Ethical collection, sustainability and MPAs

[mkirda]

I believe Steve is correct when he suggests the connected will use political influence, to take fishing away from the poor and give culturing to the rich, if it ever becomes profitable.

Of course they will, Mitch.
The rich own the land, not the poor. The poor don't have the land, the capital, nor the expertise to run a large-scale aquaculture operation.

The most they can hope for is a job on the farm.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

This supports my sad conclusion that perhaps the only fish that a truly ethical hobbyist can keep are those that were tank bred.

-Lee

Wow.

Lee, you are far more radical in your ethics that I am.

There is such a thing as sustainable collection. And sustainable collection is ethical collection as far as I am concerned. More ethical still is the parallel establishment of patrolled and enforced MPAs.

Speaking to topics brought up later:
What will also concern me is when politically connected aquaculture operations use "environmentalism" to stop nearby ethical, sustainable collection so that they eliminate competition. Maybe fortunately, this is still years down the road...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

ok, here's a question...

group a (ngo, or whatever)teaches a local native community (group b)to farm/aquaculture pressured species for their own economical developement/reef pressure(read: environmental pressure) reduction

group c (neighboring group of island peoples who use nets) complains that groups a&b are evil ivory tower types who are destroying their livelihood

so group c is right and justified in their stance?

 

[mkirda]

ok, here's a question...

group a (ngo, or whatever)teaches a local native community (group b)to farm/aquaculture pressured species for their own economical developement/reef pressure(read: environmental pressure) reduction

group c (neighboring group of island peoples who use nets) complains that groups a&b are evil ivory tower types who are destroying their livelihood

so group c is right and justified in their stance?

Vitz,

In the Philippines, it cannot happen in this way. Each barangay controls their own reef area. It could only happen if two groups within the same barangay came into conflict, at which point the barangay would have to sort things out. Unless there is some sort of encroachment, barangay C would have no recourse with Barangay B.

Secondly, there is another issue here: Do the groups actually compete? i.e. Do they go after the same species? If not, then there is nothing to worry about.

Now, if the aquaculture group starts culturing large numbers of species X, it seems to me that the barangay would encourage the local fishermen to minimize the collection of species X, not force them out of business entirely. It worries me if an aquaculture operator becomes a barangay official, then starts to take advantage of his position in the situation.

Until that happens, all that you have is something called "competition".

The situation is far more complex than you have outlayed, Vitz. Not all of them are awful for everyone involved either.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula3]

ok, here's a question...

group a (ngo, or whatever)teaches a local native community (group b)to farm/aquaculture pressured species for their own economical developement/reef pressure(read: environmental pressure) reduction

group c (neighboring group of island peoples who use nets) complains that groups a&b are evil ivory tower types who are destroying their livelihood

so group c is right and justified in their stance?

More likely, group C will jump on the band wagon and start culturing as well. In Bohol, we saw this with seaweed culture ... started in one village, worked for them, and spread like wildfire. Same with MPAs. First one was hard to get in place but once working, other villages saw the benefits and followed suit.

Then, with reductions in wild capture, prices might rise with decreased availability and a smaller number of people may go back to fishing ... at least part time.

One thing to understand is that no one LIKES fishing. It is brutal hard work. For seahorses, the guys paddle out at night and spend 5-6 hrs swimming in the dark and cold. Often no snorkel, plywood discs for fins and leaky goggles. Effective alternative livelihoods will get them off fishing lickedy split.

The "evil ivory tower" thing (which isn't quite what I said ... more like "oblivious ivory tower") happens when the NGO/university/researcher simply bans fishing or takes it over without ensuring that options exist for the displaced fishers. Concentration of power in the hands of the elites, local or otherwise, is a bad thing.

And this is one of the other reasons I am concerned about MAC's program. What will they do if the actually conduct resource assessments and find the areas are overfished ? What plans do they have for capacity building and alternative livelihoods? Perhaps ignorance is bliss ... if there is no need to shift fishers off the reefs, don't have to worry about how to do it.

Cheers,
Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

One thing to understand is that no one LIKES fishing. It is brutal hard work. For seahorses, the guys paddle out at night and spend 5-6 hrs swimming in the dark and cold. Often no snorkel, plywood discs for fins and leaky goggles. Effective alternative livelihoods will get them off fishing lickedy split.

