Mexican Plants post 27/11/1997

[ragamala]

Angry, no, frustrated maybe. It seems every time you ask for a reference I provide one, giving a link to information you request, and you sidestep. If you are not in disagreement, why witter on?

Why do you not accept the original post? Instead of pursuing pointless argument with me, why not ask for a definitive statement on the Society's position?

[KarlR]

My understanding was that Mexico's own laws regarding export of cacti are separate from CITES regulations in that post-1997 Mexico implemented a (more or less) blanket ban on all export of cacti out of the country (new species as well as old).

With regards to CITES my understanding was that Mexico won through with implementing requirements for CITES certificates needed for the trade of rare Mexican species already described and in commercial trade.

Hence, I cannot buy an Ariocarpus retusus grown in Germany and get it to Norway without also getting a CITES certificate from the seller. The EU counts as a single market, so from the UK you can (although after Brexit probably not for much longer). But so far as I understand it, none of us could buy from Mexico unless we (in addition to a CITES certificate) got it from a nursery that has an export permit from Mexican authorities.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but this was my understanding of things. After all, if the CITES listing was the only issue, then surely there'd be no problem in buying these plants so long as one had the CITES papers?

[James Pickering]

.......... If anyone's interested, here's the actual note on their site, you're looking for #4 a) which states that all Cactaceae are included under Appendix II except seeds .........."

Not quite: ".......... (Except the species included in Appendix I and except Pereskia spp., Pereskiopsis spp. and Quiabentia spp.) .........." which are designated Non-Cites Cacti.

James

[agavemad]

Angry, no, frustrated maybe. It seems every time you ask for a reference I provide one, giving a link to information you request, and you sidestep. If you are not in disagreement, why witter on?

Why do you not accept the original post? Instead of pursuing pointless argument with me, why not ask for a definitive statement on the Society's position?

If people disagree with the legislation they will try to find another argument. I think your posts have been informative and very clear.
It is my belief now that until the society makes an announcement/statement on their stance concerning post 1997 plants then we are all in the dark.

[IanW]

Angry, no, frustrated maybe. It seems every time you ask for a reference I provide one, giving a link to information you request, and you sidestep. If you are not in disagreement, why witter on?

Why do you not accept the original post? Instead of pursuing pointless argument with me, why not ask for a definitive statement on the Society's position?

Because you're still not a lawyer or a judge. You can't simply declare matters of law to be what you want them to be. You either have to provide evidence to the fact or accept that you don't know.

Avoiding providing evidence and just suggesting we should all take your views as valid legal opinion which is exactly what you've done here, yet again, is the surest way to make sure people run into trouble with the law. People want legal clarification and your opininion is not legal clarification no matter how much you may imply it to be.

The reality is that we still are no further along on the main question people having regarding things like A. valdezii, because as I pointed out it's not clear whether the seed of an illegaly collected plant do in fact become illegal. As I said, I suspect that to be the case but I cannot find the legislation declaring it to be so, and you certainly have not provided it.

I'm not asking you to reply to my queries about the location of certain legislation, if you can't provide it then just keep your thoughts to yourself, you don't have to lose your cool for absolutely no reason whatsoever - you can just let someone else who may know the answer provide that answer, but instead you seem intent on trying to argue with people constantly on this topic in this thread and others, even those of us who actually back your overriding moral standpoint.

If people disagree with the legislation they will try to find another argument.

Finally here it sounds like someone knows where the legislation is to be found judging by this comment, given that you know what it is agavemad could you link it for us please? I'm interested to read the text regarding the point I made above about transfer/non-transfer of legality.

With regards to CITES my understanding was that Mexico won through with implementing requirements for CITES certificates needed for the trade of rare Mexican species already described and in commercial trade.

What they achieved was to get all their cactus seeds Appendix II listed (apart form as James points out, a handful of species that we all know don't count as proper Cacti ), therefore the certificates are required for seed of Mexican species in exactly the same as they are for all Appendix II cacti species (which is the vast majority of them). If you're trading Appendix II species across trade borders you need a Cites certificate regardless of whether it's from Mexico or not - the only difference with Mexican species is that the seeds are included in that requirement as well as the plants.

