national cites-related legislation and its impact on opportunities for ...

NATIONAL CITES-RELATED LEGISLATION
AND ITS IMPACT ON OPPORTUNITIES FOR
NATIVE FLORICULTURE
March 2010

Acknowledgment
This Discussion Paper was funded by ACIAR in connection with SRA No. PC 2009/029
‘Underst<strong>and</strong>ing the Constraints <strong>and</strong> Opportunities in the use of Native Floriculture to improve
Livelihoods of Indigenous Communities in Australia, PNG <strong>and</strong> the Pacific Isl<strong>and</strong>s’.
Author: Dr Dick Watling
First published by The Centre for Native Floriculture, The University of Queensl<strong>and</strong>, Australia,
2009.
Copyright © The University of Queensl<strong>and</strong>.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information
storage <strong>and</strong> retreival system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
ISBN 9781864999761

CITES & NATIVE FLORICULTURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
List of Attachments
List of Tables
Abbreviations & Acronyms
____________________________________________________
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................III
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 AIMS AND OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 CONSULTANTS AND PROGRAMME .................................................................................................... 1
1.3 CITES.............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3.1 Background to the Convention............................................................................................... 1
1.3.2 How CITES Works ................................................................................................................. 2
2 PAPUA NEW GUINEA..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 PAPUA NEW GUINEA & CITES ........................................................................................................ 4
2.2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION.................................................................................................................. 4
2.2.1 Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade (Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) Act 1979 – as Amended (2003)............................... 4
2.2.2 Additional Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora Protection Legislation.............................................................. 4
2.3 CITES MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 FLORICULTURE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA........................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Status of Floriculture <strong>and</strong> CITES Implications...................................................................... 6
2.5 CITES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ............................................................................... 6
3 SOLOMON ISLANDS....................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................... 7
3.2 CITES MANAGEMENT..................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN SOLOMON ISLANDS AND CITES IMPLICATIONS ................................ 8
4 FIJI ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION ...................................................................................................... 9
4.2 CITES MANAGEMENT...................................................................................................................... 9
4.3 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN FIJI AND CITES IMPLICATIONS ....................................................... 10
4.4 TWO CASE STUDIES OF PLANT EXPORT PROBLEMS........................................................................ 10
4.4.1 Orchid Exports from Fiji – a Case Study of Perceived CITES Difficulties.......................... 10
4.4.2 Exporting Palm Seeds from Fiji – Case Study ..................................................................... 11
5 AUSTRALIA .................................................................................................................................... 13
5.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 13
5.2 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION .................................................................................................... 13
5.3 CITES MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................................... 13
5.4 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN AUSTRALIA ..................................................................................... 14
5.5 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 14
6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 15
6.1 CITES ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................... 15
6.2 INSUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND/OR DOCUMENTATION ............................................. 15
6.3 INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, ACCESS, BENEFIT SHARING, BIOPIRACY AND RELATED ISSUES................... 17
6.4 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................. 18
6.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR FINDINGS OF ACIAR/SPC PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION ....................... 20
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 22
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc
i

CITES & NATIVE FLORICULTURE
Attachments:
Attachment 1
Orchids – CITES Overview <strong>and</strong> Definitions
List of Tables
TABLE 1: NATIONAL LEGISLATION PROVIDING THE BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTING CITES ................................. 2
TABLE 2: DATES OF ACCESSION AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF CITES............................................................. 4
TABLE 3: NUMBER OF ‘ENDANGERED SPECIES’ ON BOTH CITES AND IUCN RED LIST ............................... 17
TABLE 4: PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MCGREGOR ET AL (2008) AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS OF
THE CURRENT STUDY.......................................................................................................................... 21
Abbreviations & Acronyms:
ACIAR
BINGOs
CITES
CSP
DEC
DoE
DW
ECD
EPBC
EPS
FRI
IPR
IUCN
MA
MPs
MPCNT
MTA
NAQIA
NT
SI
SSO
TRAFFIC
TRIPS
VCDE
Australian Centre for Inter<strong>national</strong> Agricultural Research
Big Inter<strong>national</strong> Non Government Organizations
Convention on Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade in Endangered Species
Community Sector Program
Department of Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation (PNG)
Department of Environment (Fiji)
Dick Watling
Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation Division (PNG)
Environment Protection <strong>and</strong> Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Australia)
Endangered & Protected Species Act (Fiji)
Forestry Research Institute
Intellectual Property Rights
Inter<strong>national</strong> Union for Conservation of Nature / World Conservation Union
Management Authority
Management Plans
Management Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of Australia
Material Transfer Agreement
National Agriculture Quarantine <strong>and</strong> Inspection Authority
Northern Territory, Australia
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s
South Sea Orchids
The Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Value Chains through Enterprise Development
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc
ii

CITES & NATIVE FLORICULTURE
SUMMARY
The development of an ornamental horticulture or floriculture industry in
indigenous Australian <strong>and</strong> Pacific Isl<strong>and</strong> communities has been identified as
having considerable potential for income generation <strong>and</strong> sustainable livelihoods.
One of the issues identified in a previous ACIAR-funded scoping study
(HORT/2006/055 Developing the Ornamentals Industry in the Pacific: An
Opportunity for Income Generation) is the role of the Convention on Inter<strong>national</strong>
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora (CITES) <strong>and</strong> CITESenabling
<strong>national</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> which may jeopardise the development of an
industry, either through prohibiting or penalising exports of decorative plants or
creating difficulties for regional initiatives. The present study was undertaken as
part of a second Small Research Activity (PC/2009/029 Underst<strong>and</strong>ing
constraints <strong>and</strong> opportunities in the use of native floriculture to improve the
livelihoods of indigenous communities in Australia, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> the
Pacific Isl<strong>and</strong>s) with the objective of clarifying the role of CITES, CITES-enabling
<strong>national</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> their administration in respect of prospective floriculture
development, in the context of a proposed ACIAR project on floriculture to
improve livelihoods. For indigenous Australian communities, there is a focus on
bush-harvesting of cycad foliage in the Northern Territory. Of particular concern
in Papua New Guinea, is the commercialization of native orchids where the
earlier ACIAR scoping study (HORT/2006/055) concluded that industry
development hinged on regulatory <strong>and</strong> policy reforms pertaining to CITES being
addressed.
The study was undertaken between August <strong>and</strong> October 2009 by Dick Watling
Ph.D., Principal – Environment Consultants Fiji, who visited Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s
<strong>and</strong> Papua New Guinea, <strong>and</strong>, Prof Daryl Joyce, Director, The Centre for Native
Floriculture, University of Queensl<strong>and</strong>, who travelled twice to the Northern
Territory of Australia <strong>and</strong> to Fiji.
Of particular current interest are orchids especially in Papua New Guinea whose
genetic resources (3,000+ species) are of major inter<strong>national</strong> significance, but
also in the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s (285 species) <strong>and</strong> Fiji (171 species) which are also
significant because of the high level of endemism. All orchids are listed under
CITES.
The complexity of CITES <strong>and</strong> the significant bureaucratic requirements of the
Secretariat put a great deal of pressure on <strong>national</strong> CITES administrations the
world over <strong>and</strong> especially in the developing world. The site vis<strong>its</strong> <strong>and</strong> discussions
undertaken with the CITES management authorities <strong>and</strong> other stakeholders in
Papua New Guinea, Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Fiji revealed very obviously that
personnel of all three organisations were experiencing considerable difficulties in
administering CITES.
Another important issue affecting CITES administration <strong>and</strong> enforcement is the
poor status of scientific information in Fiji, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> Solomon
Isl<strong>and</strong>s, specifically in relation to identification of ‘endangered species’. It would
appear that knowledge <strong>and</strong> information per se might not be the problem. Rather
it is scientific documentation needed for justification, as well as organised
updating of <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> inter<strong>national</strong> listings that are the main constraints.
When <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> documentation is in a poor state of accuracy, it is not
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc
iii

CITES & NATIVE FLORICULTURE
surprising that strong differences of opinion can arise in agencies involved
directly or indirectly with CITES <strong>and</strong> these can <strong>and</strong> do hamper <strong>its</strong> administration.
The CITES enabling <strong>legislation</strong> of the three countries is also used for domestic
protection of fauna <strong>and</strong> flora (whether <strong>its</strong> trade or possession) <strong>and</strong> also, in the
absence of appropriate ‘benefit sharing’ <strong>legislation</strong>, to prevent instances of the
export of genetic resources on an ad hoc basis, sometimes in the guise of
CITES. The <strong>related</strong> issues of access, ‘benefit-sharing’, biopiracy, <strong>and</strong> TRIPS
(Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), constitute
an area of keen interest in each of the countries concerned. However, without
any specific legislative framework or policy in any of the countries, these issue
are likely to manifest themselves in diverse ways in relation to any floriculture
initiative which involves commerce or trade in indigenous plants originating from
the wild.
Despite all these potential problems, there appears, with one exception, to be no
specific provisions associated with the <strong>national</strong> CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong>s
which directly threaten any envisaged export-oriented floriculture development
initiative. The one exception is Papua New Guinea’s informal policy ban on
native orchid or hybrid export before creation of a second generation of artificially
propagated progeny. There is, however, a great deal of evidence to suggest that
difficulties will be encountered in the application of the <strong>legislation</strong> given the
inadequate resources of the CITES administrations in the three countries,
coupled with the parlous state of the endangered species listings.
Much more difficulty is likely to be encountered in connection with ‘benefit
sharing issues’ <strong>and</strong> in certain circumstances these may well be expressed as
CITES issues, albeit incorrectly. In the circumstances, any proposal for
development of export-oriented floriculture (with or without CITES implications)
from Fiji, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s should address the following:
• Clarification of issues, roles <strong>and</strong> responsibilities relating to managing <strong>and</strong>
implementing CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong>, <strong>and</strong>, so far as possible,
distinguishing these from broader issues such as benefit sharing <strong>and</strong>
TRIPS;
• Raising capacity for the administration of the CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong>;
<strong>and</strong>,
• Clarification of policies (documented or otherwise) <strong>and</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> under
development for equitable benefit sharing.
In relation to the bush-harvesting of cycads <strong>and</strong> their sale as decorative foliage
(within Australia <strong>and</strong> beyond) it is concluded that CITES <strong>and</strong> <strong>related</strong> <strong>legislation</strong>
poses no substantive obstacle. For PNG <strong>and</strong> neighbouring countries, it is
recommended that a stakeholder workshop be called to clarify <strong>and</strong>, where
possible, resolve those issues that relate directly to developing orchid
floriculture, while referring <strong>related</strong> issues for which no legislative framework
exists to the competent authorities <strong>and</strong> development partners.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc
iv

