If I were an auditor ...

[blue hula3]

G'day all,

Apologies in advance for the long post. And, please interpret this constructively

If I were an auditor, I would ask the following questions before feeling certain that the Batasan collection area or any other certified collection area was (1) currently supplying fish that can be classed as certified, (meaning IMO not caught with cyanide nor contributing to declines in wild populations) and (2) representing an area that can be considered as “under management” and thus an appropriate indicator of success.

(1) Is there (as per the guidelines) a Marine Protected Area on site ? If so, how big is it and what proportion of the collection area does it comprise? What habitats does it enclose and are these representative of the collection area as a whole ?

(2) Is the fishing effort sustainable:
a. How many fishers target the area and where are they from?
b. How much time do they spend targeting ornamentals?
c. What proportion of their livelihood is derived from ornamentals?
d. What size of area do they cover per trip?
e. How often do they go back to the same spot on the reef?

(from these we can also ask whether a collecting area of a given size has any hope of sustaining the number of fishers present)

(3) What is in the catch (over a year so can get a handle on seasonality)?
a. What species do they catch and how many of each?
b. Are they catching juveniles or adults and how many of each?
c. How has this changed over time?

(4) What is in the sea?
a. What is the habitat composition (% live coral, % dead coral, % sand etc.)
b. How many different fish species (or other grouping) are there?
c. How many of each species / grouping are present?
d. This should be done inside the MPA, near the MPA and on the general fishing grounds

(5) What is the relationship between catch and wild populations? With the info from 1-4 you could work out a ball park estimate of the level of extraction relative to standing stock.

Before someone does a nut and says “but this is impossible”, I say it’s not. We set up just such a project focusing on seahorses and put together all of the above info for 10 fishing communities and 28 fishing grounds (except for “1” because we weren’t working with MPAs on that project per se). It is possible and all you need to do is set up a dedicated local team:

(1) Hire a full time community organiser to live in the village and work closely with the fishers on 2 and 3 and on communicating results back to the community
(2) Hire two Filipino biologists to do the rounds of a number of collecting areas e.g. implementing MAQTRAC
(3) Hire a local fisher to work with biologists and the community organiser
(4) Set up some central administrative centre to support the field teams.

The main requirement is time … it takes time to get the right people in place, time to develop community trust, time to iron out the wrinkles in sampling etc. But I would suggest that a dedicated effort of 6 months would get the ball rolling, particularly in Batasan where the community has a lengthy history of involvement with these kinds of projects. But the work itself is fairly straightforward. Overtime, some of the monitoring may also be turned over to local fishers paired with a biologist.

So, putting my auditor’s hat back on, I then would be asking any organisation claiming to be supplying certified fish for the answers to these questions. In the absence of answers (and because we can’t expect immediate success), I’d be asking what is your plan to obtain these answers and suggesting that in the meantime, the fish can’t be certified but hallelujah, we’re on our way. Job well done as, yes, these things do take time.

Looking forward to the comments [cringe],

Jessica

 

[Jaime Baquero]

G'day all,

Apologies in advance for the long post. And, please interpret this constructively

If I were an auditor, I would ask the following questions before feeling certain that the Batasan collection area or any other certified collection area was (1) currently supplying fish that can be classed as certified, (meaning IMO not caught with cyanide nor contributing to declines in wild populations) and (2) representing an area that can be considered as “under management” and thus an appropriate indicator of success.

(1) Is there (as per the guidelines) a Marine Protected Area on site ? If so, how big is it and what proportion of the collection area does it comprise? What habitats does it enclose and are these representative of the collection area as a whole ?

(2) Is the fishing effort sustainable:
a. How many fishers target the area and where are they from?
b. How much time do they spend targeting ornamentals?
c. What proportion of their livelihood is derived from ornamentals?
d. What size of area do they cover per trip?
e. How often do they go back to the same spot on the reef?

(from these we can also ask whether a collecting area of a given size has any hope of sustaining the number of fishers present)

(3) What is in the catch (over a year so can get a handle on seasonality)?
a. What species do they catch and how many of each?
b. Are they catching juveniles or adults and how many of each?
c. How has this changed over time?

(4) What is in the sea?
a. What is the habitat composition (% live coral, % dead coral, % sand etc.)
b. How many different fish species (or other grouping) are there?
c. How many of each species / grouping are present?
d. This should be done inside the MPA, near the MPA and on the general fishing grounds

(5) What is the relationship between catch and wild populations? With the info from 1-4 you could work out a ball park estimate of the level of extraction relative to standing stock.

