Illegal plants

[ragamala]

Could someone please PM me a link to the 1997 legislation with regard to Mexican plants, please? I am away on holiday as of early tomorrow but would like to read through it when I get back.

Sorry can't do that but can offer a comment. I don't think it's as simple as looking for a reference to a single piece of "legislation". I am not clued-up regarding Cites nor EU and other countries' rules, but looking back here's a few ideas on how from 1997 we ended where we are now. Part 1.

In the March 1997 BCSS Journal there was an article with authorship the Society's Conservation Committee, entitled "The Practicalities of Conservation".

This flagged up three Society priorites, keeping members informed of legislation, and encouraging members to abide by legislation. Objective 2 was to encourage members to propagate and distribute uncommon and/or documented plants, and thirdly to support projects to save endangered species in habitat.

The article went on to discuss objective 1. Cites 1 and Cites 2 category material is "strictly controlled". As for Cites 1 material, export of both plants and seeds was a matter for individual countries to decide the precise level of control. It was then apparently "illegal to collect, without a permit, seed of any plant growing in Mexico". I can assume this referred to Cites 1 material.

The ramification of that ban were set out by Gordon Rowley, in a proposal to the IOS from the Society. He expressed concern about over-restrictive nature of the Mexican legislation. Whilst BCSS was among the first to applaud Mexico's move to protect its flora the measures adopted were too draconian.

In a statement I would personally disagree with, the letter said
"Ethically, there is no precedent for restrictions so severe that plants are denied to others abroad, or that turn them into criminals.

In my opinion, apart from the irrelevance of the claim about ethical precedent, this is imperialistic in the extreme. How on earth do we in the UK have a "right" to own another country's flora?

The BCSS showed itself as a lobbying group for UK collectors. The IOS replied, rightly in my view, that the Mexican government did have the right to make regulations such as they saw fit.

The Conservation Committee regretted the decision and argued at length that regulation that is not enforceable should be ignored.The conclusion was a cop-out. BCSS members should make their own decision. Carry on collecting.

Fast forward to June 1998. In the BCSJ Bill Maddams, sadly now departed, argues under an article entitled "Conservation Begins at Home".

He argued that two measures having effect from 1997 were counter-productive.

Firstly was the Mexican decision, ratified at the Cites convention in Amsterdam, to grant Cites 2 status to ALL Mexican cacti, and to control export of such seed. Secondly. in June 1997 the EU Cites regulation had an additional proviso that Bill disapproved of. Prior viewing of an export certificate before an import certificate could be granted by DETR (as it was then) in the UK.

Bill Maddams argued the position that the Conservation Sub Committee should devise a system where those "best able to benefit from unusual material" would obtain it. To my mind this smacks of arrogance, if the suggestion is the future of Mexico's floral heritage is to be decided by collectors in the UK, a position with which I personally would fundamentally disagree.

[esp]

Whilst I find this debate interesting, I also find it frustratingly vague.
We have had second hand legal opinion reported that the ownership of various (not definitively defined) plants is illegal, and general statements such as "theft is theft" which aren't especially helpful when trying to deal with of artificially propagated plants, potentially a few generations removed from original habitat material.
It would be great to have a specific description of exactly what is illegal, under what laws, from what jurisdiction.
In the absence of clarity, I think the whole debate on how such plants are to be considred by the BCSS will be a mess.

So, for example, if the ownership of, say, Escobaria abdita, however obtained, is illegal in the UK, what is/are the UK or EU law(s) that determines this? And hence what exactly is the crime? Or would it, for example, only be illegal under Mexican law?

[KarlR]

I think it is important to keep in mind that just because you ban something it doesn't mean people will stop doing that thing. Most people buying Aztekium valdezii will know that it's technically illegal (though, of course, not everyone). But they'll buy it anyway and justify it more or less easily and more or less logically. Some might just say to themselves «hey, ***** it, I want that plant», while others might argue that it's better to buy a graft from some Czech dealer which obviously has been grown in Europe, than chancing on that possibly habitat collected plant on Ebay.

However and for whatever reason anyone decides to buy that species, the point is they're going to do it. So why make them criminals for doing it? After all, most hobbyists would prefer to get the plant knowing that it wasn't habitat collected. So why not come up with a solution that takes money out of the hands of criminals who dig up the plants in habitat in order to make a fortune? They know full well how valuable a new discovery like an Aztekium is. They're cheaper now, but in the first year or so after it's discovery, plants went for hundreds of euros on ebay and other places.

What if a system was in place where seeds and plants of a new discovery was distributed to a select number of nurseries worldwide which would then proceed to propagate the species quickly in order to take business away from the criminals and allow ordinary hobbyists a safe and legal way to obtain the species. Parts of the proceeds could go back to Mexico to help fund in situ conservation. It's more or less what Australia did after the discovery of the Wollemi pine in order to try to get ahead of plant looters. Kew Gardens were among the botanical gardens which helped propagate the species for sale, legally.

In my opinion this is something the BCSS should work towards as part of it's goal of conserving species in habitat.

[agavemad]

I have to disagree....
For a new discovery to hit the market someone has to illegally obtain plants or seeds.

Its like saying I would never raid the nest of a golden eagle to get an eagle egg for my collection, but its ok to buy one from someone else who has done this a few years ago.
illegal in my mind is illegal whatever way its dressed up.

In essence these plants or seeds have never had an export permit from the country of origin therefore they are all illegally obtained, be it this generation or prior generations.

