Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
General Subjects => General Forum => Topic started by: alanelliott on March 02, 2016, 07:47:40 AM
-
BBC report on Illegally collected seen in UK horticulture. Some well known names Chris Chadwell, Ray Brown of Plant World Seeds, and the Rhododendron, Camellia and Magnolia Group all named as culprits.
Does not show UK hort in a good light when Chadwell says he used a company with permits then refuses to say who they are and Ray Brown deletes his collection numbers from his site and refused to talk. Looks like guilt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35699297 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35699297)
-
Saw this on the BBC World news ticker at the bottom of the screen.
-
In February 2014 I sent this email to Ray Brown:
"I received some seeds from you recently, and in the package was a flyer inviting me to subscribe to a seed collecting expedition to Nepal in September/October. As the export of all plant material, including seeds, from Nepal is strictly prohibited, you may have a wasted journey"
I did not get a reply.
-
Reading the BBC Report, I see that Chadwell does in fact mention the name of the company he uses - up then to the BBC to research further, I would have thought?
This Club, and others, have always emphasised that local regulations should be adhered to in matters like seed collection.
Difficult times indeed for such matters - though my personal opinion is still that proper habitat protection would do more to protect plants - and fauna - around the world and probably benefit local people more too.
-
There are certainly some clear-cut cases (i.e. States that have banned all exports, or not collecting in protected areas) but it's also worth bearing in mind that this is still quite new legislation and it can take a while for States to get the regulatory mechanisms in place and for everyone to know what is required. Having work in environmental regulation and implemented new legislation (EU law transposed into the UK legislature) I'm all too well aware of how difficult it can be to get the right systems in place that are appropriate and proportionate and then to ensure that everyone knows about them (the regulators, users etc) and then complies. There are also issues around interpretation, both between States as well as different agencies and individuals, especially in the early days of new laws when statute has not been tested and refined through case law. I am sure most folk who rely on collecting as a business have the intent to do so legally - to do otherwise would present a massive risk to their livelihood. I'm not trying to excuse any illegal behaviour, just to highlight that laws and regulation are not always as cut-and-dried as folk want them to be.
-
Reading the BBC Report, I see that Chadwell does in fact mention the name of the company he uses - up then to the BBC to research further, I would have thought?
This Club, and others, have always emphasised that local regulations should be adhered to in matters like seed collection.
Difficult times indeed for such matters - though my personal opinion is still that proper habitat protection would do more to protect plants - and fauna - around the world and probably benefit local people more too.
Yes Maggi, degradation and loss of habitats on a massive scale is indeed the biggest problem we face in environmental conservation (if we include climate change under that heading).
-
I was thinking, for instance, of the so called "protection" for plants in Spain which can have their habitats destroyed wholesale by developments - many of which are themselves illegal, but by no means exclusively so. I believe there could be many examples of "permitted" destruction of supposedly protected species and habitats too.
-
Reading the BBC Report, I see that Chadwell does in fact mention the name of the company he uses - up then to the BBC to research further, I would have thought?
The reporter did follow up looking for the company and didn't find it so went back to Chris who said he would no longer talk to him.
Difficult times indeed for such matters - though my personal opinion is still that proper habitat protection would do more to protect plants - and fauna - around the world and probably benefit local people more too.
I agree habitat protection and getting locals who live there involved is the way forward, but that's a separate issue.
The issue major here is ignoring locals laws, and the perception that "we" are making money at their expense. India and to an extent Nepal still see us as imperialists and people going in helping themselves doesn't help.
-
The reporter did follow up looking for the company and didn't find it so went back to Chris who said he would no longer talk to him.
I did not see mention of that in the report.
The issue major here is ignoring locals laws, and the perception that "we" are making money at their expense. India and to an extent Nepal still see us as imperialists and people going in helping themselves doesn't help.
Of course, perception is pretty much everything - I merely caution that perceptions can be skewed - in any direction and that such matters may not be always clear cut.
-
quote author=alanelliott link=topic=14099.msg352339#msg352339 date=1457002476
The reporter did follow up looking for the company and didn't find it so went back to Chris who said he would no longer talk to him.
If the reporter could not find the company then they can't be a very good at their job can they? Regards Chris no longer talking to the reporter with further information of the company he did this for a genuine compassionate reason (which is only up to Chris to disclose) and has nothing at all to do with guilt. Sorry but I feel to have to speak up and defend his reputation ...
((edit by maggi to take Lisa's comment out of Alan's quote bubble))
-
I'm also worried that judgements on the rights and wrongs of these cases are being made when none of us know all the facts.
-
I'm also worried that judgements on the rights and wrongs of these cases are being made when none of us know all the facts.
