempted undersection 17 from holding a permit undersubsection 10(1) of the Act on thecondition that the individual not sell ordispose of the pet that is the subject of theexemption outside of the individual’sordinary country of residence within 90days after the date of import or export, asthe case may be.
DECLARATION
19. (1) Any individual who imports intoCanada or exports from Canada an animalor plant, or a part or derivative of one, andwho is exempt from holding a permitunder these Regulations shall, on therequest of an officer or a customs officerunder subsection (2), make a declaration atthe time of import or export on a formprovided for that purpose by the Minister.
(2) The officer or customs officer shallrequest a declaration where the Ministerrequires it in order to obtain informationrelating to the implementation of theConvention.
(3) The declaration shall be signed by theimporter or exporter and include thefollowing information in respect of theimported or exported animal, plant, part orderivative:
(a) the name, street address andtelephone number of the importer orexporter, as the case may be;
(b) a description of the animal, plant, partor derivative, in sufficient detail so as topermit it to be identified, including itscommon name and, if known, itsscientific name, and, where applicable, adescription of any thing that contains oris made up of the animal, plant, part orderivative;
(c) its number or quantity;
(d) its country of import or export, as thecase may be;
(e) whether the animal, plant, part orderivative was acquired by the individual
outside the individual’s ordinary countryof residence during a sojourn from whichthey are returning and, if so, the name ofthe country in which it was acquired; and
(f) the date of import or export.
LABELLING
20. Where a person imports into Canada orexports from Canada any thing that isidentified by a mark, label or accompanyingdocument that indicates that the thing is ananimal or plant, or a part or derivative ofone, that is listed in Schedule I or II, thatthing is, unless there is evidence that raisesa reasonable doubt to the contrary, deemedto be the thing so identified.
REMOVAL NOTICE
21. For the purposes of subsection 18(1) of theAct, a removal notice shall contain thefollowing information:
(a) the name, street address andtelephone number of the importer;
(b) the name, street address andtelephone number of the exporter;
(c) the provision of the Act or theseRegulations that the officer believes hasbeen contravened;
(d) a description of the thing to beremoved; and
(e) the period of time within which thething must be removed.
REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
22. An officer who requires the removal of allor part of a thing in accordance withsubsection 18(1) of the Act shall requirethat the thing or part be inspected and, tothe extent possible, marked and labelled,and that a place of export be indicated onthe label or accompanying document.
FORFEITURE
23. For the purposes of paragraph 19(3)(a) ofthe Act, the period within which a thingmust be removed is 90 days after the date ofits detention under section 13 of the Act.
109
110
APPENDIX D — WAPPRIITA CONVICTIONSThe following is a summary of convictions resulting from prosecutions for CITES-relatedWAPPRIITA violations up to April 2003. These cases are valuable as precedents—providingexamples for judges deciding similar issues in the future.
This document was compiled from information provided by John Dyck (Environment CanadaPacific and Yukon Region), John Wong (Environment Canada Pacific and Yukon Region), GeorgeBalmer (Environment Canada Pacific and Yukon Region ), Brian Petrar (Environment Canada Prairieand Northern Region), Martin Thabault (Environment Canada Québec Region), Les Sampson(Environment Canada Atlantic Region), Gerry Brunet (Environment Canada Ontario Region),Richard Charette (Environment Canada National Capital Region) and Pat O’Brien (RCMP).
1. R. v. Lucero Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Milton)Date: August 15, 1996Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Elephant (Loxodonta africana or Elephas maximus): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of four elephant tusks, which were in transit to the
Philippines. The accused was a seaman on board a freighter and was enroute to his home in the Philippines at the time of his arrest.
Penalty: A custodial sentence of 21 days’ incarceration and forfeiture of the tusks.
2. R. v. ChowLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Brampton)Date: November 20, 1996Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Indian star tortoises (Geochelone elegans): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 232 live tortoises into Canada at Pearson
International Airport. This was a commercial importation of wildlife, whichincluded concealment of the animals.
Penalty: A fine of CAD10 000 (USD7437).
3. R. v. ParkLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Brampton)Date: November 26, 1996Prosecuting agency: RCMPViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Bear (Ursidae sp.): CITES Appendix II Details: Attempting to unlawfully export one bear gallbladder from Canada.Penalty: A fine of CAD5000 (USD3718).
