Anyone have an update about EASI?

[Anonymous]

It has been some time since I've seen anything about the EASI net training program. Does anyone have any information about how they've progressed or know of a website to read about EASI?

Thanks,
Lee

 

[mkirda]

It has been some time since I've seen anything about the EASI net training program. Does anyone have any information about how they've progressed or know of a website to read about EASI?

Thanks,
Lee

Yes and no.

I've invited Ferdinand to respond directly.
He replied that he intends to, but it might be a couple of days.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[ferdiecruz]

Dear Lee,
In the last quarter of the year there were several issues that EASI had to discuss and decide before proceeding into more training. Allow me to expound on it.

EASI’s board of trustees held three meetings to discuss several issues that have surfaced through feedbacks from very concerned individuals from the government sectors and citizens. What was presently happening will affect the credibility and acceptability of future trainings. We all know very well that in the Philippines this industry is struggling under the stigma of cyanide that we have been trying to overcome. It is important that to save this industry in our country we need to change this kind of perception not through hype and media blitz but by having the right components that address all the issues and problems.

We have found out that, though our work focuses on the ornamental trade we cannot deny the encroachment and destruction brought about by the live reef food fish trade. In fact in our pilot sites the live food fish trade is a major headache that we deal with. (Mostly by the same traders that are in Palawan) Most live food fish collectors collect both ornamental and live food fish at the same time. This kind of trade now affects every area that has good coral cover and a viable means of transport. If there are no viable means of transportation then they charter planes.

Here is the problem:
Certain “wise guys” thought up and created a PR Group to improve the image of the live fish shippers in Palawan after the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) enforced the no cyanide detection test (CDT) no shipment. Goals of this PR offensive were to show the government sectors and environmental organizations a movement of “Reform from within the industry”. They came out with stickers of their name “ISDA” (FISH), catchy bywords and humongous publicized rewards of up to $18,000 for those who would report cyanide users. (No one was ever caught) They had TV documentaries shown in our national TV stations. They came up with phrases such as “it’s a dollar earner, it helps the economy of the country!” emphatically stating that they have big investments and stakes in this trade so it is in their best interest to make the live fish trade very sustainable. In short they created a band wagon and media blitz that excited even the government sectors. A few were cynical and did not buy in including me who is part of the technical working committee of the PCSD. We waited and hoped though that they could really bring reform from within the industry.

As I predicted that more CDT test showing positive trace of cyanide will be found towards the end of the year reports came in that it was actually happening. In fact the volume of positive for cyanide shot up to a dizzying number. Shipments by the hundreds of kilos of cyanide addressed to fictitious persons were confiscated in ferries abandoned during strict inspections ordered by PCSD. News of two of the groups I trained during my work with MAC were tested and found positive for cyanide once. I was requested to look into it and I did.

As again predicted, blame of obtaining cyanide was placed on the poor collectors especially the groupers collectors. Grouper collectors who are as uneducated as the ornamental fish collectors do not know their way around Manila where the black market of cyanide exist (being a highly regulated chemical) more so purchase it. Can you imagine a grouper collector buying 600 kilos plus worth of cyanide that has a price tag of $ 6.25 to $ 7.15 per kilo when they can hardly feed their family? Shippers wanted the CDT test to be done on collectors and not on them. PCSD and I do not believe the claim of shippers that cyanide is procured by collectors themselves. Again as predicted the method of testing cyanide was being discredited by word of mouth but the PCSD held on and would not be dissuaded. What PCSD even did was to purchase a Hach ion selective electrode (ISE) and distillation apparatus, hired their own chemist to augment the BFAR CDT lab.

During the time when the PR offensive still had a tremendous band wagon effect these shippers where able to ship out even from Puerto Princessa City. Puerto Prencessa city has a law banning the shipment of live fish. This law was contested by shippers in the past but upheld by the Supreme Court. They were able to ship out with out the law being amended. PCSD was against it and finally put a stop to these shipments just this week after so many past attempts. (Talking about political will despite the strong pressures).

Tragically news of what is happening in Palawan has spread to other parts of the country in a negative way. In one sweeping blow talks are spreading that all live fish are caught with cyanide. These kind of talks though unsubstantiated are far more damaging than facts.