I cannot comment on this as I don't know the facts. The reason that I am making a general comment is because of the following which is not easy to write;
My brother was recently sentenced to a term in prison for a not very nice crime. He had pleaded guilty so the final chapter was a sentencing hearing. What he did was wrong and is an embarrassment to our family but having been involved from day one I am privy to the reported facts (as in the victims statement to the police) of the case. Having sat through the ninety minute sentencing and listened to the summaries of the prosecution, defence and the judge (who clearly stated that he believed the offence to be a one off act of stupidity and he did not see him as an ongoing risk) I was horrified to read the newspaper report that read like he was a monster. The whole report was based on twenty minutes of prosecution submissions with not one mention from the defence submissions or the judges summary. The papers (local) in question are respected and never come across as sensationalist. I'm sorry if I'm being vague here but the matter is now subject to formal proceedings.
The point of my posting this is to ask people not to come to a conclusion based on media reports, especially where no due process has taken place. The facts as reported may simply be facts that are selectively reported as opposed to the facts.
-
.....................The point of my posting this is to ask people not to come to a conclusion based on media reports, especially where no due process has taken place. The facts as reported may simply be facts that are selectively reported as opposed to the facts.
Sorry to hear that meanie, must have caused you and the rest of your family much angst.
This does support in a way my much-voiced opinion that the routine standards of journalism, written and broadcast, these days is abysmally low mainly influenced by the conviction of many of the culprits that Facetwit is fact.
-
Sorry to hear that meanie, must have caused you and the rest of your family much angst.
This does support in a way my much-voiced opinion that the routine standards of journalism, written and broadcast, these days is is abysmally low mainly influenced by the conviction of many of the culprits that Facetwit is fact.
Read that twice and Paris in the the springs to mind.
-
Read that twice and Paris in the the springs to mind.
;D OK Hawkeye, edited now. I didn't say anything about handling a keyboard! 8)
-
If the reporter could not find the company then they can't be a very good at their job can they? Regards Chris no longer talking to the reporter with further information of the company he did this for a genuine compassionate reason (which is only up to Chris to disclose) and has nothing at all to do with guilt. Sorry but I feel to have to speak up and defend his reputation ...
I and a Neplai colleague tried and failed to find contact details for the company mentioned.
He probably doesn't see anything wrong with what he's been doing but the world has changed from when it was acceptable to just go and collect. As I said earlier its about perception I've had to listened first hand to a what the authorities in Nepal think about Chris and he is seen as a bio-pirate. They don't have the ability to go after him but they will go for the people he used in-country to support his activities and I don't think that's particularly fair.
-
I would like to see this discussion move on from discussing a single case.
We must accept that the world has changed and that we cannot change the past.
Rather than fixating on past activities from press reports we should be informing people about the benefits to conservation that are contained within the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol.
We need to show that gardeners and growers can still enjoy our interests and in time grow an ever widening range of plants while also complying with these protocols.
-
I certainly agree with Maggi regarding the collection of seed. There are other points to consider as well. I understand (propaganda?) that New Zealand tree ferns are only collected for sale where their habitat is to be destroyed. Why destroy their habitat? How can the British criticize other countries for not protecting their habitats and wildlife when we are destroying ours at an ever increasing rate? Another point is the protection of our own endangered species by ex-situ conservation. Without the intervention of Organisations such as the RBGE we may have already lost some species that have become vulnerable to collection, habitat damage, climate change etc. If seed has been collected illegally abroad then this will have the knock-on effect regarding other genuine collectors. Perhaps other countries could propagate plants themselves under their own government supervision and make seed available when large enough quantities have been collected? What does the Law say regarding the collection of seed from the wild in the UK. As I understand it, it is illegal to collect seed from any plant on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and amendments. The permission must be obtained from the landowner for the collection of other seed. Perhaps this is now out of date? A very small amount of seed collected from the wild of plants not considered "at risk" in the UK for ones own garden may be acceptable, but what of commercial collecting. Surely this would put "common" plants in the "vulnerable category. All plants have been taken from the wild at some time and propagated over centuries until the original plant is hardly recognizable through hybridizing. Perhaps a World Wide decision is needed to protect species in the wild and lay down the rules for collecting. Chris Chadwell should be given the opportunity to explain himself, it is easy to condemn someone without knowing all the facts. If collection has taken place without consent then the likely effect will be that all collection is stopped in all countries.
-
I think the tone of RBGE's response hasn't helped. Mark Watson in the BBC article seems to imply that the Nepali authorities take a general and prejudiced view towards the country of origin of the applicant and / or that it is difficult to imagine that the Nepali authorities could possibly turn down a request by RBGE if it weren't for the activities of collectors. Neither viewpoint is helpful in developing a constructive relationship with governments.
As for a Fairtrade scheme for plants, I'd absolutely love this and maybe it's the way forward. I just had a discussion with Fairtrade UK, who explained that Fairtrade International develop standards. The main potential stumbling block seems to be to convince them not to have a standard for every plant species!
