List of MAC Certified Fishes

[blue_hula]

I was surprised to see the inclusion of seahorses on the MAC certified list. In a previous incarnation, I was a fisheries research scientist with Project Seahorse , the organisation to which John referred. Having worked along the double barrier reef that includes Batasan (collecting data for more than 30 grounds across the area), I can confirm that the number of seahorses caught per night per fisher is extremely low.

I am thus glad that there was no asterix indicating that they are abundant. However, it is highly questionable whether they should be taken at all. Indeed, concern over declines in seahorse populations throughout the area led Project Seahorse to implement a program geared towards REDUCING fishing effort - through the establishment of community-based marine protected areas and through alternative livelihoods (e.g. crafts, ecotourism).

It should also be noted that seahorses respond very slowly to the establishment of marine protected areas - in part because they have limited dispersal capabilities. Thus population recovery is slow and marine protected areas are only part of the solution to seahorse declines. Fishing effort must also be reduced. Yet certification programs encourage fishing. Why would MAC certify seahorses?

And this raises the broader issue of sustainable exploitation levels (leaving cyanide aside for the moment). Addressing the cyanide issue is essential, as is ensuring that species are suitable for aquaria. But ensuring that populations can withstand the levels of exploitation to which they are subjected is also crucial (otherwise they'll be nought left to juice).

I'd thus be interested to know how MAC determined which species are "abundant" and how this relates to abundance in the wild? Having worked in the area for 3 years, I am unaware of any data on the population status of most of these species. Does abundant mean that fishers are good at catching them? Or that fishers put in a lot of effort because they are relatively valuable ? Landings and catch per unit effort are notoriously bad indicators of natural abundance.

Apologies for the long post.

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

Blue_hula,

Welcome and thanks for the thoughtful reply.

There are no public answers to those questions.
If any answers are available, they are located within the CAMP documents.
Which are not available to the public. (Believe me on this: I've tried every single avenue I could think of to get ahold of a copy short of flying to Bohol, or sacrificing young goats...)

I wish I could help answer your questions.
I wish MAC would help me answer mine too. :wink:

One clarification though: MAC does not at this time certify specific species.
MAC does not certify 'seahorses' per se, they just certify that the area has a management plan in place, the divers have been trained, and the animals collected were captured, held and shipped in accordance with their standards...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

The importance of the issue of unsuitables isn't even in the same galaxy as the importance of cyanide usage.

This is very true. Given the choice of one or the other, I'd rather see the industry inundated with coral feeding butterflies and black tip sharks than see cyanide use continue. Of course, it doesn't have to be one or the other. From my understanding, MAC is going to set up a committee of concerned people to work on the USL. The MAC staff itself doesn't have to be involved in every aspect of the program- that is what committees are for. In my opinion, there is no reason in the world that this committee hasn't been created yet. You can simultaneously work on cyanide issues and the USL by properly utilizing your resources. Many people have expressed an interest in being on this committee- me being one of them. At the LA wholesaler meeting the USL was discussed, and I think everyone in attendance agreed that fish that get "too big" should be included. If you can get that bunch to agree on anything, you've already accomplished something Correct me if I'm wrong, but all MAC really needs to do to get the ball rolling on the USL is put out a call for committee members, give them guidelines (which are already listed in the standards), and let them have at it.

 

[Anonymous]

John, aren't seahorses going CITES shortly? Wouldn't that stop the exportation out of PI since they don't export CITES animals for the aquarium trade? I'm not bashing, I don't entirely understand the ins and outs of CITES.

Are there invertabrates (non CITES) in those areas that can be collected sustainably, like anemones, snails and such? Heck, what about macro algae? Since part of MAC's certification is based on sustainable collection, why don't they certify sustainably collected inverts? I know it has nothing to do about net caught, but it does help the villages, and would definitly help the villages more then some of those non exported fish from that area that are on that list.

Now lets talk about those net caught egg casings, how the do that ? Isn't it like sneaking up on a rock, aha gotch'ya.

 

[blue_hula]

Seahorses will be listed on Appendix 2 of CITES, coming into affect in May 2004.

Appendix 2 listings mean that trade is monitored / controlled but is nevertheless allowed. "Source" countries will require export permits and must demonstrate that exploitation is not detrimental to wild populations.

An Appendix 1 listing would ban trade in seahorses. Such a listing has not yet been put forward for seahorses.