[KarlR]

I have to disagree....
For a new discovery to hit the market someone has to illegally obtain plants or seeds.

Yes, obviously someone has to break the law in the first place. However, the crux of the matter is that so long as the demand is as great as it is, people are going to be breaking the law in order to make a profit. To me it makes much more sense to discuss how to make legislation that doesn't help criminals. Mexico is in no position to enforce their law as strictly as needed for it to have an effect, so all it really leads to is increased smuggling because there is no legal way to satisfy the international demand for the newest and rarest species.

Its like saying I would never raid the nest of a golden eagle to get an eagle egg for my collection, but its ok to buy one from someone else who has done this a few years ago.
illegal in my mind is illegal whatever way its dressed up.

It's not like saying that at all, because you can't propagate thousands of eagle eggs from that one egg. With one Aztekium valdezii seed pod containing probably at least 100 seeds you could sow them, graft them onto Pereskiopsis, and within a year you'd have tens of new A. valdezii grafts producing seeds of their own. People around Europe are probably producing thousands of A. valdezii plants every year now for sale, and I would argue that this directly helps conserving the species in habitat.

In essence these plants or seeds have never had an export permit from the country of origin therefore they are all illegally obtained, be it this generation or prior generations.

Yes, technically you are correct. However, when a law or regulation does not serve it's purpose or even works against it's intention, isn't it time to review it? Another poster on here has mentioned several times that Echinocactus grusonii has never been given a formal legal export permit, so if that's the case it basically means every single E. grusonii on the world market (outside of Mexico) is illegal. Do you think that makes sense?

Or what about Digitostigma (Astrophytum) caput-medusae; described in 2003, it certainly falls within the time period after which Mexican authorities prohibited export of plant material out of habitat. Perhaps some institutions received export permits, but did any nurseries? If not, it means that Digitostigma is just as illegal as A. valdezii. What should be the consequences of this then? Should we all destroy our plants to comply with the law, or should we just cease talking about that species? Or should we recognise that the current laws and regulations may need to be reviewed?

A simple program where seeds of new species are collected and distributed to a select number of nurseries around the world, who'd then propagate the species and bring it for sale (with parts of proceeds going back to Mexico), is something that I personally believe would be a great way to help conserve threatened species in habitat.

[esp]

For a new discovery to hit the market someone has to illegally obtain plants or seeds.

illegal in my mind is illegal whatever way its dressed up.

In essence these plants or seeds have never had an export permit from the country of origin therefore they are all illegally obtained, be it this generation or prior generations.

Getting back to my previous point, are you a lawyer? Is your opinion on what is legal actually based on a good understanding of the legislation and its application?
If the illegal act is the importation, I'm not sure it necessarily follows that it is illegal to own artificially propagated descendents of that illegally imported parents.
It would be great to get an informed contribution on the legal aspects.

[Bill]

It would make any laws that any country were to make to protect thier natural flora a bit pointless if any progeny of 'stolen' material become legal! Both ELK and the German society have issue notices to the effect that all plants newly described or discovered in Mexico since the cut off dates and thier progeny are illegal, personally I think that until the Society issues some form of notice/guidance whatever it is sensible to err on the side of caution.

Personly I believe a proper controlled & sustainable trade is the only solution, but that is not the situation at present we have an uncontrolled illegal trade that only realy benefits a few, fuelled by collectors need to have the newest discoveries, as the German society say there is no need there are ample plants legaly in cultivation.

[esp]

It would make any laws that any country were to make to protect thier natural flora a bit pointless if any progeny of 'stolen' material become legal!

Maybe it would, but a law that simply says "it's illegal to take plants from habitat without a permit", is silent about the status of the progeny of any illegally taken plants. So I don't think it necessarily follows that the progeny would be "illegal", unless additional laws cover this aspect.

It really would be helpful to have a lawyer's input..

[ragamala]

It really would be helpful to have a lawyer's input..

Frankly it seems to me as though you are wanting to evade the issue because you want a totally cut-and-dried answer, to which there is none, as I think you are quite aware.

The issue boils down not to law - we could talk for days about the UK's signing up to Cites, Mexico's stance in 1997, the EU regs we operate under - for ages.

This is an issue of personal responsibility, and of morality.

Where I would agree is that there should be a clear reassessment of the Society's stance on the issue. With Britain poised to exit the EU this will change things entirely. The Society should have a view to take forward into the new world where it is just as unlawful to exchange certain material between UK and eg Czech Republic as it currentl is between, eg UK and Israel.

[nobby]

Hello,

for the last few days I have been following this discussion.
It may be helpful for all of us to look at this website: https://www.cites.org
You can see that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland did ratification in 1976. Entry into force was on 31/10/1976. We in Germany signed it in the same year.
On this website: http://www.speciesplus.net/ you can get more exact information about species.
If you look for cacti in Mexico you get a list of 664 species. If you click on an appendix II plant you get a link to CoP 15#4

"All parts and derivatives, except:

a) seeds (including seedpods of Orchidaceae), spores and pollen (including pollinia). The exemption does not apply to seeds from Cactaceae spp. exported from Mexico, ..."

Cites regulations have nothing to do with Europe, Mexico or any other external country. These are regulations for me in Germany and for you in Great Britain. Actually there is an exception for the free movement of goods within the EU. This means I can buy a cactus in the Netherlands (for example) and take it to Germany without documents if the plant had been legal in the Netherlands. Trade of illegal goods has always been forbidden in Germany - I suppose in UK, too.

Best regards
Nobby