Mexican Plants post 27/11/1997

[Bill]

Any plant described or discovered in Mexico since 27.11.1997 is unlikely to have been issued permits for any form of commercial trade so unless the seller can produce evidence (ie Cites export certification) to the contrary then it should be considered illegal.

The list includes but is not exclusive to:

Aztekium valdezii
Agave albipilosa
Escobaria abdita
Mammillaria bertholdii
Strombocactus corregidorae
Turbinicarpus graminispinus
Turbinicarpus heliae

This applies to all plant material, seed and their progeny.

In light of this and until we receive further guidance from the BoT I must ask all posters to avoid posting pictures of/or discussing plants that you own that are on this list or may fall into the post 27/11/1997 ban. This doesn't preclude discussing the plants themselves.

I hope this will be self policing, but if not any posts not abiding by this will be deleted and may result in warnings or even a temporary ban.

Bill

[Stuart]

So the current situation is that we can exhibit these plants at BCSS Shows and it's OK for me to judge them, it's OK to sell these plants at BCSS events (no I don't have any to sell) and OK to buy these plants that are freely available at BCSS events but not to take their photos and show them here. Other cacti that have never had a Mexican export permit seem to be still OK to have as they're available in garden centres. I think the legal aspect needs clarification and maybe the Shows Committee should consider these plants in view of the BCSS conservation policy.
Stuart

[Geoff Lovell]

You certainly have a very good point Stuart.

[KarlR]

I think this thread is useful in order to know what's ok to post about and what's not. However, I do question the logic of disallowing something on here that is deemed acceptable in other BCSS events, unless the plan is to make this stricter rule apply across all of BCSS.

I realise this is the stand the German society has taken, as well as being (somewhat unsuccessfully) the policy at ELK. And while societies and other bodies must adhere to laws and regulations, I do wonder what the society's stance is on this with regards to conservation.

Is it the society's opinion that the species in question can best be protected by a total ban on their trade, or would the society be of the opinion that in situ conservation can be aided by allowing trade in the species through legal channels? I think it is something the society should ask itself, as working towards the conservation of species in habitat can be done in more ways than one. And if the society is of the opinion that mass-propagation of new and rare species would be beneficial for in situ conservation, I think such ideas should go hand in hand with this new and stricter interpretation of the laws and regulations regarding cacti from Mexico.

[Chris43]

We can't ignore the fact that there is a market demand for new plants and a set of laws and conventions that prevent it. To do so risks illegal collecting and habitat destruction.

Maybe its time for the BCSS to take an initiative. If one or two Mexican growers could be found to become partners in this, after validating their capability they could be supported in the long process of gaining export licenses from Mexico and import licenses into the UK (EU pro tem?), where more local commercial growers can use their intensive propagation skills to satisfy the market demand. Each plant then sold should earn commission for the Mexican growers who are vital to gaining the export licences. Obviously preferable if the local Mexican growers could satisfy all the international demand, but that may not be feasible to start with, though that could be the goal.

Lots of work for sure, probably several visits as well, but imho its either that or ignoring all laws. Maybe its worth a combined effort between the main cactus societies in Europe and US?

[IanW]

Interesting article today on the BBC about the current Cites meeting:

"Appendix I is the most restrictive control and is reserved for around 1,000 species that are in danger of extinction.

Commercial trade in these species is not allowed, although captive bred members of the species are treated as Appendix II and can be bought and sold. As well as a certified export permit, the management authority of the country exporting must make a non-detrimental declaration and the importing country must have a permit as well."

From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37389229

I'm not really sure what that means in relation to plants, but I wasn't aware that species in Appendix 1 get downgraded to Appendix 2 if captive bred. Whether this has any bearing on the Mexico question though is anyone's guess.

[ragamala]

I'm not really sure what that means in relation to plants, but I wasn't aware that species in Appendix 1 get downgraded to Appendix 2 if captive bred. Whether this has any bearing on the Mexico question though is anyone's guess.

I would like some senior opinion on that statement. But I would also say the difference between 1 and 2 depends on country of import/export.

But as to Mexico, my understanding is that ALL Mexican cacti were hiked to Appendix 2 status. So the answer as to whether this affects the Mexico 1997 decision is no.

What I do think is that the recent apparent interest in the question means that the Society should re-evaluate its position. It should publish new statement as to where we stand, as not many members may have access to the information which was provided earlier through journals and any other statements of the Society's conservation committee.

It may wish to consider the prospect of leaving the EU. What effect this might have on customs, VAT, post office charges on importation fro m EU countries, new requirement of phytosanitary certificates and Cites export and import permits if and when we leave the EU.

If as Chris suggests, we can be proactive, I am all for that. I but I am totally against any action that only promotes the view that we should tell other countries what to do. Let's sort our own house in order first.

[esp]

Here's the list of post 1997-described species according the the German Society:
http://www.dkg.eu/cs/download.pl?id=155 ... 28&lang=de
With the explanation (from German courtesy of Google translate) "The list does not constitute Chart types that are illegal in the EU per se, since they do not take into account whether plants were before 1997 already in culture and so are legally available or if not available, exporting and importing licenses."

[IanW]

But as to Mexico, my understanding is that ALL Mexican cacti were hiked to Appendix 2 status. So the answer as to whether this affects the Mexico 1997 decision is no.

I'm not sure it's actually that straightforward as Mexico has no extra-judicial authority outside it's borders, it's only enforcement is via international treaty (i.e. Cites) and if that treaty states that offspring are legal to trade if cultivated in captivity then that implies any enforcement via Appendix 1 is lost on artificially cultivated material, even if the original plant was illegal to trade under Appendix 1.

Therefore, absent a bilateral agreement with Mexico, it would imply that offspring are fair game for in-country trade under Appendix 2. Where someone may run into difficulty is if they engage in cross border trade and hence have to provide documentation as per the requirements for Appendix 2, and in that case they have to prove for documentation purposes that it's cultivated ex-situ, something that could be incredibly awkward if it's done from an illegaly obtained plant. This does mean of course that there would not be a problem for inter-EU trade, but could be a problem for UK people if the UK leaves.

But I'm not a lawyer of course, so don't quote me. I'm as interested as you are to know the reality of the situation.

I also believe that regardless of whether what I say is true, I do feel that this probably doesn't really follow the spirit of the law and so is morally dubious either way.

[ragamala]

I think you will find, Ian, under the Cites convention individual countries do have the powers to place their own restrictions on top of the Cites regulations. But Mexico was able to place all its cacti under appendix 2 and ban seed and plant export without permit, agreed by Cites in 1997. The Cites rules are minimum, not definitive.