4. R. v. StewartLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Richmond)Date: November 27, 1996Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Moluccan cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of two live cockatoos that were not being imported
for commercial purposes (the accused’s household pets).Penalty: An absolute discharge, however the judge ordered that the birds, valued at
more than CAD5000 (USD3718) be forfeited to the Crown.
5. R. v. MoraLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Brampton)Date: December 4, 1996Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of 10 pounds of turtle meat. Canada Customs
apprehended the accused upon his arrival in Canada. Penalty: A fine of CAD300 (USD223) and forfeiture of the meat.
6. R. v. YueLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Brampton)Date: March 20, 1997Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Jaguar (Panthera onca): CITES Appendix I; cougar (Puma concolor):
Appendix II; margay (Leopardus wiedii): Appendix I; caiman (Caimancrocodilus): Appendix II
Details: Unlawful importation of the skins of one jaguar, one cougar and onemargay, plus three mounted caiman, into Canada from Guyana.
Penalty: Time served (three days in custody), a fine of CAD9000 (USD6693) andforfeiture of the seized items.
7. R. v. PavlikLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Richmond)Date: June 16, 1997Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Bear (Ursidae sp.): CITES Appendix I or IIDetails: Unlawful importation of six bear gallbladders into Canada from the
Republic of Korea. Canada Customs discovered the items concealed in thesocks of the accused.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1600 (USD1190) or 26 days imprisonment in default ofpayment.
8. R. v. GagnonLocation: Québec Provincial Court (Chicoutimi)Date: November 4, 1997Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sonnerat’s junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of eight junglefowl capes from Thailand without
CITES permits. The items were detected at the Canada CustomsInternational Mail Centre in Vancouver, British Columbia.
Penalty: A fine of CAD200 (USD149) (one day in default), and the goods wereordered forfeited to the Crown.
9. R. v. Princess Cruises (B.C.) Limited
Location: British Columbia Provincial Court (Richmond)Date: January 12, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus): CITES Appendix III (Canada); whale
(Cetacea sp.): Appendix IDetails: Importing wildlife without a CITES permit. The charges stemmed from a
Canada Customs seizure of 41 walrus ivory carvings and 1 whale bone
111
carving imported into Canada from Alaska (United States) on board aPrincess Cruises ship on October 23, 1996.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) and an order to pay CAD10 000 (USD7437)into a fund administered by Environment Canada to be used for publicawareness.
10. R. v. VerretLocation: Québec Provincial Court Date: January 16, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sonnerat’s junglefowl (Gallus sonneratii): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of one junglefowl cape from the United States
without a CITES permit. The item entered Canada through the Ville St-Laurent postal outlet in Montréal.
Penalty: A fine of CAD250 (USD186) and forfeiture of the item to the Crown.
11. R. v. BenefeldtLocation: Alberta Provincial Court (Barrhead)Date: February 11, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(1) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Wild cat (Felidae sp.): CITES Appendix I or II; hawk (Falconiformes sp.):
Appendix I or II; Hartman’s mountain zebra (Equus zebra hartmannae):Appendix II; crocodile (Crocodylia sp.): Appendix I or II; baboon (Papiosp.): Appendix II; leopard (Panthera pardus): Appendix I; black-backedjackal (Canis mesomelas): not listed; blesbok (Damaliscus dorcas phillipsi):not listed; Burchell’s plains zebra (Equus burchelli): not listed; greater kudu(Tragelaphus strepsiceros): not listed; oryx (Oryx gazella gazella): notlisted; red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus): not listed; springbok(Antidorcas marsupialis): not listed; warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus):not listed; hyena (Hyaenidae sp.): not listed; oribi (Ourebia ourebi): notlisted.
Details: Unlawful importation of several African trophy animals without CITESpermits and under a fraudulent Namibian export permit in October 1996.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) on count 1 for CITES items from Germanyimported without CITES permits and CAD5000 (USD3718) on count 2 fortrophies imported from Namibia under an altered permit.