Before someone does a nut and says “but this is impossible”, I say it’s not. We set up just such a project focusing on seahorses and put together all of the above info for 10 fishing communities and 28 fishing grounds (except for “1” because we weren’t working with MPAs on that project per se). It is possible and all you need to do is set up a dedicated local team:

(1) Hire a full time community organiser to live in the village and work closely with the fishers on 2 and 3 and on communicating results back to the community
(2) Hire two Filipino biologists to do the rounds of a number of collecting areas e.g. implementing MAQTRAC
(3) Hire a local fisher to work with biologists and the community organiser
(4) Set up some central administrative centre to support the field teams.

The main requirement is time … it takes time to get the right people in place, time to develop community trust, time to iron out the wrinkles in sampling etc. But I would suggest that a dedicated effort of 6 months would get the ball rolling, particularly in Batasan where the community has a lengthy history of involvement with these kinds of projects. But the work itself is fairly straightforward. Overtime, some of the monitoring may also be turned over to local fishers paired with a biologist.

So, putting my auditor’s hat back on, I then would be asking any organisation claiming to be supplying certified fish for the answers to these questions. In the absence of answers (and because we can’t expect immediate success), I’d be asking what is your plan to obtain these answers and suggesting that in the meantime, the fish can’t be certified but hallelujah, we’re on our way. Job well done as, yes, these things do take time.

Looking forward to the comments [cringe],

Jessica

Jessica,

Very interesting post. What about including a simple socio-economic study of the target community/ies to be conducted by the community organizer?

Do you think that socio-economic aspects of the target communities should be addressed? Who's responsibility in this complicate issue to deal with fisherfolks' socio-economic aspects?

Who should pay the salaries of the key people (community organizer, biologists and fisher)and expenses of the administrative center?

Jaime

 

[blue hula3]

Jaime,

The above is my assessment of the minimum info required to be able to say that fish are from a sustainable exploited area. Some of the socioeconomics would come out of those questions (e.g. what proportion of income ...) but in my mind it isn't the focus. There have also been a fair few socioecon. type studies done in the area so I'm not sure what another study might add. Love to do it if a surplus of resources was available.

Do you think that socio-economic aspects of the target communities should be addressed? Who's responsibility in this complicate issue to deal with fisherfolks' socio-economic aspects?

In terms of whose responsibility, it depends on what a group says its mandate is. If your terms of reference is to set up a sustainable collection area, then I think your responsibility is to only deal with those socioeconomic issues that impact on your ability to deliver the collection area. That may mean you have a lot of socioeconomic stuff or a little to deal with. But the focus isn't on broadbased community / social development.

If on the other hand you are an aid or development agency, socioeconomics will likely be your focus with an interest in the environment as a vehicle to supporting sustainable communities.

In terms of who pays, well my brief answer would be that if an organisation wants to "talk the talk", then they have to put the resources into "walking the walk" and that these in-country based costs (and they are not huge) need to be a priority component of annual budgets. Eventually, the compliance program should be tranferred to a local agency / NGO with it becoming self-sustaining by industry contributions.

Jaime - one suggestion with no offence meant. If you are responding to a whole post, maybe don't quote the entire thing again. My post was horribly long enough without it being reproduced in its entirety in the very next post. :wink:

Jessica

 

[John_Brandt]

Who is the auditor of the auditor?

Who makes sure that the evaluation and actions brought about by answering the auditor's questions is meaningful and beneficial to coral reefs?

Who is the authority that knows that not certifying certain collecting areas is better than certifying them? Who is the authority of that authority?

How many wrasses per square kilometer does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 322? 496? 117? Or what?

How long of a duration of daily fishing targeting ornamentals by collector does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 2 hrs, 17 mins, 35 secs? 3 hrs, 53 mins, 8 secs? 5 hrs, 31 mins, 11 secs? Or what?

What proportion of income derived from fishing for ornamentals does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 11.325%? 46.632%? 74.975%? Or what?

 

[blue hula3]

Who is the auditor of the auditor?

John, I don't need to be audited. Auditing, to my mind, occurs when an individual / organisation is claiming to have achieved certain goals and has an external constituency to which they are accountable. An auditor then can be asked to verify whether those goals have been reached. I am not setting myself up as a certifying agency making claims about fish coming in from the field as being "sustainble".

