CITES and Cycads
by Neil Carroll

When I was growing up, I never really knew what 'save the rainforest' was all about. To me, The Rainforest consisted of images on TV and in magazines and movies and books that were fed to me over a lifetime of education. My parents instilled in me a great respect for nature and I learned from them that whatever I needed to know could be found in nature. This passion for the outdoors has kept my interest over the years. As a kid I loved to hunt and fish with my dad and brother. Now, in my adult years, my love of nature has changed; I now love visiting rainforests and collecting rainforest plants.

Having collected plants in the New World rainforests over the last 10 years, I have gained exposure and experience that few people in temperate climes ever receive. It has given me a perspective that contradicts many of the well-meaning, but ill-informed conservationists of today. For example, teak garden furniture is popular with baby boomer Americans and others around the world. In their well- meaning enthusiasm, people and marketers have turned to "farmed teak" in the hopes that rainforest would be saved by taking pressure off of wild trees. The result is that many species-rich forests are cleared to make way for teak farms, replacing a diverse habitat with a monoculture of teak trees. All epiphytes, understory shrubs and herbs, and a diversity of trees is wiped out to supply the conservation- conscious temperate dweller. The point is that all well-meaning projects are not always what they seem; what sounds like a good idea at first glance turns out to be more detrimental than if the idea were not implemented at all.

Zamia dressleri habitat cleared to make way for teak production in
Colon, Panama. You can just hear them frying in the hot tropical sun.

CITES: The Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species was originally written to protect animals, and worked quite well, as animals are much less vulnerable (due to their mobility) than are plants. This initial success with animals prompted the designers of the Convention to add plants to the agreement. The main flaw I see is not with the document itself but with the expectations and beliefs of people around the world that this is supposed to be a conservation body, and thus save plants from extinction. It is not. CITES countries merely monitor the import and export of plants and animals placed on Appendix I or II, and allow or exclude the material from crossing their borders. That is CITES.

At best, the Convention can provide data as to the movement of inspected plant material between signatory nations. We have to ask, is this enough beneficial return for the amount of resources it takes to maintain the Convention? If CITES is a piece of the conservation puzzle, is it enough of an important part of the puzzle to warrant it's existence?

Conversely, CITES bears a number of exclusions that actually facilitate the demise of many plant species. Once again, these exclusions are just not what CITES is about, but what many people assume is the Convention's job. They include the following:

• No remedy to rescue plants
• No provision to protect species that the endangered species relies on for its own existence. (i.e., TREES as hosts for epiphytes and shade for understory plants)
• CITES severely restricts the international exchange of seed of the most endangered plants (at least in the case of cycads).

• CITES demands secrecy and paranoia among collectors, scientists, and governments. This keeps vital information from being shared among the people who know the most about these plants and could contribute the the most to their conservation.
• CITES eats up funding. For a relatively low priority 'piece of the puzzle', CITES uses the greatest amount of resources for the least amount of return.
• It is generally believed that if people and governments would just abide by the Convention, all the plants and animals would be saved. This is far from accurate.

Other items which are not addressed by CITES and are really not the Conventions concern:

• CITES protects no habitat. Habitat destruction is by far the number one threat to plants and animals around the world. All other routes to extinction put together do not approach the devastation to the gene pool of destruction of habitat.
• CITES does not prevent an endangered or threatened plant from being removed from the wild.

So, there you have it--my list of concerns about CITES. I believe that these issues are more than just concerns, but flaws pointed out that don't help the plight of the plant. Ironically, in some instances these flaws actually seem to contradict the part of CITES that says, "we are supposed to be protecting these species." Do I think we should get rid of CITES? ......NO. But I do think some changes would be very helpful to the plants.

CITES needs to immediately provide for the free exchange of Appendix I seed. There is no single greater action the Convention can take for the plight of the rarest of cycads. With what we now know of the dispersal and germination rates of cycad seed in the wild--that cycads are long-lived plants that produce many seeds with very low recruitment back into the population--there seems to be little defense for keeping these seeds out of the hands of the very people who may be their only hope.

I believe the reduction of the beaurocracy which surrounds CITES would be helpful. A more uniform export/import licensing practice between nations would facilitate the legal transport of endangered species between nations with a two fold affect: 1) less paperwork for the government and the dealer/consumer, thus saving money in its implementation; and 2) greater incentive for the legal import/export of endangered species, thus putting more into cultivation and taking pressure off of wild populations.

Exemptions and Amnesties should be set up for plants that are in cultivation today so that the gene pool in cultivation can have better documentation. Many cycad species will soon be existing only in cultivation and their 'pedigree' will become important to the future generations of its species. Without the ability to share this information, due to fear of reprisal, a lot of important genetic information will be lost.

And finally, an easier method for the rescue of CITES listed material would be extremely helpful. Zamia psuedoparisitica occassionally falls from the trees in which they grow; they will die without rescue. The genus Chigua is now under the threat of habitat loss through the creation of dams for resevoirs; they will be lost without rescue. When Z. dressleri habitat is wiped out for teak production and they are frying in the sun, they will die, but we cannot rescue them. Species from around the world come under numerous threats that require the good sense of rescue.

CITES is a political, not a scientific body and thus will be very difficult and time-consuming to change. Speaking with Dennis Stevenson at Cycad 99, I began to get a feel for what we are in for if we want to make any of these changes. Dennis was instrumental in having Appendix II seeds removed from the convention. He is a world-renowned taxonomist and sat on the IUCN board for cycads and it still took him five years of lobbying to get the change made.

So changes can occur. Let's get started. See you on the net.

Neil Carroll

This site is copyrighted © 1998, 1999, 2000, Palm & Cycad Societies of Florida (PACSOF)
For questions or comments, e-mail the webmaster.
Internet hosting provided by Zone 10, Inc.