John Brandt's MAC-Philippines Report

[clarionreef]

John,
So many areas with a bay or lagoon already use the [holding pens] and have for many years. Areas that don't use them, often don't for the simple reason that their beach frontage is too rough. If its too exposed to wind and waves, its bounces up and down and ruins a lot of fish in that way. Basically, the up and down motion 'sands' their noses off and disallows nitetime bottom sleepers a chance to settle. They in turn die from the 24 hour bouncing up and down.
The absence of a good holding area has led many fisherman in the rough areas to bag and re-bag their fish, exposing them to the daily, low level ammonia burn that causes their fins to often dissolve.
Lacking electricity, capital and staging areas w/ aquariums has compelled them to come up with these two solutions...which both have limitations.
Holding pens, where calm enough, work w/ many species [not all] and certainly can't work everywhere.
Its not an easy one to prescribe for is it?
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, any concentration of cyanide "Present" was proof that the fish were collected by an anthropogenic agent that was absent from the marine environment (e.g., cyanide).

Peter,

Isn't it a big inductive leap to say that all fish that contained detectible quantites of cyanide were "proven" to have been collected via cyanide?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the animals were shown to have been exposed to cyanide and may have been captured via its use?

I can imagine a very possible scenario wherein a fish is exposed by someone that does not collect the specimen. Later, a collector using ethical collection techniques might capture the fish. Analytical testing could well show evidence of cyanide eventhough the person that ultimately captured it did not use it.

Presumably this is one of the reasons that some animals with low, but detectible, quantities of cyanide were scored negative? I see things like these as reasons that an over reliance on purely analytical data could lead to problems.

Sincerely,
-Lee Morey

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Didn't Peter say that they only scored positive if the concentrations reached above .2 mg/kg? And that anything less than . was scored negative "giving the collectors a break?" I guess they could be faulted for this vis a vis the "either you're pregnant or your not argument", but allowing for this lower level already suggests that the incidental ingestion of some cyanide is allowed for.
I was on a longrange blueface angel catch boat once and we arrived where several cyanide boats were already working. We collected 150 of them with nets but I imagine that some of ours may have escaped the other guys and have some cyanide in them....since it was sprayed everywhere,
A collector friend of mine in Zambales who I know only collected w/ nets said he had a moorish idol credited to him that had a positive reading from his exporter. False reading or residual cyanide from the next boat over. Who knows?
Steve
PS. Yes...a moorish idol. Don't start.

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, Perhaps you know something. What exactly is the cyanide detection test presently being used by BFAR. Is it any different than the one previously used by IMA?

My understanding is that BFAR has tried the Picric Acid test and the Merck test. Both are colorimetric tests for measuring cyanide in wastewater samples. They are not suitable for testing cyanide ion in fish tissues or for eliminating interferring substances (See my Reefs.org postings on this done last September). Cyanide testing certificates were issued to Marivi Laurel last year using the Picric Acid test (which I received copies of). I have been told by several former IMA staff that BFAR went back to using the APHA/ASTM method previously used by the IMA. However, Marivi Laurel in a conversation last week (on the telephone) implied they were using one of the colorimetric methods (she was not sure which one). Can anyone clarify what test method for cyanide is currently being used?

Peter Rubec

 

[mkirda]

Mike, Perhaps you know something. What exactly is the cyanide detection test presently being used by BFAR. Is it any different than the one previously used by IMA?

My understanding is that BFAR has tried the Picric Acid test and the Merck test. Can anyone clarify what test method for cyanide is currently being used?

Peter Rubec

Peter,

When I was there in January, Marivi just kept saying 'paper test'. I understood this to be the Picric Acid test, though I admit I am not well versed in cyanide testing methods...

I would suggest a call to Lino or Ferdie for clarification on what BFAR is using at this moment.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

Mike wrote: Well, at the moment, MAC-certified does not equal cyanide-free.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean juxtaposed against the fact that MAC Certified fishermen don't use cyanide.


John Brandt

John,

The collectors may not use cyanide. However, once the fish are out of their hands, they lose all control.

Say an exporter gets in a load of fish from MAC-certified fishermen. Due to some element, a small percentage of those fish die. Knowing this, and knowing that there is noone looking over their shoulder, they walk over to another holding tank holding the same species, grab a 'replacement', then dump it in with the MAC batch. No one is the wiser, nor will anyone ever be. Unless that fish also happened to be caught with cyanide, and dies later...

