an explanation to Mary HM, and anyone else...

[Anonymous]

who misconstrued my post in the 'MAC' thread: :wink:

Mary, et al,


please note that i did not say the uscrtf policy i posted was law...i said that it was law afaik (as far as i know), and my source was under the impression that it was...

it is law.(afaik)

it is also what gives the govt the authorized power by congress to shut down the industrty, if necessary,when it gets tired of what's going on w/the reefs.(afaik)

i think you should read it

it also, technically, gives the gov't the power to shut down mac for already violating some of the sections of the act.

though, according to my source (who i shall call 'deep throat')- the gov't will probably just shut down the industry, instead of trying to rassle w/mac.

food for thought:

as is the case w/so many other legislative passings, all it takes is a 'squeaky enough wheel to get the oil'.

all that needs to happen is for enough people to yell at their congressmen
about the travesty of mac, and bye bye industry.

i will wait a few yrs.-and as you are all my witness,-including mr. holthus ,-i will start to contact every single gov't official i can get my hands on, including every single environmental lobby group, and each organization that has funded mac in any way,to demand a shut down of mac, for violating the law.

the last reference was to after the law passing, if, indeed, efforts to put it through are fruitful.

the main point i was trying to make, was that MAC's current practice of certifying operations who also use cyanide, goes against the stated intent of the uscrtf's proposal vis a vis harmful collection practices.

seemed to me that an organization purporting to be acting in the 'reefs' and the hobbyists interests, would not be certifying operations who engage in harmful, or destructive, collection practices, when this is clearly stated as objectionable by the uscrtf.

why should these two entities not be on the same page? :wink:

though i've been repeatedly chided, for a misquote/misinterpretation on others part, this will be a one time clarification/'apology' :wink:

 

[mkirda]

the main point i was trying to make, was that MAC's current practice of certifying operations who also use cyanide, goes against the stated intent of the uscrtf's proposal vis a vis harmful collection practices.

seemed to me that an organization purporting to be acting in the 'reefs' and the hobbyists interests, would not be certifying operations who engage in harmful, or destructive, collection practices, when this is clearly stated as objectionable by the uscrtf.

why should these two entities not be on the same page? :wink:

though i've been repeatedly chided, for a misquote/misinterpretation on others part, this will be a one time clarification/'apology' :wink:

Vitz,

This is quite the complex issue, honestly.

I met with Marivi Laurel while in Manila earlier this month. Marivi's company is legit- she deals only with collectors that she believes deal only in 100% net-caught fish. But think about this for a second- As an exporter, she *has* to rely on the collectors to tell her the truth- she doesn't catch squat herself, so there is really no way for her to certify anything.

How does she confirm that the fish are net-caught? She deals only with fish collectors that she knows- and that she knows have been net-trained. She also either visits them to see the operations, or relies on the reports of others that she trusts- i.e. Ferdinand Cruz.

So here we have a facility that deals with only clean fish.

Now, she gets some fish from Batasan, that being the only currently MAC certified collection area. These fish are MAC certified. The other fish are mostly from other collectors who are working on getting MAC certified, and the facility is set up to handle them in the same way that MAC certified fish are. Is there a difference between her MAC certified and non-MAC certified fish? Honestly, probably not. Both are handled in the same manner. All are net caught as far as she is able to determine. Marivi handles about 80% of all the net-caught fish in the Philippines, MAC certified or not.

Right there, this should tell you that there is a problem already with the supply of net-caught fish. There are not enough for the market, period.

Now, the issues you raise are both complex and simple. A lot of MAC's problems or failings can be explained away relatively easily. IMA stopped handling cyanide testing, and handed the labs/equipment over to the BFAR. BFAR reverted back to an older method that is not as reliable. Was this in MAC's control? No.
They went to certify more than one area last fall. Two didn't pass for reasons that have not been made public. So the supply did not go up as intended. Is this MAC's fault? Maybe, maybe not. They may not quite have been ready for whatever reason- I have heard that they will be up for certification next month...
Now, the heart of your post- Why did they certify any exporter that is known (or thought to) deal in (mostly) cyanided fish?
My own personal opinion is that any exporter that deals in cyanided fish should never be MAC certified, but I also realise that this is not acceptable from MAC's point of view. This is meant as Industry's attempt at self-reform. MAC standards say that fish would have to be kept segregated, never mixed. To exclude exporters would mean that the standards would NEVER BE ADOPTED. I understand exactly how this looks- an unscrupulous exporter can easily mix fish.

But look at this from another point of view... The recordkeeping. If exporter A mixes fish, what is the benefit? The only way it works to their advantage is to sell cyanided fish as MAC fish. But the purchase records *AND* the SELLING RECORDS exist here. If MAC hears that Gee, MAC fish from Exporter A are dying at 30% DOA rates, they can go back and demand the purchase records. They can then compare with the selling records of collectors. Exporter A *may* be able to forge documents to cover themselves, but they cannot forge the collector's documents.

Now, I do have problems with some of MAC's approach. That being said, I will do my utmost to make my criticism constructive. We have beat the cyanide testing issue to death, but I will say that without truly random testing using the same method IMA used (ion-selective probes), the chance really does exist for the system to be abused and circumvented.

The only real question is: Where will the money come from to pay for the cyanide testing and this sort of enforcement method? Or, if caught, what will the penalties be? Can an exporter or collector be de-certified? None of this is spelled out in the standards...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[dizzy]

Mike,

You really seem to know what you are talking about. Do you work in the industry? If so, do you mind sharing the name of the company you work for? Do you know John Brandt?

 

[Anonymous]

mkirda wrote:

As an exporter, she *has* to rely on the collectors to tell her the truth- she doesn't catch squat herself, so there is really no way for her to certify anything.

i postulate that one can only *rely* on what one knows, not what one is told by someone else :wink:

(you can flame me if you want to, Mary :wink: )

i don't recall hearing that Marivi is *certifying* anything :wink:

How does she confirm that the fish are net-caught? She deals only with fish collectors that she knows- and that she knows have been net-trained. She also either visits them to see the operations, or relies on the reports of others that she trusts- i.e. Ferdinand Cruz.

ah.

what, no trusting the record keeping of a probably corrupt PI industry individual?how interesting :?

Now, she gets some fish from Batasan, that being the only currently MAC certified collection area. These fish are MAC certified. The other fish are mostly from other collectors who are working on getting MAC certified, and the facility is set up to handle them in the same way that MAC certified fish are. Is there a difference between her MAC certified and non-MAC certified fish? Honestly, probably not. Both are handled in the same manner. All are net caught as far as she is able to determine. Marivi handles about 80% of all the net-caught fish in the Philippines, MAC certified or not.

MAC certified still says nothing about the way all the fish are caught, only that the facility also carries fish that are net caught, and are probably also carrying fish that are cyanided caught, with no means whatsoever to rule out, or test for, the presence of cyanide.

Honestly, probably not.

i hope you'll forgive me if i don't take your word for it :wink:

Right there, this should tell you that there is a problem already with the supply of net-caught fish. There are not enough for the market, period.

are you suggesting this as justification for dealing in cyanided animals?

if there aren't enough for the market, then the solution is obvious to even me, :wink: TRAIN MORE DIVERS!!

Now, the issues you raise are both complex and simple

nope, nothing complex here at all, and please don't insult my intelligence :wink:

it's a matter of treating the problem, instead of the symptom.period.

A lot of MAC's problems or failings can be explained away relatively easily.

do you not see that my issue w/MAC is the attempt to 'explain' anything 'away'?

i'm quite sick of people trying to 'explain things away' :?

But look at this from another point of view... The recordkeeping. If exporter A mixes fish, what is the benefit? The only way it works to their advantage is to sell cyanided fish as MAC fish. But the purchase records *AND* the SELLING RECORDS exist here. If MAC hears that Gee, MAC fish from Exporter A are dying at 30% DOA rates, they can go back and demand the purchase records. They can then compare with the selling records of collectors. Exporter A *may* be able to forge documents to cover themselves, but they cannot forge the collector's documents.

'a to b'- it's as simple as that-nothing at all prevents any collection station from swapping fish from a cyanided to a non cyanided batch.period.

We have beat the cyanide testing issue to death,

:lol:

i haven't even started yet :wink:


nor will i end it, until i am personally satisfied that the issue is resolved, and not because, you, MAC, or anyone else tells me so. i will have to see it for myself :wink:

(i reserve the right to be as skeptical and untrusting as i see fit, based on the industry's history w/this poison)

The only real question is: Where will the money come from to pay for the cyanide testing and this sort of enforcement method? Or, if caught, what will the penalties be? Can an exporter or collector be de-certified? None of this is spelled out in the standards

...

if the certification is useless, imo, then the revocation is also useless :wink:

i would think that the only real question is:

why hasn't the money that has been directed to MAC gone first to establishing a credible reliable test to ensure the end of cyanide use in the ornamental marine trade?

(please, no one answer with the 'but the food industry is doing more damage...' argument-two wrongs don't make a right :wink: )


the penalty should be the immediate shutting down of any operation using cyanide, period.

not enough net caught fish for the trade? tough nuggies :twisted:

there is no justification acceptable here, economic or otherwise.

again, my wallet has absolutely nothing to lose, if the industry shuts down tomorrow

y'all seem to think that personal income, and the marine ornamental industry, are the sole justification for continuing the industry.

i do not agree, and i think that the price paid so far is already way too high

 

[Anonymous]

Why aren't there more net trained divers, millions of dollars have been spent on the issue. The people running these NGO's sure have wasted whats been GIVEN to them. IMO they need to work on a pay-for-performance deal rather than a cozy salary. If they're all on salary, why would they want to solve the problem, it means they'll be outa work.

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

You really seem to know what you are talking about.

Mitch,

I do have some idea of what I am talking about.

Do you work in the industry? If so, do you mind sharing the name of the company you work for? Do you know John Brandt?

I work for a university. I am but a humble hobbyist. We've met, briefly, before, although I cannot recall exactly where... Maybe the Chicago MACNA?

I do know John Brandt- He and I spoke just today at length about MAC and the Philippines. He actually took care of my tank when I was on vacation in the Philippines earlier this month.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Why aren't there more net trained divers, millions of dollars have been spent on the issue. The people running these NGO's sure have wasted whats been GIVEN to them. IMO they need to work on a pay-for-performance deal rather than a cozy salary. If they're all on salary, why would they want to solve the problem, it means they'll be outa work.

{sarcasm}Ask Steve Robinson where those millions have gone. I'm sure he has on ocean-side condo from those millions...{/sarcasm}

How about this for an explanation?

You get two collectors who are relatively low-skilled. Give one cyanide and the other barrier nets. Guess which one gets more fish per hour?

I'm guessing it will be the cyanide collector.

My point is this: For net-training to be effective *AND* for it to be lasting, you have to have an economic incentive for it to be done. The Philippines is poor enough not to have the money to pay for enforcing the laws which are already on the books- cyanide *IS* illegal. The ways to make things permanant and lasting are simple: Carrot and stick. First, you have to put more money in the pockets of the collectors for net-caught fish. Second, you have to prosecute the ones who are using destructive fishing methods.

They have trained well over 1000, and depending on whom you believe, the numbers are more like 1800-2000 collectors in how to use barrier nets. Training them doesn't mean squat if it doesn't put more pesos into their pockets, GreshamH. Are YOU going to work harder for less? {I resist the urge to insert Republican Economic Policy joke here...}

If you look at previous attempts to solve the problem, they were all flawed. MAC has actually gotten closest to getting it right. Paul needs to stop thinking about other countries and food fish, and focus on the problem at hand- Marine ornamentals in the Philippines- and get it done and done right. I think Paul gets it, at least I hope he does. He needs to focus on the cyanide testing, getting the collectors more cash for the net-caught fish, and truly random testing- If he gets this accomplished, I think he will have the issues mostly solved.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

y'all seem to think that personal income, and the marine ornamental industry, are the sole justification for continuing the industry.

i do not agree, and i think that the price paid so far is already way too high

Vitz,

If you kill off the net-caught movement, where do you think the collectors will go?

There are people out there, trying to do the right thing- I know this because I have been with these people, have spoken with them, have eaten with them, drank tuba with them, gone diving and collecting with them.

Your whole attitude and lack of knowledge is, frankly, disturbing. You want to shut down the very people who are on your side! You shut down all collection, what do you want these collectors to do? Go drive down to Manila and get jobs at the local NGO? All you end up doing is further marginalizing them, forcing them to go fish for lapu-lapu, further degrading the reef. They get even poorer. Because they believed in you.

Hope you sleep well tonight.

Wish you had actually read my earlier post and I wish even more that you had actually understood it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

i would think that the only real question is:

why hasn't the money that has been directed to MAC gone first to establishing a credible reliable test to ensure the end of cyanide use in the ornamental marine trade?

A credible and reliable test already exists, Vitz.
Have you not read any of the previous posts by Peter Rubec of the IMA?

They stopped running the labs though when they hadn't been paid in over a year by the BFAR. The amount they were owed is, I think, as much as the IMA budget was for the Philippines for a year... (I could be wrong here on the budget amount...)

Peter can probably quote the results, but out of X number of tests, I'm sure a large percentage were positive. I'm sure those positives were forwarded to the appropriate prosecutory body in the Philippines. I'm sure that that body sat on the results, opening no investigations.

I do not know how you make a government do its job. Politics in the Philippines is not done in the name of public service- Politicians do it to leech off the public trough as far as I can tell. This is one of the tragedies of the Philippines, IMO. And here in the US, there ain't a damn thing any one (or alll) of us can do about it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

y'all seem to think that personal income, and the marine ornamental industry, are the sole justification for continuing the industry.

i do not agree, and i think that the price paid so far is already way too high

Vitz,

If you kill off the net-caught movement, where do you think the collectors will go?

There are people out there, trying to do the right thing- I know this because I have been with these people, have spoken with them, have eaten with them, drank tuba with them, gone diving and collecting with them.

Your whole attitude and lack of knowledge is, frankly, disturbing. You want to shut down the very people who are on your side! You shut down all collection, what do you want these collectors to do? Go drive down to Manila and get jobs at the local NGO? All you end up doing is further marginalizing them, forcing them to go fish for lapu-lapu, further degrading the reef. They get even poorer. Because they believed in you.

Hope you sleep well tonight.

Wish you had actually read my earlier post and I wish even more that you had actually understood it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

dear Mike:

seems like you don't understand me, either (i get alot of that, though :wink: )

i am not advocating putting any honest net collectors out of business.

i only want them to supply facilities that deal only with net catching fisherman, not ones who also obtain fish from cyanide sources.

i don't see why a collection/ holding facility could not deal solely with those fisherman, if the cyanide catchers are shut down.

but-to answer your personal barb, :wink: :

right now i sleep very soundly indeed-for i do not support the sw fish industry monetarily at all. :wink:

when i get back in the sw hobby, it will be with aquacultured specimens only.

are you suggesting that the sole means of livelihood, for now and for the future, for the PI people are the fishing industry?

i don't see anyone even trying to advocate education for these people to broaden their oppurtunities to branch out into other proffesions...(like providing them with schools, and helping them to advance into the 20th century, maybe becoming doctors, etc.?)

or does everyone here think that fishing reefs is all the PI people are good for? :x


you all seem quite content to have the PI's stuck w/the role of doing the hobby's fishing work for the future.

hope you sleep well, too :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

i would think that the only real question is:

why hasn't the money that has been directed to MAC gone first to establishing a credible reliable test to ensure the end of cyanide use in the ornamental marine trade?

A credible and reliable test already exists, Vitz.
Have you not read any of the previous posts by Peter Rubec of the IMA?

They stopped running the labs though when they hadn't been paid in over a year by the BFAR. The amount they were owed is, I think, as much as the IMA budget was for the Philippines for a year... (I could be wrong here on the budget amount...)

Peter can probably quote the results, but out of X number of tests, I'm sure a large percentage were positive. I'm sure those positives were forwarded to the appropriate prosecutory body in the Philippines. I'm sure that that body sat on the results, opening no investigations.

I do not know how you make a government do its job. Politics in the Philippines is not done in the name of public service- Politicians do it to leech off the public trough as far as I can tell. This is one of the tragedies of the Philippines, IMO. And here in the US, there ain't a damn thing any one (or alll) of us can do about it.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike:

my bad, i should have said implemented.i am aware that the test exists, and the subsequent history of it's use, and non use, as posted here in the industry forum.


i seem to remember a boycott of tuna having some fairly good results w/saving dolphins, so i don't accept your statement of ther being nothing anyone can do about it :wink:

i firmly believe that if enough people shout to the gov't, then political and economic pressure can be brought to bear on any gov't to do anything, in order to comply w/the consumer's wishes :wink:

 

[mkirda]

dear Mike:

seems like you don't understand me, either (i get alot of that, though :wink: )

i am not advocating putting any honest net collectors out of business.

i only want them to supply facilities that deal only with net catching fisherman, not ones who also obtain fish from cyanide sources.

i don't see why a collection/ holding facility could not deal solely with those fisherman, if the cyanide catchers are shut down.

Then you have MAC being the police. That is not going to happen- They do not own the law...

are you suggesting that the sole means of livelihood, for now and for the future, for the PI people are the fishing industry?

i don't see anyone even trying to advocate education for these people to broaden their oppurtunities to branch out into other proffesions...(like providing them with schools, and helping them to advance into the 20th century, maybe becoming doctors, etc.?)

or does everyone here think that fishing reefs is all the PI people are good for? :x


you all seem quite content to have the PI's stuck w/the role of doing the hobby's fishing work for the future.

Vitz,

Your American-ness shows through and through. {shaking my head}

Have you ever been to this country we are discussing? To work as a clerk in Shoemart, you need a college degree. Those who are educated are doing the menial jobs because that is all they can get, and it sure beats manual labor. Why do you think so many Filipinos try to emigrate to the US, Australia or Canada? They all believe that, in their own country, there is NO OPPORTUNITY. In America, we have opportunity based on our ability- who we know *might* get us an interview, but it is *what* we know that will get us the job. It doesn't work that way there.
Christ, I saw a job advert in Chow King that was specific to the point that you had to be 18-22, 5 foot 7 inches tall, male, college graduate, good looking, short-cropped hair. To be a BUSBOY.

Now, move yourself out to the provinces. Your house is made of bamboo and nipa. You work so you can buy some chickens and a rooster, so you can have some eggs and a chicken every once in a while. Hopefully, the land owner doesn't want you off their land. You try save up for a pig. You make your own banca, and paddle out to the ocean, and do hook and line fishing. You get married, have a couple of children- this is a Catholic country you know, so they are against birth control. You work hard so you can put food on the table, try to save enough to send your children to school- after a few years of school, when they have learned how to read a bit, you figure that is good enough. They need to start working because they are starting to eat more and there isn't really enough money to buy all the food the family needs.

There is no social security. There are no soup kitchens. No homeless shelters. No safety net, other than family. The best you can hope for is you land a decent job and one of your kids gets a degree, moves overseas and sends you money back every month...

That, Vitz, is the true account of life over there.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Mike:

maybe you, (or anyone else) can explain to me why there is no (or so it seems) any facility operating that deals only with net catching fisherman?

seems to me that if 1500 net using fisherman were to supply only one or two facilities, they should be able to compete monetarily quite well w/any facility that deals with 'mixed' catches(?)

if that facility was to be certified, and only that type was to be certified, and an extra (relatively small) charge was added to advance the income of the fisherman, the hobbyists should be more than willing to pay for the 'sticker' at the lfs, no?

or is it the hobbyists fault that the net catchers can't compete with the juicers?


if it is, ultimately, the hobbyists fault, then something also needs to be done at the consumer end of the chain, no?

 

[mkirda]

Mike:

maybe you, (or anyone else) can explain to me why there is no (or so it seems) any facility operating that deals only with net catching fisherman.

Vitz,

There is such a facility run by Marivi Laurel, called Aquarium Habitat. It was the first facility certified by MAC.

Read the recent letter by Josef Steiger- he alleges that the members of the Philippines Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PTFEA) are deliberately undercutting her prices, trying to force her out of business. Josef claims he has evidence, although when I asked him to share it with me off-line he declined. Marivi told me the same thing in person, that orders have fallen, and it was because of her pricing.

See, the other exporters pay the same for net-caught fish as they do for cyanided fish. She pays more than they do which is one of the reasons why the collectors all want to deal with her.

Until the PTFEA changes its stance, I think MAC is dead in the water.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Reply to Mike, Vitz, and others.

I think the exchange we have here today is extremely important. The issue for the collectors and for the survival of the MAC Certification program is as Mike Kirda stated "Without the PFTEA paying more for net-caught fish the MAC Certification program is dead in its tracks." Please see my posting on another part of Reefs.org bulletin board tday replying to Kalk's comments.