Most of the local government units being cynical about net training are becoming more cynical and do not believe ornamental fish can be caught with nets now no matter how it is explained and shown on video. Most provinces cannot afford to have a CDT lab. Coastal municipalities might allow a net training program to be conducted in their municipality but will not seriously support it. With that kind of attitude it will affect the success of the program. In Manila to have a fish tested in the CDT lab of BFAR a fee of $ 4.50 is being charge. That is the only lab that has a CDT outside of Palawan. All these things now have to be considered in creating the net training program.

Palawan has a lot of NGOs helping the government and is acting as watch dogs. They have a PCSD and BFAR that though bound with eternal bureaucracy are showing political will and flexing their muscles. In comparison other provinces have only a few or no NGO’s at all. Local Government Units are not well prepared to address marine issues especially destructive fishing. NGO’s and LGU’s unfortunately have little or no background and education regarding the live trade.

We are in areas where there are no PCSD and a strong BFAR to rely on. We have to change our methods and our concept in doing the net training program if we want it to succeed. Our focus and methods definitely has to change. We have to secure better funding to go the whole 9 yards and not do a half in and a half out kind of work. It is not net training anymore that will hold water and make these collectors stick to nets when so many factors are motivating them to backslide. (This topic will be what I will be talking about in the Marine Ornamental.)

Our lawyers in our board are now researching the laws promulgated by local government units in sites we are in and in our future sites. We need to know the weak points in the legal systems in their laws and be able to suggest a stronger law to ensure that we are not being used merely as a vehicle to hide illegal activities and to be sure that the whole program is institutionalized. We had to question ourselves; are we in conscience doing the right thing? Are we approaching this the right way? Are we being used unknowingly as cover for illegal destructive fishing and green washing?

Lastly and also an important factor MAC is going into net training. We cannot have two different trainings at the same time. We cannot afford to have one site backslide and the other not whether it ours or theirs. We should not make it more confusing to the Local Government Units. As it is now it is already confusing enough. There must be a way of addressing the live food fish trade, facing the issues squarely. There must be at least a meeting of minds. If we don’t then two organizations going into it at different angles and different beliefs will just make things worse than it is now.

To better understand this here is a statement we have written down when the decision was made to move on:

Coastal Conservation and the Aquarium Industry

For almost four decades now, the international marine ornamental fish market has fueled the continuous growth of the aquarium fishing industry in the Philippines in terms of employment and trade. In a sense it has also fueled the continuous use of cyanide by the collectors supported by unscrupulous exporters. A good percentage of the manpower it used to have has shifted to the live food fish trade influencing others in this trade to use destructive capture methods instead of reforming or leading the way to reform. One acute consequence of market pressure is that local fishing communities have resorted to destructive fishing methods, primarily, sodium cyanide, to meet the ever increasing volume of demand and the right species mix for the ornamental fish trade and more volume demanded by the live food fish trade. It has also influenced non-live fishermen to compete for the same resource sites using destructive fishing methods to just stay ahead and eke out a living. More catch, however, did not bring about prosperity to local fishing villages because of their inability to control market forces. Meanwhile, the ramifications of having to use destructive fishing practices have affected the present and future catches with a lot of collecting sites now unsuitable for viable collecting activities. Inevitably, what we have is a tragic spectacle of communities having to intensify their use of resources and in the process become even more impoverished. The chain reaction in the use of cyanide has brought upon the communities more instability than was previously seen. All sectors of a community dependent on the marine resources that is being used by ornamental or live food fish fishermen are very much adversely affected by the destruction of these resources. What is worse is that ornamental fish collectors tend to move on to other places while others do not, leaving more destitute fishermen who sees as their last resort to survive going into illegal fishing themselves, the majority of which are now using dynamite and cyanide.

The seemingly unending cycle of resource exploitation and degradation has fittingly prompted many experts and conscientious hobbyists and traders to question the economics of aquarium fishing. There has been a growing consciousness among the players within the industry to view aquarium fishing not just from it’s strictly business aspects but within the overall backdrop of continuous resource degradation, declining fish catch and destitution of fishing villages.

