CITES - conserving or destroying?

[Howzat]

Cites

Yes, but that proves once again that CITES is good for nothing.

Quite agree with you.
How many people are actually benefitting from CITES, apart from the officials?
How about starting a plan to dismantle the Operational side of CITES???

 

[s1214215]

Quite agree with you.
How many people are actually benefitting from CITES, apart from the officials?
How about starting a plan to dismantle the Operational side of CITES???

Agreed. but how, who to lobby, and to best effect

Brett

 

[quietaustralian]

Quite agree with you.
How many people are actually benefitting from CITES, apart from the officials?
How about starting a plan to dismantle the Operational side of CITES???

Hi Howard,
I must be missing something here??I don’t understand how CITES impacts on you. CITES isn’t interested in flasks and if I read correctly, Appendix I orchid species are treated as Appendix II species if artificially propagated.
So in essence:
You can import any flasks you want without any interference from CITES.
You can import plants if they are artificially propagated.
Mick

 

[s1214215]

Hi Mick

Flasks are not an issue with CITES, unless a species is deemed not legally exported from a country of origin.

I think the major issue most people have with CITES is the prevention of export that would otherwise serve propagation, and reduce poaching as propagated plants (more selectively bred and desirable) would then be available: well this would atleast be so in developed nations. Cant say so for some developing nations as the drive there is more economic so many will buy what is cheaper (collected plants) rather than superior propagated forms, though I have seen well off people buy collected plants in Thailand more times than I can count.

By the way, as to Hangianum being of Chinese origin , courtesty of F&W USA, "Regarding hangianum, it is my understanding that there are plants of legal origin exported from China, but we are not aware of production of this species from legal origin plants elsewhere" Seems to be an admission of it not just being a Viet specie.

Brett

 

[mormodes]

Hi Mick

By the way, as to Hangianum being of Chinese origin , courtesty of F&W USA, "Regarding hangianum, it is my understanding that there are plants of legal origin exported from China, but we are not aware of production of this species from legal origin plants elsewhere" Seems to be an admission of it not just being a Viet specie.

Brett

I agree and I assumed that was why Norman's Orchids HAD 4 hangianum hybrids available on its web page, however they are now no longer listed... I assume they went like hotcakes, LOL!

 

[quietaustralian]

Hi Mick

Flasks are not an issue with CITES, unless a species is deemed not legally exported from a country of origin.

I think the major issue most people have with CITES is the prevention of export that would otherwise serve propagation, and reduce poaching as propagated plants (more selectively bred and desirable) would then be available: well this would atleast be so in developed nations. Cant say so for some developing nations as the drive there is more economic so many will buy what is cheaper (collected plants) rather than superior propagated forms, though I have seen well off people buy collected plants in Thailand more times than I can count.

By the way, as to Hangianum being of Chinese origin , courtesty of F&W USA, "Regarding hangianum, it is my understanding that there are plants of legal origin exported from China, but we are not aware of production of this species from legal origin plants elsewhere" Seems to be an admission of it not just being a Viet specie.

Brett

I don't understand what you mean by CITES prevention of export. I read the link that you referred to at the start of this thread and didn’t find much in it that related to CITES, the main issue related to US law and was written 18 years ago some much has changed. I think we should differentiate between CITES and the laws of various nations. My main issue is not with CITES but with some nations that don’t fulfil their obligations under the treaty.
CITES doesn’t get involved with flasks at all and plants that have been artificially propagated can be exported/imported with a permit.
The problems our American friends have seems to be with the legislation in their country and not CITES. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Regarding hangianum: I have heard that hangianum exists in China but hadn’t seen any documentation regarding this. I’d still be interested in seeing something or hearing from someone who has seen them in situ. I’m not sure if Craig is saying that the plants occur naturally in China or that there are legal plants in china?

Regards, Mick

 

[mormodes]

snip

The problems our American friends have seems to be with the legislation in their country and not CITES. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

You are exactly right.

 

[s1214215]

I don't understand what you mean by CITES prevention of export. I read the link that you referred to at the start of this thread and didn’t find much in it that related to CITES, the main issue related to US law and was written 18 years ago some much has changed. I think we should differentiate between CITES and the laws of various nations. My main issue is not with CITES but with some nations that don’t fulfil their obligations under the treaty.
CITES doesn’t get involved with flasks at all and plants that have been artificially propagated can be exported/imported with a permit.
The problems our American friends have seems to be with the legislation in their country and not CITES. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Regarding hangianum: I have heard that hangianum exists in China but hadn’t seen any documentation regarding this. I’d still be interested in seeing something or hearing from someone who has seen them in situ. I’m not sure if Craig is saying that the plants occur naturally in China or that there are legal plants in china?

Regards, Mick

Sorry I disagree, as for some reason, CITES offices in various locations are following US policy as well (Japan being one- try sending any paph there, even with a CITES export cert). I recently spoke to CITES in two other countries and they said, that Paphs of Vietnamese origin in flask would be refused export, inc hybrids.

