A skim through the history of the Pelly Amendment reveals that it has, in the past, been wielded against plenty of other countries apart from Taiwan.

In March 1991 the US Department of the Interior and the secretary of commerce cited trade in hawksbill turtles and sea turtles by the Japanese as being in violation of the Pelly Amendment. It was only after Japan had agreed to ban the catching of sea turtles that the US decided not to introduce trade sanctions.

Greenpeace once challenged the US to impose sanctions under the Pelly Amendment against Iceland, for that country's excessive whaling in defiance of international agreements. Congress has also considered using the amendment to impose trade sanctions against countries engaged in ivory trafficking.

For many years then, conservation groups have regarded Pelly as the strongest weapon for forcing countries to conform with international conservation agreements, in spite of the fact that the amendment had never actually been used to sanction a country that violated such agreements.

An important archaeological site, which represents the early cultural development of the Taipei basin, had to make way for the construction of a waste water processing plant. Archaeologists measure the skeletal remains of two plains aborigines from the Kaitakelan tribe before transferring them for preservation.

In 1967 the US introduced the Fisherman's Protection Act to safeguard the livelihood of American fishermen against foreign fishing practices. In 1971, Congressman Thomas M. Pelly introduced an amendment to the Act designed to preserve salmon stocks in the Atlantic, hoping to block fishery imports by sanctioning countries that caught salmon on the open sea in ways or amounts that violated established agreements.

Pelly's addition was incorporated into the Fisherman's Protection Act as Article 8, and became known as the Pelly Amendment.

Although the intended targets of sanctions were countries that over-exploited resources held in international waters, the amendment included a provision to the effect that whenever the secretary of commerce or secretary of the interior learns of trade or other forms of exchange, by foreign nationals, that directly or indirectly harms international conservation programs for endangered or threatened species, they should submit certification of this fact to the president. The president then has the power, without compromising trade freedom, to prohibit the carrying or import of fishery and wildlife products into the US from the country that is in violation of the act.

US federal law in fact includes three other acts directly targeted at international trade in endangered species. Marcus J. Phipps, national representative of TRAFFIC East Asia-Taipei, ventures that the Pelly Amendment, originally established to protect American fishermen, is perhaps the only one to give the president the power to impose trade sanctions against foreign countries, and has therefore become the focus of lobbying efforts by conservation groups.

On the heels of the rhino and tiger, the bear has become the object of urgent international conservation efforts and as a consequence, the trade in bear gall has attracted notice.

On May 28, 1993, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the demands of international conservation groups, submitted certification to the secretary of the interior, citing mainland China, Taiwan, South Korea and Yemen for having failed to take adequate measures to end illegal trade in products made from rhino horn and tiger bone, and thus being in violation of the Pelly Amendment.

This time, after over two decades on the statute books, Pelly was going to be used for real.

Among the regions thus cited, South Korea consented to foreign inspection of its rhino horn trade and agreed to enter CITES, the 100-plus member organization of the Washington Convention, in order to abide by the organization's regulations for wildlife protection, with the result that the US decided to postpone its certification of South Korea as a Pelly violator. Yemen also pledged to join CITES, and introduced an explicit ban on trade in rhino horn, and was thus certified as not being in violation of the amendment.

Last August the US made a final judgment in which it allowed mainland China a one-year observation period, and introduced sanctions against Taiwan alone, prohibiting the import from Taiwan of many types of wildlife and associated product, including corals and tropical fish.

While many of the world's international conservation groups expressed "happiness" at the US decision to sanction Taiwan, they also agreed that the chosen method included much that was arguable.

Taiwan had long hoped to join CITES and play a larger role in international conservation, but had always been hindered by political factors. International conservation groups were therefore "disappointed" by the fact that one of the reasons CITES left Yemen and South Korea off the list of countries for sanctions was that they intended to join the organization, without yet showing concrete improvements, and many countries confided that they were outraged on Taiwan's behalf.

Furthermore, figures from the fields of business and economics asserted that America's use of an article from an act designed for the protection of its own fishing industry, to sanction Taiwan, undermined principles of fair trade. The Ministry of Economic Affairs in Taiwan even considered complaining to GATT that the US action was contrary to the spirit of free trade.

Politics is grounded in realism, however, and while conservation groups that supported Taiwan's position acknowledged that the imposition of sanctions under Pelly was unfair, they emphasized the fact that politics must not be allowed to muddy the issue.

In 1992, an activist British conservation group set up office in Taiwan and introduced dramatic methods to publicize the consumption of rhino horn and tiger bones here, along with the cruel treatment of wildlife. Using sensationalist language and images, the group called for a global boycott against Taiwanese products.

The issue of trafficking in rhino horn and tiger bone had in fact already been a focus of international discussions for over a decade, but Taiwan has not itself been actively involved, on top of which there was very little international understanding of the background to Chinese medicine, or of Taiwan's stance on the issue.

Although it is debatable whether the extreme approach adopted by the foreign conservation groups was justified, the fact is that Taiwan reacted too slowly on the issues of rhino horn and tiger bone. According to Ting Tien-kuei, executive secretary of the Beautiful Taiwan Foundation, Taiwan's world-renowned export economy gradually became the main target as the island's lack of action on conservation became apparent. A series of advertisements connecting products made in Taiwan with injured wildlife were published around the world, seriously tarnishing Taiwan's image.