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIMS AND OUTPUTS
The aim of the consultancy is to identify <strong>and</strong> clarify real or perceived constraints
imposed by CITES <strong>and</strong> <strong>its</strong> interpretation in <strong>national</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> (<strong>and</strong> in local
implementation of that <strong>legislation</strong>) that might jeopardize the viability of floriculture
efforts based on exploitation of wild species (especially orchids in Papua new
Guinea). The expected output is an authoritative discussion paper on the
implementation of CITES <strong>and</strong> <strong>its</strong> <strong>impact</strong> on opportunities for native floriculture.
1.2 CONSULTANTS AND PROGRAMME
The consultants responsible for the report were Dick Watling Ph.D., Principal –
Environment Consultants Fiji, a resident of Fiji <strong>and</strong> a member of Fiji’s CITES
Management Authority; <strong>and</strong>, Prof Darryl Joyce, Director, The Centre for Native
Floriculture, University of Queensl<strong>and</strong>. The consultants initiated the consultancy
together in Fiji, in late July 2009, with meetings with Richard Markham (ACIAR,
Research Program Manager, Suva) <strong>and</strong> Fiji stakeholders. Dick Watling then
travelled to the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> met stakeholders
there, in particular active floriculture industry members, CITES management
agencies, members of the relevant CITES Management Authority, <strong>and</strong> biosecurity
agencies. Daryl Joyce travelled to the Northern Territory on two occassions <strong>and</strong>
spoke with officers of the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts
<strong>and</strong> Sport, Charles Darwin University, <strong>and</strong> the Darwin Botanical Gardens.
1.3 CITES
1.3.1 Background to the Convention 1
CITES (the Convention on Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) is an inter<strong>national</strong> agreement between governments. Its aim is to
ensure that inter<strong>national</strong> trade in specimens of wild animals <strong>and</strong> plants does not
threaten their survival.
Because the trade in wild animals <strong>and</strong> plants crosses borders between countries,
the effort to regulate it requires inter<strong>national</strong> cooperation to safeguard certain
species from over-exploitation. CITES was conceived in the spirit of such
cooperation. Today, it accords varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000
species of animals <strong>and</strong> plants, whether they are traded as live specimens, fur coats
or dried herbs.
CITES was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of
members of IUCN (The World Conservation Union). The text of the Convention
was finally agreed at a meeting of representatives of 80 countries in Washington
DC., United States of America, on 3 March 1973, <strong>and</strong> on 1 July 1975 CITES
entered in force.
CITES is an inter<strong>national</strong> agreement to which States (countries) adhere voluntarily.
States that have agreed to be bound by the Convention ('joined' CITES) are known
as Parties. While CITES is legally binding on the Parties it does not take the place
of <strong>national</strong> laws.
1 http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/disc/what.shtml
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 1

1.3.2 How CITES Works
The basic principles of CITES are quite straightforward. It regulates inter<strong>national</strong>
trade in wild animals <strong>and</strong> plants which are listed in three Appendices to the
Convention. It is a protectionist treaty in the sense that it prohib<strong>its</strong>, with a few
exceptions, inter<strong>national</strong> commercial trade in species that are threatened with
extinction (listed in Appendix I). It is also a trading treaty in the sense that it allows a
controlled inter<strong>national</strong> trade in specimens of species listed in Appendix II. CITES
lim<strong>its</strong> exports of Appendix II species to a level which will not be detrimental to their
survival. Appendix III provides a mechanism whereby a Party which has domestic
<strong>legislation</strong> regulating the export of species not in Appendix I or II can seek the
support of other Parties in enforcing <strong>its</strong> own domestic <strong>legislation</strong>.
Although CITES is legally binding on the Parties – in other words they have to
implement the Convention – it does not take the place of <strong>national</strong> laws. Rather it
provides a framework to be respected by each Party, which has to draw up <strong>its</strong> own
domestic <strong>legislation</strong> to ensure that CITES is implemented at the <strong>national</strong> level.
States are free to determine how they draw up this <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> it varies from
State to State. Some, like Fiji, draw up completely new <strong>and</strong> purpose-created
<strong>legislation</strong>, others amend or incorporate existing <strong>legislation</strong>. There is therefore
considerable variation between them.
Country
Domestic Legislation
Papua New Guinea Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade (Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) Act 1979
Australia Environment Protection <strong>and</strong> Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Fiji Endangered & Protected Species Act 2002
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s Wildlife Protection <strong>and</strong> Management Act 1998
Table 1: National Legislation providing the Basis for Implementing CITES
CITES operates by means of a permit system. With a few exceptions it prohib<strong>its</strong>
inter<strong>national</strong> trade in specimens of species included in any of the Appendices with
the prior grant of a CITES permit. It lays down strict conditions that must be
satisfied before a permit is granted, <strong>and</strong> it requires each Party to establish one or
more Management Authorities <strong>and</strong> Scientific Authorities which between them, are
responsible for ensuring the conditions have been satisfied <strong>and</strong>, if they have been,
for granting a permit.
In addition to the Management <strong>and</strong> Scientific Authorities operating at a <strong>national</strong>
level, there is a Secretariat, based in Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, whose function is to oversee the
permit system on an inter<strong>national</strong> level. The Parties to the Convention meet every
two years to review progress <strong>and</strong> discuss issues. Parties have to report regularly to
the Secretariat <strong>and</strong> face suspension if they fail to do so. The Convention is over 30
years old <strong>and</strong> is generally regarded as one of the most successful of all the
environmental conventions. Issues arise on a continuous basis <strong>and</strong> the biennial
CoP meetings have proved quite successful in ironing out difficulties. “Regulation in
the Trade of Plants” is one such issue <strong>and</strong> was addressed because the original
convention could not have envisaged the rapid developments in plant propagation
<strong>and</strong> of the trade in artificially propagated plants which are specific to plants <strong>and</strong>
have no analogy for animals. Orchids <strong>and</strong> ‘in vitro’ propagation was central to this
issue <strong>and</strong> a resolution was adopted at the 11 th Conference of the Parties in Nairobi,
2000 – refer Attachment 1. This is the subject of on-going discussion <strong>and</strong>
refinement at each CoP, the current annotation to the Appendices is given in
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 2

Attachment 1. The purpose of an annotation is to make the listing of Orchidaceae
more effective, <strong>and</strong>, to create an incentive for trade in artificially propagated
specimens, by eliminating the need for CITES perm<strong>its</strong>, as a preferred alternative to
trade in wild-collected specimens for which trade <strong>impact</strong>s are not precisely known.
In addition, removing artificially propagated specimens from CITES controls should
significantly reduce the workload of permit-issuing authorities so that they may
concentrate their efforts on specimens requiring closer scrutiny (refer PC12
Doc. 10.1).
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 3

2 PAPUA NEW GUINEA
2.1 PAPUA NEW GUINEA & CITES
Papua New Guinea was one of the first countries in the world to become a
signatory of CITES acceding in December 1975, over a year before Australia (July
1976) <strong>and</strong> some 20 years before Fiji (September 1997). The Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s is
one of the most recent Parties to the Convention – June 2007.
State Order of Joining CITES Date of Accession Date of Entry Into Force
Papua New Guinea 21 12 December 1975 11 March 1976
Australia 28 29 July 1976 27 October 1979
Fiji 143 30 September 1997 29 December 1997
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s 171 26 March 2007 24 June 2007
Table 2: Dates of Accession <strong>and</strong> Entry Into Force of CITES
2.2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION
2.2.1 Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade (Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) Act 1979 – as Amended (2003)
The Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade (Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) (Amendment) Act 2003 is Papua New
Guinea’s <strong>national</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> underpinning the implementation of CITES <strong>and</strong>
establishes the required administrative framework according to the convention.
Observations on the <strong>legislation</strong>:
• Provision is made for establishment of the Management Authority (‘the
Departmental Head of the department for the time being responsible for
environment <strong>and</strong> conservation matters’) <strong>and</strong> the Authority may delegate <strong>its</strong> powers
but only to an ‘officer of the <strong>national</strong> Public Service’ – there is no provision for
incorporating non-government stakeholders – floriculture <strong>and</strong> other relevant
industries, conservation NGOs etc.;
• The Management Authority is inter-alia the Scientific Authority but may ‘designate a
person, body or body of persons separate from <strong>and</strong> independent of the
Management Authority as a Scientific Authority in relation to a particular species or
category of species’;
• The species listed in the CITES Appendices …I, II, III are included <strong>and</strong> listed as
Schedule 1,2,3 in the act, <strong>and</strong> as such reflect the composition at the time of the
ratification. Changes to these Schedules require changes as ministerial regulations;
• The Management Authority may delegate the powers of inspectors to any ‘officer of
the <strong>national</strong> Public Service’ (the function of inspectors relates mainly to ‘search <strong>and</strong>
seize’)
2.2.2 Additional Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora Protection Legislation
Parties to CITES can amend the foundation <strong>legislation</strong> at any time <strong>and</strong> introduce
their own requirements, provided they are not in contravention of the CITES
convention. McGregor et al. (2008) have noted “The trade in PNG orchids is
regulated by a 2003 Act of the PNG Parliament. The export of wild collected plants
is strictly prohibited. Under current regulations export of indigenous orchid plants is
only permitted if they are second generation hybrids (F2) which were originally
propagated from seed. These requirements preclude the viable commercial
production of orchids due to the infrequency of flowering in the wild <strong>and</strong> the long
lead time required for propagating from seed.” This is likely to have been an
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 4