Repeat the same scenario at the importer level. Then at the LFS level.
The entire system is easily corrupted, unfortunately. And there is no way for this to ever be uncovered using a paper trail. The only way to 'catch' it is with a viable cyanide detection test.

Seriously, John, it was a pity that you could not talk more with involved others without your MAC minders around. They would have been more frank with you. Mar and I spoke with Marivi for hours over this subject. And after a lot of thought, I do not see an easy solution for the MAC on this point without the cyanide test being in place.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

If a person is highly-motivated to cheat they will, and that is really true about anything. There are certain necessities of trust that we must grant to others if we are to get through any typical day. We trust that drivers will not go through red lights. We trust that the caterer used fresh cream. We trust that bank tellers aren't handing us counterfeit bills.

At the most fundamental level MAC trusts that MAC Certified organizations and individuals will act in good faith. There are certain safeguards that can be put into place.

A CDT could be a highly effective tool to detect the use of cyanide, followed by warnings or enforcement. But the real benefit of a CDT test when used in combination with MAC Certification lies in the reliable traceability to the individual collector. That brings about a psychological impact on the collector that will really motivate them to conform. If we can bring the fishers to be superstitious about the use of cyanide we have won.

There are ways to analyze data coming from MAC Certified locations that can detect some cheating. But that highly-motivated cheater can probably engineer a way around almost anything.

"Cheating" would certainly not be limited to MAC Certified facilities. Any "net-caught" fish shipment coming from the Philippines right now is a potential "cheat" target. Hypothetical: When Steve Robinson sells 3 net-caught Powder Brown Tangs to Bumpy's Pet Shop, he trusts and hopes Bumpy doesn't mix in 9 "other-caught" Powder Browns. Bumpy now has 12 net-caught Powder Brown Tangs from Cortez Hand-caught Marines.

Imagine a time in the future when 90% of the fish from the Philippines are net-caught.

The biggest picture of all is the one that leaves cheaters with nothing to cheat with. Every one of us sitting around this RDO campfire will no doubt do whatever we can to bring about reform in the Philippines. We all seem to have different ideas, different ways that we would do it. But we all fundamentally want the same thing. I saw two villages that no longer use cyanide. That is a start.

With a net training campaign organized by Ferdinand Cruz, Steve Robinson and others we can get our hopes set high for systematic conversions throughout the Republic of the Philippines. Barangay by barangay, with the cheaters on the run.

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

 

[naesco]

There is no question that at every opportunity there will be cheating.
Online stores, LFS, wholesalers, importers, exporters and fishers are doing now and we are all aware of it.
The only thing that will stop it is a random cyanide tests.

On a positive test, (maybe a strike three your out) the world will know who the cheaters are.

You can spend millions of dollars and half a century teaching net fishing but the bottom line will be the results of a random test.
If I were a wholesaler, online store or Phillippine dealer I would think twice about the consequences of a positive test.

MAC contributes greatly to reef related environmental positive changes.
But without a test, their approval and certification would be meaningless.
I am looking forward to MAC implementing a random cyanide test soon.

 

[John_Brandt]

This is simple. The CAMP documents are not the property of MAC and MAC has no say on their distribution. I would suggest that you ask the Chairman of the Clarin and Batasan CAMP Committees for copies if you want them.

Not so simple, John...

The CAMPs have the names of those chairmen. MAC sure doesn't advertise them. That is part of the 'proprietary information', as they call it.

I tried going that route. What I got were insurmountable roadblocks. As did you.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Mike,

When I said "simple", I meant that the answer was simple, not the acquisition of the CAMPs :wink:

It is true, they do not belong to MAC to give out. As you know they contain proprietary materials.

Having said that...I did a bit more inquiring, but you may already know some of the following:

1) CAMPs are produced by the CAMP Committee, not by MAC.
2) CAMPs are often several MBs in size, due to the maps.
3) You, Mike Kirda, now have permission to view the CAMPs if you go to either Batasan or Clarin in person.
4) The CAMP Committees will likely be producing a CAMP summary for the MAC website.
5) The CAMP Committees are not prepared to issue CAMPs to anyone, as they consider some information proprietary. This is especially true with their knowledge that people on the Internet are speaking of sharing CAMPs from uncertified areas.