In recent years, there has been experimental and community-based efforts to address the problems concomitant to resources exploitation by setting aside areas as “no take” zones, sanctuaries, marine protected areas, setting allowable quota on certain species and community-initiated law enforcement. By making conservation the cornerstone strategy and making people’s participation a key approach, there can be hope of sustaining the aquarium industry.


Why Employ Community-based Approach to Conservation and Aquarium Fishing

It has been observe that even with training and religiously following best practices at the source, the probability of backsliding is high due to so many factors. These factors have been identified and must be addressed. Malpractices by the buyers end must be addressed too, to prevent collectors from backsliding. More importantly all these approaches should address the misconception that ornamental fish “can only be caught by cyanide,” removing the stigma on the industry once and for all.

A community-based approach is a comprehensive and broad-based conservation effort that capitalizes on the strengths and maturity of local communities through proper education and training. It offers an alternative solution to problems confronting the coastal areas and the people dependent on it. The core element of community-based approach is people’s participation. Several attempts at implementing coastal conservation activities and running micro-enterprises such as aquarium fish collection have produced dismal results. Local communities’ do not have the capabilities and tools to actively manage their own resource properly. From the planning stage to implementation and evaluation, community members are treated as targets from which successes and failures are tested against and success is counted in terms of paper trail, volume and variety of fish being extracted.

On the other hand, in community-based approach, people’s participation is not just a strategy, but also an end in itself. By participating, local communities are empowered and develop a sense of ownership, which enable them to play an active role in resource protection and management. It also makes them realize that they have a voice in their trading activities preventing or minimizing malpractices by the buyers end.

____________________________________________________________


With this we are now writing down a complete set of training modules that includes the many lessons we recent and past learned from the field to better guide us in our work. We do not have any conflict of interest in doing our work and trainings but we need to be careful and not go in with a “gung ho” type of attitude even if funds are available. We will not allow to be a party to claims that the problem is solve when it is worse just to save face. We all need to do it right

We will be doing monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment in our sites. In fact we are proposing that in a year’s time we do an in-depth study on the social, economic and political dynamics of the aquarium fish trade and look honestly into its economic potentials.

As of now we still are deciding on when we can make our own website. We think the funds we have for the moment are better spent in the field whefre tons of knowledge are coming in.

My apologies for a very long response but we hope this would make things clear.

Thank You
Ferdinand

 

[dizzy]

Ferdie,
Thanks for the very sobering report. Is MAC working on net training for the livefood trade or for marine ornamentals? Or both? I'm looking forward very much to your talk at MO and look forward to meeting you in person. I'm truly sorry we weren't able to get you to MACNA as a speaker. I think we would of all learned a lot.
Mitch Gibbs

 

[Anonymous]

Ferdinand,

Thank you very much for the detailed update. It is very greatly appreciated. There is a great deal to digest in what you wrote. The issues of public policy, public perception, corruption, interference of the live food trade, and the needs of the local collector make for a very complex problem. I had no idea of much of what has been recently happening in your area.

What things can we in North America do to help with the reform efforts?

Sincerely,
Lee Morey

 

[clarionreef]

Well Lee,
You asked for an undate!
A fair difference from the in depth 'in-country' analysis of the situation from Filipinos and the ' tell us what we want to hear' one offered by our own "industry group"... spinning everything into a positive press release...wasn't it?
The public reponse of the group that has been telling us that they're always 'working' on it to Ferdies report will be silence. The private one...to villify him...This is an old routine now.
They want him to go away so they can focus on the more important issues like generating a sustainable cash stream for themselves.
Thanks for posting Ferdie. You need to do it more often!
Sincerely, Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Ferdinand,

I reread your posting and I was wondering whether you could reveal any details of EASI's implementation plan and a projected timeline? How many collectors has EASI trained to date? What countries currently are receiving the fish from the EASI trained collectors?

Thanks,
Lee

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

Please do not degrade this thread into yet another MAC bashing session with your innuendo. I'm encouraged that MAC it appears to be getting their training program together and hope that all net training/reform groups can find ways to work together.