Jessica,

I'm not entirely sure of that. In talking to the MO fishermen in Palauig, for some, it is a lifestyle that they enjoy far more than the alternative, which seems to consist mainly of construction-type jobs. Go out and fish for four hours and get an average of a couple of dollars, or work for 8 hours and get a buck and change everyday.

However, I did see fishermen whom I'm pretty sure you are really referring to, the guys hand-paddling their tiny bancas out a couple of miles in six foot swells in order to fish by hook and line. The truly poor fishermen cannot afford motors for their bancas.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[PeterIMA]

Mike, I agree with most of what you just posted. It is not clear to me that each barangay controls its own waters or whether the control exists at the level of the municipality. The new fisheries code encouraged the creation of barangay FARMCs, municipal FARMCs, and a national FARMC. Theoretically, the barangays (villages within the municipality) should coordinate mangement of local waters through the municipal FARMC to establish uniform regulations within municipal waters. This is necessary to reduce conflicts between neighboring barangays. I believe the use of GIS is necessary to define the municipal and barangay boundaries, and to create MPAs and TURFs. The allocation of areas (TURFs) to define use rights for fishing and mariculture are needed. Under Philippine law the beneficiaries should be the local residents rather than outsiders. This is consistent with the concept of Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURFs).
However, I agree that rich people continue to use their power to the detriment of poor fishermen in the Philippines. Examples are cages for fish culture established in Laguna del Bay and more recently in the municipality of Bolinao (and other municipalities). Cage culture is being encouraged by BFAR. The result has been the degredation and pollution local waters to the detriment of local residents. These activities should be carefully controlled or banned if they are detrimental to sensitive marine habitats (such as coral reefs and are detrimental to the local people-such as the small-scale fishermen and collectors of marine ornamental species). In the case of Bolinao, seasonal bans were imposed on collection of marine aquarium species to help stop the use of cyanide. The degredation caused by pollution from the fish cages have compounded the degredation of the reefs caused by the cyanide fishermen. Nobody wins under these circumstances.

Peter Rubec

 

[blue hula3]

Mike,
I'd agree that there are some jobs worse than fishing ... particularly in the cities. I was thinking of the small, isolated villages. Where I was working, options were fishing, hauling water, fishing, fishing ... and seahorses are particularly challenging. There wasn't a motor in the village other than the large water hauling bancas. So they paddle ... and it's at night. Yuck. Only good thing was that the fish stocks are so depleted that even the sharks have gone elsewhere.

As guzo (seaweed) farming came in, fishers switched quickly. Even though it was longer hours, it allowed them to sleep at night and be with family during the day.

And even worse off were the hook and line fellows in bancas so small, my hips didn't fit (and I'm slender for 5'11" before anyone makes obnoxious comments)

Jessica

 

[blue hula3]

Peter/Mike

My sense in Bohol was that the balance of barangay (village) / LGU (municipal) control depended in part on personalities at the various levels of gov't. Where strong barangay captains ("mayors"), well-connected to LGU politics existed ... barangays had lots of control / say over the resources around their islands ... where barangay's were weak, LGU's could create havoc. For instance, with the seaweed farming example, in some LGUs, only resident villagers could lease village waters for seaweed farms. In other LGUs, leases were let to individuals from other villages or the municipality, with marginalisation of villagers. That sucked.

Jessica

 

[mkirda]

where weak, LGU's could create havoc. For instance, with the seaweed farming example, in some LGUs, only resident villagers could lease village waters for seaweed farms. In other LGUs, leases were let to individuals from other villages or the municipality, with marginalisation of villagers.

Jessica

This is, of course, the one downside about BFAR ceding control to the LGUs.
Some will use it to empower themselves, others will let the power go. At least they have the choice and have made the choice.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Anonymous]

First step would be to reduce pressure rather than an outright ban. But again, in order to assess this, we need resource assessments to be done. The likelihood that some areas can not even handle "ethical" collecting also highlights the importance of alternative livelihoods to reduce the total pressure on the marine environment.

And what do the poor fisherman do then?
Tropical fish are already the alternative to food fishing in many areas. Taking away the tropicals as well gives no answer to fisherman and villages dependant upon the sea. Shall they eat cake? Scrape the reef harder?
Whats wrong with supporting sustainable collecting and net collecting?

For the sake of the fisherfolk, I have to feel that it is a good thing that some of us are not quite as ethical as you [Lee] and Wayne.

Lee, I said some areas not all areas. IMO, an ethical hobbyist can buy fish that have been collected with non destructive techniques and at a level that does not lead to unacceptable declines in wild populations(resource assessments anyone ... John B are you out there?)

