Should species be propagated in different oceans?

[PeterIMA]

Blue Hula, Ballast water is a very serious problem. The latest (here) is Asian Green mussels that have spread all over Tampa Bay and are also loose and doing the bunny thing (like that analogy) in Texas. Presumably, they got here (into the Gulf of Mexico) as larvae in ballast water dumped from ships.

Peter

 

[clarionreef]

Unilateral profit from anothers biodiversity?
Bluey,
I don't understand the definition of bio-plunder if the 'victim nation' doesn't willfully issue export permits to co-operate with such plunder.
If it were smuggling...sure, but the cash and carry kleptocracies that typify many countries fishery policies would not exist without willing accomplices in those countries.
No one exploits a people as shamelessly and unfairly like people of the ruling class from the same country...ie. Marcos, Suharto, Saddam etc.
Although the West may want to loot and pay a penny on a dollar it does take a corrupt administration to make it all legal. Perhaps many of the delegates to the convention on biodiversity need to get in touch with their own countries political and cultural realities.
All export documents originate in the "victim country." In the case of CITIES permits for coral....grease, gold watches and cash count for as much as science, surveys and sustainability questions.
Saving a countries biodiversity from its own self is more what needs to be discussed.
Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Blue Hula, Ballast water is a very serious problem. The latest (here) is Asian Green mussels that have spread all over Tampa Bay and are also loose and doing the bunny thing (like that analogy) in Texas. Presumably, they got here (into the Gulf of Mexico) as larvae in ballast water dumped from ships.

Peter

Apparently, settlement rates here have hit the basement this season. No one knows why yet.

 

[blue hula]

Blue Hula, Ballast water is a very serious problem. The latest (here) is Asian Green mussels that have spread all over Tampa Bay and are also loose and doing the bunny thing (like that analogy) in Texas. Presumably, they got here (into the Gulf of Mexico) as larvae in ballast water dumped from ships.

Peter

Peter, I agree it is a serious problem which is why there is so much attention on the issue of ballast water. My point was only that the probability of a species establishing itself appears to be low from a one-off transfer (hence my reference to the work of van der Zanden and company) ... given how much ballast water is actually moving around, I'd expect higher rates of invasion but that's a gut feeling. I do however think it is significantly higher risk of a species establishing itself when you're moving it in for the express purpose of reproduction.

Cheers, Blue hula

 

[blue hula]

I don't understand the definition of bio-plunder if the 'victim nation' doesn't willfully issue export permits to co-operate with such plunder. If it were smuggling...sure, but the cash and carry kleptocracies that typify many countries fishery policies would not exist without willing accomplices in those countries.

The Convention applies to activities such as pharmaceutical production / agriculture and aquaculture where the host country gets cut out of the loop rather than an ongoing trade. When salmon are caught in Canada or the US and exported to Australia (smoked no less for a bit of value added), Canada and the US benefit from the trade (at least business people do and all the lads/lasses working the fish farm). But when Australia farms [cough] Tasmanian salmon, the host countries no longer benefit from their biodiversity. So the argument goes that there should be compensation ... you can't just run with it because it belongs to the countries in which it is found.

No one exploits a people as shamelessly and unfairly like people of the ruling class from the same country...ie. Marcos, Suharto, Saddam etc.
Although the West may want to loot and pay a penny on a dollar it does take a corrupt administration to make it all legal. Perhaps many of the delegates to the convention on biodiversity need to get in touch with their own countries political and cultural realities.

Bloody hell Kalk is having an influence on this board ... that's his argument again. 'Cause food fishing is a bigger threat, we can do as we please. So since there is in-country corruption, we jump on board and rip off the biodiversity as well?

I don't know the delegates to the Convention well enough to assess the degree to which they are in or out of touch with their own political and cultural realities. I suspect they are reasonably politically astute to have made it to Rio as delegates.

Saving a countries biodiversity from its own self is more what needs to be discussed.