amendment to the Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade (Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora) Act 1979 or regulations
gazetted as proscribed by the Act, but as noted above (refer 2.2.1) no listing or
copies of these were forthcoming.
2.3 CITES MANAGEMENT
Currently, the Management Authority is the Secretary of Dept. of Environment &
Conservation (DEC). All the day to day work is h<strong>and</strong>led by the Manager of the
Wildlife Enforcement Division headed by Barnabas Wilmott, <strong>and</strong> according to him
DEC has not designated <strong>its</strong> powers to any other agency.
Three Scientific Authorities have been officially designated:
• Terrestrial fauna, marine mammals <strong>and</strong> reptiles – DEC;
• Aquatic species (other than marine mammals <strong>and</strong> reptiles) – Managing Director,
Fisheries Authority;
• Flora – Managing Director, Forestry Authority;
Other personnel are also considered to be, or consider themselves to be, a
designated Scientific Authority (although not registered with the CITES Secretariat),
in particular:
• Director Forestry Research Institute, Lae – Prof Simon Saulei who indicated that
FRI provided all scientific authorization for flora to Dept. of Env. & Conservation
As such there is no Scientific Council which meets as a body. DEC receives advice
from individuals or organisations piecemeal. According to Barnabas Wilmott,
Manager, Wildlife Enforcement Division, DEC formerly had over 100 staff <strong>and</strong> were
very effective right down to the provincial level. Nearly all are now under control of
the provinces or moved elsewhere. Currently, the Division has three enforcement
staff for CITES. He <strong>and</strong> his staff undertake all the reporting required for CITES as
well as attend a considerable number of inter<strong>national</strong> meetings <strong>and</strong> workshops. All
enforcement at ports, airports is by NAQIA but they have little experience of CITES
<strong>and</strong> wildlife identification, <strong>and</strong> Barnabas Wilmott <strong>and</strong> his staff are called frequently
to go down to look at confiscated or apprehended material. He indicated that
NAQIA needed training <strong>and</strong> visual identification material.
In an effort to mainstream <strong>its</strong> activities, DEC has been the subject of several major
institutional changes over the past two decades, including a major one by AusAid in
the 1990s. However, stakeholders interviewed during the study indicated that DEC
had very little political or Government support, <strong>and</strong> was in a chronic state of
ineffectiveness. A recent initiative 2 to assist DEC recorded the following ‘situational
analysis’:
“The Department of Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation however is limited by inadequate funding,
staffing <strong>and</strong> technical capacity to h<strong>and</strong>le all <strong>its</strong> assigned functions nationwide. The limited <strong>national</strong>
budget support to DEC is attributed to the low priority accorded by the government <strong>and</strong> indicative of
the lack of political will to seriously address the environmental issues in Papua New Guinea. The
result is a lack of departmental capacity; the absence of a well-articulated system of internal <strong>and</strong>
external departmental coordination framework <strong>and</strong> organizational structure that strategically places
financial <strong>and</strong> human resources to effectively coordinate <strong>and</strong> implement the Environment Act, …..”
2 UNDP ‘Department of Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation Strengthening Project’ (2006-8)
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 5

2.4 FLORICULTURE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA
2.4.1 Status of Floriculture <strong>and</strong> CITES Implications
McGregor et al. (2008) provide a detailed overview of Papua New Guinea’s
ornamental horticulture industry. They identified that a worthwhile cut flower
industry could be built in Papua New Guinea around a significant expansion of the
domestic market 3 , supplemented by niche export of specialty products. However,
they concluded that PNG is:
• unlikely to develop a major export industry for cut flowers; although,
• it has the potential to establish a major commercial indigenous orchid
industry exporting unique hybrid plants <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ing eco-tourism activities.
None of the species or groups identified as having floriculture potential by
McGregor et al. (2008) were CITES-listed, other than orchids.
All orchids (members of the family Orchidaceae) are listed either in Appendix I or
Appendix II of CITES <strong>and</strong> as such implementation of the Convention is very
relevant to any prospective industry. Their evaluation concluded that the industry
hinges on regulatory <strong>and</strong> policy reforms pertaining to CITES being addressed.
The current study interviewed several people either members or directly <strong>related</strong> to
the floriculture sector to determine if any other CITES listed species were being
exported or had the potential to be exported. One other CITES implicated group
was identified, cycads (Family Cycadaceae) which DEC have recently received
enquiries for exports to New Zeal<strong>and</strong>. However, no details were available. 10 of
Papua New Guinea’s cycad species are listed in Appendix II.
2.5 CITES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Papua New Guinea has been a leading advocate of Intellectual Property Rights
issues, the combating of ‘bio-piracy’ <strong>and</strong> the like. An obvious expression of this is
the restriction on the export of indigenous orchids which is only permitted if they are
second generation hybrids (F2) which were originally propagated from seed (refer
section 2.2.2).
In this respect it was quite surprising therefore that Barnabas Wilmott (DEC CITES
manager) was not really concerned about this <strong>and</strong> definitely recognised it as having
nothing to do with CITES “…there only objective is to ensure that any resource is
exploited sustainably”. He added that PNG’s current IPR <strong>legislation</strong> does not cover
biodiversity <strong>and</strong> music other things, however it does have a policy <strong>and</strong> tradition for
putting in place Material Transfer Agreements (MTA), <strong>and</strong> DEC will ensure that
MTAs are in place for those wanting to do research <strong>and</strong> or export material, if
appropriate.
3 Note – domestic trade of CITES-listed species is not covered by the Convention, though it may
nonetheless be covered by the foundation <strong>legislation</strong> or other <strong>legislation</strong>.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 6

3 SOLOMON ISLANDS
3.1 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION
The Wildlife Protection <strong>and</strong> Management Act 1998 is the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>’s <strong>national</strong>
<strong>legislation</strong> underpinning the implementation of CITES <strong>and</strong> establishes the required
administrative framework according to the convention. After the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s
became a party to the convention in June 2007, the Wildlife Protection <strong>and</strong>
Management Regulations 2008 were gazetted.
Observations on the <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> regulations:
• The objectives of the Act not only includes those obligations relating to CITES but
also ‘the management of flora <strong>and</strong> fauna to ensure sustainable uses of these
resources for the benefit of Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s’;
• There is no reference in the <strong>legislation</strong> to a Management Authority or Scientific
Authority/Council. However, the Minister may appoint ‘Such other officers as may
be necessary for the proper carrying out of the purposes of this Act’. This would
appear to be a provision for incorporating non-government stakeholders –
floriculture <strong>and</strong> other relevant industries, conservation NGOs etc into the process,
but is not currently used;
• Certain native Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s animals or plants used for traditional activities or
purposes may be exempted from the provisions of the Act;
• The 2008 Regulations are primarily concerned with defining management
programmes, prescribing forms <strong>and</strong> scheduling fees. Public Meetings are required
prior to consideration of any ‘management programmes’ by the Director;
• The Act provides for Schedule 1 – Prohibited Export, list of species which do not
correlate with CITES Appendix I, similarly Schedule 2 – Regulated <strong>and</strong> Controlled
Species, list of species does not correlate with CITES Appendix II. The only direct
link between the Act <strong>and</strong> CITES appears to be in the Regulations where there is a
provision relating to Schedule 2 export application ‘that the specimen is acceptable
for commercial trade within the context of any resolutions promulgated by CITES
from time to time’.
3.2 CITES MANAGEMENT
Currently, the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s Management Authority comprises three government
officers from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation <strong>and</strong> Meteorology – the
Director Environment <strong>and</strong> Conservation Division (ECD), the Chief Environment
Officer <strong>and</strong> the Chief Conservation Officer. Three Scientific Authorities have been
appointed – Director ECD, Permanent Secretary Agriculture <strong>and</strong> Livestock, <strong>and</strong>
Permanent Secretary of Fisheries <strong>and</strong> Marine Resources. There is no Scientific
Council – a high level Government committee advises the minister on a wide variety
of issues including any CITES <strong>related</strong> ones. Not a Scientific Council.
According to Mr Joe Huruturau (Chief Conservation Officer, ECD), three staff led by
the Director ECD h<strong>and</strong>le all CITES matters. He was aware that they had not
submitted Annual Reports for 2007, 2008 4 . As far as he was aware there had been
no plant applications for export under CITES …”except by Forestry”….no specific
items could be recalled. He was not aware of any smuggling of orchids or other
plants. There were no CITES ‘management programmes’ drawn up for plants, as
required by the regulations. He was unaware of any floriculture-CITES issues, or of
any significant smuggling of Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong> plants. He acknowledged the
importance of the role played by Quarantine Dept. but stressed that ECD made all
4 As such they are in risk of suspension as happened to Fiji in a similar instance.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 7

