• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Given competing goals:
1) Improving the economic lot of the fishermen
2) Improving the quality of the fish coming from them
3) Making sure the trade is sustainable
4) Stopping the use of illegal and destructive fishing methods.

As I see it, all of these goals *cost* money, which raises the cost of fish.

Previously, it has be argued that with improved efficiency (better catching and holding techniques leading to lowered mortality rates leading to more money) can lead to better incomes.

It has also been argued that a small amount of money offered as a premium for net-caught fish (say 10%) could allow these goals to occur.

The real question becomes: Can this actually occur and be economically viable?

I have my own thoughts. I'd like to hear yours.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I think it's more a matter of diverting some of the money already there, in the form of the exporter's (as a general group)income.

they are certainly as morally obligated to do so, given their history w/ supporting the cyanide 'biz'.

i never accepted the premise that ANYONE paying the divers more, should lead to an increase in retail/wholesale prices for livestock

it should actually end up LOWERING the price of licestock, given the decrease in mortality that the exporters should experience

the question arises as to how the divers/fishermen would even realize this extra 'addition' for their compensation

would the exporters get the money to pass on to the fishermen? i doubt they'd see a red cent

should yet another 'group' oversee the issue, to make sure that they get the funds, and the exporter's don't just pocket the extra 'tariff'?that would certainly guarantee an increase in price for MO's



the fishermen/collectors aren't stupid, and i don't get why they themselves don't do a little 'boycotting' of their own, to send a message to the exporters that they should finally pay their own suppliers properly for their efforts

maybe a week long strike would drive the message home


the exporters (as a general group) are making a killing, both figuratively, and literally, at everyone elses expense

the premise that they should not be the ones responsible for compensating their 'subcontractors' who supply them with their living, is ludicrous, imo

in fact, i'd suggest that they are the ones who should be compensating the industry for their continued support of cyanide use



It has also been argued that a small amount of money offered as a premium for net-caught fish (say 10%) could allow these goals to occur.

mike,

how would you suggest the fishermen/collectors recieve this 'tariff' for more ethically caught livestock, if the consumers even accept the 'increased price for netcaught fish' premise? the exporters are going to be the ones recieving the increase, no?i doubt they'd pass on the 'extra' (short term) revenue to those they try to force to use cyanide.

my own $0.02
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This discussion took place well over a year ago and there has been no progress whatsoever.

What the Philippine people need to see is action and leadership from the reformers on this side of the pond not discussion.

It is far far too late for this.

Appoint a leader now, organize yourselfs so that at MO 2004 something constructive will be done otherwise the industry is doomed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":3h96xfrl said:
This discussion took place well over a year ago and there has been no progress whatsoever.

What the Philippine people need to see is action and leadership from the reformers on this side of the pond not discussion.

It is far far too late for this.

Appoint a leader now, organize yourselfs so that at MO 2004 something constructive will be done otherwise the industry is doomed.


i'm kinda curious as to what you've done yourself, naesco, to help do something constructive. you only seem to be all to ready to goad and berate others, while making promises in other people's name (remember all of your cdt 'tootin'?)

i wouldn't want you to be percieved as a hypocrite, ya know.


p.s.

i'm still waiting for you to address the questions i proposed to you in quite a few threads.

why haven't you taken the time and consideration to answer valid points raised about your contentions?
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike, I agree with the premises you stated. At this point it looks like the economic incentives to the fishermen/collectors needs to be higher (say 20 to 30% above existing PFTEA pricing paid to collectors rather than 10%). Studies are needed to determine the reduction in fish mortality with better collection and shipping methods. Preliminary data indicates that it is economically feasible to shift to net-caught fish without markedly increasing costs for importers, retailers, or marine hobbyists.

Peter Rubec
 

horge

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Peter,

Yes, but who shoulders the 30%?
If it's LGU (or further-up) mandated, it's not like you can yank the incentive away further down the road, and I'm not keen on artificial supports long term. But anyway....

Incentives for the clean-minded, sure.
What I'd like to see is the ugly-stick counterpart to the carrot.

Let's just suppose the CDT/enforcement guidelines bear fruit by the end of the year, I still don't see it as more effective than a demand side ugly-stick.

Just how much would it cost to invest in HPLC monitoring at port of entry stateside, with a blacklist system against repeat offenders? I mean, a Philippine exporter that gets charged in court here has legal recourse to dilatory and even acquitting tactics. A summary blacklist penalty, demand-side (US), ought to put the fear of God in them. A God-fearing exporter is more apt to convert heathen employees and contractuals to the faith.

To my mind, it's all complementary to / shouldn't conflict with
a supply-side (Phils) CDT structure.


Horge Cortes Jorge Jr.
Manila
Republic of the Philippines
 

Jaime Baquero

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike,

In order to make a substantial difference something revolutionary has to be done in the Philippines. Almost a year ago we had almost the same discussion. Frankly, I think that 10% of 10 pesos is almost nothing to motivate collectors to do things the right way.

I agree with Peter, prices have to go up at least 25%. It is not an easy thing to do considering the actual industry set up. A price war should be avoided . If collectors are members of a cooperative or other type of organization part of the 25% increase (say 15%) will go to the cooperative to create funds to buy nets and run the "asociation". By the end of the year the profits are distributed among the members of the group.

Improving quality of the fish coming from the communities can be achieved only if there is a considerable $ incentive.

During decades it has been said that this trade is not environmentally friendly, nor is it economically or socially benefitial for coastal comunities in developing countries. Many did think that the trade had potential to be a sustainable activity. The problem is that the main stakeholders do not want to wake up, most of them, have been taken advantage of the resources for so many years that they have fortunes and can move to another places to run the same operation. Making money by exploiting people and encouraging the misuse the natural resources .

The problem today is worse than it was 10 years ago. Moral and ethical values are deteriorating more and more. The need for hundreds of collectors is only one, put food on the table, it doesn't matter what has to be done. It gets more difficult when the resources are not as abundant as they were.

It is possible that some small groups get motivated and move forward for a positive change. The question I have for my self is, what about the other 95% of stakeholders (collectors, middleman/woman, exporters) who prefer the status quo. Only very drastic measures, by government, could make a difference.

You know, I have been following this situation since 1989, I think about it almost every single day since then. I must admit that I am not as enthusiast and optimistic as I was 2 years ago. Nothing has changed, collectors are using cyanide, collectors are being exploited by exportes and middleman/woman, because of poor handling and holding a great percentage of fish are dying at community level, we see at the aquarium store fish that shouldn't be traded... and more.

I must admit that this has been a frustrating experience.
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Horge, I think you are on the mark, and I would like to discuss your ideas off-line. I am not at liberty to discuss CDT just now, but more will be forthcoming later.

Jaime, I share your concerns. You are right. It will not be easy to effect change without government regulation. But, some reforms are possible now. We may have to start with small steps before we can reform the entire trade.

Don't give up hope. You are a valuable resource person who is needed to assist the fishermen and to help reform the marine ornamentals trade.

Peter

Peter
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":ijrcvv80 said:
This discussion took place well over a year ago and there has been no progress whatsoever.

What discussion?

I have seen no discussion on this topic at all.

We have sort of all thought that some amount to keep the fishermen interested was going to be enough, and that the improved efficiencies would hold the prices for the exporters.

Where has there been discussion of the validity of this underlying assumption?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
vitz":3jngysyp said:
mike,

how would you suggest the fishermen/collectors recieve this 'tariff' for more ethically caught livestock, if the consumers even accept the 'increased price for netcaught fish' premise? the exporters are going to be the ones recieving the increase, no?i doubt they'd pass on the 'extra' (short term) revenue to those they try to force to use cyanide.

my own $0.02

I don't suggest a 'tariff'. I ask if anyone has really and truly thought this through. My studies include economics, so looking at the underlying business model comes naturally to me.

I had expressed concerns about this aspect before (if you want to dig for the posts.) One of my questions to John Brandt has been how do you think that the fishermen in Batasan have benefited by MAC participation?

We know that the PTFEA has a suggested price list that they pass around to their members. In the US, this would be called 'Price fixing' and would be prosecuted to the extent that the vice president wasn't on your company's board of directors. :wink: We know that there was a discussion about higher prices for the MAC certified collectors, and I was able to get three MAC-certified exporters to confirm that they paid a premium over those prices.

My question is, really, given what we want to see happen, and given the constraints of level prices to the consumer... Can this scenario actually occur? If so, under what circumstances can it occur?

This is not an anti-MAC rant- In fact, the same problem will occur for any group that has similar goals, including EASI...

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
PeterIMA":2wm1crph said:
Preliminary data indicates that it is economically feasible to shift to net-caught fish without markedly increasing costs for importers, retailers, or marine hobbyists.

Peter Rubec

Let's just say, Peter, that I don't think that is true for all areas.
For example, how about an area with hardy, but ho-hum, fish?
Improved handling does not necessarily lower mortality enough to off-set higher costs.
Only when an area has higher-value fish and initial mediocre handling does this necessarily come true.

This is part of what I want people to think about: The range of reef conditions in collection areas. The better the area, the better the fish, don't you think?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

PeterIMA

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike, Consult my email debate with Lolita Ty (about a year ago). They are posted on Wetwebmedia (Fenner website).

In my opinion, the Filipino exporters have benefited from a windfall (the change in exchange rates for the Philippine peso which went from 30 pesos to the dollar to over 50 pesos to the US dollar in the last four years. That alone justifies paying the collectors more. Lolita's reply was that she refuses to pass this on to the collectors. I don't see that the PFTEA exporters have increased costs. They should be paying more for net-caught fish because the MAC feasability study demonstrated that it was possible to reduce exporter mortality on cyanide-caught fish from about 30% (on average) to less than 5% for net-caught fish. While more data is needed, I believe that the exporters can afford to pay more provided the fish live to be exported (which has been demonstrated to Lolita since Aquascapes Philippines was one of the companies that participated in the study). Instead she wanted the MAC to sue me.

The MAC has data to support or refute what I have said. How about making it public?

Peter Rubec
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What I was trying to say was that in the past it would have certainly looked good if industry did something about the incredibly poor compensation fishers received for their toils.

It is apparent to me that industry has lost the opportunity owing to their greed.

Very soon the decision on the cost to the US market for Philippine fish will be determined by the Philiippine government. Indeed they are most likely not going to be exported at all for some time to come.

When they are again available for export their cost will include generous compensation to the fishers, costs of educating the fishers to net caught only, cost of random cyanide testing and an an environmental levy to pay for the repairs industry has already caused to the reefs in their country.
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":7i9zlma3 said:
What I was trying to say was that in the past it would have certainly looked good if industry did something about the incredibly poor compensation fishers received for their toils.

Well then certain exporters, your 'industry', do look good because they have done exactly that- Paid the fishermen more for their livestock.

Funny thing is that I'm not sure that it is helping as much as we had all assumed it would. I've argued rather vociferously on the need for the incentive to get things to 'stick'. In thinking and re-thinking the business model over the past year, I still can't get past wondering if this approach is the best one.

Steve has argued to hold the line on prices, presumably the fishermen would make up their income with catching more fish and better handling techniques.

What if neither of these approaches are correct?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

clarionreef

Advanced Reefer
Location
San Francisco
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mike,
If you really could pass fairness down the line to the fisherman it would be wonderful.
The pre-filter is the Manila exporter and the extra money would end up stuck right there.
The few and suffering few who paid more, got less and are not happy about it. The market pays more willingly for product it wants more and can't get enough of. To imagine that you could compell the market to pay more for ordinary and abundant fish is an odd proposition. How on earth would you do that?
Could we be sure poor farmers got more then a nickel for the corn in a box of cornflakes or that fisherman here get more for a lb. of dungeness crabs?
Seriously...to argue for the poor is cool. By what mechanism do you deliver said justice? Volunteerism from intensely competing exporters in Manila? Are they more Socialist in Indo?
Importers do not pay divers...importers pay exporters.
Exporters interface with divers.
If 'Green Marine' set up in Manila and paid 30% more out of the goodness of his heart to the fisherman...who beyond the 6-7 here would support him? The answer is none of you as you do not import shipments.
There are Green Marine Importers...who already lack support from the reform crowd. Still, they must survive against the economy of scale and unfair business advantages enjoyed by the regular importers who are free to buy whatever from whoever they want all the time.
Perhaps this will change.
Steve
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
cortez marine":2jzw85tf said:
Mike,
If you really could pass fairness down the line to the fisherman it would be wonderful.
The pre-filter is the Manila exporter and the extra money would end up stuck right there.

Steve,

I'm not saying that it has to start here- It cannot, for reasons that should be self-evident. I don't know why people are assuming that I am advocating this. Justice for the PI collectors has to start in the Philippines- we can do little other than provide the market and choose our suppliers appropriately.

In its simplest form, 'justice for the collectors' means getting more money in their pockets, doesn't it? Given what we know about the Philippines, how do we as reformers suggest that this goal be accomplished?

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
mkirda":92i3qyw2 said:
cortez marine":92i3qyw2 said:
Mike,
If you really could pass fairness down the line to the fisherman it would be wonderful.
The pre-filter is the Manila exporter and the extra money would end up stuck right there.

Steve,

I'm not saying that it has to start here- It cannot, for reasons that should be self-evident. I don't know why people are assuming that I am advocating this. Justice for the PI collectors has to start in the Philippines- we can do little other than provide the market and choose our suppliers appropriately.

In its simplest form, 'justice for the collectors' means getting more money in their pockets, doesn't it? Given what we know about the Philippines, how do we as reformers suggest that this goal be accomplished?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

It will be accomplished for us by the Philippine government.
Industry have proven that they cannot be trusted.
1. The fishers will get fair compensation for their toils
2. The government will get compesation by way of a levy to pay for their investment in net caught training, mandatory Cyanide Detection expenses and an additional levy to cover repairing the damage that industry has already done on their reefs.

After that it will be up to industry to add fair markups to cover their costs and a reasonable profit.
 

mkirda

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
naesco":3qzf352j said:
It will be accomplished for us by the Philippine government.
Industry have proven that they cannot be trusted.

And this somehow means the the Philippine governement can be trusted too?
You've never heard of Marcos, have you?

I think you are way too trusting, Naesco. Far, far too trusting.
If I were a fisherman, I would be far less trusting of this 'solution' than you seem to be.

Regards.
Mike Kirda
 

naesco

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
mkirda":onbf9c7r said:
naesco":onbf9c7r said:
It will be accomplished for us by the Philippine government.
Industry have proven that they cannot be trusted.

And this somehow means the the Philippine governement can be trusted too?
You've never heard of Marcos, have you?

I think you are way too trusting, Naesco. Far, far too trusting.
If I were a fisherman, I would be far less trusting of this 'solution' than you seem to be.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

As Ferdinand had posted earlier, there is a new, young prosperous Philippine citizenry.
It is important to them that their future and the future of their reefs be secure and they will do whatever is necessary including and export ban to accomplish this.

He also stated that some of the 'old buddy' ways of doint business were also no longer tolerated.

Yes, I have confidence that the Philippine governement will do the right thing.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top