Are you asking whether I have the right to ask the question as member of the public or are you asking whether I have the technical capacity to make the suggestions that formed the basis of my post? I would argue that I have both.

Are you asking whether I represent a vested interest with nefarious intentions to undermine MAC? The answer would be no. I have no continuing professional links to Bohol, nor do I know any of you, and I live in the land of Oz where the doings of MAC are frankly irrelevant. However, having worked in exactly the place you are talking about probably does give me a basis for asking questions above and beyond the usual ones.

Having worked in Bohol and seen how desperate it is in some villages, I'm also inclined to be constructive and ask how we can work together. The suggestions above took time John, and they weren't for my personal gratification.

Who makes sure that the evaluation and actions brought about by answering the auditor's questions is meaningful and beneficial to coral reefs?

Guess you missed my intro about trying to be constructive. Why the bunker attitude John? Nor do I understand what danger there is in a frank discussion of "where we're at?"

How can it possibly be beneficial to coral reefs (or fishers) to refuse to answer questions or comment constructively on offered suggestions. Thought that was what transparency was all about.

Who is the authority that knows that not certifying certain collecting areas is better than certifying them? Who is the authority of that authority?

This is beginning to sound religious with an appeal to some higher moral authority.

I am not suggesting areas not be certified. I am saying that before you tell people that fish have been "sustainably" caught from a certified collection area, you should be able to defend it with a reasonable assessment of why that is so. My outline above is what I believe provides a reasonable assessment and, even better, isn't that hard to do.

Why can you not see the danger to reefs of certification without determining sustainability?? If you certify areas as providing sustainably caught fish without doing your homework, you simply encourage fishers to KEEP collecting fish in areas where it may in fact be inappropriate. True sustainability in this case would mean introduction of alternative livelihoods. But as long as you think it's "ok" because you haven't done the work, you have no motivation to do things differently. Worse, you're encouraged to continue telling them to fish because, hey, you have a sustainable fishing ground.

However, if you're really asking "is it better to certify areas and not do the work but still say all is sustainable" then it was my mother who is the authority. She taught me that hiding behind smoke screens is a bad thing. She's kinda old fashioned that way.

How many wrasses per square kilometer does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 322? 496? 117? Or what?

No need to be such a cynic John. You can use the info I suggested be gathered to assess how many wrasses can be caught given the wild abundance. I would compare for instance the standing stock in the collecting area to that in the nearby mpa and to available figures for similar reefs, healthy and unhealthy. Depending on how low it was relative to "healthy" examples, I might recommend very low levels of fishing, say <10% of standing stock. Typical sustainable fishing mortality's of 20% are considered appropriate for some species, rising up to 30% for fast growing, short lived beasties. Yes, you can work it out and say approximately how many fish should be removed given a standing stock of x wrasse/km2.

How long of a duration of daily fishing targeting ornamentals by collector does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 2 hrs, 17 mins, 35 secs? 3 hrs, 53 mins, 8 secs? 5 hrs, 31 mins, 11 secs? Or what?

What proportion of income derived from fishing for ornamentals does it take for the auditor to approve of certification? 11.325%? 46.632%? 74.975%? Or what?

I wouldn't certify based on how many hours they fish or what proportion of income is derived. I'd certify based on fishers remaining within a TAC (total allowable catch). The effort data (along with catch) helps you understand mortality rates ... income helps you understand the impact of management decisions on the fishers.

John, it would be much simpler to hit the issues and either indicate how my suggestions are irrelevant, wrong or inappropriate. Or, if MAC agrees, answer the questions.

There is no shame in not having yet achieved the outcomes that MAC is striving admirably to achieve. I think certification of fish, grounds etc. is a groundbreaking approach and will help in the long run and anyone who has worked in the Phils knows these things take time.

What I would like to hear is a frank assessment of where MAC is at in Batasan, what the plan is and how that relates to certifications of sustainability at the appropriate time ... when it has, in fact, been achieved.

Sincerely,

Jessica

 

[horge]

Who is the proper, ultimate auditor?
Morally, the Filipino people, through DENR, BFAR, and the pertinent LGU's may be the ultimate judges on issues of sustainability. If foreign consultants are hired/deputized by said representatives, then so be it.
(As a Filipino citizen, I hereby deputize myself )

Stateside, maybe AMDA should be the one looking very closely at how MAC describes/proscribes handling, tagging and distribution.