Batasan Tropical Fish Collectors Association
Batasan Island, Bohol, Philippines
Tel. +63 919 488 1898

Tangaran Aquarium Fish Gathers Association
Tangaran, Clarin, Bohol, Philippines
Tel. +63 920 779 3095

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

 

[John_Brandt]

John,
So many areas with a bay or lagoon already use the [holding pens] and have for many years. Areas that don't use them, often don't for the simple reason that their beach frontage is too rough. If its too exposed to wind and waves, its bounces up and down and ruins a lot of fish in that way. Basically, the up and down motion 'sands' their noses off and disallows nitetime bottom sleepers a chance to settle. They in turn die from the 24 hour bouncing up and down.
The absence of a good holding area has led many fisherman in the rough areas to bag and re-bag their fish, exposing them to the daily, low level ammonia burn that causes their fins to often dissolve.
Lacking electricity, capital and staging areas w/ aquariums has compelled them to come up with these two solutions...which both have limitations.
Holding pens, where calm enough, work w/ many species [not all] and certainly can't work everywhere.
Its not an easy one to prescribe for is it?
Steve

Steve,

Thanks again for sharing your experience and knowledge. I was spoiled with decent weather at Bohol. Surely any "Wall Street" could not withstand the force of the sea when she is angry, as you have pointed out. Injuries and insults to the animals must be prevented at every turn.

You have caused me to rethink holding animals on shore. Electrical supply might not be a problem. The islands and coastlines are surrounded by powerful energy. The sun provides solar power to run a circulation pump and aerator. Wave action and tides can provide energy for paddle-wheel and piston-powered water circulating devices. Paddle-wheels could be installed on nearby coastal streams. Just ideas.

Are there any NGOs that specialize in equipping villages or municipalities with very low impact energy gathering devices as mentioned above?

Sincerely,

John Brandt

MASNA
MAC
CMAS-Chicago

 

[Kalkbreath]

Have any of you ever thought about what happens to the by catch that the seafood fishermen dont collect? These same small reef fish that are exposed to the cyanide used by the larger seafood industry collectors yet not collected, will no doubt be net caught by MAC certified hobby collectors.............This false reading on the collector combined with how easy it will be to taint a competing collectors batch { if that collector is not liked by the exporter or other collectors} A collector cannot over see his catch for the duration of its export.................. A three strikes your out policy in a corrupt country like PI will surely end with No players to play ball.
_________________
apollo mist strain

 

[naesco]

Well kalk then the problem is solved, right

 

[dizzy]

Well kalk then the problem is solved, right

Naesco,
So what your saying is that instead of sending netting material or looking for funding to help build better holding systems for fish, we should be sending money over to build more jails for the fishers. Right?

 

[Anonymous]

Have any of you ever thought about what happens to the by catch that the seafood fishermen dont collect? These same small reef fish that are exposed to the cyanide used by the larger seafood industry collectors yet not collected, will no doubt be net caught by MAC certified hobby collectors.............This false reading on the collector combined with how easy it will be to taint a competing collectors batch { if that collector is not liked by the exporter or other collectors} A collector cannot over see his catch for the duration of its export.................. A three strikes your out policy in a corrupt country like PI will surely end with No players to play ball.

Kalk,

You understand exactly what I'm alluding to. One of the specific cases I was thinking about regarded ornamental species that would not be collected by a cyanide wielding food fisherman due to their small size. These weakened fish would be the easiest to catch by subsequent people. I suspect that there may be a statistical bias towards net collection catching these weakened fish. It might be statistically unimportant, but...

My point is that cyanide testing is not the panacea of trust and justice many are making it out to be. Testing is a tool that could help further reform but it is not the most important one in the tool box. It appears that sociological and economic tools are far more important.

I don't want to contribute to topic creep any more so I'll start another thread later today if someone else doesn't beat me to it.

-Lee

 

[mkirda]

As you know they contain proprietary materials.

Having said that...I did a bit more inquiring, but you may already know some of the following:

1) CAMPs are produced by the CAMP Committee, not by MAC.
2) CAMPs are often several MBs in size, due to the maps.
3) You, Mike Kirda, now have permission to view the CAMPs if you go to either Batasan or Clarin in person.
4) The CAMP Committees will likely be producing a CAMP summary for the MAC website.
5) The CAMP Committees are not prepared to issue CAMPs to anyone, as they consider some information proprietary. This is especially true with their knowledge that people on the Internet are speaking of sharing CAMPs from uncertified areas.

