Prickly trade : trade and conservation of Chihuahuan desert cacti.

137 Pages·2003·1.112 MB·English

by  Robbins C.S.

Prickly
Trade
Trade and
Conservation of
Chihuahuan
Desert Cacti
Christopher S.Robbins, Editor
Prickly Trade
Trade and Conservation
of Chihuahuan Desert Cacti
Christopher S.Robbins, Editor
Part I:
Chihuahuan Desert Cacti
in the United States:
An Assessment of Trade,
Management, and
Conservation Priorities
by Christopher S.Robbins
Part II:
Chihuahuan Desert Cacti
in Mexico:
An Assessment of Trade,
Management, and
Conservation Priorities
by Rolando Tenoch Bárcenas Luna
January 2003
TRAFFIC North America
World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th Street NW
Washington DC 20037
Visit www.traffic.org for an electronic edition of this report, and for more
information about TRAFFIC North America.
© 2003 WWF. All rights reserved by World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproduced
with permission. Any reproduction, in full or in part, of this publication must credit
TRAFFIC North America.
The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect
those of the TRAFFIC Network,World Wildlife Fund (WWF), or IUCN-The World
Conservation Union.
The designation of geographical entities in this publication and the presentation of
the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers
or boundaries.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright and Registered Trademark ownership are held by
WWF. TRAFFIC is a joint program of WWF and IUCN.
Suggested citation:
Robbins, Christopher S., ed. 2003. Prickly Trade:Trade and Conservation of
Chihuahuan Desert Cacti, by Christopher S. Robbins and Rolando Tenoch
Bárcenas Luna. TRAFFIC North America. Washington D.C.:World
Wildlife Fund.
Cover photos of (top to bottom) Echinocereus stramineus, Ferocactus pilosus, and
Echinocactus horizonthalonius, by J. Atchley
P
REFACE
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) considers the and management in Mexico and in the United
Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion (CDE) of States required two different investigators with
Mexico and the United States an important knowledge specific to each country. Each
ecoregion for conservation because of its investigator contributed a report to this
outstanding biological diversity, ecological publication and, to the extent possible, the
fragility, and environmental concerns. The reports have been harmonized to minimize
ecoregion, rich in natural resources, faces a stylistic differences.
range of visible threats stemming from human
Commercial trade drives the harvesting of
activities such as mining, fossil fuel
CDE cactus species in Mexico and the United
exploration, livestock grazing, industrial
States, but the nature and scale of this trade
agriculture, and development. A less
differ in both countries. Mexico harbors the
publicized, but significant, threat in the U.S.
greatest diversity of endemic, endangered, and
portion of the ecoregion is the commercial
newly discovered cactus species. Those species
extraction of wild native succulents, including
are highly sought after by foreign collectors
cacti, for landscaping in private gardens
and continue to appear in the international
hundreds of miles away. In the Mexican
marketplace in spite of Mexico’s laws
Chihuahuan Desert, some of the world’s rarest
prohibiting illegal collection. The number of
cacti are harvested and exported, often
specimens entering trade illegally is believed
illegally, by opportunistic foreign collectors, or
to be small but may be significant enough to
sold to unaware tourists by impoverished
destabilize wild populations of some species.
villagers supplementing paltry incomes.
This practice also undermines the competitive
WWF approached TRAFFIC North America, advantage of Mexican growers to propagate
the wildlife trade monitoring unit of WWF and and sell endemic cacti in the marketplace. In
the World Conservation Union (IUCN), to the United States, the cactus trade involves
investigate the implications of harvest and fewer cactus species but considerably more
trade on the conservation of affected cactus plant material. The primary markets are
taxa and localities in the Chihuahuan Desert. southwestern U.S. cities with an arid climate
TRAFFIC divided this study into two parts to where consumers are trying to conserve water
reflect the political boundaries of the CDE in by resorting to desert landscaping with plants
the United States (Part I) and Mexico (Part II). like cacti instead of water-intensive gardens.
TRAFFIC recognizes, however, that the Contrary to their best intentions, gardeners and
geographic delineation of the CDE is defined homeowners are addressing one conservation
by ecological and biological characteristics issue at the expense of another.
shared by both countries, and so it should be
TRAFFIC North America hopes the findings
treated as one biogeographic region.
and conservation priorities detailed in this
TRAFFIC’s decision to assess the trade and
report will help WWF, in collaboration with
management of CDE cacti in Mexico
local stakeholders, to improve the sustain-
separately from the trade and management of
ability of harvest and trade in cacti and other
CDE cacti in the United States was determined
succulents from the CDE.