Sincerely,
Lee

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
For your information, Ferdie is a greater critic of MACs performance than I.
EASI is just getting into this AS A DIRECT RESULT of MACs well funded non-performance.
Your need to know all that volunteer reformers have done so far and what their timetable is is amusing. The work is YET to be funded or done so perhaps your need for the definitive and 'easy' answers will not be forthcoming soon.
Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Ferdinand,

I reread your posting and I was wondering whether you could reveal any details of EASI's implementation plan and a projected timeline? How many collectors has EASI trained to date? What countries currently are receiving the fish from the EASI trained collectors?

Thanks,
Lee

Lee,

It is not an easy task what these groups (MAC and EASI) are trying to do in the Philippines. The fact that the central government is not showing concrete signs of willingness, commitment and funding to tackle the problem is going to make things extremelly difficult for everybody. As Ferdinand stated the solution to this is more than the simple net training.The net training by itself is the easy part of the problem. To avoid backsliding social and economic aspects have to be addressed. Unfortunately, the government is neglecting these important issues. They are ignoring the real economic value of the coral reefs. Without direct government participation very little is going to be accomplished.

jaime

 

[Anonymous]

Allright, I guess trainings are on hold. So how much of the publically donated correct netting material has been distributed to those fisherfolks that are already trained and need it?

 

[ferdiecruz]

Hi Lee,
I think we are off tangent in the questions you asked but I will answer them in this response. I would rather that you asked; did this organizations and people learn a lesson from the PR episode? Why was there two positive traces of cyanide in people I have trained? ( On second thought I should not answer that now, it might be considered bashing but there is a lesson there) What lessons were clearly learned? Other well meaning and good intention groups where sucked into it. It was not really a bad concept but certain persons or an organization who thought they were experts in the destructive fishing issues thought it was a good high profile solution. Dividing the issues between ornamental and food fish will not work. Each affects the other. Is it not being naïve to do this thing without thinking of the consequences and the forces at play that influences the end results? Or nobody did an in-depth look into it and left it to luck? That is tantamount to green washing.

I know the people and organization who planted the seed of the idea of the PR offensive and “cyanide watch”. (everybody is denying involvement now) They are good people well-intentioned but very naïve for thinking that a few years in dealing with destructive fishing makes them experts. Their names do not matter. I just hope they learned again a lesson. How many strikes does it need to make them realize they have a lot to learn? What is tragic is each time an attempt like this is made and fails it makes our work harder and worse more people here go hungry which is translated to more destruction of the reef area where your hobby comes from.

With the whole thing falling apart they backpedaled so fast dropping everything like a hot potato leaving the shippers in mid air. That again is a wrong move. As for the self-proclaimed experts in this field well I have been in this line of work for almost two decades now. I live and spend my days immerse in it. I spend a lot of my time in communities and have gone out collecting and fishing for over a decade with fishermen. Yet I still cannot declare myself an expert up to now but I will certainly not attempt to do a reform program with a lot of components missing to make it honestly work. I will also be honest in saying that the program is not working if it is not. I will be willing to accept and listen to criticisms. I will be willing to consult others whom I think are better or even get the opinions of the collectors themselves and credit them for it.

What would be the next move in this PR episode? People involve will try to discredit the PCSD. Try to accuse them of usurping functions of other line agencies etc. Complain to the President and to other politicians. (It is election time now) When the PR group was being created they did not foresee this when it is so easy to see. The line of battle is just being drawn. Such a waste if they succeed. To show how serious PCSD is they even kick out the scalawags caught with their hands in the “cookie jar” to send a very strong message down their ranks. (several were kick out) At present it is required that if a sample tested in the BFAR CDT lab is found positive for traces of cyanide another sample has to be sent to the PCSD lab to be tested. If a shipper is found positive he cannot ship anymore. This first step is a good one, now we need to look into the many corridors going out of Palawan that are use to send shipments without going through a test. licensing collectors under a shipper is going to be done too.

