CITES and International shipping.

[John M]

By NYEric: "CITES is all nations, enforcement is a different matter. If I lived in Canada my collection would be ridiculous!"

CITES does not apply in all nations. For CITES rules to apply, a country must be a signatory nation. Not all countries are signatory nations; although, most are, including Canada.

However, the trouble you in the USA have with "enforcement" has nothing to do with CITES. The strict restrictions you face are your own domestic laws, not the rules of CITES. Your own laws actually work against the aim of CITES. CITES deliberately does not control, restrict, regulate, or even document any species crossing International borders, in sterile flasks, regardless of the origin of the seeds, or meristem tissue needed to produce those flasks. That's because these seedlings/clones, growing in sterile flasks, are undeniably artificially propagated and could not themselves have been taken directly from the wild. The lack of CITES regulation for seedling/plantlets in flask is a way to encourage the artificial propagation and dissemination of rare and desireable species, thus helping to take collecting pressure off wild populations. CITES recognises the value of flooding the world market with large numbers of cheap, artificially propagated plants as a way to make the collecting of wild plants a lot of hard work for little, if any, profit and therefore, not worth the trouble. No species is "illegal" in Canada because they ALL can freely enter Canada as flasked seedlings with no CITES documentation at all. CITES deliberately exempts seedlings in flask from control as a way to encourage artificial propagation and the easy, red tape free, international movement of those artificially propagated plants to market, thereby reducing, or eliminating the collection (poaching), of wild plants to satisfy the world-wide demand. It's not a matter of "enforcing" CITES rules; it's a matter of CITES deliberately not having ANY jurisdiction at all over seedlings in sterile flask, because they can only have been artificially propagated. Artificially propagating rare species is not something you want to discourage, if your goal is to save desireable species in the wild and help them to stay there. But, some countries, including the USA, enact extra domestic laws to further restrict access to some plants (using the CITES appendices as a guide, further confusing the issue of which laws are at fault) and this is done in contradiction to the aim and goals of CITES. CITES knows that PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK. The US government still doesn't get that concept and that's a damn shame!....for you and for the plants. After all, if what you're importing is artificially propagated seedlings in sterile flasks, which is an action that helps reduce pressure on wild populations of rare plants, why should your government tell you which pretty flowers you are allowed to own and which ones you are not? How can THAT even be legal in the USA?

Ex-flask plants are a completely different story because once they leave the sterile environment of the flask, they could conceivably have been collected from the wild. So, in Canada, as in every other signatory nation, CITES does have jurisdiction. However, the Canadian government has not taken extra steps and created extra rules and laws to counter the leniency of the CITES rules (with regard to flasks), because that would be counter-productive to the goals of CITES..

So many people say that some species are "illegal" because of CITES rules. That's just NOT true. It's the domestic laws that make some species illegal to own, not the (International), CITES rules at all.

 

[NYEric]

Hmmm, actually. if a country is not a signatory nation plants cannot be exported from them into a country that has signed onto CITES. Therefore all countries/nations are affected. But, thanks for highlighting some of the faults in the USA's enforcement.

 

[John M]

Hmmm, actually. if a country is not a signatory nation plants cannot be exported from them into a country that has signed onto CITES. Therefore all countries/nations are affected.

Actually, that's not correct, Eric. If a country is not a signatory nation, flasks can be exported from them into a country that has signed onto CITES without breaking any CITES rules.....because CITES does not apply to flasks. If the importing country still has a problem with flasks coming from a CITES non-signatory nation, that is because of their own domestic laws, not the CITES rules.

 

[SlipperFan]

Whatever the specifics, in the US, we are screwed!

 

[Kawarthapine]

John.

Thanks for the very excellent summation of the intent of CITES to protect rare, threatened, vulnerable ( and extirpated?) species.

Unfortunately, not all Cdn border services staff are as familiar with the regs as you are.

.

 

[John M]

Unfortunately, not all Cdn border services staff are as familiar with the regs as you are.

Absolutely true! There are millions of commodities coming into the country all the time. Nobody working at CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency), can know it all. That's why you go to the Government of Canada website and do your research ahead of time. This way, if there's any question, you can provide links to the webpages that prove your case to the customs agents. If you still have trouble, politely ask to speak to their supervisor. I've done that in cases of a disagreement with a "front line" customs agent.

Sometimes they just don't realize that what seems like a slight, or ambiguous and unimportant nuance in the wording of the regulations (such as "in-flask" vs. "ex-flask"), is actually pivotal in deciding what's allowed and what's not. The words that are written in the regs are only as good as the reading comprehension skills of the customs agent you're dealing with. Sometimes, you need a fresh pair of eyes to get the right result.