Hope that helps.
Blue hula

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I unstand that much, but what I don't know is PI are who ever in PI going to go for the CITES permit for just the sea horses since the have a self imposed ban on corals and live rock. Is it even worth that effort, I mean for the exporter to go thru all the extra paper work just for sea horses? I wouldn't waste my time importing them with all the extra costs and heaches, let alone export them.

 

[blue_hula]

One clarification though: MAC does not at this time certify specific species.
MAC does not certify 'seahorses' per se, they just certify that the area has a management plan in place, the divers have been trained, and the animals collected were captured, held and shipped in accordance with their standards...

Below is a partial list I have compiled of MAC Certified species that are entering the market.
[/b][/i]

Mike - thanks for the clarification. I do get kind of confused.

I guess one of the problems with certifying areas is that it then implies that all fish caught from that area are from healthy, hunky-dory populations.

I'd pick Bohol over the goats.

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

I guess one of the problems with certifying areas is that it then implies that all fish caught from that area are from healthy, hunky-dory populations.

Blue hula,

There are a number of issues surrounding the CAMP's and the resource assessments that really need clarification. The standards and best practices documents do not even require the areas to set up no-take zones. None!
The way the interpretation document reads is that even resource assessments do not need to be done in order for an area to be certified: The CAMP document just has to say that resource assessments will be done. So, a CAMP document could say oh, we'll do a resource assessment in a decade or two, and, according to the standards, this aspect is covered. The certifier has to pass them, even in that state.

Mind you, I am not accusing anyone of doing this! I am stating that the standards do have a HUGE HOLE in them in which an unscrupulous area could do this and could get away with it.

The standards, as written, do not guarantee that the fish come from a well-managed reef, nor that they were collected in a sustainable fashion. The standards do not require on-going resource assessments, they do not require trigger points whereby fish species are no longer collected in order to let their populations recover. There is nothing in the standards to revoke certification if, for example, they started using cyanide again.

Again, I would urge everyone here to actually sit down and READ the MAC standards. The documents look hefty when printed, but the actual parts that matter are maybe a dozen pages at most. If people read them, they would understand why I keep hammering on this point...

I'd pick Bohol over the goats.

Blue hula

Yeah, me too. Got an extra grand for me to fly there?

The saddest thing of all: The next area in line for certification is also in the same vicinity of Bohol, and will include predominately the same fish, with maybe a couple more in the mix. While I agree that these degraded areas are in need of management plans, you gotta wonder why they have not pushed hard to certify areas like the Calamian Islands: Areas that could supply a much greater mix of species in higher numbers. These areas have management plans in place, and have had resource assessments done since 2001...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[John_Brandt]

blue hula,

Welcome to reefs.org and the Industry Forum! It's great to see you posting here. It was quite a coincidence that you were looking when I posted the link to Project Seahorse. Your experiences at Bohol will greatly add to the topic.

Keep in mind that that list of fish was created by myself. It comes from observations, memories, photos, stock lists and conversations. Truthfully, there are about 30% more Certified species than are on that list. The major ones are there though. The designation of abundant is not scientific, nor was it meant to be. It is based on a complex of observation of populations and catch figures over time. I was in the water there at Batasan Island for 3 days only. It is my understanding that the abundant species have been collected consistently there for over 15 years.

Concerning the seahorses: Fairly low numbers of them are taken. In 3 days I seem to recall the fishers taking about 5 animals in total. I saw areas for improvement of management strategies across a range of species. For the Syngnathids, not harvesting males (or females in the case of pipefishes) that are 'gravid' would be advisable. As far as I know, collecting of seahorses is primarily done during daytime. They do go out at dawn and dusk to collect Mandarinfish as this is when they leave their deep coral lairs. It is possible that they pick up seahorses as well. The collecting area includes shallow seagrass and Caulerpa zones, as well as reefs. I presume seahorses are found in both.

Thank you for explaining the CITES listing for seahorses. The Philippine exporters will no doubt gear up for the exportation on the CITES Appendix II seahorses.

 

[dizzy]

Mike this seems like the appropriate place for a comment about loosely written standards. They are very handy when getting people to accept something they don't fully understand. The powers that be can simply change their defintions as they see fit. That was the gist of many of the articles I posted on the AMDA forum from the AZA magazine Communique. Those articles then found there way to the MAC Attack files. Many zoos and public aquariums are having to put an additonal person on staff just to deal with all the changing regulations and complicated data entries and paperwork. Many smaller stores will simply not have the resources to deal with these kinds of issues.

