Failure of MAC Certification

[PeterIMA]

Subj: [Coral-List] Why is MAC certification a Failure?
Date: 2/24/2008 12:26:34 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information


The purpose of MAC certification was to try to create a sustainable marine
aquarium trade by transforming the industry through three components called
"Standards:"

1) EFM -- Ecosystem and Fishery Management Standard - to create sustainable
fishery practices.
2) CFM - Collection Fishing and Handling Standard - to create good fishing
and handling practices prior to export.
3) HHT - Handling, Husbandry and Transport Standard - to create good
handling and transport practice during export and import.

www.aquariumcouncil.org/macintlstandard.html

This system includes many fine aspects, however, it was overly complex to be
practical, and MAC's paternalistic approach was not well received by most of
the industry.

The success of certification is most easily measured as a percentage of
total fish and other organisms in trade that are MAC certified. After at
least five years and several million dollars expended, the percentage of
certified product is much less than 1% of total trade. (For example, see
Appendices in the 2006 MAC Annual Report
(www.aquariumcouncil.org/annualreport.html) Of the hundreds of US retail
shops, only four are certified and none consistently offers MAC certified
organisms. www.aquariumcouncil.org/ciolist.html?q=D

The assumption was that MAC certification would result in higher quality
organisms. Unfortunately, MAC certified organisms have often been lower
quality than non-certified.

The original business plan was based on the premise that companies which
trade in aquarium organisms would support the program financially by
providing a small percentage of their profits to MAC. This has never
happened.

To be fair, no certification program has been achieved quickly and cheaply.
The MAC certification experiment was an idealistic plan that we supported
because it was worth trying and held out the promise of leverage for
conservation. In fact this was the one aspect that worked well. It has
produced some positive ecological benefits that will last. But the
experiment has not transformed a significant fraction of the trade. Once
most senior staff resigned from MAC last year and the organization was
turned over to an accountant, we reluctantly accepted that the experiment
had failed, and was one that we could no longer support.

Gregor Hodgson, PhD
Executive Director, Reef Check Foundation
P.O. Box 1057 (mail)
17575 Pacific Coast Highway (Fedex)
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-1057

email: [email protected]
www.ReefCheck.org
Please sign the International Declaration of Reef Rights!
************************************
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Baker [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:51 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Coral-List] MAC a Failure?


MAC - a Failure? Please explain this anyone?

Don


As of January 1, 2008 Reef Check has reluctantly withdrawn support from
the
Marine Aquarium Council's certification program due to its failure,
however
we continue to believe that many elements of the program can be
usefully
applied to management of the marine aquarium trade, and we continue to
work
with the trade to try to encourage this use.




"Dedication and motivated direction in achieving specific goals related to
the care and protection of living things is not necessarily a guaranteed
formula for success. Success is, more often than not, a direct result of a
person's passion in addition to the above formula." [Don Baker, Marine
Conservationist/Activist, 1998]

 

[Jaime Baquero]

The only thing I have to say is that MAC was the best opportunity the industry had, to work things out. It was certainly a difficult project to handle knowing the negative background this industry has been dragging during the last 30 years. I think the industry is going to be under the microscopy more than ever, its future is very gloomy.

Jaime

 

[PeterIMA]

ubj: [Coral-List] Understanding the other "half" and problems in the field
Date: 3/6/2008 8:29:43 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information


I've been following the discussions on aquacultured corals which lead to a
question whether we should ban marine aquarium trade or not.I feel the
discussion is quite one sided, where the other "half" is not quite
represented.I'm not trying to defend them, just trying to provide little
information to balance the discussion.

For most of the commentator in this list, marine aquarium trade is just an
unsustainable hobby, but on the contrary it is a livelihood which a lot of
small fishermen depending on. These people use small vessels and simple
tool to collect marine organisms. In areas where available jobs are
scarce, the collection become their only hope to survive. And please be
fair to judge them. In previous posts on the debate of hybrid cars, some
argues that it is a good alternative when public transportation isn't
available even though they're still contribute to carbon emission. If the
arguments works for hybrid cars why it shouldn't for marine aquarium
trade? By the way, who started this trade anyway? is it the small
fishermen?

On the other hand, support by scientists are quite limited if we compare
with the rate of the trade and species involved. Besides, access to these
research is very difficult especially to those in developing countries,
thus making sensible management nearly impossible. Uncertainty also arise
if we add the limited knowledge that we have on coral reefs ecosystem and
the impact of aquarium trade.