12. R. v. CloutierLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Fort Erie)Date: March 6, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(1) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Not provided by Environment Canada.Details: Unlawful importation of 29 reptiles and 6 tropical fish on November 30, 1997.Penalty: The seized animals, valued at approximately CAD1000 (USD744), were
forfeited to the Crown. The court ordered that the accused displayEnvironment Canada pamphlets and posters related to CITES andWAPPRIITA along with a written notice outlining the importance of andreasons for protecting endangered species through compliance with CITESand WAPPRIITA at his business, for a minimum of three years. The courtalso ordered that he liase with the inspections personnel of EnvironmentCanada and the USFWS in the future before initiating imports, exports orboth of fish and wildlife to ensure compliance with Canadian and U.S. laws.
112
13. R. v. Kayson Hong Enterprises LtdLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Surrey)Date: July 7, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Costus plant (Saussurea lappa): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of 432 bottles of pills containing costus into Canada
without CITES permits. Penalty: A fine of CAD500 (USD372) and the goods were ordered forfeited to the
Crown.
14. R. v. KriaskiLocation: Alberta Provincial Court (Edmonton)Date: December 18, 1998Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 11 WAPPRIITASpecies involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Exportation of bear hides and rug mounts on three separate occasions to
customers in the United States using expired CITES export permits. Theaccused altered the expiry date on all permits.
Penalty: A fine of CAD2500 (USD1859) and the goods were ordered forfeited to theCrown.
15. R. v. SweetLocation: Nova Scotia Provincial Court (Windsor)Date: February 12, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix II; bobcat (Lynx
rufus): Appendix II.Details: Exportation of bear and bobcat claws without CITES permits. The accused
operated a business in the sale of animal parts and advertised on theInternet. Although he regularly obtained permits for his shipments, this onewas sent through the mail because of its small size and thus the chance itwould not be detected.
Penalty: A fine of CAD4000 (USD2975) and the goods were ordered forfeited to theCrown
16. R. v. Flikkema AviariesLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Welland)Date: June 9, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Illiger’s macaw (Propyrrhura maracana): CITES Appendix I; other species
name not provided by Environment Canada.Details: Unlawful importation and sale of 2 macaws in December 1997 and the
illegal importation of 350 to 400 Appendix II and III birds of 16 differentspecies in July 1998.
Penalty: A fine of CAD8500 (USD6321); CAD6000 (USD4462) for the first incidentand CAD2500 (USD1859) for the subsequent offence.
17. R. v. SibbittLocation: Manitoba Provincial Court (Winnipeg)Date: June 30, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources
113
Violation(s): Sections 7(2) and 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: After illegally killing a bear the accused transported parts of the bear into
the province of Manitoba and then into the United States. The prosecutionwas the result of a joint-forces investigation involving officers ofEnvironment Canada, Manitoba Department of Natural Resources, OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources, USFWS and the Indiana (United States)Department of Natural Resources.
Penalty: A fine of CAD3000 (USD2231); CAD2000 (USD1487) and CAD1000(USD744) respectively for each section, and forfeit of a full-mount blackbear to the Crown and court costs.
18. R. v. LivelyLocation: Nova Scotia Provincial Court (Bedford)Date: July 16, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Crocodile (Crocodylidae sp.): CITES Appendix I or II; African rock python
(Python sebae): Appendix II; monitor lizard (Varanus sp.): Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 60 products made from crocodile, python and
monitor lizard without CITES permits. Penalty: A fine of CAD2000 (USD1487) and the seized items were ordered forfeited
to the Crown.
19. R. v. KohlnhoferLocation: Manitoba Provincial Court (Winnipeg)Date: August 18, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 11 WAPPRIITA Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Falsification of a black bear CITES permit.Penalty: A fine of CAD400 (USD297) plus CAD188 (USD140) court costs.
20. R. v. YuenLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Richmond)Date: September 30, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, British Columbia Conservation Officer ServiceViolation(s): Section 8(b) WAPPRIITA Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Three counts of possessing bear gallbladders with the intent to export them
from Canada in contravention of the act. The charges were the result of anundercover operation lead by the British Columbia Conservation OfficerService (Special Investigation Unit) with assistance and co-operation fromEnvironment Canada and DFO.
Penalty: A fine of CAD2000 (USD1487) per count for a total fine of CAD6000(USD4462). The accused received additional fines of CAD19 000 (USD14874) for an additional 33 counts related to the trafficking and unlawfulpossession of wildlife under the British Columbia Wildlife Act and theMigratory Birds Convention Act.