[agavemad]

Ian,
Ragamala has provided link after link.
On every post regarding this matter you appear just to want to argue pointlessly. For the sake of argument rather than clarity.
Are you this difficult in real life or just a great keyboard warrior.
Until the society gives its view/ stance on this matter then I see little point in trolling this thread.
What we need is clear direction on the Societies interpretation of the legislation.
The question is why are we still waiting for this? When will the society release a statement regarding this subject?

[KarlR]

With regards to CITES my understanding was that Mexico won through with implementing requirements for CITES certificates needed for the trade of rare Mexican species already described and in commercial trade.

What they achieved was to get all their cactus seeds Appendix II listed (apart form as James points out, a handful of species that we all know don't count as proper Cacti ), therefore the certificates are required for seed of Mexican species in exactly the same as they are for all Appendix II cacti species (which is the vast majority of them). If you're trading Appendix II species across trade borders you need a Cites certificate regardless of whether it's from Mexico or not - the only difference with Mexican species is that the seeds are included in that requirement as well as the plants.

Thanks for the clarification on Mexican species, although my understanding was that only those species on Appendix I requires a CITES export certificate. Certainly, when I buy seeds from Mesa Garden in the US, only those species listed in Appendix I require a CITES export permit.

[IanW]

Sure, that's normally the case, but for Mexico that was the whole point of the proposed amendment, to add seeds to Appendix II (seeds aren't normally covered by Appendix II), see here:

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... 0-P-67.pdf

Specifically, you can see what Cites has to say about Appendix 2 here:

https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php

Ian,
Ragamala has provided link after link.
On every post regarding this matter you appear just to want to argue pointlessly. For the sake of argument rather than clarity.
Are you this difficult in real life or just a great keyboard warrior.

Could you kindly keep the discussion on topic please? there's no need to start making personal attacks. I appreciate Ragamala's links, they've been helpful in driving the discussion forward and have been instrumental in helping me dig out some of these further links I've also been providing. The only issue I have is why he's constantly getting so angry about it all, it's not really necessary.

[KarlR]

From Kew's PDF on CITES regulations for cacti (http://www.kew.org/kew-science/people-a ... -resources)
Link to PDF: http://assets.kew.org/files/CITES%20%26 ... 1474965985

Slide 82: CITES Definition of ‘Artificially Propagated’

The CITES definition of artificially propagated is included in Resolution Conf. 11.11 (revised CoP15 – check
cites.org for details) Regulation of trade in plants. The definition within CITES includes several unique
criteria. The application of these criteria may result in a plant which bears all the physical characteristics of
artificial propagation being considered as wild-collected in CITES terms. Some key points are:

• Plants must be grown in controlled conditions. This means, for example, the plants are manipulated in a nonnatural environment to promote prime growing conditions and to exclude predators. A traditional nursery or
simple greenhouse are both ‘controlled conditions’. A managed tropical shade house would also be an
example of ‘controlled conditions’. Temporary annexation of a piece of natural vegetation where wild
specimens of the plants already occur would not be ‘controlled conditions’. Also, wild-collected plants are
considered wild even if they have been cultivated in controlled conditions for some time.

•The cultivated parent stock must have been established in a manner not detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild and managed in a manner which ensures long term maintenance of the cultivated stock.

•The cultivated parental stock must have been established in accordance with the provisions of CITES and
relevant national laws. This means that the stock must be obtained legally in CITES terms and also in terms
of any national laws in the country of origin. For example, a plant may have been illegally collected within a
country of origin then cultivated in a local nursery and its progeny exported declared as artificially
propagated. However, such progeny cannot be considered to be artificially propagated in CITES terms due to
the illegal collection of the parent plants.

