Are MAC certified fish collected in a sustainable manner?

[Anonymous]

There has been negative talk here at RDO about the overall quality of the reef areas where some MAC certified fish are collected. However, I haven't heard any specific claims that the specific species that have been certified by MAC to date are not sustainable in their respective collection areas. It seems to me that the much maligned lack of variety of currently certifed fish is most likely an artifact of honesty in the certification process.

What say ye?

 

[Anonymous]

that's an excellent, and fair question, lee

i certainly hope someone from mac will post some data to bolster the likelihood that the lack of variety of currently certifed fish is most likely an artifact of honesty in the certification process.


it would be very good news, methinks

 

[Anonymous]

There has been negative talk here at RDO about the overall quality of the reef areas where some MAC certified fish are collected. However, I haven't heard any specific claims that the specific species that have been certified by MAC to date are not sustainable in their respective collection areas. It seems to me that the much maligned lack of variety of currently certifed fish is most likely an artifact of honesty in the certification process.

What say ye?

The lack of variety is due to lack of certified collectors, certified sustainable collection areas and the simple fact that many many fish will never be able to be certified under MAC's current scheme. To expand on that, to certify a large portion of target species, one would have to certrify area's far from the collectors village and controll.

There are only a handfull of certified zones with at least one being highly questionable as to its validity. This would be an excellent time for Blue Hula to rejoin us as she has first hand knowledge of this claim, but alas, she is lost in cyber space.

 

[Anonymous]

Gresham, I presume you are talking about Batasan? Even with its current state don't you think that there might be a few species suitable for sustainable collection?

 

[Anonymous]

Lee, yes I was. I don't think in its current state of being heavily depleted that any species could be claimed to be sustainable. A few species left, you implying one should milk every species in a heavily depleted zone, like the saying goes "leave no stone unturned"? At MO some one from MAC called those few species left a gold mine, I beg to differ. I see them as the last hope for that area.

 

[Anonymous]

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46569

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Do you think the human element might be responsible for the "artifact of dishonesty in the process?"
Then again, it is the process and its run by humans. [ refraining from putting a big 'duh' here]
Where on earth do you think the constructive criticism of certification as a gold standard comes from?
The process is like data entry. Its as good as its inputted... by people.
To worship a never implemented theory of 'perfect processing' of marinelife from a thousand different villages is a bit premature.
Even the Buhol experiment would have failed earlier had it not been subsidized by MAC continually and then privately by MAC staff out of pocket to keep the failures hidden from the boss. Finally even that couldn't hold em back and they started selling the fish to the non-MAC buyers.
The problem w/ the intellectual process is that there are humans in it you think?
No, the problem with the process is that it is foreign and illogical to the fisherman...the centerpiece of the whole thing.
Futhermore, the office boys who push the scheme at the behest of eggheads at Packard and the WWF have no idea what they're doing. This 'top-down white elephant' approach is taken seriously only by a few in the US now. They can't back out and cant make progress.
Nor do they have the courage to own up to their mistakes and do an about face. As long as they're paid...they'll milk this thing dry.
It takes years for funders to catch up to things reported on as opposed to things actually implemented.
Until then, its fun, travel, fun, conferences, fun, travel , fun and paperwork.
Wow...what a nice gig!
Steve
PS There is a goldmine in depleted reefs...but its not underwater.
Like the California goldminers of 1849...the real profit was not in the real work, but in the servicing of those that did the real work.

 

[devils advocate]

Take this to the next step. Take MAC out of the equation, and how many areas that are used for MO collection in the Philippines or Indonesia are collected in a sustainable manner? I'm sure that this argument can be applied to most areas MAC or no MAC.

 

[clarionreef]

Devils,
It could be that the whole country is hell bent on destroying its reefs and the destruction and depletions send divers futher afield in search of still good fishes. Some of these hound dogs marry out there and before you know it, new collecting stations open up and new species appear.
So far, there have been enough regions to migrate to but they are now working to the edges of the country increasingly...and the logistics of getting fish back in good shape is getting more complicated.
The wilder areas where there are fewer people are the best chances for genuine sustainability...as opposed to "sustainability by agreement"... concocted for eco-political reasons.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Steve,

Your last couple of posts have little to do with answering my initial question.

However, in response to your posts, I don't see anything wrong with working with people to develope programs to respectfully, ethically and sustainably use the natural resources they have left. Sadly, sometimes people have to loose much of what they had in order to respect what they have left.

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
The initial question:

The area was certified by a pre-filled in template with the pertinant local info added.
The area was chosen because other NGOs had already paved the way there, they had an existing MPA , it is convenient to a good airport in Cebu and the place is pleasant to work in.
As far as a living eco-system....it is one of the most depleted and unsustainable in the nation. That has long been a bone of contention among other NGOs and critics.
I could not believe how bad it was 20 years ago. Blue Hula confirmed that it was still as bad.
Deeming it sustainable by non-qualified and foreign people using "unscientific survey methods" was strictly for convenience and eco-political reasons.

Steve

 

[mkirda]

Deeming it sustainable by non-qualified and foreign people using "unscientific survey methods" was strictly for convenience and eco-political reasons.

Steve

Steve,

I don't think that the way the current MAC standards are written allows for anything resembling 'sustainable fishing' to occur.
The CAMP standards are way too vague.
You don't even need an MPA.
No surveys even need to be done.
You only have to say that you are going to do a survey sometime in the future in order to get certified.
If no survey ever takes place, there is no mechanism in place for decertification.
While the paperwork certainly allows for basis of sustainable fishing practices to be put into place, the fact that ongoing surveys are not mandatory puts the entire model into a bad light.
Additionally, since the current standards have no teeth, even if surveys are done and fishing is shown to be unsustainable, there is nothing in the standards that ensures that cutbacks in harvesting levels actually takes place.
Finally, there is nothing in the standards that addresses what happens *IF* a collector is found to be using destructive methods.

MAC's ideas have merit, IMO.
It is merely a few kinks that need to be ironed out first.
Of course, this is strictly from the paper perspective.
As we all already know, reality can be far, far away from paper too, so even clearing up these paperwork issues does not mean that things on the ground are even approaching the existing paperwork...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[clarionreef]

Mike,
These were hardly MACs ideas. They were created by WWF and put together like the NEW KIDS on the BlOCK BAND...by interview.
John Tullock was refused in favor of Paul Holthus.
The rest is a lack of history and leadership.
This could've worked! It could've been so exciting!
It could've lived up to the mission in real life instead of on paper.
Democracy and elections in MAC could perhaps still save it...but most of these groups have a designated president for as long as they serve a higher organizations purpose.
The lack of aquarium professionals to deal w/ in the MAC structure to get this thing right is telling. Like the big chelmon in a plastic jar in the MAC ad in FAMA...its doomed.
Steve
PS., They don't know that about killing chelmons in jars ment for angelfishes do they? Oh well. The problem w/ borrowing others ideas is...you don't know when you read it wrong!

 

[Anonymous]

excerpt from Philippine Island Report by Mike King, Coalition of Reef Lovers (CORL)
http://aquariumcouncil.org/docs/library ... report.PDF

...Batasan Island is a part of Tubigon a local governmental unit of the providence of Bohol Island in the central Philippines. Bohol is a very peaceful island where the communities seem more willing to preserve and protect what's left of their natural resources. When the Philippine government set forth its Coastal Resources Management program it offered an award to the Providence and LGU's that developed the best Coastal Resources Management Program (CRMP) of the many Providence's that submitted CRMP's Bahol's was chosen to be the best. Tubigon's may have received an award also, this I'm not sure of, but I did have the chance to quickly review their CRMP and it was very complete and well written...

...Should have the Batasan area been chosen as a MAC site seeing it is so degraded and offers such a low amount of species availability? My answer is YES, even though the number of species is low, those species being collected are being managed using area rotation and harvest limits, this helps assure that they are being managed in a sustainable way...

 

[clarionreef]

Lee,
Mike was a softie and I remember the argument well of..."well what do the people do then if their area is ruined?
Mike was temporarily on both sides actually and the "support" given to the Buhol project at the time has haunted him ever since as he has been chided for his favorable report of taking the last fish!
It was more a social judgement than a scientific one. There are so many poor people in the region...what indeed are they to do?
Scrape the seas clean for the final pesos? OK then. But you can't call it sustainable practice.
Steve