At that point the ROC Council of Agriculture began to respond quickly, making it illegal to trade in products from endangered species such as rhinos and tigers, under the provisions of the Wildlife Conservation Act. The hastily introduced regulation were incomplete, however, making no provision for penalties, resulting in a law that stood in name only. For several years customs officials have been intercepting smuggled rhino horn, but have had no means to prosecute the smugglers, and this fact has been used against Taiwan.

In November 1993, after active lobbying from conservation groups for the US to sanction Taiwan under the Pelly Amendment, President Clinton announced to Congress that sanctions would be introduced unless Taiwan was able to show substantive progress, that could be measured and verified, within the next five months. During this buffer period a large quantity of previously registered rhino horn went missing, with the department in charge unable to account for the disappearance.

Under the shadow of this and other such incidents, the Council of Agriculture was not in a strong position to argue against the US sanctions.

In fact, before the imposition of Pelly sanctions on Taiwan, the Council of Agriculture had already begun to accelerate the pace of revision to the law, and it was the sanctions that spurred the legislature to give a swift passage to the Amended Wildlife Conservation Act. The heavy penalties that now apply in Taiwan for illegal trade in rhino and tiger products, as well as the conservation police force, endowed with police powers, that has been set up by the Council of Agriculture, have since encouraged the US to consider lifting the sanctions.

Ting Tien-kuei believes that efforts made by the ROC Department of Health to liaise with institutes of Chinese medicine and pharmaceutical firms have enabled far more people to realize the seriousness of the problem, and have helped to ensure the effective introduction of controls on endangered-species products in Taiwan. In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and domestic conservation groups are now in continuous dialogue with their counterparts overseas, to make the international community aware of Taiwan's efforts for conservation during recent years, and this was the real factor that led the US to lift the sanctions: "The US no longer has any reason to sanction Taiwan, and certainly no other country has done as much as we have in the last few years."

Marcus Phipps of TRAFFIC, which works in cooperation with CITES, points out that the Pelly sanctions have also had a positive outcome, enabling official and non-governmental bodies to realize the importance of active involvement in international conservation conferences and the need to stay in communication with international conservation groups. Meanwhile, the world is getting to better understand that the use of products from endangered species involves issues of culture, and that improvements will take time.

Phipps remains concerned, however, that the Chinese have only become "aware" of the international seriousness of conservation, without really "understanding" how important conservation is for Taiwan itself. After the US lifted its sanctions, many of the international conservation groups issued statements saying that the US government made its decision too quickly and that the sanctions were lifted too soon, and they expressed concern that Taiwan might therefore lose the impetus for continuing to reinforce its conservation work.

Phipps notes with emphasis that while it lifted sanctions, the US also set a one-year observation period, because in spite of Taiwan's introduction of penalties and the establishment of a conservation police force, it has had a tendency in the past to be weak in terms of enforcement. The international community wanted a buffer period in which to see how well Taiwan adapts to its revised laws, and to what degree they are enforced. The threat of Pelly sanctions still hangs over Taiwan, therefore, and there can be no slacking in conservation efforts.

Taiwan needs to promptly introduce a set of concrete measures for dealing with other products relating to the issue of endangered species, such as bear gall and ivory, because after rhinos and tigers, international conservation efforts are already turning towards other large animals.

The Pelly sanctions did not have a very significant impact on Taiwan's overall trading situation, since the brunt of the damage was taken by legal operators in the wildlife products sector--which does not constitute a large share of the economy-- and many operators were able to get around the restrictions by exporting via a third country or transferring production to mainland China. The sanctions were therefore considered largely symbolic.

According to many people in both industry and conservation in Taiwan, the US cannot expect to make Taiwan attach the same importance to endangered species by using sanctions alone. It needs to give Taiwan a corresponding amount of assistance, in terms of information, and help for Taiwan to enter international conservation organizations and attend conservation conferences.

Regardless of what happens, keeping clear of Pelly sanctions and international pressure should not be the only objective for Taiwan's involvement in international conservation affairs. As Lin Shiang-nung, vice chairman of the Council of Agriculture, said at a press conference after the lifting of the sanctions, we simply cannot be slack about conservation work just because the sanctions have been lifted. This view is perhaps backed up by the fact that at a time of tight fiscal constraints the Council of Agriculture is virtually the only government department with a budget that is growing rather than shrinking.

In terms of the conservation of endangered species, however, Taiwan still has a long road to travel.

[Picture Caption]

p.92

Taiwan's commitment to cracking down on illegal wildlife products was one of the factors that led the US to lift Pelly sanctions. The picture shows illegal wildlife products displayed by the Council of Agriculture prior to burning. (Photo by Pu Hua-chih)

p.95

Protecting rhinos also means protecting the culture of traditional Chinese medicine. Conservation groups hope that in addition to realizing the price that Taiwan pays for not carrying out conservation, people here will also come to understand how important conservation is for the human race. (Photo by Vincent Chang)