21. R. v. TsarovLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Windsor)Date: August 18, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta): CITES Appendix II
114
Details: Unlawful importation of one live turtle from the United States into Canadawithout a valid CITES permit. The turtle was found concealed in the cab offreight truck by Canada Customs inspectors.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) plus court costs. The turtle had been forfeitedto the Crown (ownership was passed to the government of Canada) earlier.
22. R. v. Mujawamariya-HacheyLocation: Québec Provincial Court (Montréal)Date: September 30, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 27 hippopotamus teeth from Rwanda without a
CITES permit.Penalty: The accused received an unconditional discharge because of the impact of a
conviction on her refugee status. The defendant was a Rwandan humanrights activist. The court ordered a 3-month probation and a donation ofCAD250 (USD186) to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.The goods were forfeited to the Crown.
23. R. v. BadalovLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: November 19, 1999Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sturgeon (Acipenseridae sp.): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 3 066.6 grams (108 ounces) of sturgeon caviar
from Uzbekistan into Canada without a valid CITES permit. The accusedhad attempted to import the caviar via an air courier company, but thepackage was discovered by Canada Customs at Pearson InternationalAirport.
Penalty: A fine of CAD800 (USD595) and forfeit of the caviar which was valued atmore than CAD5000 (USD3718).
24. R. v. UngerLocation: Alberta Provincial Court (Calgary) Date: March 27, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Cougar (Puma concolor): CITES Appendix IIDetails: The accused exported a cougar that was lawfully taken in Canada into the
United States for taxidermy. Despite advice from U.S. authorities theaccused returned the cat to Canada with no CITES permits.
Penalty: A fine of CAD2500 (USD1859).
25. R. v. HibbenLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Windsor)Date: February 11, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Sections 6(1) and 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sperm whale (Physeter catodon): CITES Appendix I; hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibius): Appendix II; water buffalo (Bubalus arnee):Appendix III (Nepal)
Details: Unlawful importation of handcrafted knives and letter openers, with handlesmade from sperm whale and hippopotamus ivory, and water buffalo horn.
115
Canada Customs officers discovered the knives when the accused failed todeclare his knife collection upon entry into Canada.
Penalty: A fine of CAD800 (USD595) plus forfeiture of three handcrafted knivesvalued at CAD1240 (USD922).
26. R. v. Kay Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Burlington)Date: February 28, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Poison dart frog (Dendrobatidae. Species not provided by Environment
Canada): CITES Appendix II.Details: Unlawful importation of 15 frogs into Canada from the United States.Penalty: A fine of CAD1500 (USD1116) plus forfeiture of 7 unsold frogs.
27. R. v. MaksimowiczLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: May 4, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sturgeon (Acipenseridae sp.): CITES Appendix II.Details: Unlawful importation of 200 jars of Russian sturgeon caviar without CITES
permits. Canada Customs officers found the caviar in the luggage of theaccused.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1875 (USD1394) plus forfeiture of the caviar.
28. R. v. MaksimowiczLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: May 4, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sturgeon (Acipenseridae sp.): CITES Appendix II.Details: Unlawful importation of nine jars of Russian sturgeon caviar without CITES
permits. Canada Customs officers found the caviar inside a hand-carried bag. Penalty: A fine of CAD610 (USD454) plus forfeiture of the caviar.
29. R. v. Kaartinen
Location: Manitoba Provincial Court (Winnipeg)Date: June 26, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, Manitoba ConservationViolation(s): Sections 7(2) and 12(4) WAPPRIITA and section 8 of Manitoba Wildlife
Regulation 110/93.Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: The accused outfitted an illegal bear hunt in northwest Ontario, made
arrangements to have the meat exported to Indiana (United States) and thentransported the hide and skull from Ontario to Manitoba. The accusedobstructed investigating officers by conspiring with the Indiana hunter toprovide false information to officers. The accused only falsified the CITESexport permit from Ontario, and it was also discovered that two permits wereissued by Manitoba and Ontario for the same bear. The accused agreed to pleadguilty to the three counts above, so three other charges under WAPPRIITA andtwo other charges under the Manitoba Wildlife Act were stayed.
Penalty: Fines of CAD3000 (USD2231) for transporting the bear from Ontario toManitoba, CAD2000 (USD1487) for having obstructed investigators andCAD1000 (USD744) for failing to accompany a client being guided on ahunt (Manitoba Wildlife Regulation), for a total of CAD6000 (USD4462).
