A
Anonymous
Guest
here we go again.....
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If you were going to rewrite HR 4928....
- Thread starter John_Brandt
- Start date
The MSI Fund delivered miles of netting of 2 types to the Philippines. It sits almost entirely unused because it lacked a distribution and management plan, and because it is a specialized kind of material used for a specific type of net.
Sorry, but it did have a distribution and management plan. Ferdinand Cruz is in charge of distributing it to villages that he feels are properly trained and ready to use it. If Ferdinand hasn't been able to find enough trained and ready fishermen to use it, then it will sit until he does. It is a specialized kind of material used for a specific type of net. It's hand netting material. Not barrier netting. All of those facts have been known from the beginning. Nice stab at attacking my fund. My question is this. PRIOR TO ME GETTING THE NET FUND TOGETHER, HOW MUCH NETTING DID YOUR PRECIOUS, COMPETENT MAC SEND TO THE PHILIPPINES AND INDONESIA??????? HOW MANY MILES WORTH, WHAT KIND, AND WHAT WAS THE MANAGEMENT/DISTRIBUTION PLAN FOR IT???????
John_Brandt":38je66st said:I will say again that MAC had nothing to do with the writing of HR 4928. Any statements in this forum to the contrary are based solely on speculation, not on facts.
John,
When the MAMTI documents uses statements like: "The only possibility to transform the marine aquarium industry is an approach that harnesses private sector incentives to complement government policy and regulation." It raises eyebrows. At the very least it begs the question: If not MAC then who and why? The word rumbling through the grapevine is that some in the conservation community are becoming dissatified with MAC's progress to date. Perhaps this legislation is being coached by another group from the conservation community that simply wants the trade shut down. Period. Who do you think is behind it John?
Mitch
Mary
Like every one else on this board I am shocked to have it revealed that the netting which hobbyists so willing donated money for,is sitting rotting in a warehouse somewhere in the Philippines.
I think the criticism is fair as you have long crticized MAC volunteers and workers for inaction in the Philippines.
How difficult would it be to get the netting to the MAC people where it would be put to good use now.?
Like every one else on this board I am shocked to have it revealed that the netting which hobbyists so willing donated money for,is sitting rotting in a warehouse somewhere in the Philippines.
I think the criticism is fair as you have long crticized MAC volunteers and workers for inaction in the Philippines.
How difficult would it be to get the netting to the MAC people where it would be put to good use now.?
naesco":sug86b7d said:Mary
Like every one else on this board I am shocked to have it revealed that the netting which hobbyists so willing donated money for,is sitting rotting in a warehouse somewhere in the Philippines.
I think the criticism is fair as you have long crticized MAC volunteers and workers for inaction in the Philippines.
How difficult would it be to get the netting to the MAC people where it would be put to good use now.?
ROTTING? That's a big stretch even for you, Wayne.
I think Mary explained things quite concisely. What would you do? String it from the trees so anybody can use it/waste it/trash it?
No, if Ferdie is distributing it as he sees fit, it's not rotting. Rome wasn't built in a day -- and one man working on his own without the benefit of untold millions of dollars can STILL distribute more netting than an NGO with suits and paper trails and a huge bankroll.
The trick here is that the fisher folk have to be taught how to correctly USE the stuff before it's distributed. To just hand it out randomly would be wasteful, and IMO devalue the stuff.
It would be insanity to GIVE the stuff to MAC to squander -- and WHAT "people" do you suppose should get it? Their field workers? (Are there any field workers?) How about their administrators -- there seem to be plenty of them. If a few industry types and a few hobbyists could muster up a few bucks to buy some netting, surely MAC and all its benefactors could have done the same, long before MSI did. The point is, they didn't. Read that again: MAC did NOT buy or distribute netting.
Back to the topic at hand - as a lone mom and pop I'm sort of sitting here wringing my hands not sure what to do. Besides participating in (mainly reading) the discussions about it here by both sides of the issue, and by those more learned than myself, I'm still not sure just what I can do.
Jenn
Like every one else on this board I am shocked to have it revealed that the netting which hobbyists so willing donated money for,is sitting rotting in a warehouse somewhere in the Philippines.