Perhaps this is something the various alpine garden / horticultural societies could discuss with Fairtrade International, who develop the standards for these things? http://www.fairtrade.net/ (http://www.fairtrade.net/).
-
I noticed the word 'proportionate' in one of Matt T's posts. The BBC report seems to fail that test. I recognise that past imperialist activity does not endear us to Nepali authorities but in reality the seeds collected by the likes of Ray Brown and Chris Chadwell do not represent a significant threat to the biodiversity in Nepal. The real dangers come from overgrazing and collection of material for traditional medicines both of which are ever increasing. Yes we do need to get the Nagoya Convention understood but surely it was aimed at commercial exploitation of resources by multinationals and big pharma and stopping small scale seed collection which probably has real conservation value was an unintended consequence.
I can't believe that Ray Brown will have made more profit from the 60 seed types he collected than the cost of his expedition. If he didn't get his trip authorised he should have done but the reality is that he probably did no more damage to the environment than any other trekking expedition giving employment to locals. The biggest environmental damage is more likely to have come from all the C02 released by the plane he flew in.
-
Maggi. off topic I know but your comment about Spain also applies to England where legally protected hedgerows (Enclosure Act) are bulldozed by developers with the Local Authority turning a blind eye because "development" means jobs.
-
You are quite right, Ian Macdonald - I know of instances almost within the city of Aberdeen where wonderful fields of great diversity in wildflowers - where a private person would have committed a crime in attempting to remove any plants where the whole area was bulldozed, with no attempt made in any way to rescue the plants from destruction, to make a building site. Such wanton destruction is heart-breaking and could so easily be avoided.
-
Some assorted comments from FB:
Margaret Young:
These things are a real worry and not only in the UK, of course. I feel the problem of habitat destruction worldwide is a bigger issue.
Nhu Nguyen:
People can't see the bigger picture. Habitat destruction is so much more important than a few seeds here and there
Sophie Walker This is mean spirited small minded in the extreme. If we start a precious Holy war against dedicated responsible seed collectors we will lose habitat without any hope of preserving diversity. The law is unjust and these people are NOT criminals. We should look at large scale pharmaceuticals who rape the landscape under dodgy contracts from corrupt politicians.
Save the Plant Hunter!!
Tim Ingram:
I find myself in agreement with Sophie here concerning this particular article - I think it was valuably discussed on the Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum with some good sense from a number of people involved professionally in conservation. These things work (the preservation of habitat) on the basis of small scale interactions between people and the Natural World and local situations multiplied up and not by large scale legislation imposed down. This is just the philosophy of John Muir and others who instigated the National Parks in N. America at a time of run-a-way exploitation.
-
I see there is a programme advertised on TV about gold prospecting in the jungle. What about the Environment? Why should a few gold diggers be allowed to destroy an area? It is also happening in Scotland. What were the Scottish parliament thinking of. A minority getting rich at destroying something which will not be replaced.
-
There is not only the risk of habitat destruction from gold mining of course - the mining processes for silver and gold are associated with lead is associated re silver extraction and mercury contamination with other toxins like cyanide and arsenic for gold.
Frankly, the ways by which man can destroy the planet beyond repair are many and legion.
-
This is an extract from an article by Dwight Ripley in the AGS Bulletin (which I used for my 'Random Nuggets from the Bulletin' in December 2012):
"Butte (pronounced 'Bewt'), turned out to be a mad and wonderful mining-town with tall maroon houses piled steeply against a mountain of copper slag. (Here - the Industrial Revolution collided with the romance of the frontier, corporate capitalism battled organised labor, and human appetite laid waste to land and water, yielding vast fortunes for a few and a tragic environmental legacy for the people left behind [butteamericafilm.org]). An interest in plants would seem to be minimal in such a town but Ripley does sing the praises of Draba densiflora and oligosperma, growing on cliffs above the Wise River, which are in cultivation, along with several other western species, sphaerula, incerta and novolympica, which are not."
He wrote this in 1946 and I think on the whole we are more enlightened now despite the pressures of society. If you don't believe this then it is hard to retain any optimism.
-
I don,t remember optimism, it seems such a long time ago.
-
Glad to see that in California they are distinguishing between large agricultural seed growers and small micro businesses in regards to a lot of regulations. They also have a system for seed collecting permits on government forestry to encourage native planting.
'In addition to exempting noncommercial seed sharing, the bill also includes an exemption for seed micro-enterprises. This would create new economic opportunities for farmers and increase the diversity in supply of seeds available. The proposed bill distinguishes between large-scale seed producers and small-scale seed producers and exempts micro-enterprises from financially-burdensome testing. As it stands, California seed law is written to regulate large-scale commercial activity, not seed sharing nonprofits or micro-enterprises. '