It is interesting to note that Peter stated in a different thread that many of those exact same same TAG people jumped over to the MAC program when they "smelled the money" as he put it. Some of those comments by the LA wholesalers about this being the perfect way to shutdown the industry were not that outrageous. I don't believe that is the MAC intention, but if things ever did change they would have everything they need in place.

 

[MaryHM]

The Philippine exporters will no doubt gear up for the exportation on the CITES Appendix II seahorses.

I'm with Gresham on this. Why would the exporters go to all the time and money to get permits just for seahorses? In my opinion, the Philippines will quit collecting them and that will put even greater pressure on seahorse populations in countries like Indonesia, as Indo will have to "make up the slack" so to speak.

 

[John_Brandt]

John, aren't seahorses going CITES shortly? Wouldn't that stop the exportation out of PI since they don't export CITES animals for the aquarium trade? I'm not bashing, I don't entirely understand the ins and outs of CITES.

Are there invertabrates (non CITES) in those areas that can be collected sustainably, like anemones, snails and such? Heck, what about macro algae? Since part of MAC's certification is based on sustainable collection, why don't they certify sustainably collected inverts? I know it has nothing to do about net caught, but it does help the villages, and would definitly help the villages more then some of those non exported fish from that area that are on that list.

Now lets talk about those net caught egg casings, how the do that ? Isn't it like sneaking up on a rock, aha gotch'ya.

Gresham,

The invertebrate collecting there has been hot on my mind right from the start. There are truly amazing soft corals and corallimorpharians there. There are some very unusual anemones (non-symbiotic) and some outrageously-colored starfishes. I have been communicating with MAC about the potential invertebrate "fishery", but it is not a high priority thing right now.

 

[MaryHM]

There are truly amazing soft corals and corallimorpharians there.

If they're attached to substrate then they fall under CITES protection.

 

[Anonymous]

We get some amazing anemones all ready, from PI, as well as many different snails and shrimps. In some other thread, John, you stated it would take more then just training and netting, well this is a perfect way to get more money into the villages to displace cyanide money, and it is something kids and the non diving women (I don't know if the dive, never seen a female diver picture) can do. Algae farms are all the rage in Africa, and we sure know theres plenty in PI :roll: from all those destroyed reefs.

I do know this, CITES costs $$$ and takes time, sea horses are WAY to cheap to go thru that process. You'd have to be nuts to go thru CITES for 1 type of animal, unless you're bringing in tons of that one animal.

What happenned to sea cucumbers, weren't they supposed to get a CITES Article II as well?

 

[dizzy]

I thought that Appendix II meant that aquacultured stuff on the list could be moved around in the country of the culturing, but country to country would be very difficult. Like Ocean Rider could still ship here in the US but not to Canada or something. Shipping animals in the future is liable to get very complicated.

 

[blue_hula]

John,

Thanks for the welcome. No coincidence however - I've been lurking and listening for a while now.

Keep in mind that that list of fish was created by myself. It comes from observations, memories, photos, stock lists and conversations. Truthfully, there are about 30% more Certified species than are on that list.

Sorry - I'm still stupid. Could someone please clarify for me ... are SPECIES certified or are areas / exporters / importers etc. certified?

The designation of abundant is not scientific, nor was it meant to be. It is based on a complex of observation of populations and catch figures over time. I was in the water there at Batasan Island for 3 days only. It is my understanding that the abundant species have been collected consistently there for over 15 years.

I'm sorry that the designation of abundant wasn't scientific nor meant to be. The problem is that it needs to be. Without consistent monitoring of the actual populations, NOT catch, we have no idea how populations respond to exploitation.

The key issue is effort. While I was working in Bohol, we collected fishing catch and effort data from well over a hundred fishers. Almost all fishers spread their fishing effort over a wide range of grounds. Very few are strictly local. What is unclear to people who don't know where these grounds are, is that, as fishers deplete local areas, they are forced to go further and further afield to maintain sufficient catch levels to feed their families. Catch remains steady and we assume populations are ok whereas in reality ....