the decisions <strong>and</strong> undertook all management actions relating to CITES. No training
of Quarantine Dept. had been undertaken as far as he was aware.
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s is currently subject to a recommendation to suspend trade
(Notification No. 2009/032: 27 July 2009) in three species – Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s skink
Corucia zebrata (valid from 9 July 2001) <strong>and</strong>, birdwing butterflies Ornithoptera
urvillianus, O. victoriae (valid from 20 January 1995) 5 .
3.3 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN SOLOMON ISLANDS AND CITES IMPLICATIONS
Floriculture is currently being promoted through a project ‘Strengthening Rural
Value Chains Through Enterprise Development (VCED) – a project under the
Community Sector Program (CSP) – Agriculture Livelihoods Component’ of
the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s Government, <strong>and</strong> recently a suite of activities were undertaken
to promote it 6 .
The project has found a vibrant response from Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong> communities to
floriculture which thrives in a small way at the village level despite the prevalence of
a subsistence lifestyle <strong>and</strong> very little available income. Currently there is no exportoriented
floriculture in the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> there are no plans to initiate it. So
CITES is currently not involved with floriculture in the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s.
5 www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/resources/ref/suspend.shtml
6 “Developing the Ornamental Horticulture Sector in the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s” Project Final Report.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 8

4 FIJI
4.1 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION
Fiji joined CITES relatively recently, becoming a Party in 1997. It promulgated the
‘Endangered <strong>and</strong> Protected Species Act’ of 2002 which came in to fore the
following year. The Act was designed “to regulate <strong>and</strong> control the inter<strong>national</strong> trade
<strong>and</strong> domestic trade, possession <strong>and</strong> transportation of species protected under the
convention on inter<strong>national</strong> trade in endangered species of wild fauna <strong>and</strong> flora (CITES)
<strong>and</strong> for <strong>related</strong> matters”.
The <strong>legislation</strong> was drawn up with the help of a CITES <strong>and</strong> TRAFFIC 7 specialist <strong>and</strong>
so incorporates several of the modern provisions of CITES-compliant <strong>legislation</strong>.
Observations:
• Provision is made for the Fiji Isl<strong>and</strong>s CITES Management Authority, an autonomous
body which advises the Secretariat (Government’s appointed administration) on <strong>its</strong>
obligations under CITES. It comprises the Permanent Secretary responsible for
Environment (chairperson), Director Environment, Director National Trust of Fiji, 3
public officers, 2 conservation NGO members <strong>and</strong> 2 trade members;
• Provision is made for the Fiji Isl<strong>and</strong>s CITES Scientific Council. The functions of the
Council are the advise the Authority on any matter relating to CITES –
comprehensively detailed in 11 sub-sections;
• Provides a direct connection with the Appendices of CITES <strong>and</strong> so does not have to
be amended through regulation or other to keep up to date with changes in CITES;
• Contains detailed provisions on perm<strong>its</strong>, transport <strong>and</strong> transhipment, registration
<strong>and</strong> possession <strong>and</strong> enforcement;
• Not only covers inter<strong>national</strong> trade, but domestic trade, possession <strong>and</strong> permit
requirements – effectively covers all indigenous terrestrial vertebrates, some marine
vertebrates <strong>and</strong> some plants;
• Contains two schedules (lists of species) – Schedule 1 – all indigenous species not
listed in CITES Appendix I but are believed to be threatened with extinction.
Schedule 2 – all indigenous species not listed in Appendices I-III or Schedule 1. The
drawing up of these Schedules was poorly advised <strong>and</strong> is the subject of current
discussion <strong>and</strong> proposed amendment;
4.2 CITES MANAGEMENT
The secretariat <strong>and</strong> contact point for the Management Authority <strong>and</strong> the Scientific
Council is the Department of the Environment (DoE) where a Senior Principal
Officer oversees CITES administration – in addition to all other Biodiversity-<strong>related</strong>
responsibilities of the department. The Authority has designated permit approval
powers to the secretariat (DoE) <strong>and</strong> also to Department of Fisheries. The vast
majority of perm<strong>its</strong>, to the virtual exclusion of others, are given for marine organisms
– coral, live rock <strong>and</strong> the pet fish trade.
The management <strong>and</strong> administrative requirements of CITES are considerable <strong>and</strong>
DoE with <strong>its</strong> minimal <strong>and</strong> dwindling resources from government as well as <strong>its</strong> major
additional responsibilities under the new Environmental Management Act does not
have sufficient resources to administer the <strong>legislation</strong> effectively. Issues of concern
include:
7 TRAFFIC – the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network works to ensure that trade in wild plants <strong>and</strong>
animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. www.traffic.org/overview/
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 9

• The CITES Secretariat suspended Fiji for nearly two years (2002-2003) because of
lack of reporting (specifically information on coral quotas) <strong>and</strong> lack of regulations to
the <strong>legislation</strong>;
• While the Management Authority as an autonomous committee has significant
advantages in certain circumstances, it is proving difficult for DoE to manage it
efficiently <strong>and</strong> extract decisions <strong>and</strong> resolutions.
• Lack of resources (finance) <strong>and</strong> expertise to commission/undertake non-detrimental
finding studies <strong>and</strong> other research needs;
• Delay in addressing issues with Schedules 1 <strong>and</strong> 2;
• Inability to address Orchid outgrower – CITES issue (refer 4.4.1), or conspicuous
domestic issues i.e. internal parrot trade;
• Perm<strong>its</strong> for export of plant material have been provided by Forestry Dept. <strong>and</strong>
accepted by Quarantine Dept. without EPS perm<strong>its</strong>;
• No Non-detrimental Finding Study or Management Plan has been produced for
Appendix II listed tree fern material which was until recently being exported; <strong>and</strong>,
• An occasional <strong>and</strong> small illicit trade in palm seeds without CITES perm<strong>its</strong>.
4.3 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN FIJI AND CITES IMPLICATIONS
Floriculture in Fiji is comparatively well developed in terms of research <strong>and</strong> structure
– several reports <strong>and</strong> publications have been produced (refer McGregor et al 2008)
<strong>and</strong> the industry has a council established over a decade ago – although currently
moribund, it has an institutional structure which could be revived.
The industry remains small but has a relatively large number of participants, over
1000 people are directly involved. The industry is centred on a large number of
semi-commercial cut flower <strong>and</strong> potted plant growers, while there are 12 retail
nurseries <strong>and</strong> one cut flower wholesaler. South Sea Orchids have developed a
successful model of a nucleus nursery <strong>and</strong> contracted out-growers which numbered
82 in 2008. Three exporters have been identified who sporadically ship small
volumes of floriculture products.
The bulk of commercial activity of the industry revolves around orchids, anthuriums
<strong>and</strong> heliconia-gingers. No indigenous orchids are grown commercially. Recently,
relatively large amounts of tree fern Cyathea sp. (probably Cyathea lunulata)
material have been exported. All 11 of Fiji’s Cyathea spp are listed on Appendix II
but no Non-detrimental Finding Study or Management Plan has been provided to
the CITES Management Authority.
4.4 TWO CASE STUDIES OF PLANT EXPORT PROBLEMS
4.4.1 Orchid Exports from Fiji – a Case Study of Perceived CITES Difficulties
McGregor et al (2008) report of a case where “the inappropriate application of the
Convention by Fiji’s Department of the Environment has been detrimental to the industry. A
leading orchid producer had the opportunity to export hybrid orchid plants to another Pacific
isl<strong>and</strong> country. The orchid plants were hybrid dendrobiums bred by the University of Hawaii
<strong>and</strong> imported into Fiji. The producer was ultimately required to pay a FJD1,000 annual
CITES Registration Fee plus FJD 30 on each transaction. Despite attempts to have these
fees waivered, on the grounds that the plants were not endangered species nor produced
in Fiji, the producer was denied <strong>and</strong> subsequently ab<strong>and</strong>oned efforts to facilitate the
transfer of materials”.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 10