--------------------

This certainly does NOT preclude common citizens and scientists of varying nationalitities seeking answers for themselves, nor (especially)from thereby bringing up points that the Filipino people may overlook or be unaware of, in seeking to protect their marine resources.

This Filipino is glad that Jessica is asking questions that may guide MAC towards recognizing value in increased transparency.

This Filipino is also very glad that John is trying to be as forthright in providing answers, and that MAC is trying to make this all work.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jessica,

During the years of work in the Philippines we observed the lack of commitment and willingness of the Filipino government to tackle the different issues related to the exploitation and commercialization of marine ornamentals. What do you think should be the "active" role of the central government to deal with these matters? Shouldn't be the responsibility of the Filipino government of having biologists and community organizers doing what you are suggesting?

Regards

jaime

 

[PeterIMA]

Jessica, Thank you for an excellent posting on methods for assessment of sustainability. Hopefully, the MAC will incorporate these methods into their revised standards. I see the local municipal government and its FARMC as the authority to which these data should be submitted. Overall, the methods described are consistent with National Laws (such as the Philippines Fisheries Act of 1998, and what municipalities LGUs should be doing to manage their local resources). As far as who does the underwater surveys, it could be government biologists, but I would rather see the biologists employed by an NGO (such as the MAC, Haribon, or IMA). It is also feasible for underwater surveys to be done by local fisheremen under the direction of a biologist (e.g., as was successfully done by Ferdinand Cruz for the MAC during 2002).

 

[blue hula3]

Jaime,

I see a number of ways that this kind of work could be implemented and it will really depend on what suits the Philippines best. As you have indicated, the central Government faces a huge challenge managing an area that is so large and where much of the activity of interest can be fairly remote. Given that the Philippines has lead the way in community-based management, I can see a strong role for LGUs and local communities in this.

In addition to the options Peter laid out, it might also be possible to have university-partnered teams. I'm thinking of ongoing projects for instance in which Silliman is involved plus their excellent work in Apo. NGO-COs + local uni biologists working in village funded by industry?

The key issue is always, who pays. During the set up of such programs, it would likely be the NGO/organisation who has taken it on as their mandate (e.g. MAC). However, I can see an evolution towards a user-pay program where the beneficiaries of this biodiversity contribute to some sort of fund that supports the work needed to ensure "sustainability". This kind of user-pay model is being developed for a number of managed fisheries internationally. Ultimately this means a higher price for fish, whether the additional "enviromental fee to ensure sustainability" is paid by the fishers (and passed on to exporters), exporters (and passed on to importers) or importers (and passed on to LFS and ultimately hobbyists). Ironically, by including the full (environmental) cost of doing business in wild-caught fish, it may make captive bred fish more competitive (but that's a whole nother issue).

Peter, we also paired fishers with local biologists to do the underwater surveys. Worked a treat.

Horge, any comments from the local end?

Jessica

 

[horge]

Jaime,
Horge, any comments from the local end?
Jessica

It seems there's already a surplus of experts on Philippine internal affairs advising you on this thread...


It is always at the LGU level that the rubber meets the reef.
Nevertheless, things sit easier when there is oversight or sanction for such work from national level. MAC seems to have done some homework, since it is already getting cozy with the BFAR.

Just a personal observation: when the pipeline for funding and expertise runs through an NGO solely, things tend to move quicker and fall apart quicker. When BFAR is involved, things move slower, but tend to be for keeps, as eventually, the municipal and national treasury tend to open up to sustain it and start similar endeavours.

It's an ultimately failed example, but the 'blue revolution' of fishponds that led to severe coastal eutrophication was greatly aided by availability of government loans (and private banks followed suit). We're still cleaning up the mess and replanting mangroves... but well, the real point here is that funding and loans are far easier to obtain when central government agencies are involved, albeit through local deputies who collect, maintain and submit solid, complete documentation.

If a new model for ornamental collection, handling and transport is to prosper, it may depend on access to low-interest government loans.

For say, LandBank to consider granting loans, there has to be a say-so from central government, and BFAR has significant say. Private banks will follow suit once they smell profit in the business.

As for who will do the regular survey wetwork... I think aspects of your Project Seahorse pretty much resemble the employment model to shoot for. In one fell swoop, locals are involved, educated and empowered.