This is exactly the idea behind the CBD. If a country knows that its coral reefs are full of all sorts of sponges etc. that are harbouring potential products of interest to the market ... and, more importantly, if the country knows that there is a market for that biodiversity because it OWNS it and no one can just waltz in and take it away ... they may be more likely to protect it than to juice it / dynamite it to oblivion (or to clearcut it to take the more common Amazonian example).

Cheers, Blue Hula

 

[horge]

Blue...

Not butting heads with you or the UN.
Admittedly, nothing is really new (and thus nearly everything is anachronistic) when it comes to the principles of international law and treaties on trade and property.

There is a huge difference between location-specific resources and those that CAN be transplanted. If some capitalist has the perseverance to translocate a profitably-farmed species, then the rewards (and penalties) are his/hers.

Bear with me.

Carlos I and Felipe II of Spain took the initiative in bringing tomatl, potatl and cacahuatl from Central America commercially to European markets and fields. Their Italian dominions grew tomatls best, and Catholic Ireland got a leg up on potatl farming. Cacahuatl wouldn't/couldn't grow in Europe, and so was maintained as a crop largely sourced from its region of origin. Whether there was a Christian doctrinal obligation (such being analogous to today's UN covenants) to return some value to the former slaves of the Aztecs or not, the location-specificity of chocolate meant there was going to be positive investment of Royal funds into the region of origin no matter what. It took quite some time for others to start exploiting the climate of parts of Africa toward translocated farming.

Today, MO-supplying nations do not suffer the colonial yoke that Spain's old dominions put up with, and so are much freer to profit from location-specificity of the resource.

Even without this UN-sponsored obligation to return value to the country of origin, MO-sources will hold the trump card of volume and quality without risking any penalty that might attend intentional translocations (environmental disasters).

A good model to study regarding cyanide plagued MO-sources, is the Guimaras fruit program. Philippine mangoes are simply the best on the planet. No ifs or buts, for over a thousand years. But since the medfly scare (remember?), we couldn't sell much of it abroad. Stricter European and US standards ran up smack into the widespread native insects, viruses and fungi of the Philippines. NO Philippine fruits were at the time suitable for entry to US an EU markets, so Filipinos identified and then isolated Guimaras for over a decade -- NO fruit trees anywhere on the island, to starve out the bugs, strict quarantine -- followed by US inspection, monitoring, and then finall, certification that the whole island was clean and continues to stay clean. They replanted fruit trees, and now ALL fruits for export to the US come out of Guimaras.

There was no special treatment for us, even while Thailand and China desperately tried to grow translocated Philippine mangoes to grab market dominance.

In the end we beat them because of their challenge.
If China and Thailand had been obligated by UN treaty to return some value to us for the seedlings they translocated --I suspect that would have bred a laxness (let THEM do the farming, we Filipinos will just collect our 'royalty').

Competition breeds quality, and Guimaras is aggressive in protecting its profits.
To my mind, a UN-guaranteed return just for being there can breed laxity.

+++

I was excited about MAC at first because it was in parts analogous to the Guimaras model.

If certain US importers of MO can vouch that their sources are clean --then it's proven "do-able", but these importers want exclusivity with these treasured trade-secret collectors --and they're absolutely right. It's just a pity they aren't Filipino, because if only foreigners were to control a top-down, comprehensive, collection-to-US op, that would not sit well with us ---or the noble intentions of the UN covenant you cited.

Frankly, the layers of middlemen have to go. If collection, handling, sorting, and shipping were ALL assumed by any given single comprehensive MO outfit, then there would be no buck to pass on cyanide or handling deaths.

DOA at LAX means no payment.
SCN positive at the US port? No payment.

Competition between comprehensive, top-down ops will create quality.
Competition with a translocated 'farm' right in the target-market's backyard is no different.

The French still sell their bottled heaven in the US easily, and at huge premiums, despite Napa Valley's best efforts. It will always be that way, sorry.


