"one common goal"

[Tim Tessier]

From: Some TAG, AMDA, MAC History

So the question is, how many organizations is it going to take to accomplish one common goal? We have IMA, OVI, MAC, AMDA, TAG, CORL and how many others and now there's talk of starting yet another one. It's sad that we spend so much time bickering and posturing rather than asking what we can do to help.

I find it quite amazing that all these organizations abound as well.

I sincerely hope that the MAC can work with the IMA and get the existing labs running. Perhaps if someone would pay the money owed to IMA for running the CDT labs for the BFAR then maybe we could get some accurate testing methodologies quickly back in place. Why can't this negligible amount be written off for the sake of the reefs? I know it may cause donor problems but we are not dealing with a wealthy nation that can fully fund its own government programs.

Hopefully the BFAR will make random CDT testing on Tangs, Angels and Triggers mandatory for the completion of the export permits. It would then make sense for those found guilty of assisting the cyanide trade to be prosecuted under Philippine law.

Once the test is operational again what will happen to the MAC certified exporters that mainly trade in fish caught by unknown collection methods(choose your poison). And how about the MAC certified importers that knowingly purchase from these suppliers. Will they all lose their certifications? Will the whole chain of custody lose their certifications? Isn't that one point of traceability?

Your thoughts John?

I'm glad to announce that CORL will be helping the Philippine government with Coral farming for coral reef restoration in the very near future.

I did not realize the Philippine government needed any help with coral restoration. I remember talking with a fellow named Dr. Thomas Heeger, he was operating a coral farm in conjunction with the University of San Carlos in Cebu. I mentioned he should approach the IMA for funding as they were interested in reefs. Long and short of it IMA funded/s the farm. At Baltimore MACNA Andy Bruckner mentioned it was the largest coral farm in the world. Seems like they have it pretty much in hand although perhaps there is a need to increase distribution of the farmed corals.

Hopefully you will all work together and multiply the effectiveness of your labours by building on the work of others.

Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisors they succeed."
~Proverbs 15:22

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Anonymous]

Tim, if I recollect correctly, there is some dispute as to whether or not IMA funded anything for the Philippine BFAR, indeed, are they not a government agency?

Some clarification would be appreciated.

Also, from my recent readings, it seems to me that the reason why we're ending up with all these different organizations is because those who wish to change poor practices from within find they're hitting their heads against a wall (MAC, it seems, especially). I am cannot say that I ascribe to this methodology, being the woman that I am (American) I believe that persistence and numbers, just as we make changes in our own governance, would be preferable. Keep things simple, eh? However, I have been learning of far too many who have become exceedingly frustrated and throw their hands up and leave, sheer frustration.

 

[dizzy]

I remember talking with a fellow named Dr. Thomas Heeger, he was operating a coral farm in conjunction with the University of San Carlos in Cebu. I mentioned he should approach the IMA for funding as they were interested in reefs. Long and short of it IMA funded/s the farm.
Cheers,
Tim

Tim,
I sure would like to hear a recent report about that farm. I think the intent was to cover operating costs by selling part of the frags or small colonies to the pet trade in Germany. At MACNA XIV Daniel Knop said he had been a part of that effort with Thomas Heeger. It seems like Philippine government red tape complicated the export issues to the point that Daniel Knop abandoned the effort and was moving operations to a private island in Indo. Perhaps things are working out better under new management, but selling part of the coral that is produced to cover operating costs seems like it was a good idea. Grant money is good too if you can get it.

 

[Mike King]

..

 

[PeterIMA]

Seamaiden, I am not clear about your comment. The International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) is not a government agency. The Philippine Bureaau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) is a bureau within the Philippine Department of Agriculture. Hence, BFAR is a government agency. As far as funding, Tim Tessier correctly stated that BFAR has not paid IMA money owed to us under the contract with BFAR to run CDT laboratories. IMA does not owe BFAR anything. However, we are attempting to obtain a grant from the US government that would allow IMA and BFAR to jointly run an expanded CDT laboratory in Manila. BFAR is faced with reduction in funding that is affecting the running of the CDT laboratories. Hence, more funding is needed.

The situation with the coral farms run by IMA is the following. A coral farm was established during 1999 on Olango Island (village of Cow-ay) by Dr. Thomas Heeger with grants obtained from German government agencies. Dr. Heeger was associated with the University of San Carlos in the City of Cebu. My understanding is that Dr. Heeger wished to export corals to assist the local community, but that he could not obtain CITES permits through BFAR. Hence, there was no source of income to sustain the coral farm in the long term. I also recognized the need for export of some farmed corals to provide income to support restoration programs (this was documented in a paper I wrote about Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries-TURFS for farming coral reef invertebrates for the aquarium trade, published in the journal Aquarium Sciences and Conservation in 2001).

In 2000, Dr. Heeger asked IMA to take over running the coral farm on Olango Island. The IMA also created a second coral farm on Camontes Island. The IMA obtained funding from donors such as Packard and USAID that has continued to fund the operation of the coral farms and to support restoration projects. In the past year, the IMA has been collaborating with Dr. Edgardo Gomez of the University of the Philippines. The Olango Island farm now has about 5,000 giant clams in addition to the corals. Several coral reefs have been established in the vicinity of the farms that are enhancing fish production for the local communities.

The goals of IMA with respect to the coral farms are similar to the goals expressed by Mike King of CORL concerning coral farming. The IMA is using the coral farm on Olango Island as a regional training center to support coral reef restoration projects.