Yebaaa.

 

[John_Brandt]

Jessica,

I wasn't questioning you or your capacities in any direct personal way. I want to understand what constitutes the framework and boundaries of sustainability. It may be taken for granted as to be so obvious that discussion is unwarranted. But what does it look like?

What is the theory of sustainable fisheries? Or, what is your theory of sustainable fisheries? Has it been satisfactorily tested, and is it falsifiable?

Given the dynamics and complexities of living systems (ecosystems) is sustainability a pioneering field, and are there competing theories?

Sorry to answer your questions with questions, but establishing a foundation of principles will allow us to get to the data.

 

[mkirda]

Sorry to answer your questions with questions, but establishing a foundation of principles will allow us to get to the data.

John,

As MAC is using the word 'sustainability' as a marketing ploy, shouldn't MAC be best prepared to share with the world what it means by the word when it uses 'sustainability'?

Given MAC's definition, we can all understand better where MAC is coming from, and where it is heading.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

Well the definition that MAC uses is taken directly from the Convention on Biological Diversity http://www.biodiv.org/default.aspx definition. It is as follows:

"The term 'sustainable use' means the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations."

 

[horge]

Good cathedral answer, John
Here's one opportunity for more of the same...

"How does MAC determine/verify sustainability in an operational CCA?"


Again, sorry for the fast and furious queries from all corners, John, but you're MAC's representative here. Take your time, and if the fine details aren't accessible to you right now, I'll understand.

 

[John_Brandt]

Horge,

For starters MAC uses the guidance and consultation of Reef Check http://www.reefcheck.org/ for these issues. Some idea of a conceptual framework may come from this portion of a MAC document:

Eliminating destructive collection practices and reducing overfishing

MAC Certification results in the reduction in the use of destructive fishing in certified collection areas at many levels. For starters, resident marine aquarium fishers in MAC Certified collection areas participate in a quality control system (i.e. MAC Certification) that does not allow or condone destructive fishing methods, especially cyanide use, and has a multi-layered verification of compliance.

MAC Certified fishers are more clearly linked to, and responsible for, the collection area for which they have been certified to use. As a result, they are much more compelled and empowered to provide surveillance and reporting on illegal fishing activities by other fishers from within their
community and on outside fishers that come into "their" area to undertake unauthorized fishing.

The threat of over fishing of aquarium stocks in MAC Certified collection areas is reduced through many aspects of MAC Certification. MAC Certified fishers are required to record their catch species and amounts in log books, which are periodically checked against the purchase records of the MAC Certified buyers to help ensure accuracy. This means there is now known catch levels from known collection areas, providing data for managing harvest levels in the near future. This is coupled with the marine aquarium fishery assessment and monitoring methods created by Reef Check (MAQTRAC) that provide a scientific basis for improving the stock and area management (such as better design and siting of the "no take" areas). This is backed up by a collect-to-order system. The MAC Certified fishers only collect what has been ordered by a MAC Certified buyer, meaning no collection of reef organisms that do not have a specific market demand.

In the meantime, fishing pressure is also immediately reduced (often significantly) in MAC Certified collection areas due to lower post harvest mortality rate as a result of no chemical use in the capture of marine aquarium organisms and significantly improved handling practices. Compliance with MAC Standards by exporters, importers and retailers further improves survival rates of the catch, additionally reducing pressure. Finally, and very importantly, fishing pressure is reduced in the "no take" sanctuaries, which also "reseed" the harvested portions of the MAC Certified collection area, and through the more active control of unauthorized outside fishing.

 

[mkirda]

Ok, John, here is another series of open and honest questions that are bound to come up...

Area A is certified yet severely depleted. 'Sustainability' would demand that fewer fish of certain species be taken. Is there anything built into the system that would ensure that the exporter wouldn't order so many?

How would MAC deal with an area that was so severely depleted that the best course of action would be to stop fishing altogether for a couple of years to let the stocks recover?

There are so many unresolved questions regarding the entire CAMP process. People here on RDO have very little understanding of what it means, let alone what it entails and what it means to the community. MAC could do a lot of good by just walking us through a single CAMP and explaining everything that had to go on in order to make it happen. I myself have a good idea of the process and what is required, but I still have some unanswered questions. An open and honest dialog with us would do wonders for creating a feeling of good will towards MAC, resulting in an improved CAMP process to boot.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula3]

John,

Foundations of principles are not my favourite topic - I'm a hard core empiricist. But here is my take on definitions, theory and testing and what it means for fisheries management.