Anyway here is my response to your query. Yes we have trained or upgraded some collectors but numbers are not what we think is needed immediately. We wanted to find out what can work and what will not. We wanted to know what to do with our live reef fish trade. That is a priority to us. We will not spend hundreds of thousands of Dollars that will go to waste. To give you an insight on production of 8 months one shipper purchased around 180,000 pcs. of net caught fish and it does not include one of the biggest buyers that is getting fish too. I do not meddle in the business of suppliers and exporters but as far as what I personally know it went to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South America and Europe. The big buyer of course sends his mostly to the USA. Does that satisfy us? NO. Does that improve the net collectors’ lot? NO? Will most of them backslide in the near future or mix cyanide and net caught fish? YES!!! Is net training the answer? NO.

I do not think I need to expound in detail our implementation plan and modules. In my response I have summarized it as best as I could unless we take up hundreds of pages just to give you the details. It will be what our counterpart in Indonesia will be using with certain changes to adapt to existing conditions in their country. Also we have funds from other quarters that will also fund Indonesia. One of our policies is not to accept funds that will make us do a project half bake just for the sake of money.

For your information I was the person who created the manual for the net training and collectors best practices for the program of MAC. I told their country coordinator that it needs to be revised and updated. Also I was requiring site and collection area assessment long before MAC came into the picture. Not perfect maybe but it was the start of something new that I injected into the IMA component I was handling. It was not funded officially because it was not included in the official funding setup but we still did it on our own in a rough way to serve us as a guide to our work.

As for MAC’s involvement in the short live PR episode, the country director of MAC Philippines told me they were not involve. It just so happen that he was there when the TV documentary was being taken and also had to do a lot of other trips to Palawan for MAC during those times. For me that is enough though two phone calls to check and counter check it can be done if I want to. But will it achieve anything? As I said names do not matter.

I hope by writing this response it is not considered as bashing a person or an organization. I do not do that. I try to be as objective as I can base on the data and information I have acquired. Do not also forget that English is not my language so reading between the lines might be more confusing. And do not worry about the nets. They will be use and shared the right way. Or would you rather that we distribute it to people who would say "we have nets so we are not using cyanide" and still are doing it? This has happened in past trainings so we are going to be very careful. As I said each false move makes it harder for refom to move on. We are using two different kind of nets, and not all can be use in one site. Each has a different purpose so we give only the right nets to collectors and not the one donated if it is not needed.
Mabuhay,
Ferdinand

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Hi Lee,
I think we are off tangent in the questions you asked but I will answer them in this response. I would rather that you asked; did this organizations and people learn a lesson from the PR episode? Why was there two positive traces of cyanide in people I have trained? ( On second thought I should not answer that now, it might be considered bashing but there is a lesson there) What lessons were clearly learned? Other well meaning and good intention groups where sucked into it. It was not really a bad concept but certain persons or an organization who thought they were experts in the destructive fishing issues thought it was a good high profile solution. Dividing the issues between ornamental and food fish will not work. Each affects the other. Is it not being naïve to do this thing without thinking of the consequences and the forces at play that influences the end results? Or nobody did an in-depth look into it and left it to luck? That is tantamount to green washing.

I know the people and organization who planted the seed of the idea of the PR offensive and “cyanide watch”. (everybody is denying involvement now) They are good people well-intentioned but very naïve for thinking that a few years in dealing with destructive fishing makes them experts. Their names do not matter. I just hope they learned again a lesson. How many strikes does it need to make them realize they have a lot to learn? What is tragic is each time an attempt like this is made and fails it makes our work harder and worse more people here go hungry which is translated to more destruction of the reef area where your hobby comes from.

With the whole thing falling apart they backpedaled so fast dropping everything like a hot potato leaving the shippers in mid air. That again is a wrong move. As for the self-proclaimed experts in this field well I have been in this line of work for almost two decades now. I live and spend my days immerse in it. I spend a lot of my time in communities and have gone out collecting and fishing for over a decade with fishermen. Yet I still cannot declare myself an expert up to now but I will certainly not attempt to do a reform program with a lot of components missing to make it honestly work. I will also be honest in saying that the program is not working if it is not. I will be willing to accept and listen to criticisms. I will be willing to consult others whom I think are better or even get the opinions of the collectors themselves and credit them for it.