Again, just discussing, not dissing.
I feel the issue of translocation-farming can be managed/critiqued on environmental grounds better than on moral-proprietary grounds.


JM02.


horge

 

[clarionreef]

Hey,
Now I wonder, if there were ever to be re-bated reparations or dividends for such a notion, where would such nobly generated proceeds go?
To the same fools that opened the barn door in the first place or to the ones pointing out the error?
Steve
PS. Since so much of the trades freshwater fishes from Mexico and South America are now produced in S.E.Asia, would they then owe a debt of sorts? And since the chances of it ever being paid are nil...the point is?

 

[horge]

Kuya Esteban

I was seeking the same point

Translocations for the purpose of organized farming are within the ambit of good ole entrepreneurial initiative. If they can productively farm it elsewhere, more power to them. If they can't, then tough kaka... The UN covenant Jessica cited, in a way rewards (and therefore encourages) a lack of local (I mean country of origin) entrepreneurial initiative.

Business is business, and to the victors goes market share.
This UN covenant of "fair remittance" to country of origin has little to do with environmental issues anyway.

The environmental consequences of "translocation mariculture" are a higher consideration, and I don't think anyone here disagrees that they are 'generally' a bad idea. I merely trotted out Tridacnids with purpose --to show there can be benign translocations.

---
Back to trade concerns, rather than environmental ones...
On the MO trade as it is, out of RP:

Why not a comprehensive model, with one outfit owning all aspects of its operations, from collection to handling to shipping and receiving in the US?
There would, again be no one to pass the buck of cyanide-blame to. The compartmentalized nature of MO trade is at the heart of all stymied efforts at reform.

Such an outfit very nearly exists by fiat if your operation or, say, Mary's has exclusive collectors and thorough control of handling and shipping. All that remains is the reassuring formality of seeking juridical entity for the ENTIRE setup-- with all the accountability it brings. As a registered Philippine company you would no longer be 'foreigners', and still preserve the existing advantages of being based in the US.

No 'translocated-MO farm' can compete with such a properly-run Philippine-based MO company, volume, qualty and pricewise.

The work and investment towards building up such comprehensive operations is a natural product of trade and competition, from small family farms to large conglomerates. The question is, who gets left behind holding the small change, and who become(s) the biggest fish on the reef... and when.


JM2P

 

[dizzy]

horge,
I believe Elwyn Segrest has an operation similar to what you describe? He owns an import and wholesale company, although he recently sold a large share of the company. I believe he owns collection stations in several countries. I'm pretty certain he owns at least part interest in one in RP. Walt Smith and his operation in Fiji also come to mind.

 

[Kalkbreath]

If countries have inherent rights to their biodiversity and the proceeds from its usage..........should that Country also be held responsible for any liabilities the same biodiversity causes on other nations? Should Hawaii be held responsible for the Cane toad in Australia? If Germany can claim proceeds for the use of the Rainbow trout in US waters .....Can Germany also be held responsible for the demise of the native Brown trout? One can argue that there would have been no damages if Americans had not implanted the rainbow trout .......so Germany should not be held responsible. But one can also argue that Germany had no part in the benefits of the rainbow trout in USA steams as well ? Seem like it should work both ways?f

 

[Anonymous]

Um Kalk, I'm pretty sure we have some native rainbow trouts in the US.

 

[Anonymous]

I know how you love your data straight so here yah go:

http://www.fishbase.org/Country/Fao...ynchus&SpeciesName=mykiss&fc=76&stockcode=253

 

[Anonymous]

Now see where it says America, North - Inland waters * NATIVE..... that's us Kalk. Now see the spot that says Pacific, Northeast * NATIVE and Pacific, Eastern Cerntral * NATIVE... Those are us again Kalk. So what was that about German Rainbow trout?