Gee, I haven't see anyone else who is "shocked". Just you. Lone Wayne crying in the wind for attention. Please tell me where I ever stated during the net fund that all of the netting would be distributed within a specific time frame. Either show me that statement or shut up. Wayne, 2 MILES worth of hand netting was sent over there. Do you have any clue how much netting that is? Thousands upon thousands of hand nets. Enough to last for a looooong time. Did you think that once Ferdinand received the netting that the thousands of divers in PI and Indo would be trained by him overnight?? The problem is that there aren't enough divers trained to use it properly. As they are trained- both in the Philippines and Indonesia- the netting is distributed. See Wayne, people like you and MAC just don't get it. You want to train all of the divers so you can say you did something, and then get around to finding them some netting once everyone is trained- maybe. Of course, I don't know what they're supposed to do in the meantime. Oh yeah I do- they go back to cyanide while waiting for the netting material to magically appear. The way I see it (and anyone with a logical mind sees it), the netting should be there ready and waiting, so as soon as teams are trained they can be handed their own nets immediately. Netting is not going to "rot" in a warehouse. The only thing rotten around here is MAC's way of doing things. You know, spending millions of dollars and never bothering to get any netting material for their "trained divers".
John_Brandt":2eufr7z8 said:Reform progress is slow on all fronts in the Philippines. After years of operations MAC still only has 2 certified areas of collecting producing few (though good quality) fish.
I will say again that MAC had nothing to do with the writing of HR 4928. Any statements in this forum to the contrary are based solely on speculation, not on facts.
Producing few fish after years of operation. Now that is a statement we can all agree on. The question is why? Did they certifiy the wrong MPAs. Is producing sustainable fish going to be as easy as it was first assumed? This pending legislation really puts MAC under the gun. Despite the troubling quotes from the MAMTI documents, it really makes very little sense for MAC to be behind the legislation at this early date. This legislation shuts down the industry (almost completely) unless the field work is rushed or faked. My instincts tell me that those who got outslicked (by MAC) in the grant receiving are going to make sure that the MAMTI is held to a very high standard in this reqard. The nearly impossible standards they established will be a difficult cross to bear. My earliest concerns about certification was that it could never produce enough fish to supply the industry as it now exists. How is it to be decided who gets what, if the demand exceeds the supply? Will it be necessary to establish some form of lottery, where luck decides who gets the assorted butterflies, cleaner wrasses, and mandarins that week? :roll: I have more confidence in the Social Security system being able to provide for the needs of all Americans :roll: :roll: than I do in this system working industry wide. I don't wish to cause undue alarm, but I think the industry is heading toward serious turmoil. Telling everyone there will car in every garage and a chicken in every pot is a hard sell. We need accurate information so we can plan for our futures accordingly.
Mitch
PS Word to all garage guys. Don't quit your day jobs.
Mitch, we can only guess at the authors of the bill. We do know that at the minimum it is Ed Case. There are stacks of conservationists that could have participated in the preparation of this bill. It's obvious that the bill is a rewritten version of The Coral Reef Act of 2000. In a nutshell, the bill only seeks to enforce existing laws in other countries (destructive fishing is already illegal in SE Asia) just as The Lacey Act does. What is new however is the requirement of a sustainability finding.
For it to be acceptable, the bill needs to provide means for the existing trade in MO species to become sustainable and non-destructive without creating unreasonable costs or efforts. Programs need to be developed and funded that will allow for training and standards protocol to be applied at any reasonable collecting area. There should not be any requirements to use any particular program (so long as it meets the defined criteria) and there should be no unreasonable delays in administering programs. All efforts should be made to maintain economic stability throughout the MO trade. Only flagrant violators of the restrictions should be punished. All efforts should be made towards reform and self-management of existing trade routes rather than elimination. There is no need for special provisions in the bill concerning unsuitable species in the trade. For the most part, market pressures to reduce demand already keep the numbers of unsuitables in the trade relatively low. It is not a special issue for legislature outside of the same concerns as any other species covered in the bill.
Mary, I was not attempting to attack the MSI Netting Fund, nor your good efforts. I created a short laundry list of things that had been done fairly recently towards reform in the Philippines. I was blunt because there is no need to characterize anything going on over there as being expedient, thorough or having widespread effect. The MAC program is the only organization with full-time people working on standardized management plans for collecting areas. MAC will facilitate the certification of at least 20 collecting areas in the Philippines over 3 years, per its grant from USAID.
For it to be acceptable, the bill needs to provide means for the existing trade in MO species to become sustainable and non-destructive without creating unreasonable costs or efforts. Programs need to be developed and funded that will allow for training and standards protocol to be applied at any reasonable collecting area. There should not be any requirements to use any particular program (so long as it meets the defined criteria) and there should be no unreasonable delays in administering programs. All efforts should be made to maintain economic stability throughout the MO trade. Only flagrant violators of the restrictions should be punished. All efforts should be made towards reform and self-management of existing trade routes rather than elimination. There is no need for special provisions in the bill concerning unsuitable species in the trade. For the most part, market pressures to reduce demand already keep the numbers of unsuitables in the trade relatively low. It is not a special issue for legislature outside of the same concerns as any other species covered in the bill.