John,

(Note: I am annoyed with the answers, John. Please do not take this personally...)

1) BS. CAMPs are actually written by the area's MAC coordinator. Or maybe you didn't catch the educational level of the average fisherman.
2) Who cares? I have broadband. The CAMPs could be much smaller in size if the producer was more well versed in computer technology... Maybe I should shrink the Palauig one so it can be only 1-2 meg in size for easier distribution?
3) Great. So next time I actually get to take a trip to the Philippines (maybe 2 years from now), I get to fly to Cebu, take the ferry across to Bohol and travel down there to get a copy? Or just to see a copy?
4) n/c.
5) John, can you identify what it is within these CAMPs that is considered to be 'proprietary'? It is really interesting as Roger was very willing to share the Palauig CAMP with me- He was *PROUD* of it because it represented a lot of effort. He considered it a major accomplishment, as did Pedro from BFAR. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out what would be 'proprietary information' within it. Maybe Paul can identify it by page number from the Palauig CAMP, then Paragraph, as well as beginning of sentence? (To be sure I am looking at the same information?)

Regards.

Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

Lee,
Didn't Peter say that they only scored positive if the concentrations reached above .2 mg/kg? And that anything less than . was scored negative "giving the collectors a break?" I guess they could be faulted for this vis a vis the "either you're pregnant or your not argument", but allowing for this lower level already suggests that the incidental ingestion of some cyanide is allowed for.
I was on a longrange blueface angel catch boat once and we arrived where several cyanide boats were already working. We collected 150 of them with nets but I imagine that some of ours may have escaped the other guys and have some cyanide in them....since it was sprayed everywhere,
A collector friend of mine in Zambales who I know only collected w/ nets said he had a moorish idol credited to him that had a positive reading from his exporter. False reading or residual cyanide from the next boat over. Who knows?
Steve
PS. Yes...a moorish idol. Don't start.

Steve,

Respectfully, that is not what I read in Peter's posting. The people "given a break" appear to be inferred to be lesser criminals.

I work with analytical data every day. It is very, very easy to get lost in the numbers. When I see an unusual, high value on a lab report I always ask myself several questions. Was the sample a good one, unbiased and accurately characterizes what's going on? Was the sample an untypical one? Did the lab make a mistake? Every lab I've ever used have made occasional mistakes, even the best ones.

I know Peter is very smart and probably has every angle thought through on this topic. They don't just pass out them PhD's like candy. I just wanted to know whether he was really meaning to say:

"Actually, any concentration of cyanide "Present" was proof that the fish were collected by an anthropogenic agent that was absent from the marine environment (e.g., cyanide)."

Also, I see no value in using a lower value cut off in determinig whether someone is guilty or not in the extreme cases we are referring to. The fish that escapes the cyanide fisherman's eye and is subsequently collected by a net collector could have just as high a level of toxin in its system as one that was collected via poison.

-Lee

 

[Anonymous]

John,

Is there any provision made in MAC certification that ornamental collection areas be seperated from collection areas used by other types if fisherpersons?

-Lee

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike,
This posting pertains to the CAMP prepared for net-collectors at Batasan Island in the municipality of Tubigon. It may sound negative. I regret this because the IMA trained these collectors to use nets in 1999. Much of what John Brandt observed relates back to their prior training by the IMA (eg use of nets and holding pens). While I bear no malice against the collectors and wish them well, I feel it is necessary to raise the issue of whether the MAC should facilitate the Certification of site that are deemed to be "unsustainable". This is a thorny issue since most reefs in the Philippines ( more than 94%) are degraded from a variety of factors such as the use of cyanide, dynamite, siltation from deforestation, illegal trawling, kayakas and muro-ami fishing etc.

I think the answer to why the collectors in Batasan and the MAC refuse to release the Batasan CAMP document is because it would show that there is no information included in to demonstrate that that the site was "sustainable" based an underwater survey.

ReefCheck conducted an underwater survey last summer at Batasan to evaluate the MAQTRAC underwater survey methodology funded by the MAC. According to Dr. Andrew Bruckner of NOAA and Mike King of CORL (personnal communications 2002) Gregor Hodgson of ReefCheck told them last September (at the Task Force meeting in Puerto Rico) that Batasaan was "unsustainable". The person who conducted the survey was Craig Shuman a Ph.D. student at the University of California at Los Angeles who works for ReefCheck.

