EASTI HatcheryGrowout

[mark@mac]

I can personally vouch for the sincerity of each and every Filipino working for Reef Check in that country. They are people of impeccable charachter and are doing their best with "what they have to work with" and the limitations imposed upon them. It is a continuous learning experience.

I would also like to say, after a visit to a MPA in Leyte province, that the designation of multi-use zones of reef areas seems to be the best idea. I visited one MPA that was heavily dynamite fished until about 3 years ago. It was obvious as there was much "coral rubble"; however, there were some centuries old Porites colonies that had survived along with many other coral species "growing back", and many more fish than I had seen in other reefs around the country. Around this MPA, fishing is still allowed, but the MPA is protected and monitored by staff with a patrol boat. The MPA is allowed to have visitors come and snorkel, although IMO, there needs to be some rules and "proper use" enforced to ensure the tourists don't damage the reef as well. This is one of the "real success" stories there.

Mark

 

[PeterIMA]

Mark, Thanks for your posting. I am not questioning the honesty of the Filipinos working for ReefCheck. It would be helpful however to hear about the factors limiting their work. Why can't there also be MMAs?

There are now a number of MPAs but it is not clear to me why some succeed and others fail. Better management is necessary. My suggestion is that more community involvement would help. There must be incentives to the local people to protect these areas rather than to destroy them with dynamite and/or cyanide.

Peter

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

Are you helping to market in North America the fish collected by collectors trained by Ferdinand? Who is the Filipino exporter you are dealing with?

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I have answered your questions by PM.

Would other importers, please also give out the names of their suppliers? Send the information to Jaime.

Peter

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

You are in a very 'particular" situation. You have had access to all the information regarding cyanide testing in the Philippines, you also know who the exporters are, as well as, the results of samples tested for cyanide to those exporters. What if samples of fish of the exporter you are dealing with show positive for cyanide?

I'd rather Peter Rubec the researcher than Peter Rubec the importer.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, You make a good point about cyanide. Right now, I accept what I am told. That is that the fishes I am purchasing from the exporter dealing with the collectors trained by Ferdinand sells only net-caught fish.

EASTI is working with the LGUs to implement cyanide testing at the muncipal level. So, the fish will need to be cyanide-free BEFORE they can be shipped to the exporter in Manila. I hope that answers your concerns.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Peter,

You are in a very 'particular" situation. You have had access to all the information regarding cyanide testing in the Philippines, you also know who the exporters are, as well as, the results of samples tested for cyanide to those exporters. What if samples of fish of the exporter you are dealing with show positive for cyanide?

I'd rather Peter Rubec the researcher than Peter Rubec the importer.

Wow, that was exactly what I ws trying to get out. Excellent post Jaime

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime, You make a good point about cyanide. Right now, I accept what I am told. That is that the fishes I am purchasing from the exporter dealing with the collectors trained by Ferdinand sells only net-caught fish.

EASTI is working with the LGUs to implement cyanide testing at the muncipal level. So, the fish will need to be cyanide-free BEFORE they can be shipped to the exporter in Manila. I hope that answers your concerns.

Peter

No Peter I have more concerns. You said that your exporter is selling only fish coming from EASTI. That means that he has the variety and stock available to supply the demand and is not mixing EASTI fish with cynaide collected fish. Is that right? According to your records how were the readings for cyanide in samples tested for this supplier?

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

One more question. What is the relationship between EASTI and your supplier? I'm asking about it because I have a concern that goes back to the middle 90's.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I already anwered your first question. The fish coming from sites where Ferdinand has been working are completely net-caught. That is not presently based on cyanide testing, but will be in future. That is more than any other exporter can presently claim.

Even the MAC can not guarantee that the MAC Certified exporters sell net-caught fish (perhaps some but not all of their fish are net-caught).

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, You seem bent on trying to throw mud.

I previously stated that the hatchery that Ferdinand created and his trainings were not funded through a grant. So, whatever EASTI does to assist the collectors in marketing their fish is not a conflict of interest.

To further answer your question, the owner of the export company that is selling net-caught fish (the company which I named for you by private PM) is not in any way (neither by blood, family ties, nor marriage) related to Ferdinand Cruz.

There is a grant, and the purpose of the grant is to involve business partners in the CBUGS program. Hence the "B" for business. None of the business partners are related to Ferdinand in any way.

Peter

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

I understand you have to accept what you have been told, but I have my doubts based in what I found out while in the Philippines. I agree with Thale's statement " People say anything to get others to buy their products", it applies to everyone in this industry.

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Peter,

Now you are part of this industry. You can not guarantee that the fish you sell is cyanide free. I am afraid your supplier has to buy from other sources to satisfy the demand, otherwise had been out of business long time ago. You didn't answer the question regarding the results of samples tested to this supplier.

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I never stated that there were any recent CDT results (scientifically defensible randomly sampled) from the supplier dealing with EASTI or from any other supplier. The only testing being done is fish fed by exporters to BFAR's laboratory. So, if the supplier had any confidence in BFAR he might submit fish for testing. But, what does it mean to supply fish you "know" are clean to a BFAR laboratory?

Where do you get off with these ridiculous assertions?

PS-Where is the MAC CDT program?

Peter

 

[naesco]

Jaime, I never stated that there were any recent CDT results (scientifically defensible randomly sampled) from the supplier dealing with EASTI or from any other supplier. The only testing being done is fish fed by exporters to BFAR's laboratory. So, if the supplier had any confidence in BFAR he might submit fish for testing. But, what does it mean to supply fish you "know" are clean to a BFAR laboratory?