116
30. R. v. North Fish Company Limited Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Niagara Falls)Date: June 29, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Sections 6(1) and 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Sturgeon (Acipenseridae sp.): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 27 jars of sturgeon caviar without CITES permits
and in contravention of U.S. laws.Penalty: Fines of CAD2000 (USD1487) on section 6(2) and CAD1500 (USD1116)
on section 6(1) plus victim surcharges38 of CAD875 (USD651), for total fineof CAD4375 (USD3254), plus forfeiture of the caviar.
31. R. v. Flikkema Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Welland)Date: July 7, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Not provided by Environment CanadaDetails: A total of 483 charges brought for illegally importing and exporting more
than 5 000 tropical birds, mostly finches captured in the wild. Penalty: A fine of CAD50 000 (USD37 195), 90 days in jail, 3 years’ probation, 50
hours community service and a 3-year prohibition on the importation of birds.
32. R. v. Flikkema Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Welland)Date: July 7, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Not provided by Environment CanadaDetails: A total of 483 charges laid for illegally importing and exporting more than 5
000 tropical birds, mostly finches captured in the wild. The accused was theson of the accused in the related case above (31. R. v. Flikkema).
Penalty: A fine of CAD25 000 (USD18 599), 2 years’ probation, 50 hourscommunity service and a 3-year prohibition on the importation of birds.
33. R. v. El-Sayed Location: Alberta Provincial Court (Calgary)Date: July 10, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, Alberta Fish and WildlifeViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus): CITES Appendix I or IIDetails: Unlawful importation of three live crocodiles from Egypt. The animals were
concealed in the hand luggage of the 10-year-old son of the accused andwere discovered by Canada Customs officers upon arrival in Canada.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) and forfeiture of the three crocodiles. Theaccused was also fined CAD1000 (USD744) for a violation of section 54(1)of the Alberta Wildlife Act.
117
38. ‘The Act Respecting Victims of Crime—Victims’ Bill of Rights was proclaimed as law on June 11, 1996 by the Ontarioprovincial government. Under the act a surcharge is applied to provincial and federal fines for inclusion in a special fund toassist victims of crime.
34. R. v. McAradyLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Surrey)Date: July 12, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, Canada CustomsViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA and section 153(a) of the Customs ActSpecies involved: Stony coral (Scleractinia sp.): CITES Appendix II Details: Unlawful importation into Canada of more than 1 000 pounds of ‘live rock’
containing coral. The accused made false declarations, both orally and inwriting, to Canada Customs officers who subsequently found the coral.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1 250 (USD930) on each count (CAD2500 [USD1859]total), one-year probation, forfeiture of the coral and a court order requiringthe accused to notify Environment Canada in writing five days in advance ofany future importation of coral.
35. R. v. LaFlammeLocation: Québec Provincial Court (Montréal)Date: October 16, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Birdwing butterfly (species not provided by Environment Canada): CITES
Appendix II Details: Unlawful importation of three butterflies from Thailand without a CITES
permit (three counts).Penalty: A fine of CAD100 (USD74) per count, for a total of CAD300 (USD223).
The goods were forfeited to the Crown.
36. R. v. PiscopoLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: October 29 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment Canada, Canada CustomsViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Yellow-lored amazon parrot (Amazona xantholora): CITES Appendix II Details: Unlawful importation of a parrot from Mexico. The accused acquired the
six- to eight-week-old chick while on her honeymoon and placed it in hercarry-on bag for the return trip to Canada. The bird was discovered whenher luggage was x-rayed by Canada Customs.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) and a mandatory CAD250 (USD186)surcharge. The bird had been forfeited to the Crown previously.
37. R. v. Uniglobe Import & Export Company Ltd.Location: British Columbia Provincial Court (Delta)Date: November 20, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Tree fern (Cibotium barometz): CITES Appendix II Details: Unlawful importation of a commercial shipment of 1 000 packages of pills
containing tree fern as an ingredient. The Crown relied upon section 20 ofthe WAPTR (labelling) to establish the contents of the product.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) and forfeiture of the goods.
