Dear Lee,
In the last quarter of the year there were several issues that EASI had to discuss and decide before proceeding into more training. Allow me to expound on it.
EASI’s board of trustees held three meetings to discuss several issues that have surfaced through feedbacks from very concerned individuals from the government sectors and citizens. What was presently happening will affect the credibility and acceptability of future trainings. We all know very well that in the Philippines this industry is struggling under the stigma of cyanide that we have been trying to overcome. It is important that to save this industry in our country we need to change this kind of perception not through hype and media blitz but by having the right components that address all the issues and problems.
We have found out that, though our work focuses on the ornamental trade we cannot deny the encroachment and destruction brought about by the live reef food fish trade. In fact in our pilot sites the live food fish trade is a major headache that we deal with. (Mostly by the same traders that are in Palawan) Most live food fish collectors collect both ornamental and live food fish at the same time. This kind of trade now affects every area that has good coral cover and a viable means of transport. If there are no viable means of transportation then they charter planes.
Here is the problem:
Certain “wise guys” thought up and created a PR Group to improve the image of the live fish shippers in Palawan after the Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) and the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) enforced the no cyanide detection test (CDT) no shipment. Goals of this PR offensive were to show the government sectors and environmental organizations a movement of “Reform from within the industry”. They came out with stickers of their name “ISDA” (FISH), catchy bywords and humongous publicized rewards of up to $18,000 for those who would report cyanide users. (No one was ever caught) They had TV documentaries shown in our national TV stations. They came up with phrases such as “it’s a dollar earner, it helps the economy of the country!” emphatically stating that they have big investments and stakes in this trade so it is in their best interest to make the live fish trade very sustainable. In short they created a band wagon and media blitz that excited even the government sectors. A few were cynical and did not buy in including me who is part of the technical working committee of the PCSD. We waited and hoped though that they could really bring reform from within the industry.
As I predicted that more CDT test showing positive trace of cyanide will be found towards the end of the year reports came in that it was actually happening. In fact the volume of positive for cyanide shot up to a dizzying number. Shipments by the hundreds of kilos of cyanide addressed to fictitious persons were confiscated in ferries abandoned during strict inspections ordered by PCSD. News of two of the groups I trained during my work with MAC were tested and found positive for cyanide once. I was requested to look into it and I did.
As again predicted, blame of obtaining cyanide was placed on the poor collectors especially the groupers collectors. Grouper collectors who are as uneducated as the ornamental fish collectors do not know their way around Manila where the black market of cyanide exist (being a highly regulated chemical) more so purchase it. Can you imagine a grouper collector buying 600 kilos plus worth of cyanide that has a price tag of $ 6.25 to $ 7.15 per kilo when they can hardly feed their family? Shippers wanted the CDT test to be done on collectors and not on them. PCSD and I do not believe the claim of shippers that cyanide is procured by collectors themselves. Again as predicted the method of testing cyanide was being discredited by word of mouth but the PCSD held on and would not be dissuaded. What PCSD even did was to purchase a Hach ion selective electrode (ISE) and distillation apparatus, hired their own chemist to augment the BFAR CDT lab.
During the time when the PR offensive still had a tremendous band wagon effect these shippers where able to ship out even from Puerto Princessa City. Puerto Prencessa city has a law banning the shipment of live fish. This law was contested by shippers in the past but upheld by the Supreme Court. They were able to ship out with out the law being amended. PCSD was against it and finally put a stop to these shipments just this week after so many past attempts. (Talking about political will despite the strong pressures).
Tragically news of what is happening in Palawan has spread to other parts of the country in a negative way. In one sweeping blow talks are spreading that all live fish are caught with cyanide. These kind of talks though unsubstantiated are far more damaging than facts.
Most of the local government units being cynical about net training are becoming more cynical and do not believe ornamental fish can be caught with nets now no matter how it is explained and shown on video. Most provinces cannot afford to have a CDT lab. Coastal municipalities might allow a net training program to be conducted in their municipality but will not seriously support it. With that kind of attitude it will affect the success of the program. In Manila to have a fish tested in the CDT lab of BFAR a fee of $ 4.50 is being charge. That is the only lab that has a CDT outside of Palawan. All these things now have to be considered in creating the net training program.
Palawan has a lot of NGOs helping the government and is acting as watch dogs. They have a PCSD and BFAR that though bound with eternal bureaucracy are showing political will and flexing their muscles. In comparison other provinces have only a few or no NGO’s at all. Local Government Units are not well prepared to address marine issues especially destructive fishing. NGO’s and LGU’s unfortunately have little or no background and education regarding the live trade.
We are in areas where there are no PCSD and a strong BFAR to rely on. We have to change our methods and our concept in doing the net training program if we want it to succeed. Our focus and methods definitely has to change. We have to secure better funding to go the whole 9 yards and not do a half in and a half out kind of work. It is not net training anymore that will hold water and make these collectors stick to nets when so many factors are motivating them to backslide. (This topic will be what I will be talking about in the Marine Ornamental.)
Our lawyers in our board are now researching the laws promulgated by local government units in sites we are in and in our future sites. We need to know the weak points in the legal systems in their laws and be able to suggest a stronger law to ensure that we are not being used merely as a vehicle to hide illegal activities and to be sure that the whole program is institutionalized. We had to question ourselves; are we in conscience doing the right thing? Are we approaching this the right way? Are we being used unknowingly as cover for illegal destructive fishing and green washing?
Lastly and also an important factor MAC is going into net training. We cannot have two different trainings at the same time. We cannot afford to have one site backslide and the other not whether it ours or theirs. We should not make it more confusing to the Local Government Units. As it is now it is already confusing enough. There must be a way of addressing the live food fish trade, facing the issues squarely. There must be at least a meeting of minds. If we don’t then two organizations going into it at different angles and different beliefs will just make things worse than it is now.
To better understand this here is a statement we have written down when the decision was made to move on:
Coastal Conservation and the Aquarium Industry
For almost four decades now, the international marine ornamental fish market has fueled the continuous growth of the aquarium fishing industry in the Philippines in terms of employment and trade. In a sense it has also fueled the continuous use of cyanide by the collectors supported by unscrupulous exporters. A good percentage of the manpower it used to have has shifted to the live food fish trade influencing others in this trade to use destructive capture methods instead of reforming or leading the way to reform. One acute consequence of market pressure is that local fishing communities have resorted to destructive fishing methods, primarily, sodium cyanide, to meet the ever increasing volume of demand and the right species mix for the ornamental fish trade and more volume demanded by the live food fish trade. It has also influenced non-live fishermen to compete for the same resource sites using destructive fishing methods to just stay ahead and eke out a living. More catch, however, did not bring about prosperity to local fishing villages because of their inability to control market forces. Meanwhile, the ramifications of having to use destructive fishing practices have affected the present and future catches with a lot of collecting sites now unsuitable for viable collecting activities. Inevitably, what we have is a tragic spectacle of communities having to intensify their use of resources and in the process become even more impoverished. The chain reaction in the use of cyanide has brought upon the communities more instability than was previously seen. All sectors of a community dependent on the marine resources that is being used by ornamental or live food fish fishermen are very much adversely affected by the destruction of these resources. What is worse is that ornamental fish collectors tend to move on to other places while others do not, leaving more destitute fishermen who sees as their last resort to survive going into illegal fishing themselves, the majority of which are now using dynamite and cyanide.
The seemingly unending cycle of resource exploitation and degradation has fittingly prompted many experts and conscientious hobbyists and traders to question the economics of aquarium fishing. There has been a growing consciousness among the players within the industry to view aquarium fishing not just from it’s strictly business aspects but within the overall backdrop of continuous resource degradation, declining fish catch and destitution of fishing villages.
In recent years, there has been experimental and community-based efforts to address the problems concomitant to resources exploitation by setting aside areas as “no take” zones, sanctuaries, marine protected areas, setting allowable quota on certain species and community-initiated law enforcement. By making conservation the cornerstone strategy and making people’s participation a key approach, there can be hope of sustaining the aquarium industry.
Why Employ Community-based Approach to Conservation and Aquarium Fishing
It has been observe that even with training and religiously following best practices at the source, the probability of backsliding is high due to so many factors. These factors have been identified and must be addressed. Malpractices by the buyers end must be addressed too, to prevent collectors from backsliding. More importantly all these approaches should address the misconception that ornamental fish “can only be caught by cyanide,” removing the stigma on the industry once and for all.
A community-based approach is a comprehensive and broad-based conservation effort that capitalizes on the strengths and maturity of local communities through proper education and training. It offers an alternative solution to problems confronting the coastal areas and the people dependent on it. The core element of community-based approach is people’s participation. Several attempts at implementing coastal conservation activities and running micro-enterprises such as aquarium fish collection have produced dismal results. Local communities’ do not have the capabilities and tools to actively manage their own resource properly. From the planning stage to implementation and evaluation, community members are treated as targets from which successes and failures are tested against and success is counted in terms of paper trail, volume and variety of fish being extracted.
On the other hand, in community-based approach, people’s participation is not just a strategy, but also an end in itself. By participating, local communities are empowered and develop a sense of ownership, which enable them to play an active role in resource protection and management. It also makes them realize that they have a voice in their trading activities preventing or minimizing malpractices by the buyers end.
____________________________________________________________
With this we are now writing down a complete set of training modules that includes the many lessons we recent and past learned from the field to better guide us in our work. We do not have any conflict of interest in doing our work and trainings but we need to be careful and not go in with a “gung ho” type of attitude even if funds are available. We will not allow to be a party to claims that the problem is solve when it is worse just to save face. We all need to do it right
We will be doing monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment in our sites. In fact we are proposing that in a year’s time we do an in-depth study on the social, economic and political dynamics of the aquarium fish trade and look honestly into its economic potentials.
As of now we still are deciding on when we can make our own website. We think the funds we have for the moment are better spent in the field whefre tons of knowledge are coming in.
My apologies for a very long response but we hope this would make things clear.
Thank You
Ferdinand