Some people think that a lot of money have been put to MAC for making
marine aquarium trade sustainable. But i hope contribution is not only
comes in $$$$$ and not only to MAC. Since various type of support is
needed for making the trade sustainable. MAC failure is not entirely their
fault. Since we have limited knowledge and experience, is it fair to judge
that it is a failure anyway?

True that we have difficulties in implementing MAC standards. Gregor
Hodgson have mentioned some of the constrain of the standards in the
previous post, so i won't repeat them. What i want to emphasys is why
these standards "failed" is because of the supporting system for this
standard to work is not well established.

As an example, based on our experience, the MAQTRAC protocol developed by
Reefcheck is difficult to implement since it requires a lot of resource
hence making large scale monitoring program cost a fortune! The use of TAC
(Total Allowable Catch) as a reference point is also a subject of on going
debate up until now. So it is very difficult for implemention.

Other thing that make MAC voluntary approach "failed" (i believe it's not
a total failure anyway) is because it is voluntary! People should realize
that they can't only volunteer to save reefs, they should actively
participate. What i mean by they includes bussiness owners, govt,
fishermen, hobbyist, etc. This "failure" shows that people are reluctant
to change their life style, the problem that is related to global climate
change.

So in order for MAC standards to work, we have to work hard on preparing
the supporting system! Eventhough it's not fulfilling the standards that
we're after but the ecosystem sustainability itself.

In the previous post, Don Baker ask us if its a 'no go' - 'no way'. I
don't know if there is a "go", but i believe that there is a "way". We are
compiling a lesson learned from our previous implementation of MAC
standards in Seribu Islands, Indonesia. We will try to share what works
and what doesn't in the upcoming ICRS.

I'm sure there are people with further knowledge and experience far better
than i am in this list. I'm looking forward for your inputs and
contributions on this topic since i still have a lot to learn.

Safran Yusri
Coral Reefs Clearing-House/Science Program Manager
The Indonesian Coral Reefs Foundation (Yayasan TERANGI)
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[email protected]
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

 

[PeterIMA]

Subj: [Coral-List] Mariculture and sustainability
Date: 3/6/2008 8:34:24 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information


Hi

I have been following the discussion on the subject of Maricultured corals
and the issues regarding the definition of sustainability and the effects
these farming operations are having on coral reefs.



Having worked in a number of areas of the aquarium industry from retail to a
breeding facility. I am surprised that the scientists still fail to
communicate their concerns so poorly to the wider world. If the current crop
of ocean cultured corals for sale are doing damage to the reefs and are part
of the problem not the cure, then somebody needs to tell the aquarium
industry and the customers buying them as all that a lot of importers are
saying in a loud voice "these are the future".



So when Johnny customer walks in sees lots of lovely corals for his
aquarium, he gets told these are all Mari cultured corals that help save
coral reefs and feed poor indigenous people. Johnny customer goes away with
a clear conscience, and a warm glow, that what he just bought is doing good.
So he does not see the problems only what the aquarium industry is telling
him.



If there is to be a dose of realism in the aquarium industry with regard to
real sustainability, then it's not driven by initiatives like MAC which has
really achieved very little in terms of changing industry attitudes. It has
to be driven by informing the customer who buys this stuff that yes there is
balance, but as long as the voice of reason is missing from the equation and
the only people making a noise are the aquarium industry little is going to
change.



If users demand it from the retailers then it will rise up the chain and
producers will be forced to supply. But unless people are hearing the truth
about Maricultre and some of the practices they will presume all is well.



If anyone has some good photos of the chop shop effect or collection issues
I will be happy to add them to an article I am writing regarding the need
for the industry to change and for it to be driven by the customer.



There has never been a time when there is a more environmentally aware
consumer, if the argument cannot be made successfully at this point, then I
doubt it will ever be made, until it's too late.



If the customer says no then know matter how cheap and unsustainable the
Chop shop or Mariculture product, its not going to sell so dealers will not
import it.





Jeremy Simmonds
_______________________________________________
Coral-List mailing list
[email protected]
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list

 

[JeremyR]

We quit bying the "maricultured" wild corals a couple of years ago.. I got tired of the infestation of acro flatworms & monti nudibranchs. We get 99.9% of our SPS from hobbyists, ORA, etc.