 

[clarionreef]

Hey Horge,
Would love to do that, ie. establish a vertically integrated collectiong operation that employs only staff divers [and therefore accountable].
I have already done this in Mexico and Tonga where the near full varieties can come from a single headquarters.
To do it honestly in the Philippines, one would have to own/invest and supervise a half dozen feeder stations as well to create the normal variety expected from a Phillippine operation. Having just a quarter of the species in your stock list compells buyers to keep buying elsewhere and therefore not giving full support to the operation.
MAC has already provided a sliver of the variety and has as a result gone nowhere.
Marivi [Habitat] [ has provided 5 times the number of netcaught fish from a few locations and that was far too small...resulting in low market response. HD Marineworld has done the same. The result has been the use of these two to 'deodorize' the other fish purchased from 'others' to make full variety. They became the 'tokens' to cover for the rest in fact.
In order to do this right...one needs to have their heart in the right place...and I guess enough capital to do it.
People have had the capital...but never the vision, the moral imperative and the guiding principles. [ The NGO community has operated in the same way and as such has not helped change the way business is done.]
Converting an entire company's supply line to netcaught would be easy and only involve the training of 60 divers or so from around the country.
Its just to engineer the right team with the right company to do it. It would cost money but that would just be part of 'normal' start-up
costs in a responsible business.
The way is clear for someone to do this right. So far, none have.
Steve

 

[horge]

Dizzy,
That's indeed what I meant by some ops being virtually there. Thanks for pointing it out



Steve,
Thanks.
The problem is really that the brightest MO activist energies are being sucked into NGO initiatives, which in turn have to be free of the taint of "commercial interest". Staying 'above' commercial interests sometimes translates into doing nothing to change the status quo --since disturbing it any which way could be easily interpreted as economic meddling to favor one company over another...

Thus, the best and the brightest are sometimes neutered into merely watching and reporting.

We need activists to watch over the businessmen, yes --but it would be better to have activist businessmen, since both the environment AND the profit margin would improve drastically with a comprehensive op.

There is the problem of initial investment (money being only the fourthmost issue, yes), but...

If just four local MO activists I know (some of whom are quite wealthy) would simply pool resources and invest in setting up a comprehensive op --they'd soon own a lucrative slice of the market. If I were twenty years younger, no question I'd do it... but my youth (and many of my betters') was expended on just such watch-and-report, busywork NGO's.

If a foreign company wre to fully formalize their exclusivity with local collectors, bringing them under the aegis of the company and registering the same locally, they'd be even faster to get the same bonanza. Either the local "exclusive'" collectors swallow it, or you're stuck with training a putative "60" from scratch.



Gresham,

Nice shootin' there.


horge

 

[Kalkbreath]

Um Kalk, I'm pretty sure we have some native rainbow trouts in the US.

I think the German strain is what is produced in the hatcheries {like hotsprings Calif}But .........if you like lets use crabgrass, Kudzu or the Japanese beetle.........Why should a Country reap the proceeds of its biodiversity even if that country had nothing to do with its transplantation and subsequent benefits in another land? If so then they should also be held responsible for its liabilities even if they had nothing to do with its introduction! ? The two go hand in hand.

 

[Kalkbreath]

Um Kalk, I'm pretty sure we have some native rainbow trouts in the US.

Actually I got it backwards .........The brown trout is not native ..so lets hold Europe liable for its biodiversity harming the native brook tout in th eastern USA.....!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Oh, oh, now you going somewhere, I hate crabgrass!!! You saying we owe some money to the Aussies for them dang fire starting house smashing poisen oak haven flammable sap spitting Eucaliptis trees? Fine, where'd they get them rabbits? Yah, and Europe owes Cali some dough for our brookies as well. They can send it to the Monterey Trout and Salmon Project!!!

 

[hdtran]

Not to mention phylloxera-resistant grapevine rootstock...

 

[dizzy]

Who should I send the bill too for the damage the Japanese beetles are causing to my trees? That damn kudzu is heading up this way too. Damn Georgia has just let it go like wildfire.