The problem with the aquarium fishery (one of them anyway) is that fishing effort in places like the Philippines is too high relative to what the resource base can sustain. You respond to this by reducing effort to acceptable levels rather than banning the trade. And complementary to this is the establishment of alternative livelihoods to ensure that displaced fishers can still earn a living

There is such a thing as sustainable collection. And sustainable collection is ethical collection as far as I am concerned.

This supports my sad conclusion that perhaps the only fish that a truly ethical hobbyist can keep are those that were tank bred.

I’ve always agreed with you folks that low environmental impact, sustainable harvesting of animals well suited to aquarium life is fine. Encouraging less destructive collection via net training and economic subsidy is a good thing if it helps to lead to that end.

My quandary continues to be, “what are the ethical obligations of a contientious reef hobbyist?” I’d say there certainly is an obligation to support netcaught grassroots efforts, also to support well implemented certification programs. However, it seems to me that if a hobbyist cannot obtain data on where animals are specifically being imported from; the capture technique; and information regarding the sustainability of collection that it might be best to avoid wild caught fish altogether. I guess what I’m saying is that even knowing a bit more than some hobbyists I cannot go into any local stores and make a truly informed purchase. There is no data. Perhaps if I had a MAC certified LFS I could get a bit closer to that goal?

In regards to the “poor fisherfolk”: based on some of the above quotations it appears that even if fishing practices are greatly modified subsistence (and economic) fishing will not be able to serve an ever increasing population indefinitely in many areas. Sometimes I wonder whether we should be supporting UNICEF rather than a netcaught fund if the primary goal is helping the fisherfolk? http://unicef.org/infobycountry/philippines.html If the fisheries give out, even by ethical collection, I guess the former fisherfolk will have to eat cake, Steve.

Cheers,
-Lee

 

[mkirda]

My quandary continues to be, “what are the ethical obligations of a contientious reef hobbyist?”

I think it will depend entirely on the individual and the ethics or morals that they hold dear.

However, it seems to me that if a hobbyist cannot obtain data on where animals are specifically being imported from; the capture technique; and information regarding the sustainability of collection that it might be best to avoid wild caught fish altogether. I guess what I’m saying is that even knowing a bit more than some hobbyists I cannot go into any local stores and make a truly informed purchase. There is no data. Perhaps if I had a MAC certified LFS I could get a bit closer to that goal?

Lee,

You can do it, but it will involve a heck of a lot more work than walking into the LFS. It will involve contacting an exporter, one of their importers, then finding out what store they supply. Then you place an order, paying for it up-front, for fish from Exporter X, through Importer Y , sold to store Z. You will probably pay a premium for it. But it solves all your ethical quandries.

And if you want to support UNICEF, more power to you. Their goals are noble too.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
If "fisheries give out" ...we all have a formidable situation looming and not just Philippine folks will be involved.
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Funny you should mention UNICEF.
The first net training project I ever saw was funded by them, in 1982. They channeled 25K into the Environmental Center of the Phillipines to kick off net training in Bolinao, Pangasinan and Buhol.
I was in the company of 5 European ambassadors who wanted to follow-up on UNICEF projects and my job [ $100. US a month ] was to show em our project.
The main topic of discussion was the link between degraded fisheries and habitat destruction thru illegal fishng...and the relevance to poverty in fishing villages.
As are you today...I was sincere, idealistic and not well worn back then.
We trained, defined how to actually do it , defined this issue and it blew up in the press and was carried month by month by FAMA magazine back then.
After converting 40 cyanide divers or so into netsman...the Filipino director of the project converted it all into a private business for himself. I resigned of course...proving how obstreperous I am, and his private money stream evaported.
I reported it all to UNICEF in Manila of course and was told to cool it. They preferred not to be embarrassed and found my revelations to not be compatable with the glowing report of the project in the files.
But, I was the trainer, I told them...and the packing and export manager as well! After a solid year of training and then being used to make private business on UNICEF funds, I had an idea what I was talking about! Nope... like talking to a brick wall.
I have never seen a training project run well enough to be stolen and converted into an export business like that one. You know why???Cause they really wanted the fish to sell. Its all in FAMA 83-84.
The trainings to follow just remained "eco-development business".
Sympathize with you I do Lee. What would you have done? How would you feel after seeing such things thru the years since then? Would you burn out? Suffer from issue fatigue? Give up? Sell out?
Whats a Consciencious hobbyist to do? You can start by supporting a reform ethic here and not search for hairs to split so much . The Democracy of the forum allows people to communicate and unite. We should do it more!
For fun...there are a hundred more popular forums on "using, coveting and buying" things from the reef. This is virtually the only one trying to sustain the things on the reef.
This one should be better attended and supported then it is.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Lee,
I concur with Steve's comments about Project Compassion.