In an email to me (dated 12/19/02) Craig Shuman stated the following:
"My time in the Philippines was limited to 3 months last year where I did most of my work in the Olango region. I was in Busuanga shortly after the establishment of the fishing cooperatives and did surveys in Batasan immediately before the establishment of the CAMP. One aspect of the CAMP in Tubigon that bothered me was that it did not take into account any of the reef surveys that were performed and was focused on a CPUE approach to monitor stocks. I discussed this issue in great length with Paul (Holthus) and Rezal and we agreed that this was a starting point that would eventually incorporate the scientific assessments after further data collection and would have to be modified if subsequent surveys showed further deleterious impacts on local populations. It did seem that the program was successful in mobilizing the community into a cooperative unit to work towards sustainability. In my mind this is a huge achievement in that (it) reduced problems associated with Tragedy of the Commons and can use peer pressure to minimize the use of cyanide. Of course, as I mentioned to James (Cervino) actions speak louder than words and it is primarily the "word" of the cooperative that is currently driving the certification. Is this "word" enough for certification? I do not know."

I (Peter Rubec) discussed this with Ferdinand Cruz in December and he confirmed that the CAMP at Batasan did not include an underwater survey of either the fish or the status of the coral reefs. The former IMA divers working for the MAC went to the site, but did not conduct the underwater survey.

The MAC posted the MAC Core Standards Interpretation Issue 1 dated October 1, 2002. This document provided DRAFT amendments to the original MAC Core standards dated July 1, 2001. With respect to the Ecosystem Fishery Management (EFM) standards the original Core Standards document (dated July 1, 2001) specifies that the Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) under Part 8 should include a description of the marine aquarium fishery including a description of a) the resource, b) environmental, c) biological diversity and ecological, d) technological, e) social, and f) economic conditions. Part 9 specifies the CAMP should include a list of marine aquarium organisms available to be collected and the quantities and sizes involved. Part 11 specifies the CAMP should include a description of the aquatic ecosystem, its status, and any particularly sensitive areas, features, or species influencing or affected by the fishery. Part 14 states the CAMP should provide a basic description of measures agreed upon for the regulation of the collection and fishing of marine aquarium organisms within the designated collection area. These may include general and specific measures,precautionary measures, contingency plans, mechanisms for emergenc decisions etc. Part 16 states the CAMP should specify arrangements and responsabilities for regular monitoring, control and surveillance, and enforcement.

The CAMP documents prepared by the collectors in Palauig and Busuanga with assistance from Ferdinand Cruz (seconded the MAC from IMA) and the MAC trainers address all of the above requirements. To determine the status of the resource underwater surveys were conducted to assess fish species diversity and relative abundance, and line transect surveys were conducted to assess the health and species composition of the corals in the coral reefs.

In the MAC Core Standards Interpretation document under EFM (page 8) an "interpretation" is provided for part 14 (listed above). It states "This requirement does not make it mandatory that a resource survey must take place prior to MAC Certification being granted. However, the MAC Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) must address how the abundance, distribution and trends of the resource will be addressed over time."

To me this is like putting the cart before the horse. A CAMP document was prepared at Batasan without a resource survey having been conducted. Then the MAC modified the rules to say it was OK to do this and the MAC Certifier Graham O'Geran of IMS International certified the collection site (without explaining what criteria were used). How convenient.

Based on what John Brandt reported I believe that the Collectors Association at Batasan has now met with ReefCheck to review his underwater survey. What should they do if he reported that the site was unsustainable? How should the MAC do if the survey shows the site is unsustainable? If a survey is conducted after the site is certified which shows the collection area is unsustainable what mechanism exists for the MAC or the Certifier working for the MAC to remove the certification?

I think there are some other issues like how complex does the underwater assessment need to be? Does it require a Ph.D. using advanced survey and statistical methods? MAQTRAC may be to complicated and too expensive to implement. This may have something to do with why the MAC chose not to adopt it at Batasan. Ferdinand Cruz developed a simpler underwater survey methodology that was applied by collectors in Palauig and Busuanga with some help from the MAC trainers and a Peace Corps worker. Ferdianand published an underwater survey manual that describes the methods.