 

[naoki]

Actually, that's not correct, Eric. If a country is not a signatory nation, flasks can be exported from them into a country that has signed onto CITES without breaking any CITES rules.....because CITES does not apply to flasks. If the importing country still has a problem with flasks coming from a CITES non-signatory nation, that is because of their own domestic laws, not the CITES rules.

It is true that each country implement the law by interpreting the convention. And I can see that it is not so clear cut (at least to me) if a county hasn't signed CITES (e.g. Vietnam). Well, this kind of document (link to the relevant section) is difficult to understand, and I wish they could write in more understandable way. Here is the relevant section:

So the resolution specifically states that "flasked orchids are exempt", and here is the relevant section:

Regarding flasked seedlings of Appendix-I orchids

RECOMMENDS that flasked seedlings of orchid species included in Appendix I obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, and transported in sterile containers, be interpreted as being exempt from CITES control only if they have been artificially propagated in accordance with the definition provided above, taking into account the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, and Article I, paragraph (b) (iii), and agreeing to a derogation from Resolution Conf. 9.6 (Rev.) for this exemption;

I think the issue is related to how to interpret the definition of artificially propagated. When you look at the definition section, there are difficulty to meet the condition if the country doesn't have CITES authority.

For example, seeds have to be derived from "cultivated parental stock", which is defined as:

‘cultivated parental stock’ means the ensemble of plants grown under controlled conditions that are used for reproduction, and which must have been, to the satisfaction of the designated CITES authorities of the exporting country:

Or there is a section about the exception (i.e. the flask from wild collected seeds). Then there is this requirement:

in the case of operations propagating Appendix-I species for commercial purposes under such conditions they are registered with the CITES Secretariat in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.19 (Rev. CoP15) on Guidelines for the registration of nurseries exporting artificially propagated specimens of Appendix-I species;

So it seems to be difficult to satisfy the flask exempt condition if the country doesn't have the CITES authority. Isn't it?

I'm not saying that US interpretation is correct (or better for endangered species). And i'm not trying to disagree for the sake of arguments. I'm bringing this up because I'm just curious about the CITES and maybe someone can explain it better. I'm sure there are a couple lawyers here who may be accustomed to this kinds of documents!

I personally agree with most people here that the current CITES implementation doesn't seem to be optimal for protecting plants.

 

[John M]

So it seems to be difficult to satisfy the flask exempt condition if the country doesn't have the CITES authority. Isn't it?

I suppose you have a point, Naoki......and that therefore, Eric wasn't necessarily wrong and I'm not 100% right. My appologies, Eric.

However, this is where interpretation comes into play and the use of enough common sense to always keep in mind the core spirit and goals of the CITES regs....that is: to discourage collection of wild plants and to encourage artificial propagation to meet the world-wide demand....preventing extinction (through collection), of wild plants. I suppose it's true that a little flexibility (with regard to interpretation), is allowed by Canadian Customs on occasion. I've always found Canadian authorities to be perfectly reasonable and rational.....and willing to make a value judgement and honour/uphold the core intension of CITES.....that is: to keep wild collected (appendix I) plants out of International trade and allow clearly artificially propagated plants (in-flask seedlings) unimpeded entry. It's a damn shame that US authorities seem to take such a hardline attitude, using a very harsh interpretation.....because that "unthinking, automated attitude" does nothing to help preserve the wild plants that are supposed to be the real concern. In fact, it actually has the opposite (indirect), effect and hastens the collection of more wild plants to feed the demand through the black market.

 

[Erythrone]

I really appreciate this discussion! And thanks for John for having started this post. Here are my 2 cents thoughts: CITES is not perfect, and the interpretation of some signatory nations is not perfect too. Nothing is percfect in the world anyway… But we strongly need such regulation... I know there is still overcollecting of some species because, we, orchids lovers, often NEED a rare species... And when WE NEED a plant, we often forget about the impact of our purchase. I too think we sometimes need to propagate a species to reduce pressure on wild population and I argued many times with some biologists about that. Yes, CITES could be better; it could be improved and the interpretation by each country could be improved too. But even with a brand new convention, it will be rather easy to strip out wild plants for our « needs »… There are just too many international trades for controlling all of this. I used to say about pest and diseases regulation that borders are like leaky sieves. I sometimes think the same for rare plants.

 

[John M]

Yes, Erythrone, I agree. In the case of plants, at least (because their numbers can be increased very quickly and efficiently, as compared to animals), I just wish that the governments of the world would focus on recognising that when a desireable plant is found, swift, mass-propagation and distribution is the BEST way to feed the world demand and therefore make wild collected plants nearly worthless and the black market trade in wild collected plants unprofitable.

