Thank you Doug, for your review of the UNEP document on the trade in marine ornamental species: “From Ocean to Aquarium: The global trade in marine ornamental species”
(www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publication ... uarium.pdf)
Your summary accurately captures the main points of the document. However, as a marine ecologist, I’d like to highlight a major concern that I have with the document. The data compiled can not be used to evaluate the sustainability of the trade as suggested by the authors.
The data reported in the document simply indicate volumes of fish moved. There is no information on the amount of fishing required to collect that volume of fish. In fisheries parlance – they have catch but no effort and it is both that are required to even begin making claims about what is going on with fish populations.
For instance, let’s say that in 2000, it took 1,000 hours of fishing time to catch 10,000 fish but in 2001, it took 5,000 hours to again catch 10,000 fish. This would suggest that there are fewer fish available as fishers are having to hunt further / longer to find them. Yet, the landings data (10,000 fish per year) give no indication of this. In the aquarium trade, we know this is occuring. Collectors in major supply countries are travelling further and further to maintain supplies.
The incorrect view that landings can be used to assess sustainability is perhaps best captured in the following quotation:
“Although demand has fluctuated and trends vary from year to year, the overall value of the marine fish trade, accounting for about 10 per cent of the international ornamental fish trade (marine and freshwater included), has remained fairly stable in recent years”. (p 9)
[Yes, but how much harder are fishers have to work to maintain these levels … how much further are they travelling?]
To assess sustainability, at a minimum information on fishing effort is required. Better yet, underwater surveys of targeted fish populations would be done (resource assessments). I am very concerned that MAC is certifying collection areas in the Philippines in the absence of the necessary resource assessments and fisheries monitoring and, at the same time, we are seeing the production of documents suggesting sustainability and promoting certification, when really, the sustainability, and thus the certification question, remain outstanding.
Best wishes,
Blue hula
(www.unep-wcmc.org/resources/publication ... uarium.pdf)
Your summary accurately captures the main points of the document. However, as a marine ecologist, I’d like to highlight a major concern that I have with the document. The data compiled can not be used to evaluate the sustainability of the trade as suggested by the authors.
The data reported in the document simply indicate volumes of fish moved. There is no information on the amount of fishing required to collect that volume of fish. In fisheries parlance – they have catch but no effort and it is both that are required to even begin making claims about what is going on with fish populations.
For instance, let’s say that in 2000, it took 1,000 hours of fishing time to catch 10,000 fish but in 2001, it took 5,000 hours to again catch 10,000 fish. This would suggest that there are fewer fish available as fishers are having to hunt further / longer to find them. Yet, the landings data (10,000 fish per year) give no indication of this. In the aquarium trade, we know this is occuring. Collectors in major supply countries are travelling further and further to maintain supplies.
The incorrect view that landings can be used to assess sustainability is perhaps best captured in the following quotation:
“Although demand has fluctuated and trends vary from year to year, the overall value of the marine fish trade, accounting for about 10 per cent of the international ornamental fish trade (marine and freshwater included), has remained fairly stable in recent years”. (p 9)
[Yes, but how much harder are fishers have to work to maintain these levels … how much further are they travelling?]
To assess sustainability, at a minimum information on fishing effort is required. Better yet, underwater surveys of targeted fish populations would be done (resource assessments). I am very concerned that MAC is certifying collection areas in the Philippines in the absence of the necessary resource assessments and fisheries monitoring and, at the same time, we are seeing the production of documents suggesting sustainability and promoting certification, when really, the sustainability, and thus the certification question, remain outstanding.
Best wishes,
Blue hula