I can tell you 100% that consumer education is not going to change anything. My years in the hobby/biz have taught me that a very low % of people care enough to buy based on ethics, for 90something% of people it's price & only price. If you tell someone something isn't suitable OR if your quarantined animal is $2 more than some superstore, they go buy it anyways. The only way to get consumers to buy ethically is for them to not have the option to do otherwise. Yes, we have many great customers that listen to us and learn and want to do right, but compared to the total hobby, it's not even a drop in the bucket. When the improper purchase ends in the death of the animal, the only thing people ever talk about is "there went X $$'s".

 

[Anonymous]

We quit bying the "maricultured" wild corals a couple of years ago.. I got tired of the infestation of acro flatworms & monti nudibranchs. We get 99.9% of our SPS from hobbyists, ORA, etc.

I can tell you 100% that consumer education is not going to change anything. My years in the hobby/biz have taught me that a very low % of people care enough to buy based on ethics, for 90something% of people it's price & only price. If you tell someone something isn't suitable OR if your quarantined animal is $2 more than some superstore, they go buy it anyways. The only way to get consumers to buy ethically is for them to not have the option to do otherwise. Yes, we have many great customers that listen to us and learn and want to do right, but compared to the total hobby, it's not even a drop in the bucket. When the improper purchase ends in the death of the animal, the only thing people ever talk about is "there went X $$'s".

It just like I have been saying for a long time, customers, including people on these boards will speak one thing from one side of their mouth but they do the real speaking with their wallets.

 

[clarionreef]

The only way to get consumers to buy ethically is for them to not have the option to do otherwise

.

Not understanding this has led quite a few down the garden path and kept them in never never land.
Only commercial people it seems understand this.
Outside groups who seem to want this trade to bend "to their lack of insight and experience" should take heed from this advice which is wiser then what they heard or thought of themselves.

It starts where it starts and has to generated clean from the get go... and for local reasons....not the markets reasons.
A country has to clean up its own fish supply to insure its own reefs survival, food supply, market viability and longevity.

No tropical country can afford to wait any longer for an awakening of concerned and committed consumers.
The far flung foreign market, ie. todays ignorant hobbyist consumer is price driven to the exclusion of all concerns, expecially environmental ones and they will take another decade that the reefs do not have to come to their senses.
Ya just gotta wonder what kind of fiddle the fisheries people in the Philippines and Indonesia are playing as their reefs degrade, year after year while they do so very little.

Steve



Steve

 

[PeterIMA]

Steve,

There seems to be a continuing effort by industry to blame the conservation groups and government. There also are conservation groups
who blame the industry and government. There are also government agencies that blame conservation groups and the trade (industry). All could do more. They all have tried in one way or another.

The MAC did try to work with government agencies (including BFAR, MMAF), other conservation groups, and the trade. From their perspective, the trade did not cooperate (ReefCheck posting). I think the reality is more complex. All groups needed funding to carry out their respective programs.

Certainly, governments could do more provided they have funding for programs like CDT, the creation of MPAs, for monitoring and surveillance, better law enforcement etc. Another aspect is the need for changes in the legal system (eg. new Fisheries Act in the Philippines) to allow for decentralized management, community-based management etc. Policies were developed in the Philippines to empower muncipal governments (LGUs) to manage marine resources out to 15 km from shore. The Coremap Program in Indonesia has similar goals and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) is in the process of implementing decentralized community-based coral reef and fisheries management. These changes in the legal framework take time. It takes time for the local governments to find the means to enforce laws (financial and legal) against destructive fishing etc. I know that this is happening and I am optimistic that the situation will improve.

You are right that these changes must happen for countries to protect and conserve their coral reefs and their fisheries. They need to do it to attain sustainable fisheries. International agencies such as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank recognize this and are providing financial assistance. It is not just the aquarium trade that will benefit.

Peter

 

[PeterIMA]

Subj: [Coral-List] Maricultured corals
Date: 3/10/2008 8:31:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Received from Internet: click here for more information


Dear Jeremy (and List),

With all due respect, it is not that scientists lack in thier ability to communicate the problem to the aquarium industry. If you read carefully into our discussion, you will see it is, in fact, the aquarium industry that is often not listening. I contend as I always have that many people are simply not listening and relying completely on their notion that the trade does not represent a major impact to the reef. Scientists can only identify and discuss the problem. A few have tried to make serious stabs into developing new techniques to reduce wild stock harvesting. Ultimately, however, it comes down to the local suppliers and local buyers. Do you want to support wild stock harvesting? If so, buy your corals without doing any research and without gaining knowledge about where they come from. Do you want to buy true aquacultured corals that have been propagated with the idea of reef conservation as their paramount mission statement? Then do the research and support their
efforts by purchasing corals from these facilities. It comes down to this simple idea, which translates to so many other areas of our lives....become informed and make good decisions based on your knowledge. I mean, what more do you want scientists to do? It is time for people to take personal responsibility. Suppliers are at the will of the buyers.The buyers create the demand. If buyers want only aquaculuted corals with complete accountability, then it would take no time to see a change. I suspect you know this, based not only on your personal experience, but because it is expressed in many areas of conservatoin...take personal responsibility.