The problem of exporting corals from coral farms ub the Philippines is that BFAR refuses to issue CITES export permits. The export of corals from the Philippines is illegal. I believe it is possible to get BFAR to make an exception for maricultured corals by passing a Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO). The other problem lies with CITES that does not recognize corals grown from fragments in the ocean as being "maricultured". Under the CITES definition this is still considered "wild harvest". Hopefully, CITES will change its definition and BFAR will eventually issue export permits for corals, giant clams etc., reared in the ocean on farms.

Peter Rubec

 

[Mike King]

....

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike,

The report concerning the creation of a coral farm by IMA on Camotes Island is the following:

Ravenhill, G.P. 2000. Coral Farming And Translocation As A Means of Reef Rehabilitation, Sustainable Marine Resources Management And Enviromental Awareness Building. Report International Marinelife Alliance, Pasig City, Philippines. 24 pp.

My filing system is a bit chaotic. If I find it, I am happy to send it to you or any of the others reading this. I will need an addess where to send it.

As far as the state of the Olango Island coral farm that you witnessed in February. Did it occur to you that the site may have been degraded by the typhoon that hit the site in late January?

You might consider the possability that if a reef ball was created, it may have been created by members of the local community. I honestly don't know.

The coral farm was maintained by Joey Gatus (whom you may have met on your visits there). Currently, I believe the person to contact would be Joy Alban. The number for IMA (they have a new office in Quezon City) is 011-632-927-3217. Ask to speak with Mary Jean Caleda or Geronimo Reyes.

I also will be contacting them to obtain clarification about the issues you have raised.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

Peter, thank you for the clarification. I did not realize that any NGO's were providing funding to any governmental branches, my mistake. Yes, I recollect reading the discussion regarding monies owed to IMA from BFAR, but was a bit unclear as to how that situation came to be. I'll freely admit, I still have much to learn (you and Mike alone have helped with freely providing the information I'd requested), and appreciate everyone's patience with my ignorance on these matters.

 

[John_Brandt]

Once the test is operational again what will happen to the MAC certified exporters that mainly trade in fish caught by unknown collection methods(choose your poison). And how about the MAC certified importers that knowingly purchase from these suppliers. Will they all lose their certifications? Will the whole chain of custody lose their certifications? Isn't that one point of traceability?

Your thoughts John?

Tim,

MAC Certified fish do not come from unknown sources, nor are they collected by unknown methods. MAC will be facilitating the random cyanide testing of MAC Certified fish. The MAC has no control over (nor can it speak for) any animals that are not MAC Certified. Keep in mind that MAC Standards do not force any point in the chain of custody to handle strictly MAC Certified fish. But MAC Certified animals must always be segregated from any others.

The combination of the random CDT and full traceability to the collector will be an important tool for control of MAC Certified animals.

 

[Ad van Tage]

Once the test is operational again what will happen to the MAC certified exporters that mainly trade in fish caught by unknown collection methods(choose your poison). And how about the MAC certified importers that knowingly purchase from these suppliers. Will they all lose their certifications? Will the whole chain of custody lose their certifications? Isn't that one point of traceability?

Your thoughts John?

Tim,

MAC Certified fish do not come from unknown sources, nor are they collected by unknown methods. MAC will be facilitating the random cyanide testing of MAC Certified fish. The MAC has no control over (nor can it speak for) any animals that are not MAC Certified. Keep in mind that MAC Standards do not force any point in the chain of custody to handle strictly MAC Certified fish. But MAC Certified animals must always be segregated from any others.

The combination of the random CDT and full traceability to the collector will be an important tool for control of MAC Certified animals.

I hate to resurrect an old thread in case the answers to a question I ask, have already been provided elsewhere in an other thread.

If such is the case , please bear with me, and point me to the right thread. Thanx in advance.

Now my questions are:

In the statement by John_Brandt of the RDO Taskforce, who signed off as

John Brandt
MASNA (USCRTF/MAC/Legislation Liaison)
MAC (Board of Directors)
CMAS-Chicago (Vice President)

" MAC will be facilitating the random cyanide testing of MAC Certified fish.
a) what precisely is ment by "facilitating"?
b) what is the status of this random testing.

And finally:
given that there are some certified collectors;
given there are some certified exporters;
given there are some certified importers;
given there are some certified retailers...

c) have there been any fish / fishies that have been randomly tested at any one of these certified points?

And if so:
d) how many fish were tested? And at how many points?
e) where would one be able to see the results of such tests?

:idea: I for one would be very happy to read about success-stories in this particular chain-of-custody scenario. :idea:


I will start a new thread on this topic, as I believe it will help reduce thread-clutter.
This one can serve to get left-overs warmed up...

Btw. Tim Tessier asked several questions that were left unanswered. 8O 8O 8O


As always,

 

[PeterIMA]

Ad Van Tag,

The statement that MAC would be "facilitating CDT" meant that they had an agreement that BFAR (Manila laboratory) would do CDT on MAC Certified fish from the MAC certified export facilities. The PFTEA and MAC reached an agreement whereby they would allow random sampling in the MAC certified facilities. After the announcements (that you have dredged up from last May, June, and July) nothing appears to have happened.

I likewise would be interested in the MAC's responses to your questions.

Peter Rubec

 

[Ad van Tage]

Ad Van Tag,

The statement that MAC would be "facilitating CDT" meant that they had an agreement that BFAR (Manila laboratory) would do CDT on MAC Certified fish from the MAC certified export facilities. The PFTEA and MAC reached an agreement whereby they would allow random sampling in the MAC certified facilities. After the announcements (that you have dredged up from last May, June, and July) nothing appears to have happened.

I likewise would be interested in the MAC's responses to your questions.

Peter Rubec

Peter, my Rube, let's get together on this and see if WE can ferret out some meaningful answers...

Yours truly,

Ad van Tage ...

________________
~ aka Ecoworrier ~