38. R. v. DeslisleLocation: British Columbia Provincial Court (Vancouver)Date: December 8, 2000Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Sections 6(1) and 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Birdwing butterfly (Ornithoptera alexandrae): CITES Appendix I
118
Details: Unlawful importation of six butterflies. The butterflies were hidden in ahollowed-out hardcover book that was intercepted at the Canada Customs MailCentre in Vancouver, British Columbia. The originator of the package was avillager from Papua New Guinea who eventually agreed to travel to Canadaand testify. The evidence showed that the accused conspired to smuggle thebutterflies contrary to the laws of Papua New Guinea and Canada. Thisinvestigation was completed with the assistance of the government of PapuaNew Guinea. The Crown proceeded by way of indictment.
Penalty: A fine of CAD25 000 (USD18 594) on each count for a total of CAD50 000(USD37 195), forfeiture of the seized butterflies and a five-year prohibitionon the trade, import and export of Ornithoptera alexandrae butterflies.
39. R. v. Duong
Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Ottawa)Date: Feb. 12, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Scarlet macaw parrot (Ara macao): CITES Appendix IDetails: The accused attempted to smuggle a parrot into Canada by concealing the
bird in a briefcase. Penalty: The accused was fined CAD1500 (USD1116) plus a victim surcharge of
CAD375 (USD279), for a total of CAD1875 (USD1395). The bird wasforfeited to the Crown.
40. R. v. Wachtel Location: Ontario Provincial Court Date: April 19, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Stony coral (Scleractinia spp.): CITES Appendix II; giant clam (Tridacnidae
sp.): Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of seven corals and one clam without a permit.
Canada Customs discovered the items during a vehicle search.Penalty: A fine of CAD1 000 (USD744) plus a CAD250 (USD186) victim
surcharge, forfeiture of the goods and payment of CAD941.60 (USD700.43)as part of the storage fees incurred by Environment Canada to preserve theevidence.
41. R. v. NathnelyLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: April 27, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Elephant (Loxodonta africana or Elephas maximus): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of two elephant tusks. The accused declared to
Canada Customs that he did not have any wildlife products in hispossession, but officers found the tusks mounted on wooden plaques insidehis suitcase.
Penalty: A fine of CAD2500 (USD1859) including a CAD500 (USD372) victimsurcharge) and forfeiture of the tusks.
42. R. v. AminLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: May 1, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA
119
Species involved: Indian tent turtle (Kachuga tecta): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of two live turtles through Pearson International
Airport. The accused did not declare the turtles to Canada Customs, but aCFIA officer discovered the animals in his luggage.
Penalty: A fine of CAD375 (USD279) including a CAD75 (USD56) victimsurcharge and forfeiture of the two turtles.
43. R. v. David Green & Sons Furriers Inc. Location: Yukon Territorial CourtDate: May 18, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(1) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Lynx cat (Lynx canadensis): CITES Appendix II; wolf (Canis lupus):
Appendix II; sea otter (Enhydra lutris): Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of more than CAD136 000 (USD101 165) worth of
animal furs. Penalty: A fine of CAD20 000 (USD14 878) and a court order that the furs not be
re-exported.
44. R. v. Alicandro Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: June 1, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Yellow-fronted canary (Serinus mozambicus): Appendix III (Ghana); Bali
mynah bird (Leucopsar rothschildi): Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of two canaries and three mynah birds. The birds
were by discovered concealed in the baggage of the accused and on hisperson by Canada Customs officers.
Penalty: A fine of CAD1 250 (USD930) (including a CAD250 (USD186) victimsurcharge). The birds had been abandoned by the accused and weresubsequently euthanized by the CFIA.
45. R. v. Versace Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Niagara Falls)Date: June 7, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Sections 6(1) and 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Caiman (Caiman crocodilus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of 16 caiman skins. The items were not declared and
were discovered by Canada Customs officers.Penalty: A fine of CAD1000 (USD744) for each count, for a total of CAD2500
(USD186) (including the provincial surcharge).
46. R. v. DangLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: September 25, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA Species involved: Changeable hawk-eagle (Spizaetus cirrhatus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful importation of a live hawk-eagle from Vietnam. The three- to six-
week-old bird was not declared and was discovered by Canada Customsofficers. The bird’s beak was taped, and it was enclosed within a gift-wrapped box in a carry-on bag.
Penalty: A fine of CAD5000 (USD3719) (including a victim surcharge) plus a courtorder for the accused to pay CAD9 086.26 (USD6759.56) in veterinarycosts incurred by the Crown.
