Funding Reform

[Frazer]

At a discussion on funding at an international coral reef meeting some years ago, I once heard of a very wise man, who, when listening to several different organizations and individuals argue over whether dynamite or cyanide fishing was worse, and who should get more $ to solve the worst issue, said "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

The issue is not the 'fat cat' NGOs, the 'lean and mean' NGOs, the foreign individuals who say they hate all NGOs (for whatever reason) and can do it themselves, the locals who have worked for so many organizations already (ever wonder about the flipside of that coin?) that say they can do it better themselves, it is that there is a finite amount of funders out there that focus on these issues, and how can those funds be spent most effectively. If an organization cannot be effective with the $, then either they shouldn't get it, or they should sub-contract another who can. However, this is the real world, and in the real world the bigger organizations tend to get a bigger slice of what is available.

I still haven't seen in this discussion a breakdown of how much it will cost to train one fisherman in net techniques, a projected percentage of those backsliding to previous capture methods, amount required to re-train them, and how much it will cost for the hand-holders, which someone pointed out will be needed. Any time I have visited areas in the Philippines, it is clear that there is a good percentage of these areas DO require people to 'hold their hand', not to police them, but provide them the support that any new venture requires. All we hear about is 'we need nets'. That's fine, but you need the support mechanisms too. Nets are not only used to capture fish, they can also be strung between trees to catch birds and bats, but that's a different issue.

Frazer

 

[Dogfish Head]

Friends:

A simple question: I am doing some work for the World Bank on designing of their big coral reef conservation project in Indonesia, Coremap 2, which will come on line early next year with $80 million over five years for major coral reef sites in eastern Indonesia. I have been asked to develop a component of the project to deal with destructive fishing practices and other problems in the live reef trade (food fish, ornamentals, corals). Does anyone on this forum have an idea of (a) what they think should be done in terms of training and all the other things needed for cyanide fishing reform; and (b) what, specifically, would it cost, in remote areas of Indonesia? I have my own ideas (and even some data), but I'd love to hear some practical, non-sarcastic ideas on what needs to be done and what it might cost. The government seems open to accepting this component of the project, and if so, it could mean some serious funding for the reform activities you all talk about all the time. So what should the money go into, how do we develop a cadre of people to carry it out, etc?

Thanks,

Chip (Barber, the non-fish selling guy)

 

[Mike King]

HI Chip,
I have something here that might help Indonesia with its coastal resources management problems, Give me a call 011-684-258-4380 I'm in the south Pacific these days.

Mike King

 

[dizzy]

Chip,
That is really good news. It seems to me that stopping destructive fishing should have a higher priority than reef restoration. Otherwise it seems like you would just be rebuilding them so they could destroyed again. I believe the estimated cost to train 1000 divers in the Philippines was around $60,000. I think this included the salaries of the trainers. If the training in PI does not happen perhaps it would be worth risking that much to find out if the two training teams can really train as effectively as claimed in Indo. I got a feeling a lot more than that will be spent on luxury travel, and that is not meant to be critical.

 

[John_Brandt]

This reminds me of a feed the hungry commercial :wink:

That's not funny really. These village fishermen do not earn a lot of money. Malnutrition is not a stranger to these parts. To be quite honest Scott, I'm glad it does look like a 'feed the hungry' commercial.

 

[John_Brandt]

If the netting material situation is so easy as ordering by phone or mail, then why is the Philippines in such desparate need of it? Why do I have to raise $4000 to get some over there?? I agree, there are 3 components. Training, nets, and temporary supervision until everything has clicked into place and is running smoothly. To harp on the new programs about whether or not they have the supervision part is quite humorous, given that MAC has neither the training part or the net part anymore. What's the saying "Don't worry about the splinter in your friend's eye when there's a log in yours"? Here's one thing I know for sure. It is possible to derive net caught fish solely from trainings and nets. It is not possible to derive net caught fish from trainings and supervison or nets and supervision. I know that Ferdie visits the villages he has trained quite often (which is why I can never get ahold of him). By hooking up these collectors with exporters who are willing to pay more and not be such hard a$$es when it comes to fish selection, he is offering them an incentive to stay clean.

And James, I agree. Less NGO's that do more is key here. Fifteen NGOs running around grabbing for limited funding and spending all of their time and energy doing that have got to go.

Mary, you tell me why somebody wasn't getting on the phone ordering the netting. Better yet, let's ask Ferdinand why he wasn't on the phone ordering netting from Japan or America or wherever. Netting wasn't invented just before your fund drive.

There are a number of weird stories floating around about netting availability and hanky-panky profiteering. One includes the proper netting being procurable in the Philippines all the while.

 

[clarionreef]

John,
Innuendos of net supply hanky panky in Philly? You certainly have my attention. Tell us more!
However, in the search for truth on this. If it leads to the door of some NGO...any NGO, you may be encouraged to omit it and pretend it didn't happen. Don't cover it up. Don't hush it up. Make it embarrassing to do these things.
Com'on John. We need you. Nancy gave us a block buster this week. Jenn gave us one too. Don't be out done by the women. Keep the momentum going! You can do it! We can take it!
Steve

 

[John_Brandt]

I want to know why Filipinos couldn't have ordered the netting that North Americans (primarily) are sending over there right now.

 

[John_Brandt]

I want to know why Filipinos couldn't have ordered the netting that North Americans (primarily) are sending over there right now.

I want to add to this....no offense be taken by the question please. But to add...Why couldn't a Philippine NGO get this netting?

 

[clarionreef]

John,
Now...today...after all that has gone forth in this forum, you ask that?
If the IMA and MAC, ie.the experts fronting for the trade did not get the netting to go with their million dollar bandwagons based on this very issue...how could you expect Filipino groups to do it?

All that money for consultancies and for stuff we give away for free here!
Because of the "behavior" of US groups we will see the rise of Filipino ones adressing the situation now. They will no doubt understand the connection between net collecting and netting supply that their American counterparts did not.
Steve

 

[MaryHM]

I don't know why MAC or IMA or some Filipino NGO didn't get the netting. I don't have a clue. So I had a choice. I could either sit here and ask "why oh why" or I could just do it myself and get the dang netting material over there. It's called being PROACTIVE. Not sitting back and expecting some comfy little NGO to take care of the world for you.

As to the question of why the Filippinos themselves couldn't have ordered it...well, I assume because the ones who have the money don't care and the ones who don't have the money do care. Does it really matter who provides the netting? Isn't the important thing that it's finally getting there??

 

[MaryHM]

There are a number of weird stories floating around about netting availability and hanky-panky profiteering. One includes the proper netting being procurable in the Philippines all the while.

Even horge says that the proper netting is not available in the Philippines. But wait! Maybe he's part of the hanky-panky netting availability profiteering scheme!! :roll:

I only see one obvious profiteering story around here. I'll leave it to everyone here to decide what it is.

 

[mkirda]

I want to know why Filipinos couldn't have ordered the netting that North Americans (primarily) are sending over there right now.

They could have, John, assuming that the funding was available.

One story going around was a certain trainer approached a certain NGO with a line item in his training budget for 'netting'. A certain individual within that certain NGO crossed that line item out, saying that it was not needed. (No names mentioned nor implied. You want to put names into the story, you do so at your own risk.)

So the netting material was never ordered because it as never funded.

Let me add something here as well.
I daresay I got a good deal on the freight for the netting.
Total cost to get it to Manila will be less than what Mary was quoted to have it trucked from Minneapolis to LA.
Cost of the netting is one thing, but the freight cost could easily gone over the cost of the netting if shipped by someone who did not know what they were doing.

Does Lino want some netting for his areas?
Have him contact me and I will hook MAC up with the same source and get him the same rates. That is an open offer, with no charge on my part.
I would be happy to help.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Kylen,

Interesting questions. Who should pay for reform?

The problem in the Philippines and overseas is the preavailing industry set up. What needs to be done, before training more collectors under the present fish price structure, is to determine the real value of fish coming from the Philippines.

Why net trained collectors went back to cyanide?

The reason is just one, there wasn't and there is not a REAL economic incentive to use nets instead of cyanide.

As an example, collectors are getting 12-15 pesos (US$ today? ~ .30) for a Coral Beauty. What's the price of that same fish in your pet shop of preference? Here in Ottawa are sold for ~ US 30. Why collectors do not get 60 pesos? That would be the best incentive to motivate collectors to keep using nets.

Unless something revolutionary is done to change the prevailing industry set up, the economic disparities would widen up all the more leaving the collectors vulnerable, poor and at the mercy of exporters(XYZ). On the other hand, the natural resources would lie in deplorable state as collection efforts mount and exceed the maximum capacities due to stringent economic requirements and demand to get more profit from the trade.

Is the industry willing to share the profits with the collectors? Forget about increasing fish price 10% as someone has suggested. What about 300% or 500%? That would make a real difference!

Thanks for your concern.

Jaime

 

[mkirda]

Forget about increasing fish price 10% as someone has suggested. What about 300% or 500%? That would make a real difference!

Thanks for your concern.

Jaime

Jaime,

Sounds like you need to bring this up to the PTFEA!

I'm sure Lolita Ty and company would have no problem implementing this.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Smyerscough]

This reminds me of a feed the hungry commercial :wink:

That's not funny really. These village fishermen do not earn a lot of money. Malnutrition is not a stranger to these parts. To be quite honest Scott, I'm glad it does look like a 'feed the hungry' commercial.

John,
You have totally missed my point. I find your "feed the hungry" approach to be very condescending towards the Filipinos. We are supposed to be working with them not making them look like charity cases. These are skilled people doing dangerous work so some of us can watch the pretty fishes. Just because they don't live in a decadent society doesn't mean they don't deserve to be treated with dignity.


Scott

Owner Imagine Ocean

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mike,

PTFEA is only one of the stakeholders of this industry, importers and retailers must be part of the reform process. Don't you think that after many decades of exploiting fisherfolks and coral reefs is time for all of them to put something back?

Exporters of marine ornamentals in the Philippines are there to satisfy the demand of fish buyers overseas. Importers and retailers must realize that their participation in this needed reform is key if they want to survive.

Exporters in the Philippines DO need the support of fish buyers overseas (importers and retailers) by accepting to pay more money for their fish. If importers and retailers accept to pay more, I MEAN A REAL PRICE, I am sure hobbyists will follow.

Since the pressure to get more fish from the reefs is likely influenced and dictated by the prevailing cheap price of aquarium fish. I do think that it is necessary for this industry to re- evaluate the price structure and come with real prices. IMO the industry needs to be active to assure that the trade is economically benefitial for the collectors, if that happens we'll some change.

I would like to know how many stores in the states are dealing with marine ornamental fish. How many of those are AMDA members?

Regards

Jaime

 

[mkirda]

Mike,

PTFEA is only one of the stakeholders of this industry, importers and retailers must be part of the reform process. Don't you think that after many decades of exploiting fisherfolks and coral reefs is time for all of them to put something back?

Of course I do, Jaime, otherwise I wouldn't be here. Or there.
Or have helped in any way I can think of that doesn't ruin me financially.

However, Jaime, between your pie-in-the-sky holistic approach and the status quo, there are many different ways in which we can all approach the issues and get actual results that better the lives of the collectors. Which is really all I care about.

Jaime, did you go to the Bali conference?
I just got my copy of the proceedings yesterday, and started in volume 2, reading the papers on MPAs.
Of the two I finished before I had to get to sleep, the second paper in Vol. 2 was great. It talked about 20 years of experience in establishing MPAs and the lessons learned. The number one point, overriding all others, the author claimed, was that socio-economic issues have to be addressed first and foremost, otherwise the plan will fail.
To me, this means that the collectors need to realize more money for their fish. Simple as that. If they do not get more money, the whole approach is doomed.

We are not far apart, but I know that, realistically, the PTFEA is not going to raise prices 500%. It cannot and expect to survive. All it would do is make Indonesia become the #1 supplier of fish, Jaime, because the importers will follow the cheap fish supply.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Jaime Baquero]

Mike,

When I said holistic approach I meant that the problem in the Philippines is not going to be solved just by training collectors to use nets instead of cyanide.

For many years we have been saying, to the industry, that SOCIO-ECONOMIC aspects must be addressed. The years of involvement made us realize that isolated strategies or village base panacea could hardly make any dent in reforming the industry. The net training program brought us closer to the systemic problems in the aquarium fish trade. These however, achieved minimal impacts as problems on cheap price of fish took the front seat as responsible in the whole gamut of issues and problems in the industry. Social and economical aspects have been brushed off or shelved by each one of the stakeholders of this industry.

Do not get the 500% extreme . Consider the 200% . Do you think that it is fair that a collector gets pay 15-20 pesos for a fish that is sold overseas for US$30.00 plus taxes? Governments overseas are making more money than the collectors by taxing the fish. In Canada the government makes more money than collectors. Hobbyists pay more than US$3.00 in taxes for a US$20 fish. It is good to know that the Canadian and American governments have funded, with the collected taxes, some programs related to the issue.

Change is made by those individuals with the capacity to realize that there is an economic benefit or who are forced to change to remain in business. That change requires an incentive or a boost. We have seen a change by fishermen and maybe a handful of other stakeholders but not a unified effort .

It is the retailers (and hobbyists) job at the market level to create the need for a quality fish. This is the reason why I am asking about how many fish dealers in the US are AMDA members.


Regards

Jaime

[/b]

 

[Anonymous]

Jaime,

By my count there are 78 listed in the AMDA member directory, however all of the members may not be on the list. Most of those listed probably sell livestock.

I'm not an AMDA member but I noticed that no one with their organization answered your question, so here is my stab at answer.

The list is at their website. www.amdareef.com

Sincerely,
-Lee