On definitions:

Sustainability as defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity works for me in terms of big picture. Having said that, there is an international move towards triple E reporting on sustainability: environmental, economic and ethical (social). In this event, the CBD definition would need to explicitely include elements indicating a community's ability to sustain itself economically and that benefits (and costs) are equitably distributed. Big ask.

In terms of a specific collection area, at say Batasan, my narrow definition of sustainability would be "don't remove more fish in a given unit of time than the system can replenish" or "remove fewer fish than can be replenished so that the system can recover". Although I believe strongly in the need to couple this with strategies to ensure economic and ethical sustainability, I shall stick to the topic at hand:

What is the theory of sustainable fisheries? Or, what is your theory of sustainable fisheries? Has it been satisfactorily tested, and is it falsifiable?

I am unaware of any theories of sustainable fisheries as fisheries are simply human activities that are managed either well, less well or downright badly. Thus I don't have a theory of sustainable fisheries. Some might actually argue that sustainable fisheries is a myth or an oxymoron rather than a theory given that 75% of the world's exploited fish populations are in fact overexploited or in decline (www.fao.org).

What I think you're asking me is whether there is any evidence to suggest that "my" approach to assessing fisheries works better than other approaches, by what benchmark do we measure its success, and for more clarity on what exactly my approach entails.

In a nutshell, my approach is to measure how many fish are actually out there (possible on coral reefs) and set the total allowable catch (TAC) as a conservative proportion of that wild abundance (somewhere between 10-30%). I would then monitor the response of the wild population (by doing underwater surveys) to that level of exploitation (monitored via catch calendars) so that I can adaptively respond (increase TACs if population doing good, lower TACs if not). The criterion by which I would measure the success of my approach is the degree to which populations recover or stay the same (good news) or continue to decline (bad news). Although I wouldn't apply the term falsibility to a management approach, in a sense, if the TACs are wrong, the approach is wrong.

As to evidence of success of the approach, perhaps the best example I have is the work by Daniel Pauly at the University of British Columbia. He has been honoured for this work by the Pew Foundation and is, IMO, one of the top multispecies tropical fisheries gurus in the world. Daniel's work on tropical multispecie fisheries (which is essentially what the aquarium collection is) was ground-breaking at a time when only industrial fisheries received any attention. Anyway, Daniel is applying this mass balance approach (how much do you have minus what you take out times how fast it grows/reproduces) to whole ocean basins but it is effectively the same approach. I've also published research on overexploited forest mammals in the Congo using this same assessment approach (Conservation Biology if you're interested).

But, frankly, I doubt "my" approach is the final word on how to do it.

What I do know is that for fifty years, fisheries scientists believed that catch per unit effort was the only info needed to set catch levels because they felt it was a good proxy for real numbers on how many fish were out there. They failed spectacularly as evidenced by the sad shape of most fisheries. This failure has been acknowledged and all of a sudden the big theme in fisheries is "ecosystem based management".

I believe that all fisheries scientists / managers / policy boffins should be required to read Dr. Seuss's seminal fisheries treatise "One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish". The message being you need to know how many of which kinds are out there.

So, although I am sure that an approach based on wild population assessments will continue to evolve, I do not doubt for an instance that if only catch and effort are monitored, management efforts will fail.

Interestingly, I believe MAC endorses this view hence the interest in MAQTRAC....

Cheers, Jessica

 

[blue hula3]

Ok, so now that I waxed philosophical to the extent of my ability, can I ask some specific questions in the context of the Batasan area :wink:

MAC Certified fishers are more clearly linked to, and responsible for, the collection area for which they have been certified to use. As a result, they are much more compelled and empowered to provide surveillance and reporting on illegal fishing activities by other fishers from within their
community and on outside fishers that come into "their" area to undertake unauthorized fishing.

Does MAC have numbers on what proportion of fishers come from the local village vs. other areas. We found across Danajon Bank that some village fishing grounds were very locally controlled whereas others were quite open. Also, family relationships mean that distant cousins from other villages (not part of the program) may also access the area.