The need to travel further and further to maintain catches was also stated by exporters in Indonesia. Catch levels are "stable" but they are travelling ever further to maintain them (side effect that fish are even more stressed by long journeys in "flow through" hulls). What this means is that eventually, the whole system will crash as there will be no more "new" sites to visit.

In terms of the observations on populations and catch over time to which you refer - would it be possible to get a copy of the report with this information? I am not aware of any long-term monitoring, scientific or otherwise, in this area.

Concerning the seahorses: Fairly low numbers of them are taken. In 3 days I seem to recall the fishers taking about 5 animals in total. I saw areas for improvement of management strategies across a range of species. For the Syngnathids, not harvesting males (or females in the case of pipefishes) that are 'gravid' would be advisable. As far as I know, collecting of seahorses is primarily done during daytime. They do go out at dawn and dusk to collect Mandarinfish as this is when they leave their deep coral lairs. It is possible that they pick up seahorses as well. The collecting area includes shallow seagrass and Caulerpa zones, as well as reefs. I presume seahorses are found in both.

Seahorses may be collected during the day time from seagrass beds as incidental catch. This is primarily because they have no where to hide. H. comes is however noctural and are collected at night from reef systems by fishers spearfishing food for their families. This is nasty, cold work. I've spent enough nights out with the fishermen to have gained great respect for their staying power. Desparation drives them.

Project Seahorse has also encouraged fishers to leave pregnant males. However when we modelled the impact on population recovery, it was negligible. One of the problems is that they still take the female and simply head back to get the male a few days later. Their ability to locate the same spot is remarkable. So, the benefit is that an additional brood gets released. However, given the high mortality of young fish in the wild, a lot of pregnant males would have to be left to make much difference. And even if they don't get the poor bugger a couple of nights later, the likelihood of him re-mating is low given the depressed population numbers and low mobility of seahorses- they sure don't swim well.

The only way for seahorse populations to recover is to RADICALLY reduce fishing effort, leaving pairs to do their thing, over and over. And reducing effort means getting fishers into alternative livelihoods. Seaweed farming for example ... small scale ecotourism ...

I do have one suggestion. Someone should muzzle the Pope. If Filipinos in remote areas had access to birth control, they could plan families and wouldn't be under such grinding pressure to feed their large families. In the village where I worked, the AVERAGE family size was 9 children. The largest family was 21 (and no, there were no second wives, mistresses etc. - that was just 2 highly fertile individuals). Preists and doctors preach the sanctity of fruitfulness... too bad it has such bad consequences for the people and their reefs.


Blue hula

 

[MaryHM]

Sorry - I'm still stupid. Could someone please clarify for me ... are SPECIES certified or are areas / exporters / importers etc. certified?

You aren't considered stupid here unless you already know the answer and continue to ask the same question, ignoring the answer. Let's just call you ignorant for the time being and we can fix that right now!

MAC certifies a collection area and the collectors. Then every species coming out of that area from those collectors is certified. So they do certify both. However, they don't certify "seahorses" and then every seahorse collected from anywhere is certified. Do you see the difference? If not, I'll try to explain it a little better. I've been involved with MAC for about 4 years and their way of doing things confuses even me.

 

[Anonymous]

The Philippine exporters will no doubt gear up for the exportation on the CITES Appendix II seahorses.

I'm with Gresham on this. Why would the exporters go to all the time and money to get permits just for seahorses? In my opinion, the Philippines will quit collecting them and that will put even greater pressure on seahorse populations in countries like Indonesia, as Indo will have to "make up the slack" so to speak.

Or maybe (hopefully), it will be places like ORA that will "pick up the slack." I, for one, am exclusively carrying ORA seahorses from now on. Every customer that has had a problem with this has been educated as to *why*.

Here's to hoping...

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

I wonder if anyone has numbers on how many seahorses are being imported....

 

[Anonymous]

I do have one suggestion. Someone should muzzle the Pope. If Filipinos in remote areas had access to birth control, they could plan families and wouldn't be under such grinding pressure to feed their large families. In the village where I worked, the AVERAGE family size was 9 children. The largest family was 21 (and no, there were no second wives, mistresses etc. - that was just 2 highly fertile individuals). Preists and doctors preach the sanctity of fruitfulness... too bad it has such bad consequences for the people and their reefs.

Wow...that's amazing. I had no idea the population was so out of control there. How do you feed 21 people with only the male getting fish?

Peace,

Chip