Viateur who said:
>What relation do you make between the destruction of
> orchid habitats and CITES ?
{I would prefer to call it depletion of orchid habitats; they are
sometimes destroyed , but not always.}
There is no relation. These depletions happen, in spite of CITES.
I used Phragmipedium kovachii and Peru as an example of this.
Depletion happened, in spite CITES worldwide, and in spite of
the fact that the Peruvian Ministry of Natural Resources, INRENA,
also the CITES Authority of Peru, were fully aware of it happening.
>I would have thought that CITES would contribute, in spite
> of its flaws, to relieve the pressure on orchid habitats.
Sorry orchid friend, such is wishful thinking; not reality.
CITES as a world organization has no mandate in orchid habitat
conservation, for that right belongs to the country where these orchid
habitats are located.
Reality is that ten mature Phragmipedium kovachii plants were removed,
legally, from their known habitats. Permission was not given by CITES
but by INRENA, the Peruvian Ministry of Natural Resources.
The rest, many thousands of mature Phragmipedium kovachii plants,
were removed illegally from these same habitats, until not even one
single seedling was left behind.
Did CITES relieve the maximum destructive pressure brought to bear
on these habitats? Did they conserve or preserve any of the plants in
these habitats? No, they have no mandate to do so, and even if they
had, they could not have stopped the total depletion.
It all comes back to what I said in my earlier post. Cites is a trade
organization not a conservation treaty. For the reporter of China View
to call CITES an "effective" conservation treaty, is unreal and pure
fantasy.
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