Where do you get off with these ridiculous assertions?

PS-Where is the MAC CDT program?

Peter

Yes, where is the MAC CDT programme?Almost two years ago, MAC promised to make cyanide testing a priority. I have heard nothing from MAC since.

IMO one of two things may have transpired.
Either the US Government through the Reef Task Force is now involved because of industry's neglect and MAC's failure to do as promised
or, MAC has invited the US government to get involved because of industry's failure to enbrace the MAC and reeform.

I am convinced that the US Reef Task Force means serious business. (read the minutes of their meeting on the issue of cyanide).
If they place an enbargo on the import of fish from the Philippines, Indonesia and Viem Nam where the use of cyanide is rampant as I am sure they will do, they will need to exclude net caught fish. MAC will than stand to gain as they have a certification already in progress.

What do you all think of this?

Wayne

 

[mark@mac]

All,

I posed a question here a while ago and got no response... :?

IMHO there needs to be an alternernative to a CDT. One that doesn't require the valuable fish to be sacrificed..... My idea is to create an "observer" system similar to that the tuna fishery uses. It would consist of university/school students/staff and community members who would "verify" that the fishers are not using cyanide.

I know there will be issues with this, and it would require a system of checks and balances; but I feel it could be a very useful tool in eradicating destructive fishing practices.

Any thoughts from anyone????

Mark

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime, I never stated that there were any recent CDT results (scientifically defensible randomly sampled) from the supplier dealing with EASTI or from any other supplier. The only testing being done is fish fed by exporters to BFAR's laboratory. So, if the supplier had any confidence in BFAR he might submit fish for testing. But, what does it mean to supply fish you "know" are clean to a BFAR laboratory?

Where do you get off with these ridiculous assertions?

PS-Where is the MAC CDT program?

Peter

Peter,

I am not talking about recent CDT results neither. I know they're not being conducted "randomly sampled". Is your supplier submitting fish to BFAR?

I can not tell you were is MAC CDT. I think that to get a reliable CDT you need to work out all the "bugs" before putting on the field something that works. On the other hand before having the CDT you need to get regulations, laws and staff to enforce them. Please tell me what has happened with all the results obtained by BFAR-IMA CDT program. The only thing that I have seen are the papers that you wrote but the problem is still there.

 

[naesco]

Jaime, I never stated that there were any recent CDT results (scientifically defensible randomly sampled) from the supplier dealing with EASTI or from any other supplier. The only testing being done is fish fed by exporters to BFAR's laboratory. So, if the supplier had any confidence in BFAR he might submit fish for testing. But, what does it mean to supply fish you "know" are clean to a BFAR laboratory?

Where do you get off with these ridiculous assertions?

PS-Where is the MAC CDT program?

Peter

Peter,

I am not talking about recent CDT results neither. I know they're not being conducted "randomly sampled". Is your supplier submitting fish to BFAR?

I can not tell you were is MAC CDT. I think that to get a reliable CDT you need to work out all the "bugs" before putting on the field something that works. On the other hand before having the CDT you need to get regulations, laws and staff to enforce them. Please tell me what has happened with all the results obtained by BFAR-IMA CDT program. The only thing that I have seen are the papers that you wrote but the problem is still there.

I agree Jaime the problem is enforcement.
In the US the Lacey Act makes it illegal for US citizens to break foreign laws yet, cyanide caught fish are imported by the tonnes from the Philippines where they have laws against the use of cyanide.
The US Reef Task Force is looking at the Lacey Act as a means of enforcing US side breaches of US Law.
I don't know what is being done currently on the issue of cyanide there. Do you?
Thanks
Wayne

 

[PeterIMA]

I agree with both Jaime and Wayne. The problem is the lack of law enforcement using CDT results. I believe that Vietnam and Malaysia want to implement CDT. The IMA is working with these two countries to assist them with implementation of a CDT under a contract from the NOAA/NMFS Coral Reef Conservation Program.

The situation in the Philippines is not clear. Now that the MAC no longer has a Filipino country coordinator who is close to the BFAR director, there is some hope that BFAR may reestablish the CDT network. My contacts with the BFAR Director, Malcolm Sarmiento (several years ago) indicated he would welcome financial and technical assistance pertaining to implementation of CDT. The MAC had their experts (Dr. Renneberg from Hong Kong, and scientists from Merck). But they never came up with a reliable alternative test. I believe there is hope that the Philippines and Indonesia will take action to enforce their laws against cyanide fishing and that a CDT can be implemented to assist with law enforcement.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

All,

I posed a question here a while ago and got no response... :?

IMHO there needs to be an alternernative to a CDT. One that doesn't require the valuable fish to be sacrificed..... My idea is to create an "observer" system similar to that the tuna fishery uses. It would consist of university/school students/staff and community members who would "verify" that the fishers are not using cyanide.

I know there will be issues with this, and it would require a system of checks and balances; but I feel it could be a very useful tool in eradicating destructive fishing practices.

Any thoughts from anyone????

Mark

Mark,

Neat idea, except it would be too expensive to implement for the aquarium industry, IMO. For instance, on cod fishing boats there is one observer and tons upon tons of saleable product. The labor cost of the observer is minimal when related to the value of the product observed. The labor cost of having an observer watch two divers collect aquarium fish for the day would be a significant cost when related to the value of the product observed.

I hope this makes sense. Words are eluding me today.

-Lee

P.S. Have you thought through whether the market could bear the addtional costs of having observers go out with collectors?