Yes, old chum, but how about I point out (since MAC discussions have this tendency to resemble burnings at the stake...)
that MAC really cannot dictate to an LGU the what, where and how of any putative MPA. MAC can only try to pressure private collectors or wholesalers, and few of these entities have any power or authority (I won't even venture a guess at genuine desire) to set aside and maintain a protected area.
What MAC can do is be on top of the facts, report them accurately and try to convince those in power to help things along towards sustainability, intelligent MPA designation being one means.
Knowing MPA suitability for a site is pretty durn important if you're going to flog your organization as promoting sustainability, and keep waving around a wad of pulp with the the tag 'CAMP' on it.
If John doesn't know, then I'm merely bummed.
If MAC doesn't know, then I'm aghast.
Similarly, if a MAC-associated collection area hasn't an appropriate and functional MPA surgically attached to its ass, then I can't automatically blame MAC for the lack (though the collection area oughtn't be operating now, should it?)... but if MAC doesn't know about the MPA deficit, or worse glosses it over, then it's actionable.
This all revolves on just how valid the CAMP is.
I've seen what was claimed to be one such document, but it struck me as insufficient for determining operational parameters re collection, to ensure sustainability.
Collection areas aren't hermetically sealed, and are open to both massive biological drainage and influx from without, independent of collection activity. Bottom line is I don't think ANYONE can realistically suggest minimum stats for a local MPA based on a study that is based on less than a decade of very local, wet-time data. You're practically left with trial and error, and that's how the better fisherfolk have done it for ages, getting a multi-genertional feel for a whole bay or a whole provincial coastline.
While I respect the effort that probably went into certain CAMPs, I don't automatically respect the CAMPs themselves --not the way they're sometimes being presented as absolute guarantees. If they are there to reassure the timid, or cover the asses of timid councilors in the pertinent LGU, then fine. Handholding is all part of the game.
I'll rant for a bit more:
Vertical insulation of collection-to-export lends itself to strict monitoring of the merch and being able to vouvh for its origins and clean collection. But the reason there is so much crosstown traffic is precisely because of seasonal or other-cyclic waxing and waning of certain sites. Any excess at site A will find ready buyers at deficit-plagued sites B and C. Down the road, their places may be reversed.
THAT crosstown traffic is why a relatively honest, and reasonably affordable (to the RP gov't), regular CN audit in the field is necessary.
The crosstown raffic is there because the collection area required to ensure that a vertically-insulated exporter can profitably, sustainably and CLEANLY meet its share of US demand is IMO far beyond what many of this Forum's visitors imagine.
Here's a bedtime story..
Back when Ed Gomez was still taking up space at MSL, let's say the informal consensus kicked about among some friends, colleagues, peers, (and a few enemies) was that in a cyanide-free world, there was room for only 7 to maybe, at most, 12 marine ornamental exporters nationwide,
if one were to enforce vertical insulation, with exclusive assets (no sharing of collectors/collections between exporters), and were to require longterm profitability, very conservative environmental sustainabilty and reliable supply for local, European and US demand (this was back in the heady early-early 90's of a robust reefkeeping hobby worlwide). If asset-sharing was allowed, some of them felt the number jumped to well over two hundred.
Anyway, in their case let's say it was a comfortable consensus because they were working from years of familiarity with a large number of broadly-distributed local conditions. Let's say they came at it by patchwork, almost, certain areas cobbling together to form a sustainable mass of resources, and by the time we used them up we had at least 7 areas.
Here's the rub: if they had been asked to commit it all to paper, there would have been no takers. Amongst themselves, there was mutual cognizance of experience and knowledge, of inexperience and ignorance , so they knew just how much each opinon was worth.
But to put it to paper?
A paper for the outside world to read?
A world unfamiliar with their measured opinion's worth?
They'd need hard, supporting data for that.
A month's data? A year's? Two years?
No. The data would have to be equal to the bulk of their experience and local familiarities, the very sort that
allowed them to even venture a rough consensus, and that meant at least a decade of data.
So, if someone were show one of them a sheaf of paper and plastic as if it were a solid blueprint for longterm sustainable ornamental fish collection for area X, they'd tend to look for more than a mere couple of years, let alone months of measurement of an area, and preferably one ALREADY UNDER COLLECTION PRESSURE.
Leche, but you've set me off on a tangent, Mike
Bottom line is that holding MAC accountable on sustainability issues is proper, but to do it based on a possibly-suspect CAMP is IMO not the best way to do it. JMO, FWIW, YMMV, NMFIF, etc...
Next time you're Flip-side, let me know,
I'll freeze a case of San Mig, and buy some ninja gear.
Then we can break into BFAR at night, filch the lobby-fish,
and FedEx it to Steve.
.