In this case, Fiji’s CITES Management Authority correctly identified the relevant
provisions of the convention <strong>and</strong> conveyed these to the exporter. The issue at stake
here was the registration fee of $1,000 as a commercial exporter which is
promulgated in the regulations of the Endangered <strong>and</strong> Protected Species Act, not in
the convention.
It is not surprising that there are significant registration requirements for commercial
exporters of CITES species (not just orchids but all species of fauna <strong>and</strong> flora). This
is to ensure that the number of exporters of such species is manageable, <strong>and</strong> to
ensure that commercial exporters of CITES species have the necessary resources
to maintain st<strong>and</strong>ards. It is not possible to tailor registration fees for every CITES
species exporter when the regulations are initially promulgated. However, there is
provision for amendments to the Regulations in worthwhile cases <strong>and</strong> these were
reported to the orchid grower as being examined by the Management Authority at
the time. Nothing appears to have come of that <strong>and</strong> the orchid grower is not
currently interested in exporting (Burness to DW, this study).
Further discussion between the exporter <strong>and</strong> DoE-Management Authority on the
matter might have resulted in a favourable resolution. Instead of all the growers
having to register as exporters, they should export under a single umbrella
organisation which would necessitate a single registration rather than multiple
registrations.
Given the exceptional nature of orchids <strong>and</strong> the manner in which it is treated by
CITES, as well as the propagating technology, there is clearly room for further
discussion with the CITES Management Authority on making orchids an exception
in respect of the permit registration <strong>and</strong> fees, as specified in the regulations. In
general, however, there will be a rightful tendency by the authority to keep things
simple <strong>and</strong> minimise any exceptions.
4.4.2 Exporting Palm Seeds from Fiji – Case Study
Fiji has a small but very special palm flora – some 25 indigenous species of which
24 are endemic (Watling 2005). There is a small but very enthusiastic inter<strong>national</strong>
group of palm specialists resulting in a small trade especially of endemic species.
This has been occurring at a very low level <strong>and</strong> legally in Fiji for the past 20 years
<strong>and</strong> has potential for continuation <strong>and</strong> perhaps growth. None of Fiji’s palms are
CITES listed, however most, but not all, are listed on Schedule 2 <strong>and</strong> so are subject
to export permit requirements 8 . In 2007, a palm specialist from Hawaii who had
previously imported palm seeds legally from Fiji was advised of the new Act <strong>and</strong>
applied well in advance of his visit to collect a small quantity of seed from about 10
endemic species, all of which he already held in Hawaii. He was encouraged to
come to Fiji <strong>and</strong> that there was unlikely to be any problem in getting a permit. On
arrival, DoE verbally granted the collector a permit <strong>and</strong> said he was free to collect
the seeds, this after consulting with the Curator of the South Pacific Regional
Herbarium, a member of the Scientific Council.
When the collector returned from the field, he was advised by DoE that the permit
was refused <strong>and</strong> that he could not take the seeds out of the country. This change,
after considerable expense had been incurred was as the result of DoE consulting
the Attorney General’s office which advised against a permit on the basis that “the
challenge for developing countries like Fiji is to guard against bio-piracy of our
8 Note – 15 or Fiji’s 25 indigenous species are definitely ‘endangered’ but the IUCN Red List does
not reflect this.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 11

indigenous animal <strong>and</strong> plant genetic resources……..”. On leaving the country the
collector was stopped by the Quarantine section <strong>and</strong> searched twice. Quarantine
had been informed by DoE, “…(they) had CITES plants <strong>and</strong> were trying to smuggle
them out of Fiji”. The collector had no material with him, <strong>and</strong> on return to Hawaii
posted an account of his experience in Fiji to the palm community worldwide.
Clearly, Fiji does have such responsibilities under the Convention on Biological
Diversity, <strong>and</strong> the EPS Act clearly states that the Management Authority has the
right to refuse a permit application. Fiji does not have any appropriate <strong>legislation</strong> (or
policy) in place to combat ‘biopiracy’ or Trade-<strong>related</strong> Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) issues; <strong>and</strong>, it has no MTA policy or tradition in place
either. The EPS <strong>legislation</strong> could be used for this purpose in certain situations,
although it is quite clearly not the intent of the <strong>legislation</strong>.
This single, unfortunate, incident reveals:
• a state of confusion <strong>and</strong> mismanagement by DoE <strong>and</strong> other Government
agencies as a whole on permitting the export of plant material;
• the lack of any clear policy (let alone <strong>legislation</strong>) on how to combat biopiracy
issues; <strong>and</strong>,
• how provisions of a <strong>national</strong> CITES enabling <strong>legislation</strong> can be used for non
CITES issues but which are then mistakenly attributed to CITES.
There is in some quarters in Fiji, a very strong belief in the need to prevent
“indigenous genetic resources” leaving the country <strong>and</strong> until there is <strong>legislation</strong> in
place, or at least a clear policy for MTAs in place, then there will continue to be
mixed messages <strong>and</strong> instructions which the DoE <strong>and</strong> Quarantine will have to deal
with. In many cases it is much easier for this to be attributed to CITES when in fact
it has nothing to do with it.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 12

5 AUSTRALIA
5.1 BACKGROUND
Cycad plants bear attractive fern- or palm-like leaves identified as having cut foliage
potential in floriculture. In the context of a proposed ACIAR project on Floriculture
to improve livelihoods in indigenous Australian <strong>and</strong> Pacific Isl<strong>and</strong> communities, with
an intended focus on cut Cycad foliage harvesting in the Northern Territory, the
focus herein is specifically on Cycads in the NT.
Cycad is a term that covers an ancient group of slow growing <strong>and</strong> long lived woody
plants in the families Cycadaceae, Stangeriaceae <strong>and</strong> Zamiaceae. Ten Cycad
species are indigenous to the NT, these being: Cycas angulata, C. arenicola, C.
armstrongii, C. arnhemica, C. calcicola, C. canalis, C. conferta, C. maconochiei, C.
orientis, C. pruinosa, <strong>and</strong> Macrozamia macdonnellii. Their biology, species
description <strong>and</strong> range, historical use, conservation <strong>and</strong> harvesting history are
described in a Management Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of
Australia 2009-2014 (Liddle, 2009).
All NT Cycad species are covered under Appendix II of CITES
(http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org). Their CITES listing refers to all parts <strong>and</strong> derivatives, except
seeds, spores <strong>and</strong> pollen; seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or
liquid media, transported in sterile containers; <strong>and</strong>, cut flowers of artificially
propagated plants (from CITES Appendices I, II <strong>and</strong> III; valid from 1 July 2008).
5.2 NATIONAL CITES LEGISLATION
As noted in Table 2, Australia became a signatory to CITES in July 1976. National
<strong>legislation</strong> providing the basis for implementing CITES is embodied in the
Environment Protection <strong>and</strong> Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC 1999)
(http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html) (Table 1). The EPBC 1999 is
administered through the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
<strong>and</strong> the Arts in Canberra.
5.3 CITES MANAGEMENT
Under the EPBC 1999, Cycads for export, including those artificially propagated,
must be sourced from an approved program; either a Wildlife Trade Operation or an
approved Wildlife Trade Management Plan. With regard the latter, a Management
Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of Australia 2009-2014 (MPCNT 2009-
2014) has been approved by the NT government <strong>and</strong> submitted to the federal
Australian government for ratification (D. Liddle, pers. comm.; A. Murrell, pers.
comm.). The aim of the MPCNT 2009-2014 is to “maintain viable wild populations
of all cycad taxa <strong>and</strong> cycad habitats across their range in the Northern Territory”
(Liddle, 2009). A key <strong>and</strong> highly relevant objective in the context of the present
document is to “develop <strong>and</strong> apply strategies for the ecologically sustainable use of
cycads”. An anticipated environmental benefit of Cycad foliage harvesting from
natural st<strong>and</strong>s is management of ‘Country’ under relatively frequent fire regimes.
As opposed to hot burns (high fuel load), cool burns (low fuel load), as traditionally
practised by indigenous people, do not kill Cycad plants.
In commercial practice, the Cycad foliage export process would involve showing
that the product is derived from an approved source <strong>and</strong> applying for a permit to
export the product. The approved source would be product sourced under the
MPCNT 2009-2014, which when ratified at the federal level will constitute an
approved Wildlife Trade Management Plan.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 13

5.4 STATUS OF FLORICULTURE IN AUSTRALIA
In 2000, the cut flower <strong>and</strong> foliage sector of the floriculture industries was worth
~US$7bn worldwide (New South Wales Dept. Primary Industries data;
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/floriculture/industry/snapshot).
Australia’s diverse flora offers a rich source of unique floricultural material. New
native cut flower <strong>and</strong> foliage products are popular on both domestic <strong>and</strong>
inter<strong>national</strong> markets. According to the Rural Industries Research <strong>and</strong>
Development Corporation (http://www.rirdc.gov.au/), the <strong>national</strong> wildflower industry
has a value of ~Aus$40m p.a. Growth of the wildflower industry in Australia is
linked to introduction of novel products, such as cut Cycad foliage.
5.5 SUMMARY
Liddle (2009) is the key reference being a management program for Cycads in the
northern territory, while the key organisations involved are:
• Parks <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service of the Northern Territory, Department of Natural
Resources, Environment, The Arts <strong>and</strong> Sport, PO Box 496, Palmerston, NT
0831.
• Wildlife Trade Assessments Section, Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage & the Arts, GPO Box 787, Canberra, ACT 2601.
In summary, as determined through communication with officers of the Parks <strong>and</strong>
Wildlife Service of the Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources,
Environment, The Arts <strong>and</strong> Sport in Darwin (D. Liddle, pers. comm.) <strong>and</strong> Wildlife
Trade Assessments Section of the Department of the Environment Water Heritage
<strong>and</strong> the Arts in Canberra (A. Murrell, pers. comm.), it is technically possible for NT
bush-harvested cycad foliage to be exported from Australia provided that the
Management Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of Australia 2009–2014
is ratified by the federal Department of the Environment Water Heritage <strong>and</strong> the
Arts <strong>and</strong> that all appropriate requirements of the <strong>national</strong> Environment Protection
<strong>and</strong> Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are met.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 14