Mary, I was not attempting to attack the MSI Netting Fund, nor your good efforts. I created a short laundry list of things that had been done fairly recently towards reform in the Philippines. I was blunt because there is no need to characterize anything going on over there as being expedient, thorough or having widespread effect. The MAC program is the only organization with full-time people working on standardized management plans for collecting areas. MAC will facilitate the certification of at least 20 collecting areas in the Philippines over 3 years, per its grant from USAID.
Philippines Update: MAC Launches Major Collector Training Program
Thirty-four collectors from Batangas, Leyte, Bohol and Cebu completed the MAC Training of Trainers Workshop, held March 30 to April 5, 2004, on Camotes Island, Cebu. The workshop was run by MAC staff from Hawaii, Indonesia and Fiji and facilitated by Rutth Gerochi from Ateneo University. The local mayor, who expressed his enthusiasm for supporting this initiative, provided the training facility and accommodation. Funding for the training was provided by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
The collectors attending the workshop to become MAC Trainers had an average of 15 years of experience each in the use of various collection techniques. This background provided a solid foundation for the learning of new skills in post-harvest handling, packing, etc. The session on documentation was daunting for some, but they were highly motivated to tackle this new area. The top 10 graduates were assigned as team leaders and provided with additional training in team building and management as well as funding to complete a PADI scuba diving certification course.
Ten MAC training teams are now ready to train collectors of marine ornamentals and their communities the skills needed to meet the MAC Standards for Ecosystem and Fishery Management (EFM) and for Collection, Fishing and Holding (CFH). The training teams are on their way to Palawan and Mindanao to train fellow collectors on the MAC Standards and Certification, safe diving, fishing gear, screening, packing, species identification, water skills, documentation system and coordination of collection efforts (including cooperative financial management). MAC is providing the collector-trainees with nets and other collection materials as part of the training partnership.
PeterIMA":3lx79xd7 said:4. What makes you think the MAC will subcontract anything? As far as I can see from the MAMTI proposal they intend to do it all themselves in conjunction with ReefCheck (Gregor Hodgson and his graduate students will do underwater surveys and net-training) and CCIF (the venture capitalists in San Francisco).
Peter,
It seems that the answer to this question is contained in the MAMTI GEF Project Document, Annex 22, "Specific Response to IUCN Review Executive Summary", number 1, Response”
"...The management of a given collection area will be carried out by a Collection Area Management Committee, through a written Collection Area Management Plan. The membership in these CAMP committees will vary depending on location, but would typically include professional government resource managers e.g. fisheries or environmental department staff, local village officials, company representatives, fishermen, Reef Check scientists and MAC staff."
Won’t MAC already be subcontracting a lot of the sustainability (MAQTRAC) work to UCLA who is a principal of the Reef Check project?
-Lee
Lee, I think you answered your own question about how MAC would create CAMPs and implement underwater surveys with ReefCheck using MAQTRAC.
It is not clear to me whether surveys done in this manner will be acceptable to the US government. Basically, the question becomes How should one determine sustainability of coral reefs and how does one "assess" fish population status. Or more succinctly, would the approaches advocated by MAC under MAMTI qualify as EMPs or support the creation of EMPs or not?
I think those are questions for the USCRTF and for the governments of exporting countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. We do not know what approaches will be acceptable if H.R. 4928 is implemented.
Peter
It is not clear to me whether surveys done in this manner will be acceptable to the US government. Basically, the question becomes How should one determine sustainability of coral reefs and how does one "assess" fish population status. Or more succinctly, would the approaches advocated by MAC under MAMTI qualify as EMPs or support the creation of EMPs or not?
I think those are questions for the USCRTF and for the governments of exporting countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. We do not know what approaches will be acceptable if H.R. 4928 is implemented.
Peter
So John,
You seem to be a fair minded conservation type. What is your overall opinion of this bill? Does it seem to go over the top to you, or does it seem, for the most part, a reasonable attempt at conservation?
Hope you don't mind me asking you specifically.
Thanks
You seem to be a fair minded conservation type. What is your overall opinion of this bill? Does it seem to go over the top to you, or does it seem, for the most part, a reasonable attempt at conservation?
Hope you don't mind me asking you specifically.