by practicality and methodology. The disparate
issues associated with cactus trade, taxonomy, —Christopher S. Robbins, Editor
Part I
Chihuahuan Desert Cacti
in the United States:
An Assessment of Trade,
Management, and
Conservation Priorities
by
Christopher S. Robbins
P I C
ART ONTENTS
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-3
Methods and Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-5
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-7
Legal Commercial Cacti Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-7
Arizona and Texas:A Case Study of Harvest and Interstate Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-10
Illegal Collection and Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-15
Cactus Management, Protection, and Conservation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-20
International . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-20
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-21
Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-23
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-31
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-33
Prioritization of CDE Issues, Species, and Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-35
Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-35
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-36
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-36
Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-41
Research Constraints and Caveats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-41
General Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-41
Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-42
Engage Private Landowners in West Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-42
Improve Protection for Species and Habitat on Federal Lands in Arizona and New Mexico .I-43
Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-43
New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-43
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-44
Improve State and Federal Trade Monitoring Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-44
Support Field Research and Possible Regulatory Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-44
Promote Local Propagation and Independent Certification of Native Cacti . . . . . . . . . . . .I-46
Promote Public Education and Responsible Purchasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-46
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-47
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-49
i
T
ABLES
Table 1. Exports or Reexports of Wild Cacti by Species (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-8
Table 2. Imports of Succulents into California from New Mexico
and Texas (1999–2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-9
Table 3. Succulents Harvested from Southeastern Arizona, including
Cochise and Graham Counties (1998–1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-10
Table 4. Number of Succulent Plants by Genus Imported into Arizona
from Texas (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-13
Table 5. Summary of Plants Exported from Texas (by County) to
Arizona (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-14
Table 6. Summary of Plants Imported into Arizona (by City) from
Texas (1998–2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-14
Table 7. Estimated Market (Retail) Value of Plant Taxa Imported into
Arizona from Texas (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-15
Table 8. Cactus Specimen Seizures from Ports of Entry along the
U.S.-Mexican Border (1998–1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-18
Table 9. CDE Cacti Native to the United States Included in the IUCN
Red List of Threatened Plants, and Their CITES Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-21
Table 10. Distribution and State Rank of Succulents of the Chihuahuan
Desert Identified in Trade from Texas to Arizona (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-22
Table 11. Distribution and Protection Status of Cacti of the Chihuahuan
Desert Ecoregion within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-24
Table 12. Conservation Status and Distribution of Cactus Species Listed
as "Rare" by Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-34
Table 13. Wild-Harvested Succulents Whose Trade from Texas to
Arizona Exceeded 1,000 Specimens (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-38
Table 14. Fouquieria spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-38
Table 15. Echinocereus spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-39
Table 16. Ferocactus spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-39
Table 17. Yucca spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-39
Table 18. Echinocactus spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-40
Table 19. Agave spp. Imports into Arizona from CDE West Texas
Counties (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-40
Table 20. Species Qualifying for Additional Monitoring or
Conservation Measures in Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-45
ii
F
IGURES
Figure 1. Gross Imports of Live Plants into Arizona Originating from
the Chihuahuan Desert in Texas (1998–June 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-11
Figure 2. Source and Destination of Cacti and Succulent Plants Traded
between Texas and Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-12
Figure 3. Distribution of USFS and BLM Lands within the Chihuahuan
Desert of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-30
A
PPENDICES
Appendix 1. U.S. Exports and Reexports of Wild Cacti (1995–1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-50
Appendix 2. U.S. Exports or Reexports of Wild Cacti by Importing Country (1998) . . . . . . .I-51
Appendix 3. U.S. Exports or Reexports of Wild Cacti by Importing Country (1995) . . . . . . .I-52
Appendix 4. Top 10 Importers of Artificially Propagated Cacti from the
United States (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-53
Appendix 5. U.S. Imports of Cacti from Mexico (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-54
Appendix 6. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Graham County,Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .I-55
Appendix 7. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Cochise County,Arizona . . . . . . . . . . .I-55
Appendix 8. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Chaves County, New Mexico . . . . . . . .I-55
Appendix 9. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Dona Ana County, New Mexico . . . . . .I-55
Appendix 10. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Eddy County, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . .I-56
Appendix 11. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Grant County, New Mexico . . . . . . . . .I-56
Appendix 12. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Hidalgo County, New Mexico . . . . . . . .I-56
Appendix 13. Land Tenure in Luna County, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-56
Appendix 14. Land Tenure in Otero County, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-57
Appendix 15. Distribution and Ownership of Land in Sierra County, New Mexico . . . . . . . . .I-57
iii
A
CKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report benefited enormously from the Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico);
input of many individuals who generously Jim McGinnis (Arizona Department of
offered their insight and patiently responded to Agriculture); Teresa Mulliken (TRAFFIC
the author’s repeated inquiries for information. International); Bud Petitdemange (U.S.
I would like to thank the following people for Department of Agriculture); Jackie Poole
their time and tolerance during the preparation (Texas Parks and Wildlife); Mike Powell (Sul
of this report: Jennifer Atchley (World Wildlife Ross State University,Alpine,Texas); Dana
Fund); Edward "Ted" Anderson (Desert Price (Texas Parks and Wildlife); Adrian
Botanical Garden); Rolando T. Bárcenas Reuter (TRAFFIC North America); John
(Centre for Plant Diversity and Systematics, Sherman (Bureau of Land Management,
United Kingdom); Dennis Day (California Carlsbad, New Mexico); Robert Sivinski (New
Department of Agriculture); Kenneth Dulik Mexico Forestry Division); Sherry Sanderson
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service); Mike Ebers (New Mexico Department of Agriculture); and
(California Department of Agriculture); David Alice Taylor (World Wildlife Fund).
Ferguson (Rio Grande Botanic Garden, New
TRAFFICNorth America is grateful to
Mexico); Julie Gray (TRAFFIC International);
WWF-Netherlands and the WWF-US
Simon Habel (TRAFFIC North America);
Endangered Spaces program for providing
Héctor M. Hernández (Instituto de Biología de
much of the funding for the Chihuahuan
la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
Desert Cactus Study.
México—IBUNAM); Mike Howard (Bureau of
iv
E S
XECUTIVE UMMARY
Cacti belong to a family of plants that evolved and other succulents in landscaping projects
exclusively in the Americas, occupying arid, may eventually exceed the availability of some
semi-arid, and moderately humid environments species in the wild. In particular,West Texas,
from Canada to Patagonia. The evolutionary comprising the largest swath of Chihuahuan
precursors to cacti were probably tropical Desert in the United States, is the dominant
plants whose climate turned increasingly arid, producer of showy cacti (such as barrel and
resulting in the selection and ultimate survival hedgehog cacti) and other succulents (for
of those species capable of conserving water. example, ocotillo, yucca, and agave) for urban
The physical and physiological traits that give markets in Arizona, Nevada, and southern
cacti and related plants, called succulents, the California. Between 1998 and June 2001,
ability to tolerate desert environments are the nearly 100,000 succulents, with an estimated
same features that make them so irresistible to value of US$3 million, were harvested from
collectors and attractive to municipalities and mostly wild populations in Texas or were
homeowners trying to save water (and money) illegally imported into Texas from Mexico and
by landscaping with desert flora, a practice destined for consumers in cities such as
known as xeriscaping. Phoenix and Tucson,Arizona.
The popularity of cacti, especially the rare, Although none of the species identified in U.S.
geographically restricted or threatened species, trade by TRAFFIC faces imminent extinction,
as collectibles, garden plants, food, or with the possible exception of one species in
medicine may be contributing to the Texas, the enormity of a trade that shows no
overharvesting of some cactus species and signs of abating prompts questions about the
their natural populations, especially those long-term transparency, legality, sustainability,
growing wild in the Chihuahuan Desert of the and impact of large-scale harvest. Faced with
United States and Mexico. The Chihuahuan the added pressures of habitat loss and the
Desert Ecoregion is home to almost 25 percent vagaries of an unforgiving and possibly
of the 1,500 cactus species known to science. changing climate, many of the taxa exploited
The outstanding diversity of plants, animals, for trade may become threatened and even
and habitats of the Chihuahuan Desert speaks disappear locally if conservation measures are
of the biological value and ecological not implemented.
significance of an ecoregion whose
TRAFFIC concludes that succulents of the
conservation is a high priority to World
Chihuahuan Desert can be managed and traded
Wildlife Fund–US (WWF–US).
in a sustainable manner as long as the various
TRAFFIC North America, on behalf of stakeholders, ranging from resource managers
WWF–US, studied the trade and management and landowners to harvesters and consumers,
of Chihuahuan Desert cacti to determine which take the necessary steps to ensure the
species harvested commercially from the wild conservation of a resource that is valued as
may be managed and monitored better. much economically as it is ecologically.
TRAFFIC documented a thriving landscaping TRAFFIC recommends that WWF, with the
and nursery market in the southwestern United participation of local governments,
States for wild cacti and other succulent landowners, garden clubs, and cactus traders,
species originating from the Chihuahuan implement several actions to protect a resource
Desert of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. of ecological and economic value in the
Chihuahuan Desert. Among such practices is
Cities in the desert southwest of the United
establishing commercial propagation and
States are advocating the use of desert plants in
starting a sustainable certification program for
landscaping to conserve water. However, those
popular and high priority species in the
well-intended campaigns may be mitigating
Chihuahuan Desert, as well as encouraging
one environmental problem while exacerbating
federal, state, and local governments to advise
another. Unless propagation, sustainable
consumers in the market for desert plants to
harvest, and protection for some species is
purchase plants only from propagated or
increased, a continuing demand for hardy cacti
verifiable sustainable sources.
I-1