What would be the next move in this PR episode? People involve will try to discredit the PCSD. Try to accuse them of usurping functions of other line agencies etc. Complain to the President and to other politicians. (It is election time now) When the PR group was being created they did not foresee this when it is so easy to see. The line of battle is just being drawn. Such a waste if they succeed. To show how serious PCSD is they even kick out the scalawags caught with their hands in the “cookie jar” to send a very strong message down their ranks. (several were kick out) At present it is required that if a sample tested in the BFAR CDT lab is found positive for traces of cyanide another sample has to be sent to the PCSD lab to be tested. If a shipper is found positive he cannot ship anymore. This first step is a good one, now we need to look into the many corridors going out of Palawan that are use to send shipments without going through a test. licensing collectors under a shipper is going to be done too.

Anyway here is my response to your query. Yes we have trained or upgraded some collectors but numbers are not what we think is needed immediately. We wanted to find out what can work and what will not. We wanted to know what to do with our live reef fish trade. That is a priority to us. We will not spend hundreds of thousands of Dollars that will go to waste. To give you an insight on production of 8 months one shipper purchased around 180,000 pcs. of net caught fish and it does not include one of the biggest buyers that is getting fish too. I do not meddle in the business of suppliers and exporters but as far as what I personally know it went to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South America and Europe. The big buyer of course sends his mostly to the USA. Does that satisfy us? NO. Does that improve the net collectors’ lot? NO? Will most of them backslide in the near future or mix cyanide and net caught fish? YES!!! Is net training the answer? NO.

I do not think I need to expound in detail our implementation plan and modules. In my response I have summarized it as best as I could unless we take up hundreds of pages just to give you the details. It will be what our counterpart in Indonesia will be using with certain changes to adapt to existing conditions in their country. Also we have funds from other quarters that will also fund Indonesia. One of our policies is not to accept funds that will make us do a project half bake just for the sake of money.

For your information I was the person who created the manual for the net training and collectors best practices for the program of MAC. I told their country coordinator that it needs to be revised and updated. Also I was requiring site and collection area assessment long before MAC came into the picture. Not perfect maybe but it was the start of something new that I injected into the IMA component I was handling. It was not funded officially because it was not included in the official funding setup but we still did it on our own in a rough way to serve us as a guide to our work.

As for MAC’s involvement in the short live PR episode, the country director of MAC Philippines told me they were not involve. It just so happen that he was there when the TV documentary was being taken and also had to do a lot of other trips to Palawan for MAC during those times. For me that is enough though two phone calls to check and counter check it can be done if I want to. But will it achieve anything? As I said names do not matter.

I hope by writing this response it is not considered as bashing a person or an organization. I do not do that. I try to be as objective as I can base on the data and information I have acquired. Do not also forget that English is not my language so reading between the lines might be more confusing. And do not worry about the nets. They will be use and shared the right way. Or would you rather that we distribute it to people who would say "we have nets so we are not using cyanide" and still are doing it? This has happened in past trainings so we are going to be very careful. As I said each false move makes it harder for refom to move on. We are using two different kind of nets, and not all can be use in one site. Each has a different purpose so we give only the right nets to collectors and not the one donated if it is not needed.
Mabuhay,
Ferdinand

Hi all,

Voila, I hope everyone will get it. The response from someone who knows what is going on in the Philippines is very clear " Net training is not the answer". Ferdinand knows very well how things work over there. What needs to happen is that the central government in the Philippines takes action, show willingness, commitment and put some money to protect their natural resources. When that will happen net training is going to be the answer. Meanwhile the status quo prevails =Cyanide use and coral reef destruction.

jaime

 

[clarionreef]

Oh my goodness,
Jaimes now a Ferdie fan and the 'wholistic soundbite' has found an audience.
"What needs to happen is that the central Philippine government takes action, shows willingness, commitment and puts some money to protect resources.
When that will happen, net training will be the answer."

Whew! I thought the trade had some degree of responsibility for what it had done all these years. Now, the blame shifts to a perceived lack of dynamic, professional and honest government....
Well, if it were dynamic, professional and honest then it wouldn't exactly be cricket now would it?
Talk about 'don't hold your breath!"
To suspend fixing the industry pending an earthshaking revolution of spirit , planetary love and social justice condemns this to an eternity of never winning again...never getting it right and never even seeing it come up on the agenda.
To hold the resolution of this little cyanide fishing anomalie hostage to the remarkable events and conditions you speak of is a get out of jail free card!
Everyone breathe a collective sigh of relief for we can all go home and relax...while waiting for the 2nd Philippine revolution to appear on CNN.
Here is what I read Ferdie to say...