In the case of highly desireable species with a high commercial value, if instead of focusing on regulation and control of the movement of wild collected plants, CITES provided funding and actively supported the supervision and protection of wild populations, while at the same time, masses and masses of new plants were being produced in labs and being distributed, more wild plants would be left untouched. If, instead of restricting plants with rules and regulations, CITES took a more pro-active approach and sponsored and paid for large scale production and distribution of desireable plants, then the people who currently encourage the collection of wild plants through their act of buying whatever they can find (regardless of origin), would instead find healthy, legal seedlings, easily and cheaply accessible. That would mean far fewer of those people would ever consider paying for a weak, damaged, stressed, wild collected plant.

 

[tomkalina]

My point exactly, John.

 

[Kawarthapine]

John:

I agree that those crossing borders need to do their 'due diligence' and work proactively with border agents.

At the same time, broader inconsistencies in the administration of CITES between just two north american countries begs further consideration of how we can contribute to better global trade (at least at our local, geographic level).

As responsible hobbiests, collectors, growers, etc...we need to be mindful that while this dialog ('thread' within Slippertalk) is important; it is equally, if not more critical that this discourse also occur at every opportunity during annual AOS and COS meetings, especially annual general meetings where policy directions are set.

Our national organizations need to be as proactive as possible conveying our priorities to appropriate government agencies and with other like-minded environmental organizations. Failing to do so will result in the perpetuation of poor or inconsistent interpretation of policy. In this case, CITES importation regulations that personally inconvenience Slippertalk members, and at a broader level undermine the intent of global conservation efforts.

I respectfully propose that the principal contributors (John et al) consider forwarding links to this thread to AOS board members (in US & CD, at both state/province and national levels), asking that this issue be considered and addressed by the broader membership and appropriate committees.

 

[Kawarthapine]

Moderators should also consider copying This thread to the 'Conservation' section.

Any thoughts?

 

[John M]

I don't think that there is anything here that is news to the AOS and COC board members. Sorry to say it; but, my impression is not a lack of knowledge amongst the movers and shakers in the orchid world. The issue is the cost and time investments needed to lobby governments. As with most things in life, CITES is very political and not as conservation-minded as it should be. Paphs and Phrags were uplisted to Appendix I after much lobbying by the huge Dutch Horticultural Industry, as a way to protect their market, not to protect the wild plants. The AOS or COC, etc., standing up and pointing out "that's not fair"; or "that doesn't make sense", isn't going to change anything while they're up against big money and influence.

 

[gonewild]

In the US.... How the CITES rules are interpreted and enforced is decided by one man in USFW. He is a biologist and in charge of CITES enforcement department of USFW. The head of USFW defers to his expertise, at least that is what he told me back 4 years ago. I doubt it is any better now.

So in the US CITES enforcement is not really decided by government but rather a few people in USFW. They are not anti commercial trade but since their job is law enforcement and not conservation you can only imagine how they interpret the rules.

 

[s1214215]

I know that Paph rungsuriyanum has recently been exported in-vitro. I questioned CITES here in Australia, and they said as long as it was listed on a phytosanitary (CITES) approved document, it was OK with them. I did bring up they matter of how the seed was obtained and was told if it was in-vitro it was still OK. It goes with what has been said earlier in this thread. CITES interpret rules differently from office to office, and local laws are often what can make certain species illegal.

 

[h_mossy]

So... How would a newly discovered desirable plant ever get into wide distribution since there would not be any 'artificially propagated' plants in existence anywhere? Are we left only to those currently in artificial cultivation, and no others? And what if a newly discovered plant has a very limited geographical range or an as-yet undetermined range (which may be very limited), and that area is being significantly altered due to development? I'm sure they won't put a halt to the development devastating the environment just to preserve a few newly discovered plants, but if I interpret the rules correctly, they will put a halt to any human intervention to preserve what may be the last of a rare group of plants on the precipice of extinction. IOW: we won't let you orchid nuts save them from extinction, but we will allow development to drive them to extinction.

Am I getting the correct meaning?

 

[gonewild]

So... How would a newly discovered desirable plant ever get into wide distribution since there would not be any 'artificially propagated' plants in existence anywhere?

Someone in the Country where the new species is found has to go to the effort to get CITES permits to collect (obtain) wild plants legally for reproductive purposes. Then the offspring of those registered plants qualify for CITES certification as artificially propagated.
But for the process to work the Country also has to allow export of CITES species.

 

[edkravcik]

If I have read the thread correctly, CITES would not apply to the new species if the grower exported flasks.

 

[gonewild]

If I have read the thread correctly, CITES would not apply to the new species if the grower exported flasks.

CITES applies to all orchids. Artificially propagated orchids are exempt from CITES restrictions but A CITES exemption declaration is still required when shipping internationally. So CITES does apply to orchid flasks because you have to document they fact that they are exempt. :sob: