MAC certifies first retailers

[sdcfish]

Just for those interested, here's a news article clip that explains more of what I have mentioned previously.


Reef Check Philippines and Indonesia Partner in the Marine Aquarium Market Transformation Initiative (MAMTI)
By Stuart Green, Naneng Setiasih (Chairwoman RC Indonesia) and Dr. Domingo Ochavillo (Executive Director, RC Philippines)


Municipal Planning & Development Coordinator Engineer Noel Mendaña of the Municipality of Tubigon, Bohol, Central Visayas Philippines restocking the Batasan Island MPA. Photo: G. Lecaillon, Ecocean
Why would Reef Check work with one of the world’s destructive fisheries (the use of cyanide, associated with habitat destruction and unsustainable collection techniques)? The MAMTI (Marine Market Transformation Initiative) brings together three international non-governmental organizations, the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC), the Conservation and Community Investment Forum (CCIF ), and Reef Check, as key project “partners”. The project aims to transform the marine aquarium trade from an unmanaged industry, with the potential to damage coral reefs through illegal poison fishing and over-harvesting to a more conservation-friendly one. Fishermen are trained to collect and handle fish following particular guidelines, therefore providing a healthier and “green” certified product to retailers and customers. MAMTI is a five-year project with offices in Manila, Philippines, and Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. It is funded by the Global Environment Facility and implemented by the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

Reef Check believes that by getting involved with the industry and its very diverse stakeholders (collectors, buyers, exporters, importers, local governments etc.) we can work with our partners to promote a more sustainable industry, and use the project as part of a management plan to establish and strengthen Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across the region. MAMTI is working to achieve conservation, sustainable livelihoods, poverty alleviation, and significant reductions in the threats to biodiversity.

The Reef Check ‘niche’ in MAMTI



MAC trained ornamental fisher using the barrier method of catching fish in Marcilla, Coron, Calamianes, Philippines
Photo: Pepo Pasigna, RC Philippines

Reef Check brings its wealth of scientific experience in the Philippines and Indonesia to this initiative, and focuses on fisheries monitoring, rehabilitation and management. The Reef Check MAMTI team in the Philippines has a staff of fourteen highly experienced and motivated scientists, with backgrounds in coral reef ecology, social science and integrated coastal management. Reef Check Indonesia has also hired six additional specialized professionals to implement our work in Indonesia.
Reef Check contributes to two components of MAMTI. The first applies a scientific monitoring method, the Marine Aquarium Trade Coral Reef Monitoring Method (MAQTRAC), to undertake baseline and regular monitoring of MAC Certified collection areas, and analyze catch data. This ensures sustainable operations and continuously refines the science and management of marine ornamental collection. The results of this work will provide information to collectors for improved resource management through their Collection Area Management Plans.

In the second component, Reef Check works with marine ornamental collectors and their communities to designate community and government co-managed “no-take” MPAs, and designates zones within collection areas to ensure rehabilitation of fish and invertebrate stocks. Reef Check is also establishing a fisheries rehabilitation program which will test various reef and fish rehabilitation techniques within collection areas. If successful, these will be adapted and/or replicated in other areas. A current initiative, in collaboration with subcontractor Ecocean explores the use of innovative fish post-larvae collection devices for grow out and restocking. The results of these experiments will provide invaluable insights into the "fast track" restocking of MPAs.

More of these articles can be found on reefcheck.org

Best regards...

Eric

 

[clarionreef]

Eric,
I am sure that there are many opportunities for foreign investment and foreign NGOs in the Philippines.
W/ Eco Ocean joning the buffet line, another interesting thought stream joins the ever increasing river of revenue banking on the problems of poor fisherman thruout the country.
I wouldn't mind if the fisherman were more the beneficiaries and centerpieces of the projects instead of the subject of the lip service required to attract funding and approval.

MAC and Reefcheck theoretically perform needed functions in an overall gameplan but the continued inability to relate to, deal with and win fisherfolk to the cause keeps the grand movement from becoming viable.

This is my problem in a nutshell.

Without converting the body of cyanide fisherman as you go forward you mock your very movement.
The big-time initiatives move forward on the timetable while missing the incremental achievements called for in the plan.
Aren't we avoiding the issues that vex and confound while choosing to focus on the ones we like? ...the ones we're better prepared for and more familiar with?
Aren't we cherry-picking the components that jive with our experience and worldview while trying to ignore the population of continued cyanide fishers in the water...catching thousands of fish for export next week ?
Training well and winning over fisherman is not happening like we have been reading in every, single quarterly report for the past 3 years.
So...lets skip that part and move on? :roll:

Who wouldn't like to join in the "good cause" and swim slowly in a 50 meter line counting warm-water fish?
Who wouldn't like to have a fun time in the tropics for awhile?
Who wouldn't thrill at dumping cultivated larvae back into the water in a photo-op...and declare victory?
This American recipe for reform must at some point actually touch the ground and take hold in a hundred villages where no ones watching...or subsidizing artificially.
This recipe...made in the USA has refused to weave in local concerns to the point of becoming a cruel joke to locals thruout the Philippines. It may sound good to many of us here...but then again, it would, wouldn't it?
We fall for any soundbite with the environment or children in it.

The implementability of this ever growing ambition becomes more remote the bigger it gets because its too grand to touch bases in reality.
Local people see it as a rich peoples cause now and that is the kiss of death for it when the cameras leave.
For it to work and last, it must serve fishermans reasons...believed to be for fishermans benefit and be percieved as being a Filipino cause.
Then...they'll co-operate.
This well funded, image rich movement is moving forward I must admit. The only problem is, its leaving the fisherman behind.

Steve

 

[sdcfish]

This is my problem in a nutshell.

Without converting the body of cyanide fisherman as you go forward you mock your very movement.
The big-time initiatives move forward on the timetable while missing the incremental achievements called for in the plan.

Steve,

I must say that I do believe the body of cyanide fisherman (WHOEVER OR WHAT PERCENT THAT STILL REPRESENTS) IS being addressed. The problem is not the same as it was 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or even today....so let's not over exhaggerate the situation over there, and surely let's not deny it either. There is still a problem, and it is obvious that it is being delt with.

I am still convinced that to gain a managed fisheries, these steps are necessary and will be the most successful for the long run. This is a scientific and educated approach, and I must put that above any grass roots effort that have proven to fail in the past even though positive results had been achieved, but not stuck.

In my nutshell, let's not bomb the efforts that are being made without adding some positive comments at the same time. I am sure together we can help move the mission forward in the right direction instead of trying to snuff it out completely.

I look forward to more involvement on this forum from all three groups representatives that will help eveyone give their input and show their concerns.

Best regards,

Eric

 

[clarionreef]

Eric,
As netsman train their kids...cyanide fishers train theirs.
The numbers have often gone up on both sides.

You say'
"The problem is not the same as it was 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or even today....so let's not over exhaggerate the situation over there, and surely let's not deny it either. There is still a problem, and it is obvious that it is being delt with. "

Really?
I wish that were true.
I really do.
Progress is counted in the more convenient Philippine liberated zones....repeatedly and not in the rest, especially in the South.
If this is such a dwindling issue, it should be easy to finish off, right?
Lets deal with it then and move on to the exciting Western remedies afterwards.
Steve
And Indo?
A far, far bigger population of cyanide users that have never even been touched.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

I agree with Eric, the situation in the Philippines is better than 20 or 10 years ago. It is not perfect but something positive has been done. Steve has talked about good Filipino collectors training other fishers in different countries, the good thing is that most of those collectors were trained by previous organizations working in the Philippines.

Fish husbandry and water quality at exporters facilities are better than 10 - 20 years ago. That's positive change.

One aspect that hasn't changed is the industry set up regarding fish prices, collectors are getting morsels for their fish. We have been talking about an economic incentive for collectors but the industry is not responding to that call. Over the years, collectors have been sending signs to the industry, they want to do things right but need to see a reward for that commitment and willingness. They need to see that there is an economic difference when they use nets instead of cyanide.

Other aspect that hasn't changed is the commercialization ( by all stakeholders) of species that do not survive in captivity or are not suitable for aquariums.

 

[Anonymous]

That would be an excellent question to pose to the wholesalers on here. Steve, Eric, what are your thoughts on paying more for livestock?

 

[clarionreef]

Gresham,
If a dollar more were paid to the exporters for a netcaught bicolor angel...how could any of it get to the diver?

If one had entry into company policy and in a vertically integrated way...it could perhaps be achieved.
Several American outfits have facilities and or investment in Manila now and can create whatever system they want.
Minimizing the divers in business however is a long and sacred tradition... as in the current reform work.

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

So a large operation, such as SDC, may have vertical integration, and could be one to pay more for the fish to the diver?

Eric, do you enjoy vertical intragration with your PI sources? If you pushed hard, could the divers get paid more?

 

[naesco]

There must be a way found to get more money in the hands of those that risk their lives and look after our reefs.

I would fully support a mandatory per fish levy of say 5% that would be distributed by an international, accountable organization of experts in the field of training and reef restoration.

Obviously, those that continue illegal practices both in the Islands of the Philippines and statement must be severely dealth with by existing laws.

Do you think for one moment that any hobbyist would get out of the hobby or buy less for the sake of 5% more?

 

[Anonymous]

Gee, wouldn't that be great. If it's dreams that were talking about, why not shoot for world peace? Like getting the world to back a MO issue would EVER happen :lol: Can you hear me up there in the clouds

 

[Rascal]

Naesco - Why do you think the end consumer would absorb that 5%? I would think that paying the diver an additional 5% for net caught, drug free fish would equate to greater survivability = less losses = greater profit margin...without having to raise the retail price...or the wholesale price for that matter.

 

[mark@mac]

Rascal,

Thats the problem! The end user does not want to pay a "fair price" because they're used to paying only the "exploited price"......

This is one of the biggest changes needed to balance livlihoods and conservation. If the fisherman "have to catch less" for whatever reason, e.g., low populations, catch limits, etc., then they have to make a living wage catching what they catch. Currently, most fisherman HAVE to catch as much as they can just to SURVIVE day to day.......

Get it?

 

[PeterIMA]

Dear Eric and Jaime,
I am not sure how you think the situation in the Philippines is "better" or "different" now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Please clarify what has gotten better and/or what is different now. Please provide numbers, statistics, citations to back up your assertions.

As far as the statements that Eric made about ReefCheck, and from reading the most recent MAC newsletter I believe there is a fundamental shift in MAC policy to support the creation of MPAs. These "no take" zones can have benefits, provided they are implemented in a way that involves the fishermen and local communities. I am not clear how a team of ReefCheck scientists who are all foreigners intend to achieve this or how fisheries management will be implemented.

Please clarify how the MPA will ge located in relation to the Collection Areas. Will the Collection Areas have any legal or spatial status? Will any of these areas be mapped? How does ReefCheck or MAC intend to enforce the MPAs to keep fishermen out of these areas? What legal status does either MAC or ReefCheck (NGOs run by foreigners) have in either the Philippines or Indonesia? What involvement will the Muncipalities or various parts of BFAR (federal or provincial offices) have in helping to manage these areas. How does any of this fit into present laws in these countries?

In my opinion these issues are not being properly addressed. Once the MAMTI money is gone, there will be no long term benefits to the communities that MAC and ReefCheck are "pretending" to help. In the mean time, they are all drawing big salaries, by sitting in their offices and not performing at the community level to help the fishermen and to improve local conditions. Without local involvement and the support of local governments (barangay, munipal, fisherfolk associations) none of what Eric described can work.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[mark@mac]

Peter,

You make some excellent points here. Many of which have/are being "stumbled" over and through these past years. I am working with a "philipino" group who may just be able to address your point of "follow up" and extension to help empower youths and local communities through MARINE EDUCATION which will hopefully help them ensure their management plans are carried on long past the "intervention"......

 

[Rascal]

Mark - No, I don't get it. Sorry. If the collectors get less fish (but drug free) but get compensated for them by being paid a higher price, I would think it evens out.

100 x 1 = 100

or

50 x 2 = 100

Nothing else in the distribution chain changes. Therefore, the wholesale and retail price should stay the same. Again that is assuming that survivability compensates for the reduction in numbers of fish entering the chain.

 

[clarionreef]

Rascal,
Drug-free fish may be healthier... and may not be as well.
The minimizing of the importance of net training or the failure of it has effectively minimized handling training and kept it from happening on a serious scale.

Healthier fish metabolize more, fight more, eat more and ammoniate more. They present their own problems. Net catching does not automatically equate with better fish on delivery.
This is especially true in the Philippines where the fat and healthier net caught fish still need to travel a lot futher to market then Tonga or Hawaii fishes. Running the guantlet of distance, time in the bags, heat, bad roads, delays and bag crowding all work their ill will on the fishes health.
Steve
Oh, and one more thing.
For 40 years exporters have keenly focused on skills, tactics and ways of paying less money to fisherman. They would be bewildered at this discussion.
They pay the money...not some other group. Its simple, exploitive business and brings fish to the USA as cheap as the extremely out of touch market demands.

 

[sdcfish]

Gresham,

Pricing of the fish is at the hands of the divers and exporters. If the divers raised pricing, exporters would also have to raise pricing and so on.

I have asked many retailers over the years if they felt customers would pay more for a "clean" fish and most say no!

We as importers support our suppliers and deal with price increases as they come. Having no direct relationship with the divers, it's not our intention to vertically integrate, but it was the original plan by ccif if you all remember. That was the business plan where we would do such and be able to put ourselves into the position to not only improve the collectors positions, but to increase wages as well. That is not a viable plan at this point.

Peter,

You ask why I think the situation is better? For us it's very simple....the proof is in the pudding my friend. We receive fish from the Philipines every week.....we see the results, the improvements, everything. We could not have acheived where we are today without the support and improvements made by those company's who have drastically improved their quality and survivability's over the last decade.

Peter's questions about Reefcheck are very good questions....I suggest you get involved to learn more so you can better understand the positive impact that will be acheived. Go to the reefcheck website and read up on other projects and successes that have been acheived. Everyone is welcome to be involved and support these types of fisheries plans.

I am still hoping that MAC, REEFCHECK, and MAMTI represtantives will begin to get involved in this forum to answer the questions that have been made here....I hope we can all welcome them in a civil and professional manner.

Best regards

Eric

 

[Anonymous]

One aspect that hasn't changed is the industry set up regarding fish prices, collectors are getting morsels for their fish. We have been talking about an economic incentive for collectors but the industry is not responding to that call. Over the years, collectors have been sending signs to the industry, they want to do things right but need to see a reward for that commitment and willingness. They need to see that there is an economic difference when they use nets instead of cyanide.

Other aspect that hasn't changed is the commercialization ( by all stakeholders) of species that do not survive in captivity or are not suitable for aquariums.

Seems both wholesalers that responded have no controll over prices paid to divers. Instead of using a blanket statement like "industry", you should be directing your comments to exporters! Since you seem to be friendly with Lolita, why not email her this question and solicate her response for the board to see?

 

[PeterIMA]

Eric, Thanks for your reply. I would welcome exchanging information concerning the studies that are being conducted by myself and Dr. Heidel's group that is collaborating with SDC concerning shipping and handling and methods being applied to reduce shipping mortalities. I commend you and your company for its efforts.

However, it is not clear to me to what degree the changes that you allude to apply to all the exporters in the Philippines and/or Indonesia. Undoubtedly, there have been improvements in filtration systems in export facilities. But, I am not sure whether this helps fishes that have been caught with cyanide and have their livers fried etc. These fishes will die somewhere. All that improvements in filtration can do is perhaps keep them alive, so they die in the importers' or retailers' tanks. Even where the problems are ammonia or stress-related, the improvements in filtration may only pass the fishes down the chain like hot potatoes. I need to see your numbers, and may take up your invitation to visit your facility.

As far as MPAs and better management is concerned you have not answered my questions. So, I am sending them to Dr. Alan White. He is now on the MAC board and is now collaborating with ReefCheck in the implementation of MPAs (see the last MAC newsletter). I would like the answers from Dr. Gregor Hodgson of ReefCheck, but he seems not to be willing to reply to these types of questions (even when they come from people like Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA/NMFS). Lets have more transparency, and then the MAC, Reefcheck, and CCIF might build more credability.

Sincerely,
Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[nanocat]

...I have asked many retailers over the years if they felt customers would pay more for a "clean" fish and most say no!


Eric

I think it depends on how we define "more"? I would certainly pay $18 for a $16 fish, or $30 for a $26 fish. In fact I don't know anyone here in the LA/OC area that drives around to save a buck on a fish, we usually just go to the nearest LFS that has one in stock (with healthy fish). Customers tend to shop bargains more on higher ticket items like hardware, or 100# of live rock, where you can save $20 to $100 depending on where you buy.

Of course I could be wrong?