Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 05:58:38 EDT From: PTemple001@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg2769$foo@default> Subject: New species or hybrid - a wider view?
I hope I don't repeat what has already been written. However, a rare break in
my work regime allowed me to read one issue of a days notes from the
listserver and I have to comment. (Another example of something I long ago
hoped to write for ICPS but I haven't delivered the article I've already
proimised so what hope is their for this too!!!)
CITES may or may not be a problem but it certainly isn't as bad as the law
could have been. The new international conventions on plant material movement
are however aimed at everyone, NOT just traders in plant material. Thus the
laws include scientists on an equal basis to traders and with good reason.
The laws limiting trade movement of plant seem to me to be there for obvious
reasons (bulk movement for financial profit is likely to lead to ommission of
care with regard to both ownership rights and disease/pest control so
documentation allows authorities to be aware of plant movement) needing no
more comment. The same laws are there for scientists because they have
sought, and continue to seek "personal" gain in the same way as traders though
on a different scale. (You can include plant collectors in either traders or
scientists as they fit both descriptions or at least one of them.)
Take for example a taxonomist (just for example!). Such a person is often
measured in various ways (by employer and also world wide by colleagues),
including by the number of taxa (s)he has established. So, for some (not
all), it has been tempting to ignore laws or guidelines and obtain specimens
irrespective of the legality or morality of the source and then proceed to
identify, name and publish the plant, thus establishing the name and getting
knowledgment from the scientific community. As the botanists of the source
country rarely are invited to assist in publication, the local botanists get
no recognition from publication and therefore are justifiably unhappy with
such a situation. It is not always easy to determine right from wrong but I
believe one type of example is clear. Use as an example an endemic plant.
Further simplify the situation by making it endemic within a single country's
boundaries, say on one mountain only (many Tepuis plants might fit this
description as could some of south Afric'a's Table Mountain, or high altitude
alpines of many countries, especially islands). It seems to me that there is
an undeniable argument that the country within which such a plant isendemic
must have rights to that plant in the same way that countries have rights to
all other natural resources within their borders. (No arguments about air
please). So, scientists shouldn't go popping in to take a plant without
permission and shouldn't accept one from someone else without proof of
permission.
Before I move on, let me just add the perspective of the country from whom a
plant is taken. take a country that fits the description above. I could
choose from several and Madagascar comes readily to mind. But I know Cuba
better so I'll refer to her. About 60% of the plants of Cuba are endemic,
i.e. found nowhere else. So Cuba must have the moral right to this natural
resource. In a world without millions of laws, and without CITES plus related
laws, scientists use to take samples and identify cuban endemics with abandon.
The outcome is that, despite almost all of Cuba's plants being known and
identified (established through publication), this has always been done by
non-Cubans. As a result, the non-Cubans dictated the conditions of
publication. As a result of this, the herbaria of Cuba do not contain the
Holotype (or Isotype) of a single cuban endemic plant. Therefore, to fully
study the plants of Cuba, Cuban botanists actually have to travel to other
countries or request that those other countries send holotypes to Cuba on
loan. It isn't quite as bad, but the only way I can compare this is by saying
that it's like asking German's to ask England for permission to drink beer, or
like asking Americans to ask Cubans for permission to eat Apple Pie, or like
the Japanes asking the Vietnames for permission to eat rice.
The new laes nearly included a European requirement that all existing
collections of plant material be checked to ensure that all specimens
collected since 1994 could be proven to be of a legitimate source. This would
have seriously affected many botanic gardens as well as private collections,
but the law was not enacted. as it stands, since 1994, new law means that for
plants originating from the wild (thus including all herbarium material in
botanic gardens) any movement of plant material must be certified (CITES and
possibly other documentation), any publication of any information regarding
the exported material must be by agreement with the originating country (and
therefore a joint publication if they wish it), all research must be in co-
operation with the source country and any financial gains made as a result of
selling the plant material or products or knowledge gained from the materila
must be shared with the country of origin.
So, since botanists, especially those in the more scientifically advanced
countries, have failed to account for the moral rights of the countries on
whose resources they depend, the law has finally stepped in to aknowledge the
fact and afford protection. As always, when the law gets involved, life gets
doubly difficult. First of all, you are no longer free to be antisocial.
People often object to this cutailment of their personal right to be
antisocial but it is a difficult argument to fight as it simply brings
attention to the speakers own antisocial behaviour! Secondly, once the law
gets involved, the limitations are often more severe than necessary. However,
those most affected by the over-limitation are the very same people whose
abuse of freedom caused the law to be created, so they must suffer the
consequences of their own action.
Finally, let me say a few words taken from the philosophy of the native
americans. They believe that natural resources such as plants, animals, water
and land should be unowned and used with care and for the good of all. This
is fine and I fully agree. However, it only works where everyone agrees or at
least supports this way of living. If you then inject an antisocial element
(Europeans) into such an environment, and if they take advantage by claiming
rights to what ws not theirs (land, plants, etc.) then the law eventually
steps in. So, despite all I said, I don't believe in ownership of resurces
but thanks to the antisocial nature of human beings we are forced to have it.
Perhaps we should judt look at these owners as guardians. And perhaps we
should put less effort into complaining about CITES (etc.) and more effort
into making it a more workeable control and a lot more effort into following
such laws ourselves, despite any limitations to our personal freedom to be
antisocial that this results in.
>From the heart -
regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:35 PST