•Seeds can only be considered artificially propagated if they are taken from plants which themselves fulfil the
CITES definition of artificially propagated. The term cultivated parental stock is used in order to allow some
addition of fresh wild-collected plants to the parental stock. It is acknowledged that parental stock may need to
be occasionally supplemented from the wild. As long as this is done in a legal and sustainable fashion it is
allowed.

Applying the CITES definition is a complex mixture of checking legal origin, propagation status and nondetrimental collection. To achieve this, the assessment needs to be carried out in close co-operation between
the CITES Management and Scientific Authorities. The implementation of the criteria on a day by day basis
needs to be tailored to the situation in an individual CITES Party. National CITES authorities should consider
producing a checklist as a means of standardising the process and informing the local plant traders.

So, from this it seems quite clear that any plant material of any cactus exported out of Mexico without export papers are illegal and any progeny cannot be termed "artificially propagated". If that is the correct interpretation, then the list from the German society linked to on the first page of this thread should give a more or less complete overview of the species that should be on the "illegal"-list.

If that is the correct interpretation then obviously the society must respect this in order to comply with CITES regulations. However, I think a discussion within the society about whether or not the Mexican legislation (which, ultimately, would be the reason why these species are illegal to trade in CITES-terms) serve to protect species in habitat or not would be worthwhile. I believe it's a fairly common opinion that artificially propagated plants serve to reduce pressure in the wild from illegal collecting, and I don't see how the society can implement this new and tougher stance on Mexican species in the name of conservation unless it also works to change Mexican legislation to allow legal export of plant material under current CITES regulations (which would have no issue with export of Mexican species so long as Mexico issues export permits).

The fact that for more or less everyone of us these rules are more moral guidelines than anything else is also problematic. It seems that it's more or less accepted that it's morally questionable at this point in time to buy A. valdezii, but what about 10 years from now? I doubt a survey among the members of the society would find that a majority believed Digitostigma were morally questionable to buy, but it is just as illegal to buy and sell under current legislation as A. valdezii. I am also unsure what the current status of these species are in habitat. Are they threatened in any way? And, if not, where does the moral ambiguity in buying cultivated material come from, apart from simply being technically illegal? There are millions of A. hintonii in habitat, and it's classified as "Least concern". What if A. valdezii occurs in similar numbers. Where is the reasoning behind the blanket ban on export if that's the case?

It's all well and good saying that it's illegal to buy and sell A. valdezii and any other Mexican cactus species described after 1997, but what is the actual environmental reasoning behind it? Is it sensible? Does it serve a conservation purpose? Are the most endangered species in habitat best served by such a blanket ban on export? If the society wants to implement what would basically be a ban on showing off or selling any Mexican species described after 1997, I think it should also consider these questions and discuss with societies in other countries how they think about this.

To my mind the best way to combat illegal collecting of Mexican species would be to allow trade in them. Make sure that plant material is made available to nurseries participating in a propagation programme and thereby creating a safe and legal way to obtain these species. Right now only smugglers and those seeking to make huge profits on new species are being served by the Mexican regulations.

Reports from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona Fish and Wildlife Service both suggest that e.g. threatened species of Pediocactus have all seen a much reduced habitat pressure from illegal collecting because the species are so widely available in the commercial trade from legal artificially propagated material.

[KarlR]

Sure, that's normally the case, but for Mexico that was the whole point of the proposed amendment, to add seeds to Appendix II (seeds aren't normally covered by Appendix II), see here:

https://cites.org/sites/default/files/e ... 0-P-67.pdf

Specifically, you can see what Cites has to say about Appendix 2 here:

https://cites.org/eng/disc/how.php

Indeed, and thank you for the clarification, however there's still no need for a CITES certificate for Mexican species unless they're on Appendix I as far as I can tell. The whole problem arises, not because of CITES regulations, but because Mexico does not issue export permits (well, apart from scientific purposes I suppose). Thus, export out of Mexico would not be against CITES regulations so long as Mexico were willing to issue export permits. Mexican species exported out of other countries do not require CITES certificates unless they're on Appendix I - similar to the general rule for cacti on Appendix II. At least, that's my understanding of the current regulations.