discussions, as did representatives of the Pan-American Health Organization, the United States Public Health Service (in the Department of Health and Human Services), and State and local officials from Texas, New Mexico, and California.

Separate sessions were devoted to air monitoring projects, water pollution, health-related projects, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes.

The American Embassy at Mexico, reporting on the discussions, informed the Department of State afterwards that agreement had been reached on increased effort and greater collaboration in air monitoring at El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, where the Undersecretariat for Environmental Improvement would install additional monitors. The Secretariat of Public Health and Assistance was to install additional monitoring stations at Tijuana, also, in part with surplus equipment provided by the Environmental Protection Agency through the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. The Secretariat of Public Health and Assistance planned to create a training center in Mexico for air monitoring personnel, with field stations to be located in both Tijuana and Juarez, and United States local officials agreed to cooperate by showing the trainees their ongoing operations on the United States side of the border. The two delegations also agreed to exchange information on border emission sources along the border.

American Embassy at Mexico to Dept. of State, telegram 4264, Mar. 14, 1980, The Subsecretaria de Mejoramiento del Ambiente (SMA) of the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia (SSA) was later merged into the Secretaría de Desarrolla Urbano y Ecologia (SEDUE).

On the occasion of the meeting of President Reagan and President de la Madrid at La Paz, Baja California, Mexico, on Aug. 14, 1983, the Governments of the United States and of Mexico concluded a (framework) Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area (the Border Environmental Cooperation Agreement); TIAS ; entered into force, Feb. 16, 1984. Each government pledged itself to cooperate, upon the basis of equality, reciprocity, and mutual benefit, to prevent, reduce, and eliminate sources of pollution that affect the air, water, or land of the border area. The 1983 Agreement is being implemented through a series of specialized subagreements, or annexes, negotiated by U.S. and Mexican technical agencies with the participation of State and local governments.

Migratory Birds

Bilateral Agreements

-D.D.K.

By a letter dated November 24, 1980, President Carter transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Protocol Amending the Convention of August 16, 1916 for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States of America, signed at Ottawa, January 30, 1979. The Protocol amended the subsistence hunting provisions of the 1916 convention.

Highlighting the need for the Protocol, the letter of transmittal from President Carter to the Senate referred to problems inherent in the Convention's existing subsistence provisions:

The Convention has very narrow exceptions which permit the taking by Alaskan Eskimos and Indians of a few sea birds and eggs for subsistence purposes. These narrow exceptions present two problems, however. They do not recognize the centuries old historical use of other species of migratory birds by Alaskan natives. In addition, they do not recognize and permit needed subsistence taking by other local rural residents of bush Alaska who are neither Indian, Aleut, nor Eskimo. As a result, the provisions of the Convention have been widely ignored by the rural subsistence inhabitants of Alaska. Further, there has been considerable friction among different user groups, and between user groups and law enforcement and management officials. The conclusion of the Department of the Interior is that the existing subsistence provisions of the Convention are "unworkable, unenforceable, and incapable of responding to the legitimate subsistence needs of many rural Alaskans."

The provisions of the Protocol adequately respond to the subsistence needs of the State of Alaska, while at the same time protecting our migratory bird resources. The Protocol does not abrogate the limited rights granted to Indians and Eskimos in the 1916 Convention, but broadens subsistence taking rights to all "indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska" so as to respond to subsistence needs of rural Alaska in a racially non-discriminatory way. Excessive exploitation of the birds is guarded against by reserving to the competent authorities of the two countries the right respectively to determine what constitutes legitimate subsistence needs, and to establish hunting seasons so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds.

In a report to the President on the Protocol, dated December 12, 1979, Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher explained that it modernized, and added flexibility to, the subsistence taking provisions of the 1916 Convention by allowing the contracting parties to authorize the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska and the Indians and Inuit of Canada to take migratory birds and to collect their eggs for their own nutritional and other essential needs during any period of the year (in accordance with seasons) established by each party to provide for preservation and maintenance of migratory bird stocks. The report continued:

In addition to the 1916 Convention pertaining to Canada, the United States has migratory bird conventions with Mexico (1936), Japan (1972), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1976). During the years since the Canada convention was negotiated the knowledge of ornithology and migratory bird management has

expanded considerably. This is reflected in the growing sophistication of the more recent conventions. Ironically, however, as the texts of the subsequent conventions have been improved, some of their provisions have not been fully implemented because of the more restrictive corresponding provisions in the earlier conventions.

The most troubling example of this problem concerns the provisions for subsistence hunting in Alaska. The Canada convention establishes a closed season on migratory game birds (generally between March 10 and September 1, but between February 1 and August 15 for some birds in the eastern United States and Canada), but stipulates that "Indians may take at any time scoters for food but not for sale." A closed season on migratory insectivorous birds and other migratory nongame birds is to continue throughout the year, except that "Eskimos and Indians may take at any season auks, auklets, guillemots, murres and puffins, and their eggs for food and their skins for clothing, but the birds and eggs so taken shall not be sold or offered for sale."

The Mexican convention is silent altogether on the issue of subsistence hunting in Alaska. It could therefore be argued that this convention is the most restrictive on this point, allowing only sport hunting in Alaska. This extreme interpretation was not the intent of the convention negotiators, however, and has never been administratively adopted by the Department of the Interior.

Under the Japan convention subsistence taking of any migratory birds covered by the convention may be permitted by law or regulation. Granting of subsistence rights is still racially preferential, however, in that it is limited to "Taking by Eskimos, Indians, and indigenous peoples of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for their own food and clothing."