In some countries in SE Asia, phytosanitary responsibilities overlap with CITES matters due to the way the local agencies issuing certs relate. When inquiring I got told in a muddled way that the US and Vietnam had issues with each other over Viet species and even flasks would not be considered. So then the question is does CITES follow its own rules or the USA, on a country per country basis. I've sent FS Paph hangianum, and hybrids in two countries, sent and accepted by the recieving, yet rejected for export in another.

From what I have been told, Vietnam did legally export several paph species, but later retracted the decision. That has come from people involved in Paphs in Vietnam and outside. Seems to be a bone of contention that can not be proved either way though.

I took the hangianum matter to be there are plants in China. Now thats is as I put it in my email that they exist there. I am told this has been proven by multiple experts, but at this time, I can not say more as I am not a liberty to say how and by whom. If it comes to fruition, all will know soon enough I guess. I was told it in the pipeline by people I trust.

My issue with CITES Mick is that CITES offices from country to country seem to interpret rules and add other issues to them as they please. Some interpret it so laxly that is a joke, other go overbboard and make it impossible to export species that are common even. I have been in two offices where I had to educate staff as to the appendix value of a plant.

 

[quietaustralian]

Sorry I disagree, as for some reason, CITES offices in various locations are following US policy as well (Japan being one- try sending any paph there, even with a CITES export cert). I recently spoke to CITES in two other countries and they said, that Paphs of Vietnamese origin in flask would be refused export, inc hybrids.

In some countries in SE Asia, phytosanitary responsibilities overlap with CITES matters due to the way the local agencies issuing certs relate. When inquiring I got told in a muddled way that the US and Vietnam had issues with each other over Viet species and even flasks would not be considered. So then the question is does CITES follow its own rules or the USA, on a country per country basis. I've sent FS Paph hangianum, and hybrids in two countries, sent and accepted by the recieving, yet rejected for export in another.

From what I have been told, Vietnam did legally export several paph species, but later retracted the decision. That has come from people involved in Paphs in Vietnam and outside. Seems to be a bone of contention that can not be proved either way though.

I took the hangianum matter to be there are plants in China. Now thats is as I put it in my email that they exist there. I am told this has been proven by multiple experts, but at this time, I can not say more as I am not a liberty to say how and by whom. If it comes to fruition, all will know soon enough I guess. I was told it in the pipeline by people I trust.

My issue with CITES Mick is that CITES offices from country to country seem to interpret rules and add other issues to them as they please. Some interpret it so laxly that is a joke, other go overbboard and make it impossible to export species that are common even. I have been in two offices where I had to educate staff as to the appendix value of a plant.

This may seem pedantic but its import to understand the structure of any organisation so as not to waste people’s time and effort.

There is to my knowledge only one CITES office in the world and it’s in Geneva. It’s the secretariat and its role is to arrange meetings, disseminate information to member states and other pen pushing type activities

When you speak to someone in Japan, Australia or Thailand etc that has responsibility for handling CITES matters, they are not CITES employees and are responsible solely to the government department for who they work (CITES refers to these as Management Authorities) eg F&W USA.

Its made clear on the CITES website that some countries may have tougher requirements that those in the convention. So in the case of the US and some other countries, it appears that CITES isn’t the problem.

If as a result of this thread a couple of hundred Americans wrote a letter to Geneva complaining about not being able to legally import flasks of some species into the US, Geneva would probably return a letter saying that flasks are not covered by CITES and to contact their appropriate government department.

Whether hangianum is endemic to Vietnam is not important. I’m interested in the Paphs that occur in Vietnam endemic or not and any reliable updated information I can gather. I look forward to any information you can provide in the future.
Regards, Mick

 

[gonewild]

I’m not sure if Craig is saying that the plants occur naturally in China or that there are legal plants in china?

Regards, Mick

This is how I understand it....

What Craig said was that China has exported legal Hangianum plants to some country. Then he says that he has no knowledge that plants have been legally propagated from those exported plants.
Based on that, CITES should allow in-vitro flasks of species entry into the USA if they originate from China with CITES documents.

The CITES documents create a paper trail, if you have the correct paper trail USFW has no reason to suspect the plants come from an illegal source. If China issues correct CITES export papers the USFW would have reason to believe the plants are from China and not Vietnam so they could allow entry into the USA.

Now, if the species has been legally imported into Thailand from China, and then grown to maturity, and then propagated by seed, then the resulting flasks would be legal to import into the USA.

The flasks must be propagated from the original plants exported from China and not some other mature plants than may have been smuggled from Vietnam. So after enough time (years) pass the species will become legalized because of the Chinese exports and at some point no one will know when Vietnamese genetics slip in.

If there are flasks in Thailand that have CITES from China then Thailand can issue CITES Re-export permits and those flasks could legally enter the USA.