120
47. R. v. DohertyLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Windsor)Date: October 12, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Orchidaceae sp. (species not provided by Environment Canada), all orchids
are listed in CITES Appendix I or IIDetails: The accused attempted to enter Canada at the Detroit-Windsor tunnel. A
Canada Customs inspection of his vehicle revealed the presence of 60undeclared orchid plants. Documentation in the vehicle indicated the plantshad been ordered from a Hawaiian supplier and delivered to the subject’sDetroit-area business address. No CITES permit had been obtained toimport the orchids.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD1000 (USD744) plus a victim surcharge ofCAD250 (USD186), for a total of CAD1250 (USD930). The plants wereforfeited to the Crown.
48. R. v. Flikkema Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Welland)Date: October 30, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Sections 6(2) and 10(1) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Not provided by Environment CanadaDetails: Unlawful importation of finches to Canada and unlawful export of the birds
to the United States. The accused was the wife of the accused in the relatedcase above (31. R. v. Flikkema). The Crown proceeded by way ofindictment.
Penalty: A fine of CAD50 000 (USD37 195), one year in jail (house arrest) and 40hours of community service. The court also ordered that EnvironmentCanada was entitled to review records at any time and, on 15 days’ notice,copy them and could retain seized documents for 18 months from October30, 2001.
49. R. v. KretzLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Niagara Falls)Date: December 6, 2001Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Orchidaceae sp. (species not provided by Environment Canada), all orchids
are listed in CITES Appendix I or IIDetails: The accused attempted to enter Canada at Fort Erie, Ontario. A Canada
Customs inspection of his vehicle revealed the presence of 72 undeclaredorchid plants. Documentation in the vehicle indicated the plants had beenordered from a Hawaiian supplier and delivered to a courier depot in theBuffalo, New York area. No CITES permit had been obtained to import theorchids.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD1500 (USD1116) plus a victim surcharge ofCAD375 (USD279), for a total of CAD1875 (USD1395). The plants wereforfeited to the Crown
50. R. v. GilbertLocation: Québec Provincial Court, St- Jérôme DistrictDate: January 17, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITA
121
Species involved: American black bear (Ursus americanus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: Unlawful export of a bear skin to the United States without a valid permit.Penalty: A fine of CAD100 (USD74) and court costs of CAD36 (USD27).
51. R. v. DoostLocation: Halifax Provincial Court (Nova Scotia)Date: Feb. 12, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Elephant (Loxodonta africana): CITES Appendix IDetails: Unlawful importation of 4 363 pieces of elephant ivory jewellery without
CITES permits by an individual arriving in Canada as an immigrant. Penalty: The accused was given an absolute discharge conditional on the forfeiture of
the CAD75 000 (USD55 793) worth of elephant ivory and paying CAD10000 (USD7437) into the Environmental Damages Fund.
52. R. v. DesaiLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Brockville)Date: March 6, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: The accused attempted to smuggling of a parrot into Canada by using his
vehicle at the Thousand Islands Bridge, Lansdowne, Ontario.Penalty: The accused was fined CAD1500 (USD1116) plus a victim surcharge of
CAD375 (USD279), for a total of CAD1875 (USD1395). The bird wasforfeited to the Crown.
53. R. v. DaviesLocation: Alberta Provincial Court (Calgary)Date: July 11, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): CITES Appendix IDetails: The accused attempted to export a ceremonial dance-costume bustle
containing 32 eagle feathers to a resident of the United States without thenecessary permits.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD2000 (USD1487). The bustle was forfeited tothe Crown.
54. R. v. MohamudLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Ottawa)Date: November 12, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Elephant (Loxodonta africana): CITES Appendix IDetails: In April 2002 the accused illegally imported 10 pieces of ivory jewellery
into Canada from Somalia at the Ottawa International Airport. The jewellerywas concealed in packages stuffed into a suitcase. The accused did notdeclare the jewellery. Canada Customs discovered and detained the itemsand referred the case to CWS for investigation.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD500 (USD372) plus a victim surcharge ofCAD110 (USD82), for a total fine of CAD610 (USD454). The jewellerywas ordered forfeited to the Crown.
