CITES: The Economics of Extinction

[SteveT]

There's a new story entry added:

CITES: The Economics of Extinction

CITES: The Economics of Extinction

CITES: The Economics of Extinction by Phytosophy.org CITES is the acronym for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. It is an agreement signed by various governments to regulate global trade of endangered species. The committee that recommends the rules and regulations, as well as decides which species are rare or not, is composed mainly of biologists, conservationists, ecologists, and taxonomists. However, many people question whether CITES is effective or if it accelerates the extinction of endangered species. This paper will discuss CITES and its relationship with orchids.

[Tindomul]

Wow,
Thats a good article to read.
I have always thought, up until a few months ago, that CITES allowed the sale of the artificially propagated offspring of wild cought flora or fuana. Now that I know they don't allow it, I'm thinking, what were they thinking? To me its almost intuitive(when thinking along the lines of hobbies) that once you get an endangered species well established as captive bred population in the hobby the smugglers can't make a profit by selling wild caught individuals. Therefore, they stop smuggling.

[Susan in Houston]

This is a well though-out and very informative article that all orchid enthuiasts should read. CITIES is a well-intentioned law which has many many problems.

[R Srinivasan]

As an exporter of cacti in the recent past,plants listed in appendix 1 of CITES are allowed provided you have legal procurenent certificate issued by competent goverment authority on the basis of which CITES export permit are issued. When most of the appendix 1 orchids can be tissue cultured which is recognised by the CITES as a legal way of procuring, i.e., artificially raised, there should not be any problem. The case of paphiopedilum vietnamese is no exception to this rule.

[Bolero]

I think we need to put measures in place to stop the stripping back of wild plants but it's also up to the authorities in the native country to police this as well.

I really think there is some merit in CITES but more work needs to be done.

[Mahon]

Originally Posted by Bolero

I think we need to put measures in place to stop the stripping back of wild plants but it's also up to the authorities in the native country to police this as well.

I really think there is some merit in CITES but more work needs to be done.

It is true that there are many plants being stripped from the wild, but then we also have "plant stripping" propaganda to drive up the market. I will explain it further...

Take for example the status of Paphiopedilum in natural habitats. It is often thought that Paph. sanderianum, Paph. kolopakingii, Paph. rothschildianum, Paph. sangii, Paph. hangianum, Paph. jackii, and even Paph. micranthum are rare or almost extinct in the wild due to stripping of plants, logging, and development of land (well, that's the info given to you by the orchid buisnesses). Taking information from people who have visited and studied the plant in situ, these species (and many others) are anything BUT rare in their natural habitats. These plants are collected in large quantities, yet they may not even make a dent in the population of the species in the wild. Many of the Paphiopedilum species are sold by the kilogram; not even by plant size or maturity.

Perhaps the original habitat of the Paph. species have been stripped of plants, but there are many other locations of these species. Most of the plants of these species are un-reachable; they are on cliff faces and in oddball "unaccessable" areas. With all this being said, it can be re-related back to the article Topletz wrote...

CITES doesn't work for us collectors and "smaller people", it works and helps the big-time growers have "undivided" access to a certain taxon (usually a new species). The big time growers won't contest with CITES, as the treaty works to help their buisness by increasing market value set by phony propaganda (which is "reports" of species being threatened or destroyed). Basically, re-stating Topletz's article, just adding a little more detail and examples...

I may be wrong on this right here, but I thought that all Cypripedioideae (Paphiopedilum, Phragmipedium, Cypripedium, Selenipedium, and Mexipedium) were set on Appendix I because of the large orchid grower's reports of the plants in natural habitats being stripped clean and destroyed. Please correct me if I am wrong on that, I am actually interested (it would just show how much CITES isn't ever GOING to work)...

...it's all about the money.

-PM

[Bolero]

You raise a number of points, I'm never sure how simple the solution is but I like to think that CITES is better than nothing.

What is the answer? Does anyone know?

With so many habitats being destroyed on a daily basis I have no answers, I am not sure that anyone does.

I look forward to seeing how the debate unfolds both in this forum and internationally.

[Ray]

CITES does little, if anything to curb habitat destruction, as most of that is being done for economic development. In fact, it appears that the combination of habitat destruction and CITES are hastening the loss of orchids and other species.

You cannot logically ask a poor farmer to not clear some land to grow more food for his family, but then we have a trade convention that stops any threatened species from being rescued and sold on the world market, potentially prolonging the viability of the species.