 

[Howzat]

Hi Howard,
I must be missing something here??I don’t understand how CITES impacts on you. CITES isn’t interested in flasks and if I read correctly, Appendix I orchid species are treated as Appendix II species if artificially propagated.
So in essence:
You can import any flasks you want without any interference from CITES.
You can import plants if they are artificially propagated.
Mick

Mick, these bloggs were originally directed to the problem in USA. Even in flasks the authority there would still ask for the parentage of the babies in the flask.
Yes, you are right, no problem here in Australia. I brought in flasks of roths through Sam Tsui in Sept 2009. He did not have problem getting out of USA, nor did he have from Australian CITES authority. I also brought in hangianum and roths , niveum and bellatulum from Taiwan and did not have to declare, they are species and with CITES paper. Also Joseph brought in leuchochilum andno problem. The Custom here are OK, because there are not knowledgable enough to ask question , but they do refer them to the Quarantine people who are very tough on suspected browning leaves.

 

[Howzat]

What intrigues me is how the USA's Dept of F&W could issue a rule that exempt China but not from Vietnam?? People can still bring the flask out of Vietnam into say Taiwan and re-exported and said it is chinese made. How would they, US Dept F&W, distinguish which one comes from China direct or ones which are redirected from Vietnam??
Don't they know that it is so impractical to police?? Unless they have a sniffing ability like dogs???

 

[s1214215]

OK Mick I take your point in that there is one CITES office and you say that all other offices are just government bodies set up to enforce CITES rules.

Perhaps then they should cease calling themselves CITES offices in various countries, I have been to more than a few and it leads to the impression that CITES is a larger body than one office.

It is also the impression I have seen held by many people in the orchid trade in SE Asia that the local offices responsible for ussuing CITES export/import certs are somehow under CITES' governance.

 

[gonewild]

How would they, US Dept F&W, distinguish which one comes from China direct or ones which are redirected from Vietnam??
Don't they know that it is so impractical to police?? Unless they have a sniffing ability like dogs???

They would know because the Taiwan CITES officer would certify that the plants being exported from Taiwan were either legally propagated in Taiwan or were imported into Taiwan legally from China and then being re-exported.

 

[Gcroz]

They would know because the Taiwan CITES officer would certify that the plants being exported from Taiwan were either legally propagated in Taiwan or were imported into Taiwan legally from China and then being re-exported.

Also, as an enforcement matter, USF&W would need to see that all plants in the family tree of the flasklings were collected legally from the country they are native to. Since China has a population of hangianum, flasks made from plants that were collected with proper government permission (papers) and exported with proper CITES documentation would be fine. However, if there is no paper trail showing legal wild collection of the parent plants, then all seedlings propagated from the improperly collected plants become "fruit of the poisonous tree," and thus illegal.

Maybe I'm repeating something already written...this is a long thread.

 

[gonewild]

Also, as an enforcement matter, USF&W would need to see that all plants in the family tree of the flasklings were collected legally from the country they are native to. Since China has a population of hangianum, flasks made from plants that were collected with proper government permission (papers) and exported with proper CITES documentation would be fine. However, if there is no paper trail showing legal wild collection of the parent plants, then all seedlings propagated from the improperly collected plants become "fruit of the poisonous tree," and thus illegal.

Maybe I'm repeating something already written...this is a long thread.

For CITES, USFW would not need to see a paper trail showing that the parent plants were legally collected in the past, the exporting countries CITES certification proves that.... the CITES documents could not be issued by the exporting country if the parent plants were not legally collected.

Where the " fruit of the poisonous tree" comes in is with the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act makes it a crime to cheat on the CITES documents.

 

[Gcroz]

For CITES, USFW would not need to see a paper trail showing that the parent plants were legally collected in the past, the exporting countries CITES certification proves that.... the CITES documents could not be issued by the exporting country if the parent plants were not legally collected.

Where the " fruit of the poisonous tree" comes in is with the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act makes it a crime to cheat on the CITES documents.

You're correct. Thanks for the correction. With all the convoluted BS that's involved, my explanation wen a bit askew.

 

[Howzat]

They would know because the Taiwan CITES officer would certify that the plants being exported from Taiwan were either legally propagated in Taiwan or were imported into Taiwan legally from China and then being re-exported.

Never ever when I bought flasks from Taiwan, would they issue any CITES. Perhaps if you ask for it they would get one for you. But then this becomes a joke. As the seller can say whatever he would like to say.

 

[Howzat]

Agreed. but how, who to lobby, and to best effect

Brett

Hi Bret, forget about yours, also my computer crashed and now buying a new one.
Our population of paph lovers a re so tiny that even if you send a petition with one hundred signatories is not good enough against a population of 22 mill in Australia. I don't think that i have the answer to your question.
But one ray of hope is keep on writing in this forum or Orchid journal or the US paph lovers can lobby their AOS chiefs. But lots of them are just afraid of being accused as pro anti CITES lobby. We are not anti CITES. The idea is good, but it is in the operational matters that they become bogged down. A Nonsense cause as Dr Braem said.

 

[KyushuCalanthe]

*************************************************

This Just In:

Verdict On CITES and its misenforcementation:

Guilty As Charged

Film At 11

*************************************************