Since there has now been movement of netcaught fish into the marketplace without measureable benefit to the lives of the collectors, we must pause to see if we want to let the industry off the hook with more image improving net training...be it real or imagined.
We may get our netcaught fish yet the lives of the fisherman remains full of hardship and unfairness.
That is true.

The 45 year old fuedal system of cheating divers by Lolitas cartel of cyanide dealers in Manila will always cheat and lowball the diver no matter how clean he collects fish. This is an indictment of the selfishness of the cartel, not an indictment of net training reform.
From the Philippine side, Ferdie senses that the subject of reform will be used to whitewash the industry without cutting the divers in on any dividend. In this way, net training will be used as an instrument of futher exploitation albiet with a newly assumed mantle of being reformed.

So, as in Frank Herberts DUNE, we must withhold the spice until we get the social/economic justice agenda all sorted out...
I understand and sympathize with this use of a trade issue to link it to and call for even more enhanced reform. But its risky gentleman. You perhaps are gambling that there are more who will notice and care.
You perhaps think the eco-element in the aquarium trades reform minority can be tapped to promote economic justice as well.
Despite the reluctance of reef-fraggers to ever rally to the plight of the reefs and become reef savers, do you think they will note what you suggest and behave as environmentally and socially responsible consumers....? I hope you're right.

Halting reforms ...pending progress in all the new conditions may insure we never get things done.
If you're going to withhold the power to absolve the white folks of guilt in this long, exploitive drama Ferdie, you may be miscalculating how much guilt they even feel. You already know you won't touch the hearts of the exporters. Only in an export product can you reach beyond your system there and try to appeal to less hardened people here.
I wish the trade had the compassion you hope it does. I think it will support the worst, oblivious to reform efforts of MAC, EASI, AMDA et al. The better part of this trade is not much listened to by its mass.
I hoped we could reform the trade without its permission...to ignite the divers to CHANGE for their own reasons...to keep THEIR reefs alive, to serve THEM better. To lessen DOAs for THEIR benefit.
IF YOU LINK IT TO PRICE STRUCTURE, it may create an impasse and a lack of progress forevermore.
One things for sure. If you can collectively bargain this industry, an industry defined by the very essence of exploitive practice, you can package it and move on to other industrys that make 'end-users' feel guilty. You know, like Ghandi did to the garment workers in England. I hope you reach their hearts.
I'm weary of caring too much. Thanks for the reprieve,
Good luck!
Steve

 

[clarionreef]

And besides that,
Net training was never intended to be the whole answer. It was to be the Trojan horse that got us moving in constructive ways that could've been built upon. It leads to diver safety, better handling of fishes, to village environmentaism and to tactics of collective bargaining and influence.
Simplistically stating that someone said it was some kind of hit and run scam must be recalling the years that did in fact happen.
Competent net training with the proper nets in hand...
is an anchor to a higher agenda but an immediate gift to people in need. Egg heads and city dwellers may see a bigger picture here but divers are looking for income more than anything. Sending them back to cyanide and delicate flimsy nets hardly serve the fisherman...Are they to be pawns in the gameboards of dueling NGOs now?
Village people respond to the 'here and now' more and specifically who are you and what do you bring. Net training is supposed to bring something valueable to them and could if allowed to.
Steve

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Steve,

Of course that the trade, from collectors to aquarium hobbyists, are responsible , each level to different degree, of what is happening in the Ph. with the collection of MO.

It is the responsibility of central governments in the Ph. to work to the different levels to make sure their natural resources are "properly managed". I wonder who is responsible for regulating the collection of MO in places as for example Hawaii, Florida, Mexico or Australia. The answer is government.

The campaigns that different groups have had in this forum or other, have been oriented to collect funds to buy nets for net training to have place in the Philippines. It is possible that by doing it, some, or should I say a few, collectors get an economic benefit for being involved in this action. Ferdinand found out it was not the way to go, of course he knew it, he had the experience working with IMA and MAC organizations that know that this is more than net training.