Mike Kirda is right, since he has just come back from the Philippines and has visited several sites where net-collectors have prepared Collection Area Management Plans (CAMPs) as part of the MAC Certification program. Hence, he knows what he is talking about. I also have been in communication with Ferdinand Cruz (who worked for the MAC until December 15th) and can confirm that the net-collectors associated with the program are revolting against the MAC mainly because of the fact that the Philippine Tropical Fish Exporters Association (PFTEA) headed by Lolita Ty refuses to pay more for net-caught fish. There are a number of issues involved: a) MAC Cerification of a site that did not meet the MAC Ecosystem Mangement standards; b) the reluctance of the MAC to certify two other sites that do meet the EM standards; c) screeners in export facilities demanding bribes to reduce the number of fish rejected or devalued in terms of the prices paid for the fish and; d) and the inability of the MAC to get the PFTEA to provide the economic incentives to the collectors to support the extra time and effort with using nets, completing all the paper work, and the extra handling needed to supply quality fish to exporters. This is required for MAC Certification of Collection Sites and Net-Caught fish from sites with CAMPs (Rubec and Cruz 2002). The MAC Feasability study demonstrated that mortality can be markedly reduced from over 30% at the export level with cyanide-caught fish to 3-5% with properly handled net-caught fish from sites.

I believe that the number of collectors using nets as part of the MAC Certification program could increase rapidly to over 1000 (from about 200 now) simply by the exporters providing about 10% more for net-caught fish than for cyanide-caught fish. Hence, there could be an increased supply of net-caught fish with a small economic incentive, which the exporters can easily afford (due to increased profits from the reduction in morality and other factors such as exchange rates with the US dollar).

Recently, I sent out an email to Paul Holthus of the MAC and other concerned parties proposing a meeting in Manila from March 24-27th associated with the ICRI ITEM2 Conference that would bring together representatives from the MAC, the collectors, the exporters, and other stakeholders concerned with resolving the issues. So far, the MAC has not reponded to this suggestion.

I should note that today I received written requests from the Roger Hernandez the Chairman of the Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Reources Management Council/Palauig Net-Collectors Committee and a separate letter from Pedro L. Aguillon the Provincial Fishery Officer and member of the Palauig Net-Collector's Advisory Committee for assistance of the International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) in early resolution of the problems of certification that fish caught by the group are cyanide free and the same had passed the quality standard set/required in the international market." Both letters authorized the IMA to release copies of separate letters sent to Paul Holthus (and copied to IMA) by the Palauig collectors association and by Mr. Aguillon expressing their serious concerns about the issues that I briefly mentioned above.

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
International Marinelife Alliance

 

[naesco]

PeterIMA
When did you receive the letters you refer to?
When did you foward them to MAC(Paul Holthus?
It seems to me that this should be done today as it is very important.
I am sure MAC would like to hear your comments on it.

 

[mkirda]

PeterIMA
When did you receive the letters you refer to?
When did you foward them to MAC(Paul Holthus?
It seems to me that this should be done today as it is very important.
I am sure MAC would like to hear your comments on it.

Naesco,

Those letters are dated sometime after the 7th of this month as I understand it. Have not seen them myself. They were sent to MAC first, so Paul knows about this already, and probably has for two weeks already.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

The letter by Pedro Aguillon (Provincial Fisheries Officer, Province of Zambales) was sent to Paul Holthus of the MAC on December 18, 2002. The letter from Roger Hernandez (Barangay FARMC Chairman, NetCollectors Area Coordinator for Palauig) to Paul Holthus was dated December 23, 2002. The IMA was sent copies of these letters (CCd).

The letter from Mr. Aguillon requesting IMA's assistance with regard to resolution of the problems concerning MAC Certification is dated January 24, 2003. The letter sent from Mr. Hernandez requesting IMA to solicit assistance concerning the exporter situation is dated January 25, 2003.

Peter Rubec

 

[naesco]

Thanks for the reply but I am a little confused :?
PeterIMA said that he just received the letters today from the sender yet you say that they were addressed to MAC not to PeterIMA and were sent over two weeks ago.
Are we talking about the same letters?

 

[PeterIMA]

Naesco,
I apologize if my original posting today (January 26, 2003) was not clearly stated. My second posting today more clearly stated that there were four letters. The substantive ones complaining about the situation with the PFTEA were sent to Paul Holthus of the MAC in December 2002. Due to the lack of response from the MAC concerning the issues raised, the IMA has been asked to assist with finding solutions (two most recent letters received in the past few days-January 24 and 25, 2003). Is that clear enough?

Peter Rubec