In light of the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the earlier convention provisions on subsistence, the Department of the Interior conducted an extensive review of the problem in conjunction with the drafting of the U.S.S.R. convention. That convention as negotiated and ratified reflects the recommendations of that review. Similarly to the Japan convention, the U.S.S.R. convention's subsistence exemption can, on the basis of laws, decrees or regulations, be extended to any migratory birds covered by the convention. The exemption is racially neutral; it allows

.. taking of migratory birds and the collection of their eggs by the indigenous inhabitants of . . . the State of Alaska for their own nutritional and other essential needs. "To protect the migratory bird resource from excessive exploitation, the exemption envisages strict regulatory control of subsistence taking through determination by the respective countries' competent authorities of what constitutes "nutritional and other essential needs," and by determination of hunting seasons "so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds."

The Protocol amending the Canada convention follows the U.S.S.R. convention's subsistence hunting provisions closely. The Protocol does not abrogate the limited rights granted to Indians and Eskimos in the 1916 Convention, but it broadens subsistence

taking rights to "indigenous inhabitants of the State of Alaska" so as to respond to subsistence needs there in a racially nondiscriminatory way. Excessive exploitation of the birds is guarded against by reserving to the competent authorities of the parties the right respectively to determine what constitutes "nutritional and other essential needs", and to establish hunting seasons "so as to provide for the preservation and maintenance of stocks of migratory birds."

In order to make the explicit provisions of the Japan and Mexico conventions regarding subsistence hunting fully consistent with the corresponding provisions of the U.S.S.R. convention and the Canadian Protocol, it will also be necessary to negotiate protocols to amend the Japan and Mexico conventions. . . . Because of the proximity of Canada to Alaska and the presence of similar subsistence problems on both sides of the Alaska/Canada border, the Canadian convention logically should be regarded as the one most appropriate to set the tone and establish the framework for addressing subsistence needs in the northernmost reaches of the hemisphere. We believe the Canadian Protocol is the most significant one to be negotiated and ratified. We therefore believe it is important to proceed with the ratification of the protocol at this time, and to send the Japan and Mexican amendments to the Senate in due course when their negotiation has been completed. The Protocol was negotiated by the Department of the Interior in coordination with the Department of State, and both agencies join in supporting its ratification at this time.

S.Ex.W, 96th Cong., 2d sess. (1980), pp. III-VI.

The Convention between the United States and Great Britain [for the Dominion of Canada] for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the United States and Canada, signed at Washington, Aug. 16, 1916, is at T.S. 628; 39 Stat. 1702; 12 Bevans 375; entered into force, Dec. 7, 1916.

The Convention between the United States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment, with Annex, signed at Tokyo, Mar. 4, 1972, together with an amendment to the Annex effected by an exchange of notes signed at Washington, Sept. 19, 1974, is at TIAS 7990; 25 UST 3329; entered into force, Sept. 19, 1974 (the Convention with Annex) and Dec. 19, 1974 (the amendment to the Annex).

The Convention between the United States and Mexico for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, signed at Mexico, Feb. 7, 1936, is at T.S. 912; 50 Stat. 1311; 9 Bevans 1017; entered into force, Mar. 15, 1937; an agreement supplementing the Convention, effected by an exchange of notes at Mexico and Tlatelolco, Mar. 10, 1972, is at TIAS 7302; 23 UST 260; entered into force, Mar. 10, 1972.

The Convention between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, signed at Moscow, Nov. 19, 1976, is at TIAS 9073; 29 UST 4647; entered into force, Oct. 13, 1978.

Multilateral Agreements

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; 1979 Amendment

On April 2, 1980 President Carter forwarded to the Senate for its advice and consent an Amendment, adopted at Bonn on June 22, 1979, to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), done at Washington, March 3, 1973. The Amendment would provide a legal basis for CITES Parties to furnish necessary financial support for the CITES administrative budget, upon the phase-out of support for those activities by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

An accompanying report to the President by Acting Secretary of State Warren Christopher, dated December 14, 1979, stated in part:

[T]he Sixth Governing Council of UNEP, reflecting its view that UNEP should serve essentially as a catalyst for international environmental initiatives, decided in May 1978 to reduce gradually its financial support for CITES, beginning in 1980, and to terminate its support altogether by the end of 1983. UNEP also decided not to fund any further meetings of the CITES Parties after the March 1979 meeting in Costa Rica.

UNEP's Governing Council therefore called upon the CITES Parties to develop a Party funding arrangement at their March 1979 meeting. In response, the CITES Parties adopted financial arrangements whereby they will begin in 1980 to make contributions to cover the CITES administrative budget. These contributions will be apportioned according to the U.Ñ. scale, with a minimum of .01 percent and a maximum of 25 percent (U.S. share) of the total annual budget. The contributions will be paid into a Trust Fund to be set up and administered for the purpose by UNEP.

The United States supported adoption of this new system, under which the full United States contribution, to be made on a voluntary basis and subject to the availability of appropriated funds, will begin to be paid in 1981 and is expected that year to be approximately $138,000. The United States also agreed to make an interim contribution of $100,000 to the 1980 CITES budget. (Prior to making these commitments the Department of State sought and obtained Office of Management and Budget approval under the new commitments procedure.)

The newly adopted financial arrangements do not define the character of Party contributions, but leave it open to each Party to specify whether, as in the United States' case, its contribution is voluntary, in accordance with its own budgetary provisions..

In agreeing to the above arrangements for Party funding, several Parties, including some major potential donors, stated that in order to give them a legal basis for making their contributions the CITES text would need amendment to provide explicit authority for Party funding, One such Party, the Federal Republic of Ger