Peter Rubec

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee,

Let me first clarify that the IMA did rigorous cyanide testing under contract to BFAR and that the test results were (and still are) accepted by the Philippine court system. I hope that you are not questioning this, since I sent you by mail the flawed report prepared by the MAC and my rebuttal. I have not received any feedback from you on this. The rebuttal document described many aspects of the test proceedure. I also described it to some degree on Reefs.org last fall.

In the rebuttal document, I acknowledged the possability that net-caught fish held in a holding facility with cyanide-caught fish might take up excreted cyanide. Hence, net-caught fish sampled from an export facility might show traces of cyanide. Actually, this is a remote possability since the fish metabolizes cyanide ion (CN-) and converts it into thiocyanate ion (SCN-) with help from an enzyme called rhodanese. Since, the fish excretes thiocyanate, that is what would be taken up by another fish. Experiments by scientists like Dr. Dixon and Dr. Lanno indicate that fish can take up thiocyanate (across the gills). The fish would then need to convert the thiocyanate back to cyanide ion for it to be detected by the APHA/ASTM test procedure used by IMA. No one has demonstrated that this conversion is possible in fish. It is likely that the concentration of SCN taken up would be extremely low.

I agree that it is possible that a fish previously exposed to cyanide by cyanide fishermen on the reefs could subsequently be caught by a net-collector (if it lived and escaped from the cyanide fisherman).

I pesonally feel that any cyanide concentration between 0.03 and 10 mg/kg is proof that the fish were exposed to cyanide introduced into the marine environment by man. The courts can convict a fisherman based on test results below 0.2 mg/kg if they choose to. Lots of the tests conducted by the IMA chemists detected cyanide below this level, so many fishermen were given a break.

I would not be so leniant, if I were the judge. Horge's posting is correct in stating that fishermen evaded prosecution by holding the fish long enough for the cyanide present to drop (because it is excreted) below the level being used for prosecution purposes (but not necessarily zero). That is why I don't feel that there should be a 0.2 ppm cut-off.

Law enforcement officials (Philippine Constabulary, Navy officials, local municipal officials) worked closely with the IMA Marine Inspections Sampling (MIS) staff. The MIS staff accompanied law enforcement officials to apprehend collectors in the field at sea and at the villages. Generally, collectors were apprehended with cyanide tablets and/or cyanide squirt bottles in their possession. The fish seized from the fishermen were then sent to the nearest CDT laboratory (alive in plastic bags or frozen). If the tests came out positive (equal to or higher than 0.2 ppm) then charges were filed against the fishermen. So, you can see it was not just the CDT testing that was used as evidence against the fishermen in court. Under these circumstances (fishermen caught in possession of cyanide) I don't think they could argue that the fish tested just happened to have cyanide in them and that they only used nets.

There will always be criminals that try to beat the system. I personally would like to see exporters and middlemen prosecuted. Many of them distribute cyanide to the collectors. To my knowledge none of them have ever been prosecuted for buying and selling cyanide-caught fish and/or cyanide(although there are provisions in the Fisheries Code and othe laws against this). Until the cyanide distributors are prosecuted, I don't think the Philippines will stop cyanide-fishing.

Cyanide fishing has contributed to the widespread destruction of coral reefs. It is not the only cause of reef destruction. But is more deadly than many hobbyists and those in the trade are aware of. The collectors see its effects. Even Horge (a city guy in the Philippines) has witnessed its impact on the reefs. Cyanide fishing must be stopped while there are still some living coral reefs left.

After 20 years dealing with the cyanide problem, I realize that the problem is more widespread than even I had realized. As I sit here analyzing the CDT database, I can see that the problem is not just live aquarium fish, and live food fish for export to Chinese restaurants in Hong Kong. Cyanide fishing is also used to capture food fish (dead) for human consumption in the Philippines. Many of the fish species targeted with cyanide are of no interest to either the live aquarium or food fish trades.

Consequently, the Philippine government needs to re-open the CDT labs and expand its testing programs. MAC Certification needs to be linked with cyanide testing.

Peter Rubec

 

[My Hairy Ass]

The lab in Coron is testing fish again.

 

[PeterIMA]

Hairy Ass, The CDT lab in Coron run by
BFAR is a new CDT laboratory. Previously it was a BFAR/IMA office that collected samples and sent them to the CDT lab in Puerto Princesa (Palawan) or to the CDT laboratory in Manila.

Peter Rubec