Is the compulsion and empowerment reinforced through ongoing programs? We found that a fiesta or other event at times might prompt fishers to consider the occaisonal harvest of the sanctuary zone or that a family's medical crisis would prompt illegal activity to which the community turns a blind eye. Also, no use reporting if no capacity / political will to arrest. At the time I was in Bohol, penalties for dyanite fishing were perceived as unjust and overly severe so the LGU tended to not arrest people. This is by way of saying that a sense of local stewardship is necessary but not sufficient to ensure resources are protected.

The threat of over fishing of aquarium stocks in MAC Certified collection areas is reduced through many aspects of MAC Certification. MAC Certified fishers are required to record their catch species and amounts in log books, which are periodically checked against the purchase records of the MAC Certified buyers to help ensure accuracy. This means there is now known catch levels from known collection areas, providing data for managing harvest levels in the near future.

Well, I'll just restate my professional opinion that catch and effort data do not translate into a sufficient knowledge base for setting exploitation levels. However, in the context of Batasan, is catch and effort currently being monitored ?

This is coupled with the marine aquarium fishery assessment and monitoring methods created by Reef Check (MAQTRAC) that provide a scientific basis for improving the stock and area management (such as better design and siting of the "no take" areas).

How is MAC linking MAQTRAC data with catch and effort data to improve management ? By setting appropriate exploitation levels?

Has MAC completed the resource assessment in Batasan?

How does MAQTRAC help you design and site no take areas, particularly when the MPAs are already in existence as is the case in Batasan? I suppose they could tell you whether you need to expand them or add additional areas to ensure key habitats are protected. But this could be done via simple quick and dirty manta tows. To my mind, the test of whether no take areas are doing their job is whether you can demonstrate a spill over effect.

The MAC Certified fishers only collect what has been ordered by a MAC Certified buyer, meaning no collection of reef organisms that do not have a specific market demand.

OK, this totally doesn't make sense to me. Here is the recipe:

Take poor Boholano fishers needing to maximise the income they can make and mix with a market where there is a shortage of net caught fish and a demand larger than a single "certified" collection area can possibly supply and you have a souffle called unhappy fish populations. Then the souflle collapses due to overexploitation because, in reality, one is trying to increase demand for certified fish and so presumably effort will INCREASE. The fishing grounds will be the victim of MACs success. Market demand will not ensure conservation.

Cheers, Jessica

 

[Anonymous]

John Brandt wrote:

In the meantime, fishing pressure is also immediately reduced (often significantly) in MAC Certified collection areas due to lower post harvest mortality rate as a result of no chemical use in the capture of marine aquarium organisms and significantly improved handling practices. Compliance with MAC Standards by exporters, importers and retailers further improves survival rates of the catch, additionally reducing pressure. Finally, and very importantly, fishing pressure is reduced in the "no take" sanctuaries, which also "reseed" the harvested portions of the MAC Certified collection area, and through the more active control of unauthorized outside fishing.

a simple question from a simple mind.....

not that i disagree with the need for fishing via nondestructive practices :wink: ......

where are the study results that prove the above, and all of the other claims made regarding lower mortality results? :?

mac seems to be saying that it's an established fact that lower mortality rates from their 'm.o.' are already in effect, and i've seen no number posting,crunching, or objective study results offered to back these assertions up :wink:

or are the mac fish also transported via a totally different method as well, from the point of collection to the retailer/wholesaler here in the u.s.?

what time frame is defined as 'post harvest'? one hour? one day? one week? (from the moment of collection)

is there any 'study' result available showing the 'lower mortality' rates that mac is already claiming, that are already resulting in lower 'collection pressure'?

 

[mkirda]

where are the study results that prove the above, and all of the other claims made regarding lower mortality results? :?

is there any 'study' result available showing the 'lower mortality' rates that mac is already claiming, that are already resulting in lower 'collection pressure'?

Vitz,

From the discussions I have had off-line, it doesn't appear that this info will ever be available publicly. I believe that reality supports the hype, but the truth is that the fish shipping out of Bohol were never fish that shipped that poorly anyway.

There are other, more important, issues that need to be addressed, IMO. Post-capture holding is a major one. Many of the fish captured have extremely fast metabolisms, and if not shipped out immediately, they tend to be well on their way to starvation by the time they arrive in the US. Even if they begin eating here, often the organ damage is such that they will not recover. As far as MAC would be concerned, mortality might be very low, but if the fish end up dying in their customer's tanks soon after purchase, then the real issue was never addressed. I would much rather see these sorts of issues addressed, personally.

Regards.
Mike Kirda