No one of the programs implemented in the past by NGOs had net training as the only component. Those programs had components dealing with social, cultural, educational and economic issues. What was missing was the willingness, commitment and economic participation of the central government. If the Filipino government would had been interested in tackling this problem the situation would be different today. Most of the work done in the Philippines in the last 20 years has been possible because of the work of NGOs, volunteers and grants from funding agencies. 95% of the funds came from funding agencies overseas, 5% from the industry. The BFAR is the government agency involved. According to the different posts in this forum I see they are not doing a great job. How many CDT labs are operating under BFAR management?

What can be done to motivate the Filipino government to take action and get involve? Letters of concern from hobbyists/marine aquarium societies to the Philippine's embassies and consulates. A worldwide campaign from
marine aquarium hobbyists to write letters to embassies and consulates.

I do believe that in this forum there is a bunch of good people with good ideas. We have something in common, is the hobby..... are the fishes. Lets work together to get to the same goal which is to help to protect coral reefs and help coastal communities in developing countries.

Jaime

 

[Anonymous]

Jaime Baquero wrote:

95% of the funds came from funding agencies overseas, 5% from the industry.

Jaime

could you elaborate a little bit on the breakdown of those statistics?

 

[mkirda]

The campaigns that different groups have had in this forum or other, have been oriented to collect funds to buy nets for net training to have place in the Philippines. It is possible that by doing it, some, or should I say a few, collectors get an economic benefit for being involved in this action. Ferdinand found out it was not the way to go, of course he knew it, he had the experience working with IMA and MAC organizations that know that this is more than net training.

Jaime,

The net fund organized by Mary was never intended to do more than get the netting over there. Let's not confuse things here: She had a very limited goal of providing the hand netting material, and that goal was accomplished.
It was never intended to do anything more than this, and was certainly not intended to provide net training.

Now from what I know, the netting has been distributed to at least three groups of fisherment from different areas Ferdinand is working with. While I don't know exact numbers, I believe that it is well over one hundred fishermen he has been working with. The nets were distributed to the fishermen who needed them: To the ones who learned the techniques in how to use this type of net. Additionally, I know that they were able to devise a new technique of capture with a different type of net using the same netting material. Ferdinand told me that it is the first new type of net he has seen in 20 years.

The question of "How many" though- I think it is only relevant when you are thinking small. What EASI has been trying to do is to refine their training methods and ways of working with a community first. Better to get it right and to make it stick than to give out netting to village after village and see it fail. One thing you have to give Ferdinand credit on is the fact that he is happy to point out where he has tried something and it has not worked out and why. There are a lot of subtleties that need to be worked out: When "the system" has a hole, people will try to get around it- It is part of human nature. It is hard to anticipate how people will sometimes respond when put into certain situations- As Ferdinand has certainly found out. Sometimes one person alone can throw a monkey wrench into the works and cause you to have to re-think through the entire module for an approach that will eliminate his ability to throw that monkey wrench. Again, better to get it right and get it to stick first, before trying to expand it beyond more than 2 or 3 sites.

Certainly getting the GOVERNMENT involved is a goal, but more important is getting the local government involved and motivated and passionate about protecting their own resources. If the LGU doesn't have the politcal will to stand up and stand against destructive fishing practices on its own reefs, I think any and all net training is doomed to failure, personally. But you get one or two communities to start the process and see results of improved fish catches and the reefs coming back, the neighbors will start to clamor "Us next!".

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime Baquero wrote:

95% of the funds came from funding agencies overseas, 5% from the industry.

Jaime

could you elaborate a little bit on the breakdown of those statistics?

Vitz,

Yes, I should had been more careful when giving that number. When I said 95% of the funds came from funding agencies overseas, what I meant was that the projects implemented by OVI were funded mainly by government agencies in Canada (96%), the rest came from hobbyists 3% and the industry 1%.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mike,

The one hundred collectors that got the nets got net training by Ferdinand. Now, he, Ferdinand knows that nets and net training is not the answer to the problem.