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
6.1 CITES ADMINISTRATION
The complexity of CITES <strong>and</strong> the significant bureaucratic requirements of the
Secretariat put a great deal of pressure on <strong>national</strong> CITES administrations the world
over <strong>and</strong> especially in the developing world. The site vis<strong>its</strong> <strong>and</strong> discussions
undertaken with the CITES administrative personnel <strong>and</strong> other stakeholders in
Papua New Guinea, Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Fiji revealed very obviously that all three
organisations were experiencing considerable difficulties in administering CITES.
This is nothing new, it has long been known by the Secretariat that enforcement of
CITES especially in developing countries was experiencing severe difficulties. In
1996 consultants were hired to examine this in detail <strong>and</strong> identified several
prevailing factors:
a) domestic financial limitations;
b) insufficient scientific information;
c) lack of adequate <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> regulatory mechanisms;
d) the low ranking of CITES <strong>and</strong> wildlife conservation in <strong>national</strong> political priorities;
e) the lack of trained personnel at all levels, but especially in the Customs service <strong>and</strong> at field level;
f) the need for appropriate equipment (e.g. computers <strong>and</strong> software) <strong>and</strong> facilities; <strong>and</strong>
g) inadequate public information.
In 2004 (CoP 13), the Secretariat re-examined ‘General Compliance Issues’ <strong>and</strong>
concluded that there was unlikely to have been any changes to the above in the
intervening eight years. At least five of these factors would appear to apply in each
of the three countries subject of this report, <strong>and</strong> in view of this it is perhaps not
surprising that difficulties are being encountered with CITES administration <strong>and</strong>
enforcement. There are other issues of significance too. In Papua New Guinea, the
roles of different agencies is unclear…at least in practice, “….CITES is interpreted by
two separate Departments. The Forestry Department under MD Kanawi Pouru will not allow the
export of ANY indigenous species, period. They made themselves the “agent” of the Department of
Environment & Conservation” (W.B<strong>and</strong>isch in litt.).
In Fiji, the Managing Authority, as an autonomous committee advising the DoE as
the secretariat, it adds another layer of complexity on the overall CITES
administration which the secretariat is not provided with sufficient resources to
service properly.
The CITES Secretariat is actively undertaking capacity raising workshops
inter<strong>national</strong>ly <strong>and</strong> at least two have recently been held in the region, but it is
believed that it will require a great deal more than these to result in a material
improvement in performance.
6.2 INSUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND/OR DOCUMENTATION
The low status of scientific information in Fiji, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> Solomon
Isl<strong>and</strong>s is a problem for CITES administration <strong>and</strong> enforcement. It would appear
that knowledge <strong>and</strong> information per se might not be the problem. Rather it is
scientific documentation/justification <strong>and</strong> organised updating of <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong>
inter<strong>national</strong> listings.
This is not confined to the parties. CITES <strong>its</strong>elf has a problem with <strong>its</strong> listing of
orchids.
The CITES listing of orchids is simple – there are six species + all the species in
two genera included on Appendix I; <strong>and</strong> all the other species in the family
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 15

Orchidaceae are in Appendix II. Hybrids assume the status of lower listed parent
species 9 .
However, if one extracts the CITES appendices for an individual country – Papua
New Guinea, for instance, a list of orchids appears for Appendices I,II – 6 in
Appendix I <strong>and</strong> over 100 for Appendix II; for Fiji it is 0 <strong>and</strong> 21 respectively. Given
the correct situation, as per paragraph above listing orchids in any country list is
very confusing. These lists have nothing to do with the number of orchids in the
country or the number of endemic species…so what do they represent ? Whereas,
PNGs country listings for Appendix I are in accordance with the world list, it is the
listings for Appendix II which cause confusion, they are not the total number of
orchids (there are over 3000 orchids in Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> over 170 in Fiji). It
seems probably that they are some historical listing as CITES does have an
apparent, albeit confusing, explanation for this…at the head of the CITES
database 10 it states “...The database contains the scientific names of all species ever listed in
CITES Appendices I, II or III with the exception of Appendix-II Orchidaceae, for which the data are
only partially complete.”
The retention of such obsolete <strong>and</strong> incomplete lists would seem to be counterproductive
<strong>and</strong> results in incorrect statements on CITES listing <strong>and</strong> numbers (i.e.
McGregor et al 2008 pp 48,49) in respect of Fiji’s orchid flora, in fact Fiji has over
171 species or orchids, of which 51 are endemic <strong>and</strong> all but 10 are indigenous
(Smith 1991 11 ), a far wider gene pool for hybrid development than the report stated.
The more serious problem arising from poor scientific knowledge (either actual or
documented) is found in the “endangered species listings” of each country. The
inter<strong>national</strong>ly accepted listing of endangered species is the IUCN Red List 12 . This
is supposed to be the definitive list of endangered species worldwide. However, in
Fiji <strong>its</strong> shortcomings for all but the well known groups…large vertebrates, is well
known (pers. obs); the plant list is wildly inaccurate (pers. obs.; <strong>and</strong>, Marika
Tuiwawa Curator – S.Pacific Regional Herbarium pers comm.). While CITES is not
a list of endangered species per se, rather those endangered species that are
traded or may be traded inter<strong>national</strong>ly, one would expect there to be some
similarity or complementarity between CITES lists <strong>and</strong> the IUCN Red List. This is
not the case at all, as shown in Table 3.
Quite why this is probably varies between countries. In Fiji it is partly a lack of
scientific knowledge, but also a combination of poor documentation in the scientific
literature; historical legacy <strong>and</strong> a lack of government attention to updating the lists.
This situation is exacerbated by the Schedules 1,2 to Fiji’s EPS Act where the
plants’ lists, in particular, are wildly inaccurate. This is a result of the overly-hurried
preparation <strong>and</strong> adoption of the <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> a resultant lack of consultation 13 ,
which occurred while Fiji was suspended from trade with CITES parties <strong>and</strong> needed
to promulgate the regulations before the suspension could be lifted.
Papua New Guinea Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s Fiji
9 “…..the less restrictive Appendix shall apply, unless otherwise annotated.” Refer Attachment 1.
10 www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/resources/species.html
11 Smith’s five volume Flora Vitiensis Nova made no attempt to include ornamental plants in the
country, though some are included <strong>and</strong> so there is likely to be considerably more orchids in Fiji, the
difference made up of exotic species.
12 www.iucnredlist.org/
13 CITES Secretariat Notification 2002/03
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 16

CITES
Appendix
CITES
-
Plants
IUCN
Red
List -
Plants
# on
Both
Lists
CITES
-
Plants
I 6 1
IUCN
Red
List -
Plants
# on
Both
Lists
CITES
-
Plants
II 183 10 53 2 34
IUCN
Red
List -
Plants
II/r 2 1 2 1 1
III 1 1 1 1
III/r
Totals 191 264 12 57 61 3 36 133 2
Table 3: Number of ‘Endangered Species’ on both CITES <strong>and</strong> IUCN Red List
# on
Both
Lists
When <strong>legislation</strong> <strong>and</strong> documentation is in a poor state of accuracy, it is not
surprising that strong differences of opinion can arise in agencies involved directly
or indirectly with CITES <strong>and</strong> these can <strong>and</strong> do hamper <strong>its</strong> administration. As noted
above (section 6.1), one stakeholder describes the situation on the ground as two
different departments deciding on CITES issues in isolation from each other. In Fiji
the permitting for the Schedules, especially certain timber species has not been
enforced at all until recently, <strong>and</strong> there is now a move to amend these schedules.
6.3 INDIGENOUS RIGHTS, ACCESS, BENEFIT SHARING, BIOPIRACY AND RELATED ISSUES
Section 4.4.2 above provides an instance where general confusion <strong>and</strong> on the part
of a permitting authority, enabled a government official (with no role in the
permitting process) to have a permit revoked of a legitimate activity in the name of
‘biopiracy’ which was then attributed by the on-the-ground enforcement agency to
be CITES-<strong>related</strong>. A small instance in <strong>its</strong>elf, but an example of how ill-founded
problems can arise for CITES.
Benefit Sharing of trade or exploitation of genetic resources (TRIPS, ‘biopiracy’
issues etc.) is an area of keen interest in Fiji, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong> probably
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s. It is, however, without any specific legislative framework or policy
in any of the countries but the issue will manifest <strong>its</strong>elf in diverse ways with any
floriculture initiative which involves indigenous plants or animals. Orchids are
prominent in this respect – Papua New Guinea’s genetic resources (3,000+
species) are of major inter<strong>national</strong> significance, <strong>and</strong> those of Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s (285
species) <strong>and</strong> Fiji (171 species) are also significant because of the high level of
endemism 14 .
Papua New Guinea appears to be more advanced in considering the issue than Fiji
or Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s. PNG has a well-considered report “Access <strong>and</strong> Benefit
Sharing: Policy <strong>and</strong> Legal Implications for Papua New Guinea” (Kwa et al. 2006)
<strong>and</strong> this has been developed <strong>and</strong> is a component of a Draft Bill “Papua New Guinea
Institute of Biodiversity Bill 2008”. This <strong>legislation</strong> has provisions for managing
access to biodiversity <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing. Papua New Guinea also has
copyright/patent <strong>legislation</strong> but this has not yet been developed for biodiversity <strong>and</strong>
14 It should be noted that the indigenous Fijian orchid Dendrobium tokai was crossed with
D.phalaenopsis from Queensl<strong>and</strong>, Australia to develop the first University of Hawaii hybrid (from
McGregor et al. 2008). Fiji’s endemic <strong>and</strong> <strong>national</strong>ly threatened Lau fan palm Pritchardia thurstonii
was taken to Hawaii in the 1920s <strong>and</strong> has become a very common l<strong>and</strong>scape palm there with much
sought after salt-tolerant properties, Watling 2005).
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 17

genetic resources. However, it has an existing tradition of using Material Transfer
Agreements (MTA) <strong>and</strong> these are provided for in the draft Bill. Currently, there is a
prohibition 15 on the export of native orchids until they have been artificially
propagated to the F2 generation is an attempt to address access <strong>and</strong> benefit
sharing issues without explicitly recognising them by ensuring that at least the initial
grow-out <strong>and</strong> hybridisation is done domestically. B.Wilmott of DEC supported a
potential floriculture initiative in PNG, provided it focused on out-growing
programmes to ensure that communities could participate.
Palms are similarly valuable <strong>and</strong> some other plant species/groups as well <strong>and</strong> there
are potential growers/exporters for whom the current situation represents
stagnation <strong>and</strong> a valuable lost opportunity. National authorities recognise the issue,
although they often have wildly exaggerated expectations or ideas of their worth.
They are not, however, sufficiently organised or equipped to control illicit trade
<strong>and</strong>/or develop the resource for <strong>national</strong>/resource owner benefit (in some cases
because Government themselves are not able to arrange appropriate benefit
sharing in the face of excessive dem<strong>and</strong>s by ‘genetic resource owners….<strong>and</strong> so the
easiest option is ‘do nothing’). This situation has one certain outcome… illicit trade.
In the meantime, a small number of nurseries/breeders inter<strong>national</strong>ly who have
had access to the orchids/palms <strong>and</strong> other plants in the past, are able to capitalise
on the species <strong>and</strong> their current rarity in collections or on the market. In these
circumstances Government <strong>and</strong> resource owners are not only not benefitting at all,
they are actually losing out…a classic lose-lose situation. And as potential
investors, growers or others interested in developing these resources frustratingly
observe ‘the resource owners are getting nothing of nothing’.
The ‘benefit sharing’ issue is not a CITES issue at all, but it is inextricably linked to
any floriculture initiative involving native species in the isl<strong>and</strong>s whether they are
‘endangered’ or not. Export initiatives will generate heightened suspicion.
6.4 CONCLUSION
It is currently recognised that Papua New Guinea has major potential for the
commercial development of <strong>its</strong> orchid resource. There is no similar recognition of
the orchid resources of Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Fiji which are much smaller than those
of Papua New Guinea but are nonetheless significant by inter<strong>national</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards,
<strong>and</strong> will likely receive due recognition in the future. The CITES listing for orchids is
simple – all orchids <strong>and</strong> hybrids are listed in either Appendix I or II; the exceptions
mostly relating to ‘artificially propagated’ orchids <strong>and</strong> hybrids which are highly
significant to trade, are more confusing, but over the years the definitions <strong>and</strong>
provisions have become clearer. Cleary any whole plant export orchid initiative is
going to have implications with CITES, <strong>and</strong> the CITES provisions are not going to
be relaxed. The only other groups which are CITES listed <strong>and</strong> which have potential
or actual inter<strong>national</strong> trade implications at the moment are cycads (in the Solomon
Isl<strong>and</strong>s) <strong>and</strong> palms (in Fiji), although all three groups are potentially relevant to
each of the countries. Developing floriculture initiatives will rightly be pressurised to
maximise community or l<strong>and</strong>owner participation.
An orchid export opportunity in Fiji ran into problems with the CITES enabling
<strong>legislation</strong> which stipulated the payment of F$1,000 annual registration fee for each
grower <strong>and</strong> this was considered to apply to each small, community grow-out group
15 This prohibition is an unwritten policy of DEC <strong>and</strong> is not provided for by any <strong>legislation</strong> or
documented policy (Barnabos Wilmott pers comm. Nov 2009. Contra misinformation provided to
MacGregor et al. 2008).
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 18

which could not afford such fees. A solution was available to that issue –
registration of an umbrella organisation, but was not identified at the time.
Registration of commercial export growers for CITES listed plants will always be
significant <strong>and</strong> will need to be costed into the financial models of any business
model.
There are significant differences in the CITES enabling <strong>national</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> for each
of the three countries, <strong>and</strong> it is very clear that in each country there are insufficient
resources (either technical or financial, or both) for the <strong>legislation</strong> to be efficiently
administered <strong>and</strong> enforced. The only legislative provision which appears to have a
direct bearing on a floriculture initiative, is Papua New Guinea’s prohibition on the
export of indigenous orchids except as second generation hybrids (F2) which were
originally propagated from seed.
New floriculture initiatives for groups other than orchids would need to ensure that
the <strong>national</strong> <strong>and</strong> inter<strong>national</strong> “endangered” status listings <strong>and</strong> the CITES listing are
‘correct’, being based on the best available information. Currently, these lists are in
need of urgent revision. Initiatives based on current listings could face problems if
there are sudden <strong>and</strong> perhaps dramatic changes soon after the initiative is up <strong>and</strong>
running.
The CITES enabling <strong>legislation</strong> of the three countries is also used for domestic
protection of fauna <strong>and</strong> flora (whether as trade or possession) <strong>and</strong> also, in the
absence of appropriate ‘benefit sharing’ <strong>legislation</strong>, to prevent instances of the
export of genetic resources on an ad hoc basis. As has been shown in Fiji, this is
sometimes done under the guise of CITES, although it has nothing to do with it, but
it is nonetheless a valid use of the <strong>legislation</strong> where, as in the case of Fiji, the
Management Authority can refuse any application. However, it was confusion <strong>and</strong>
mismanagement of the permitting process rather than the use of the <strong>legislation</strong>
which characterised that instance. Outcomes such as this can be expected to
continue where there is an absence of policy, an ill-defined permitting process <strong>and</strong>
inexperienced personnel.
There is nothing obvious in the <strong>national</strong> CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong> of the three
countries which constitutes an impediment to the development of export-oriented
floriculture initiatives with the exception of Papua New Guinea’s ban on native
orchid or hybrid export before second generation of artificially propagated progeny.
However, export applications for plants will likely continue to be denied under the
pretext of CITES provisions, either through mismanagement or deception because
it is a convenient banner to use which most people will not question. The
anomalous <strong>national</strong> CITES listing of orchids is not helpful <strong>and</strong> the poor state of
inter<strong>national</strong> listing of endangered plants for the three isl<strong>and</strong>s is also a potential or
actual problem.
Lack of resources both technical <strong>and</strong> financial combined with young administrators
without great experience are likely to be endemic issues for CITES management in
the three isl<strong>and</strong> countries.
Despite all these problems, there appears, with one exception, to be no specific
provisions associated with the <strong>national</strong> CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong>s which directly
threaten any envisaged export-oriented floriculture development initiative. The one
exception is Papua New Guinea’s policy ban on native orchid or hybrid export
before second generation of artificially propagated progeny. There is, however, a
great deal of evidence to suggest that difficulties will be encountered in the
application of the <strong>legislation</strong> given the inadequate resources of the CITES
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 19

administrations in the three countries, coupled with the parlous state of the
endangered species listings.
Much more difficulty is likely to be encountered in connection with ‘benefit sharing
issues’ <strong>and</strong> in certain circumstances these may well be expressed as CITES issues,
albeit incorrectly. Whatever, any development proposal for export-oriented
floriculture (with or without CITES implications) from Fiji, Papua New Guinea <strong>and</strong>
Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s should address the following:
• Clarification of CITES, benefit-sharing <strong>and</strong> issues associated with CITESenabling
<strong>legislation</strong> management;
• Capacity raising for the administration of the CITES-enabling <strong>legislation</strong>; <strong>and</strong>,
• Clarification of policies (documented or otherwise) <strong>and</strong> <strong>legislation</strong> under
development for equitable benefit sharing.
6.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR FINDINGS OF ACIAR/SPC PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION
McGregor et al. (2008) provided recommendations for ACIAR/SPC involvement
with the horticulture industries in the Pacific.
Table 4 lists the recommendations made <strong>and</strong> provides comments on whether there
are implications based on the findings of this study. Clearly any initiative aiming at
export will need to look at the CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues, even if the species
are not CITES listed at the current time. Similarly, policy development for minor
forest product development will need to consider whether CITES is likely to be
involved <strong>and</strong> ensure that the benefit sharing issues are properly treated.
Report Recommendations
Papua New Guinea
Implications of Findings in this
Report
Policy development for minor forest product
development
Adult education programs ornamental horticulture <strong>and</strong>
floral art
Technical support for <strong>national</strong> tertiary institutions in the
development of ornamental horticulture skills
Survey <strong>and</strong> evaluation of gingers <strong>and</strong> Heliconia
varieties in PNG <strong>and</strong> Fiji
Technical advice on the establishment of wholesale
marketing system in PNG
Feasibility study <strong>and</strong> a plan for the re-development of
the Lae National Botanical Gardens
Providing information on new varieties <strong>and</strong> sources of
seed
Industry organization development
Fiji
Red ginger decline research
The development of a Gardener’s Guide to Fiji’s
Native Plants
The development of pilot “Fiji Flowers” quality
assurance <strong>and</strong> certification scheme
A review of Fiji’s quarantine regulations <strong>and</strong>
procedures relating to floriculture
Important that CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues are
considered
No implications
No implications
Important that CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues are
considered
Consideration is required if export is envisaged
No implications
Consideration is required if export is envisaged
No implications
No implications
No implications
Consideration is required if export is envisaged
Important that CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues are
considered <strong>and</strong> clarification obtained
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 20

The development of cost effective quarantine
treatments for ornamental exports
Regional
The development of framework for indigenous orchid
hybridization for Melanesian countries that is compliant
with CITES <strong>and</strong> facilities the exchange <strong>and</strong>
commercial development of indigenous orchids
The development of appropriate policy framework for
the countries of Melanesia to deal the sustainable
commercial development of minor (non-timber) forest
products
Technical support for <strong>national</strong> <strong>and</strong> regional tertiary
institutions in the development of ornamental
horticulture skills
No implications
Important that CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues are
considered
Important that CITES <strong>and</strong> benefit sharing issues are
considered
No implications
Table 4: Project Recommendations from McGregor et al (2008) <strong>and</strong>
Implications of Findings of the Current Study
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 21

