CITES amendment pending

[Paul J]

There is a small, but important, amendment proposed for the upcoming CITES conference that may interest a number of people. I have not seen it posted on this list yet, so here it is:

http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/15/prop/E-15-Prop-31.pdf

The proposed annotation reads as follows:

"For all of the following Appendix-I species, seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid
media, and transported in sterile containers are not subject to the provisions of the Convention only if
the specimens meet the definition of ‘artificially propagated’ agreed by the Conference of the Parties."

This may be evidence that as improbable as it may be, bureaucrats can learn!

Be nice,

Paul

[Marni]

Thanks for the post, Paul. Very interesting, but I'm not sure I understand definition of 'artificially propagated' and if that refers back to the parentage as well.

[Paul J]

Marni, I hope that you were not expecting a short and simple answer. . . : )

But, basically, any normally human manipulation of propagation that does not occur in nature, or that occurs under controlled environmental conditions, would qualify as artificial. The key seems to be the human factor. The big focus is on flasking.

Paul


Here is the first part of the CITES definition, with a link below to the full entry:

"Regarding the definition of ‘artificially propagated’
ADOPTS the following definitions for terms used in this Resolution:
a) ‘under controlled conditions’ means in a non-natural environment that is intensively manipulated by human intervention for the purpose of plant production. General characteristics of controlled conditions may include but are not limited to tillage, fertilization, weed and pest control, irrigation, or nursery operations such as potting, bedding or protection from weather; and
b) ‘cultivated parental stock’ means the ensemble of plants grown under controlled conditions that are used for reproduction, and which must have been, to the satisfaction of the designated CITES authorities of the exporting country:"

http://www.cites.org/eng/res/11/11-11R14.shtml

[Marni]

Thanks, Paul. It will be interesting to see how this gets implemented.

[Jon]

Wasn't that already part of CITES? I mean, weren't artificially propagated plants (i.e. in vitro specimens) considered exempt? Or is there some wording difference that reinforces this? Either way, this is awesome news. I've heard of USDA inspectors confiscating flasks of CITES I plants just because they're CITES I.

Thanks Paul.

[Candace]

Originally Posted by Jon

Wasn't that already part of CITES? I mean, weren't artificially propagated plants (i.e. in vitro specimens) considered exempt? Or is there some wording difference that reinforces this? Either way, this is awesome news. I've heard of USDA inspectors confiscating flasks of CITES I plants just because they're CITES I.

Thanks Paul.

No, Jon. The plants still had to be Appendix 2 or hybrids to be legally imported. That's why hangianum and a variety of other paph species are still a "no-no" here in the U.S.

[Jon]

From the CITES site...

4. Specimens of an animal species included in Appendix I bred in captivity for commercial purposes, or of a plant species included in Appendix I artificially propagated for commercial purposes, shall be deemed to be specimens of species included in Appendix II.

Doesn't that mean that anything App I, if bred in captivity (i.e. in flask), is considered to be App II for purposes of international trade?

[Aceetobe]

Paph hangianum will still be a no go in this situation, as none of the parents are considered legal.

[Jon]

Fair enough. The seed would have to be legally collected, or captive plants would have to make viable seed. Makes sense.