122
55. R. v. Ali Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: November 26, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Elephant (Loxodonta africana): CITES Appendix IDetails: In July 2002 the accused traveled to Somalia and returned to Canada with
two bracelets and four pairs of earrings, made of gold and ivory, concealedin his luggage. He failed to declare the goods and when confronted with theevidence attempted to pass them as made of cow’s bone.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD150 (USD112) (considering his limited means)plus a CAD25 (USD19) victim surcharge, for a total fine of CAD175(USD130). The Court also ordered that the jewellery be forfeited to the Crown.
56. R. v. Cheong Hing Dry Seafood Ltd. Location: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: November 26, 2002Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: Orchid (Gastrodia sp.): CITES Appendix IIDetails: The charges were brought following the discovery of 216 boxes of
“Orthodox Gastrodia Tuber Slices” undeclared and concealed in the centreof a large container by Ontario Conservation Officers on February 21, 2002.CITES permits had not been obtained for the import.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD2500 (USD1859), and the goods were orderedforfeited to the Crown.
57. R. v. ShahidiLocation: Ontario Provincial Court (Mississauga)Date: April 3, 2003Prosecuting agency: Environment CanadaViolation(s): Section 6(2) WAPPRIITASpecies involved: African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus): CITES Appendix IIDetails: The accused attempted to illegally import a parrot into Canada from Iran on
February 7, 2002. The bird was discovered by Canada Customs and CFIAofficers who contacted Environment Canada’s Wildlife Enforcement Division.
Penalty: The accused was fined CAD1500 (USD1116) plus a CAD375 (USD279)victim surcharge, for a total fine of CAD1875 (USD1395). The goods wereordered forfeited to the Crown.
123
124
APPENDIX E — WAPPRIITA PERSONAL ANDHOUSEHOLD EFFECTSEXEMPTION TABLEWILD ANIMAL AND PLANT TRADE REGULATIONS
CITES PERSONAL & HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS EXEMPTION*SUMMARY TABLE
TOURIST SOUVENIR PERSONAL EFFECT HOUSEHOLD EFFECT HUNTING TROPHY
APPLIES TO All individuals entering All individuals entering All individuals entering Individuals who are or leaving Canada or leaving Canada or leaving Canada residents of Canada or
the U.S.A. and areentering or leavingCanada
Appendix II or III Appendix I, II, or III Appendix I, II, or III Black bear and Sandhill of CITES of CITES of CITES crane trophies in a
fresh, frozen or saltedcondition
CONDITIONS Item was acquired by Item was owned by the Owned and possessed Acquired and possessedthe individual outside individual in their by the individual in their through legal hunting their ordinary country of ordinary country of ordinary country of in Canada or the U.S.residence during a residence residence.sojourn from which he Taken between Canadais returning. and the U.S. as
Item is part of the Forms part of individual’s personal accompanied Item is part of the individual’s clothing or household belongings baggageindividual’s clothing or accessories or personal being shipped to theiraccessories or personal accompanied baggage new residence, or, forms accompanied baggage part of an inheritance
from an estate.
INCLUDES Dead plants or dead Live and dead plants, Live and dead plants, For black bear: the hide, (These no longer r animals, including their and dead animals only, and dead animals only, hide with paws and equire CITES parts and derivatives. including their parts and including their parts and claws attached, skull permits** as long derivatives derivatives or meatas all conditions In the case of sturgeon for the exemption caviar, only 250 grams In the case of sturgeon For Sandhill crane:are met) or less caviar, only 250 grams carcass or meat
or less
EXCLUDES Appendix I species Live animals Live animals For black bear: all (These still organs are excluded.require all Live animals and plants Hunting trophiesnecessary CITES All hunting trophies permits) Hunting trophies In the case of sturgeon from CITES-regulated
caviar, more than species, other than In the case of sturgeon 250 grams. black bear and caviar, more than sandhill crane250 grams.
ON EXPORT ONLY:Raw, unprocessed, semi-processed or simply dried specimens, except feathers
Source: R. Charette, in litt. to E. Cooper, July 8, 2002. Table originally prepared by J.Straby and J. Robillard, June 6, 2000.
* All Canadian species listed under Schedule III of the Wild Animal and Plant Trade Regulations require CITES permits. Examples includewhite or beluga whale, sea otter, peregrine falcon, whooping crane, leatherback turtle and American ginseng.
** All provincial/territorial permits must still be obtained.