REFERENCES
Kwa,E.L., S.Saulei, A.Gelu, S.Kamene, J.Kouni, E.P.Kwa, M.Matui, M.Opur &
D.Henao. 2006. Access <strong>and</strong> Benefit Sharing: Policy <strong>and</strong> Legal Implications for
Papua New Guinea. Report for the Papua New Guinea Institute of Biodiversity,
Port Moresby.
Lewis B.A. & P.J. Cribb 1991. Orchids of the Solomon Isl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Bougainville. by.
Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens.
Liddle, D. (2009) Management Program for Cycads in the Northern Territory of
Australia, 2009–2014. Parks <strong>and</strong> Wildlife Service of the Northern Territory,
Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts <strong>and</strong> Sport.
Palmerston, N.T. p.37, viewed 3 rd December 2009,
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/programs/cycad/pdf/cycad_mgmnt200906.pdf ]
Regulation of Trade in Plants, 2000, Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of
Parties, Gigiri (Kenya), 10-20 April 2000, viewed 3 rd December 2009,
http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/res/all/11/E11-11R14.pdf
Smith A.C. 1991 Flora Vitiensis Nova. Volume 5. National Tropical Botanical
Garden, Lawai, Hawaii.
Watling, Dick. 2005. Palms of the Fiji Isl<strong>and</strong>s. Environment Consultants Fiji.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 22

ATTACHMENT 1:
ORCHIDS AND THE REGULATION OF TRADE IN PLANTS
(CITES – COP 11 16 )
16 Note that the wording adopted in the Resolution has been amended at subsequent COP to <strong>its</strong>
current status - http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/notif/2007/E022.pdf )
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 23

Orchids & CITES – An Overview
By Roddy Gabel (roddy_gabel@fws.gov),Chief of the Division of Scientific Authority, US F&W,
Inter<strong>national</strong> Affairs Division. (www.thefreelibrary.com/The+role+of+CITES+in+orchid+conservation.-a0151763957 )
There are over 20,000 species in the family Orchidaceae, within about 900 genera. The actual
number is unknown <strong>and</strong> the subject of debate, with new species still being discovered. The entire
orchid family has been included in the CITES Appendices since the treaty entered into force in 1975.
Several species were included in Appendix I because they were over-collected from the wild for
horticulture. In 1989, all species in the genera Paphiopedilum <strong>and</strong> Phragmipedium, the tropical slipper
orchids, were transferred to Appendix I because of the high rate of endemism (occurring within a
small area) within each genus, the rarity of some species, the similarity of appearance among many
species, <strong>and</strong> their popularity in trade. The vast majority of orchids were included in Appendix II
because they resemble other species of conservation concern.
Import <strong>and</strong> export data indicate that 20 to 25 million or more orchid plants are traded each year
worldwide. The overwhelming majority, 95 percent or more, are Appendix-II artificially propagated
species <strong>and</strong> their hybrids, comprising several popular genera. Given these statistics, one might
wonder why CITES still protects artificially propagated plants.
When not in flower, some orchids can be indistinguishable from each other, even to a professional.
This similarity of appearance facilitates the poaching <strong>and</strong> subsequent commercial use of wild orchids.
For example, tropical slipper orchids have been the subject of intense collection pressure. The recent
discovery of a new Phragmipedium species in Peru provides an example. Once news of this
magnificently huge-blossomed orchid broke, every plant in the original population was eliminated from
<strong>its</strong> wild environment within a matter of days as collectors ravaged the hillsides where it was found.
Orchids continue to be listed under CITES to discourage the poaching of wild plants <strong>and</strong> to limit
opportunities for wild specimens to slip into commercial trade.
For Appendix-II orchids, the CITES Parties decided that trade in certain parts <strong>and</strong> products is not
detrimental to the survival of the species. They agreed to exempt the following from CITES permitting
requirements: seeds; pollinia (the encapsulated pollen of orchids); tissue cultures <strong>and</strong> flasked
seedlings; cut flowers cut from the stalk, as for making a bouquet.
Generally, trade in any parts or derivatives of Appendix-I orchids requires a permit, although the
CITES Party countries have agreed to exempt flasked seedlings in sterile culture if they meet the
CITES definition of artificially propagated plants.
The CITES Plants Committee, which provides technical <strong>and</strong> scientific support to the Parties, recently
reviewed the listing of orchid species to see if it was possible to deregulate certain plants without
adversely affecting those that need protection. The goal of this review was to reduce the burden on
permit-issuing agencies, border inspection officials, <strong>and</strong> the regulated public. CITES countries also
sought an alternative approach that could focus conservation attention on those species that are
removed from the wild each year for inter<strong>national</strong> trade.
A comprehensive review of the orchid trade, based on 1995-1999 data, revealed that most of the
trade involved 40 genera, which are traded in the thous<strong>and</strong>s. Of the other orchid genera, 326 had
never been recorded in trade; 201 had only been traded for scientific purposes; <strong>and</strong>, for 105, fewer
than 50 specimens had been recorded. This analysis suggested that more than half of the known
genera of orchids might conceivably be removed from CITES controls. The Plants Committee
concluded, however, that all orchids should remain listed due to the enormity of the orchid family, the
difficulty of distinguishing different genera based on vegetative characteristics alone (orchids
generally are not traded while flowering), <strong>and</strong> the confusion that could result from extensive
compilations of genera listed <strong>and</strong> unlisted under CITES. As a consequence, the Plants Committee
considered whether some other approach to deregulation might be possible.
In 2001, the Plants Committee asked the U.S. to work with the American Orchid Society to develop a
proposal for exempting artificially propagated hybrids of six popular orchid genera--Cattleya,
Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Oncidium, Phalaenopsis, <strong>and</strong> V<strong>and</strong>a--from CITES permitting requirements.
The rationale for such a proposal was that these genera are traded in high volumes, mostly as hybrids
that are generally highly uniform in size <strong>and</strong> overall appearance. This facilitates their identification as
artificially propagated specimens. At their 2002 meeting in Santiago, the CITES Parties agreed to
exempt only artificially propagated Phalaenopsis hybrids as a test case to see if such an approach
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 24

would be workable. At their most recent meeting, in Bangkok in 2004, the Parties agreed to exempt
the artificially propagated hybrids of four Southeast Asian genera: Cymbidium, Dendrobium,
Phalaenopsis, <strong>and</strong> V<strong>and</strong>a.
While CITES countries continue to consider whether to deregulate elements of the orchid trade
involving little or no conservation risk, it remains a challenge to protect species vulnerable to overexploitation
by the inter<strong>national</strong> market. As orchids become increasingly popular, CITES countries
continue to work to ensure the protection of wild populations.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 25

INSERT FILE > REGULATION OF TRADE IN PLANTS
Regulation of Trade in Pants: Conf. 11.11 (Rev. CoP14)
Eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties
Gigiri (Kenya), 10-20 April 2000
Used with the permission of:
© Convention on Inter<strong>national</strong> Trade in Endangered Species of wild Fauna <strong>and</strong> Flora
(CITES)
Accessed on-line at: http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/res/all/11/E11-11R14.pdf
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 26

CITES – Appendix Annotations for Orchids (as at September 10 th 2009)
Subject to the Provisions of the Convention:
All parts <strong>and</strong> derivatives, except:
a) seeds, spores <strong>and</strong> pollen (including pollinia);
b) seedling or tissue cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in
sterile containers;
c) cut flowers of artificially propagated plants; <strong>and</strong>
d) fru<strong>its</strong> <strong>and</strong> parts <strong>and</strong> derivatives thereof of artificially propagated plants of the
genus Vanilla.
Appendix I species/hybrids:
(For all of the following Appendix I species, seedling or tissue cultures obtained in
vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers are not subject to the
provisions of the Convention)
Aerangis ellisii, Dendrobium cruentum, Laelia jongheana, Laelia lobata, Paphiopedilum spp.,
Peristeria elata, Phragmipedium spp., Renanthera imschootiana
Appendix II species/hybrids (http://www.<strong>cites</strong>.org/eng/notif/2007/E022.pdf )
Artificially propagated hybrids of the following genera are not subject to the
provisions of the Convention, if conditions, as indicated under a) <strong>and</strong> b), are met:
Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Phalaenopsis <strong>and</strong> V<strong>and</strong>a:
a) Specimens are readily recognizable as artificially propagated <strong>and</strong> do not show
any signs of having been collected in the wild such as mechanical damage or
strong dehydration resulting from collection, irregular growth <strong>and</strong> heterogeneous
size <strong>and</strong> shape within a taxon <strong>and</strong> shipment, algae or other epiphyllous
organisms adhering to leaves, or damage by insects or other pests; <strong>and</strong>,
b) i) when shipped in non-flowering state, the specimens must be traded in
shipments consisting of individual containers (such as cartons, boxes, crates or
individual shelves of CC-containers) each containing 20 or more plants of the
same hybrid; the plants within each container must exhibit a high degree of
uniformity <strong>and</strong> healthiness; <strong>and</strong> the shipment must be accompanied by
documentation, such as an invoice, which clearly states the number of plants of
each hybrid; or
ii) when shipped in flowering state, with at least one fully open flower per
specimen, no minimum number of specimens per shipment is required but
specimens must be professionally processed for commercial retail sale, e.g.
labelled with printed labels or packaged with printed packages indicating the
name of the hybrid <strong>and</strong> the country of final processing. This should be clearly
visible <strong>and</strong> allow easy verification.
Plants not clearly qualifying for the exemption must be accompanied by
appropriate CITES documents.
10<strong>cites</strong>discussion.doc P a g e | 27