As far as obtaining net-caught fish, you can buy them from the several importers of net-caught fish who have been active on this forum. As far as buying MAC-Certified fish you can also do this (although the supply and number of species is severely limited).

The MAC claims that they can trace the MAC Certified fish back to the original collectors (with a paper trail, and by segregating fish in export and import facilities). I think the MAC should do more work to simplify the chain-of-custody to ensure traceability of MAC Certified fish.

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

Right Peter,
But as far as tracing fish goes...the obvious question is...'What fish"?
I get these scant few fish myself...and it kills me to see how the uninvolved pseudo-intellectual certification dogma worshipper supports the rumor of them.
They have ment nothing to a single customer of mine. ..and for good reason. The maroons slime up still, the chelmons are starved to death as are the orbic bats and tieras. The mandarins are fine...its just that they are, well mandarins and they starve like everyone elses....[unless one per fresh live rock tank...dosed w/ cyclopeze all the time.]
There is no achievement here folk that you can discuss with real dealers with a straight face.. The best jokes about this come from the certified guys themselves. They thought there was a 'supply' in the offing!
All dressed up and no place to go it has been and waiting for the ride that never shows up.
The need...the internal need to feel like better people makes us yearn for the 'safety' of a certified product. ...
The need...the businessmans need to distinguish himself from the rest of the mob makes him yearn for a sticker and a certificate to validate him above the rest...
and finally the need to answer critics, especially sincere reformers, give rise to the hankering for a sheet of paper to hold up like a drivers liscense to a cop...to make him back off.
Back...you tree huggers, back foul greenies, damn you to hell PETA ! Oppressive USCRTF! REEFORM! Damn Middlebrook & Robinson! Lions and tigers and bears oh my!
Meanwhile, people who really care enough to put there money where their mouth is ...buy netcaught fish every day from netcaught importers. The fish are then mixed with all the rest and presto! ...all netcaught. You know what is really sad? It how the achievement gets "sold out" over here. How American importers and retailers mix the fish over here diluting and ruining the produce of people who fought hard to keep it seperate and clean.
Looking on in a patronizing way to the corruption in the Philippines and Indonesia should be tempered with reference to end-users and dealers penchant for dishonesty as well. The "holier then thou... " irony has long been regarded by foreigners as proof of our own lack of sincerity.
I'm glad to see that there is something in people who want certification, a paper trail, the knowledge that there is a dusty, un-opened book of standards somewhere and a sop to the conscience.
So do I.
I just want some real netcaught fish to go with it . [and an honest CAMP process ]. Thats all. Until we get as excited about the reality as opposed to the theory ...we make ourselves appear in search of stlye over substance. That looks more like public relations work than in-country fishery extension and resource assessment...
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Back...you tree huggers, back foul greenies, damn you to hell PETA ! Oppressive USCRTF! REEFORM! Damn Middlebrook & Robinson! Lions and tigers and bears oh my!

Um, Steve, slowly put down the cup and step away from the coffee maker. I think you are suffering from caffine poisoning, there buddy.

 

[Anonymous]

Lee,
I concur with Steve's comments about Project Compassion.

As far as obtaining net-caught fish, you can buy them from the several importers of net-caught fish who have been active on this forum. As far as buying MAC-Certified fish you can also do this (although the supply and number of species is severely limited).

The MAC claims that they can trace the MAC Certified fish back to the original collectors (with a paper trail, and by segregating fish in export and import facilities). I think the MAC should do more work to simplify the chain-of-custody to ensure traceability of MAC Certified fish.

Peter Rubec

Thanks, Peter. Looks like all I'm left with is mail order or driving 1,600 miles round trip for bonified fish.

Take care,
Lee

 

[clarionreef]

Geez Louise Lee,
You don't have to drive out here to get to the most bonafide supply available.
We ship out eveyday. All you need is a storefront, a business liscense and $250.00 minimum order.
After 20 years of workin on it, its here already.
Sincerely, Steve
Cortez Marine

 

[Anonymous]

It might be there, but it ain't in Oklahoma that I know of. You selling to someone in my 'hood?