I understand you are writing an article that expresses many of the points I just made and I also suspect very strongly that you agree with them. However, as a scientist, your assertion that we have not done a good enough job is incorrect. We do a fantastic job of providing information that allows people to make good decisions. Do you want us to make decisions for everyone as well? I know many scientists who would love that opportunity...

Regards,

Lee Goldman
Coral Farm Guam
PO Box 6682
Tamuning,GU 96931
671.646.6744
[email protected]

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Steve,

There seems to be a continuing effort by industry to blame the conservation groups and government. There also conservation groups
who blame the industry and government.
There are also government agencies that blame conservation groups and
the trade (industry). All could do more. They all have tried in one way or another.

The MAC did try to work with government agencies (including BFAR, MMAF), other conservation groups, and the trade. From their perspective, the trade did not cooperate (ReefCheck posting). I think the reality is more complex. All groups needed funding to carry out their respective programs.

Certainly, governments could do more provided they have funding for programs like CDT, the creation of MPAs, for monitoring and surveillance, better law enforcement etc. Another aspect is the need for changes in the legal system (eg. new Fisheries Act in the Philippines) to allow for decentralized management, community-based management etc. Policies were developed in the Philippines to empower muncipal governments (LGUs) to manage marine resources out to 15 km from shore. The Coremap Program in Indonesia has similar goals and the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) is in the process of implementing decentralized community-based coral reef and fisheries management. These changes in the legal framework take time. It takes time for the local governments to find the means to enforce laws (financial and legal) against destructive fishing etc. I know that this is happening and I am optimistic that the situation will improve.

You are right that these changes must happen for countries to protect and conserve their coral reefs and their fisheries. They need to do it to attain sustainable fisheries. International agencies such as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank recognize this and are providing financial assistance. It is not just the aquarium trade that will benefit.

Peter

Peter,

Many efforts have been made in countries such as the Philipppines, in lesser degree in Indonesia, to tackle the different problems associated with the trade of marine ornamentals. There is not hope for those two countries where corruption and poverty are that bad that the central government can not handle it. Protection of coral reefs in those countries is NOT a priority for the leaders. There is not willingness neither commitment to work with coastal communities in the development of concrete programs oriented to alleviate poverty and to improve the level of education of the users of coral reefs. Governments in those countries have failed to protect their natural resources and they will allow the trade to keep operating the way it has operated during the last 30 years, meaning that CN is going to be used and fish mortality due to poor handling and holding will continue unchanged.

Isolated efforts here and there won't make any dent in those two countries. We are talking about thousands of islands where fisherfoks move without control and without the most simple rules of respect for the environment. Fishers do have to collect ornamental fish in order to feed their families. Poverty and lack of education do not mix with environmental concerns.

I do believe that no substantial changes are coming from those two countries. The situation this side of the pond is as bad and probably worse since many "educated" people (fish buyers) keep dealing daily with suppliers that have demonstrated that do not care about what is happening with the coral reefs and fish populations.

Is time for radical groups to make moves to close down the trade of marine ornamentals in the Philippines and Indonesia. There is enough material to feed groups such as Green Peace or Sierra Club to put pressure and change the situation.

Jaime

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I have been involved with these issues longer than you. I think you are wrong.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

Jaime, I have been involved with these issues longer than you. I think you are wrong.

Peter

Bet I could be further then you though :lol:

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Jaime, I have been involved with these issues longer than you. I think you are wrong.

Peter

Peter, This is a Filipino/Indonesian problem that has to be solved by them with direct participation of the central governments. You have been involved longer and have been saying the same things over and over but nobody is listening. The fact that you have been involved longer doesn't mean anything..

Jaime

 

[PeterIMA]

Jaime, I agree that destructive fishing is a problem (actually a series of problems) that needs to be solved with the participation of government agencies in the Philippines and Indonesia. It is not just the central governments of these countries that need to take action. I believe that government agencies in these countries will act to protect and conserve their marine resources.

Try googling Coremap II to get an idea of what is happening in Indonesia.

Peter