Thanks
Alf, from a purely objective stance the bill is an excellent attempt at reforming a trade that has known detrimental effects to defined and localized reef ecosystems. The marine ornamental trade is predominantly guilty of the charges leveled against it by conservationists.
But details about the bill are lacking and so important questions go unanswered right now. The question the trade has is... will this bill cause meaningful changes in the economics and trade flow of the industry?
The bill's author makes several assumptions. First, this has never been done before. There is no existing model of what a science-based sustainably-managed and audited supplyline would look like. The closest thing would be the 2 MAC certified collecting areas in Bohol. The author assumes that a functional and applicable CDT will be administered. The author assumes that sustainability management is practical, applicable and accurate in its predictions. He assumes that enforcement, auditing and cooperation will work smoothly in the culture of poverty and graft that is Southeast Asia.
But details about the bill are lacking and so important questions go unanswered right now. The question the trade has is... will this bill cause meaningful changes in the economics and trade flow of the industry?
The bill's author makes several assumptions. First, this has never been done before. There is no existing model of what a science-based sustainably-managed and audited supplyline would look like. The closest thing would be the 2 MAC certified collecting areas in Bohol. The author assumes that a functional and applicable CDT will be administered. The author assumes that sustainability management is practical, applicable and accurate in its predictions. He assumes that enforcement, auditing and cooperation will work smoothly in the culture of poverty and graft that is Southeast Asia.
It seems to me that logistically this will be monumental. Once initial costs of re-training and outfitting collectors is complete, I think the logistics and control involved in holding up this model of accountability and tracking will be the most significant contributor to price increaces to the consumer.
From the sounds of things (I have read the bill a couple of times at this point) For the consumer and retailer, the price increase will be what makes the difference in sales. The price increase will gouge into sales margins and volume.
As for the Collectors, as long as they retain an income, I do not forsee a problem. If thier income decreaces significantly, then this bill will not be able to effect a change in collection practice.
I know that the degradation of the world's reef systems is serios business, and something must be done to protect them for the enjoyment of future generations, and for the overall health of the planet, but I do not want to see livlihoods destroyed either.
I think, finally, to make this work, there will have to be alot of money dumped into Southeast Asia. This money will have to go to things like paid training, equipment, control structures, and proper facilities to maintain and implement all of this.
I have been to several countries in Souteast Asia, and I think the people, if offered a better way, and maybe a little more money for thier trouble, would gladly make the change. I know that, for the most part, they are willing to work hard, and are generaly honest (like everywhere else, the few give the majority a bad name). If it is aproached right it will work, but it will cost a lot more than I think we (The U.S. ornamental fish Industry) realize.
From the sounds of things (I have read the bill a couple of times at this point) For the consumer and retailer, the price increase will be what makes the difference in sales. The price increase will gouge into sales margins and volume.
As for the Collectors, as long as they retain an income, I do not forsee a problem. If thier income decreaces significantly, then this bill will not be able to effect a change in collection practice.
I know that the degradation of the world's reef systems is serios business, and something must be done to protect them for the enjoyment of future generations, and for the overall health of the planet, but I do not want to see livlihoods destroyed either.
I think, finally, to make this work, there will have to be alot of money dumped into Southeast Asia. This money will have to go to things like paid training, equipment, control structures, and proper facilities to maintain and implement all of this.
I have been to several countries in Souteast Asia, and I think the people, if offered a better way, and maybe a little more money for thier trouble, would gladly make the change. I know that, for the most part, they are willing to work hard, and are generaly honest (like everywhere else, the few give the majority a bad name). If it is aproached right it will work, but it will cost a lot more than I think we (The U.S. ornamental fish Industry) realize.
I know that the degradation of the world's reef systems is serios business, and something must be done to protect them for the enjoyment of future generations, and for the overall health of the planet, but I do not want to see livlihoods destroyed either.
Think about this sentence Alf. There is no if or BUT when it comes to destruction of the reefs period.
Prices will go up on the short term as demand outstrips supply but healther fish, better catchment and shipping, prohibition of fish and coral that have no hope of survival (USL) will mean next to nil DOA rates and more profit for industry.
The loss of jobs is a favourite threat by those who attempt to justify unacceptable practices (like pollutors) and carries no weight whatsoever.
Think about this sentence Alf. There is no if or BUT when it comes to destruction of the reefs period.
Prices will go up on the short term as demand outstrips supply but healther fish, better catchment and shipping, prohibition of fish and coral that have no hope of survival (USL) will mean next to nil DOA rates and more profit for industry.
The loss of jobs is a favourite threat by those who attempt to justify unacceptable practices (like pollutors) and carries no weight whatsoever.
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:
