Should species be propagated in different oceans?
- Thread starter Bill2
- Start date
Horge,
I appreciate the analogy with respect to tomatoes, potatoes, cocoa and mangoes but would like to suggest there are a few key differences:
First, the analogy doesn’t apply to MO aquaculture (and please note, this isn’t about trade in wild caught marine aquarium fish / corals – the convention has no say on that). MO aquaculture (and the pharmaceutical industry for that matter) is not location specific. MO aquaculture can be done anywhere given the correct skill base. Economically, it will do better in a warm climate and close to major transport but the UK and Dutch mobs seem to do all right despite chilly temps.
Second, the “host” country isn’t ahead of the game with the usurpers playing catch up when considering MOs. The Philippines doesn’t have a MO culturing industry that the US is trying to break into. The key issues ensuring that one benefits from aquaculture is technology / skill / infrastructure. Royal funds may well have been invested in Central America because they couldn’t do it at home (whether that’s wrong location or lack of skill) and it was already successful in the New World. So the local holders of cocoa were ok until someone clued for Africa (according to your example). The difference today is that the Phils / Indo generally lack the technology / infrastructure / skill base to pursue MO aquaculture on a commercial scale therefore they are at risk of being pipped at the post by others (the only exception I can think of is the French mob raising wild caught larvae in French Polynesia which isn’t exactly the same thing … imagine shipping larvae to grow out facilities in the US – they’re kind of stuck locally).
To use another example, the US has sponge prospectors out combing the world – they collect marine sponges, send them back to US universities for screening, with any potential “beneficial compounds” being patented and then trialled. If effective in combating cancer (for instance), they will generate huge revenues. One only has to look at the US blocking sale of HIV drugs in South Africa to understand the implications. It is big business and high tech and most of the rest of the world doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
I beg to differ. For high value, non location specific resources … the host country has no trump card. Imagine, a ban on trade in wild caught species X … with all culturing done in foreign countries … what benefit then?
In terms of the mango example …
Seriously Horge, that sounds like rhetoric of the worst kind. The Phils probably beat them because (a) the mangoes were “location specific” or (b) they were still on the learning curve and the Filipino gang already knew what they were doing (rightly so) and already had some market share ...with some hard work thrown in.
Based on what evidence? It is unlikely that the royalty would be enough to replace the whole industry … then it wouldn’t be worth the while of other countries to develop that particular industry. Think of it more as a licensing fee ... perhaps some of these funds would have gone to improved disease management / research.
Winner take all? I keep hoping we’ve moved beyond that. And that is the point of this part of the Convention on Biological Diversity: to level the playing field. Compensation for use of biodiversity can be, for instance, in the form of technology transfer. It is not to undermine competition or promote laxity.
Accessing others’ biodiversity under the rubric of economic determinism is simply another form of colonialism. Moreover, suggesting we screwed the locals in the past isn’t a really good reason for doing it in the future.
Blue hula
I appreciate the analogy with respect to tomatoes, potatoes, cocoa and mangoes but would like to suggest there are a few key differences:
horge":2hfqtlv6 said:
First, the analogy doesn’t apply to MO aquaculture (and please note, this isn’t about trade in wild caught marine aquarium fish / corals – the convention has no say on that). MO aquaculture (and the pharmaceutical industry for that matter) is not location specific. MO aquaculture can be done anywhere given the correct skill base. Economically, it will do better in a warm climate and close to major transport but the UK and Dutch mobs seem to do all right despite chilly temps.
Second, the “host” country isn’t ahead of the game with the usurpers playing catch up when considering MOs. The Philippines doesn’t have a MO culturing industry that the US is trying to break into. The key issues ensuring that one benefits from aquaculture is technology / skill / infrastructure. Royal funds may well have been invested in Central America because they couldn’t do it at home (whether that’s wrong location or lack of skill) and it was already successful in the New World. So the local holders of cocoa were ok until someone clued for Africa (according to your example). The difference today is that the Phils / Indo generally lack the technology / infrastructure / skill base to pursue MO aquaculture on a commercial scale therefore they are at risk of being pipped at the post by others (the only exception I can think of is the French mob raising wild caught larvae in French Polynesia which isn’t exactly the same thing … imagine shipping larvae to grow out facilities in the US – they’re kind of stuck locally).
To use another example, the US has sponge prospectors out combing the world – they collect marine sponges, send them back to US universities for screening, with any potential “beneficial compounds” being patented and then trialled. If effective in combating cancer (for instance), they will generate huge revenues. One only has to look at the US blocking sale of HIV drugs in South Africa to understand the implications. It is big business and high tech and most of the rest of the world doesn’t have the capacity to do it.
horge":2hfqtlv6 said:
I beg to differ. For high value, non location specific resources … the host country has no trump card. Imagine, a ban on trade in wild caught species X … with all culturing done in foreign countries … what benefit then?
In terms of the mango example …
horge":2hfqtlv6 said:
Seriously Horge, that sounds like rhetoric of the worst kind. The Phils probably beat them because (a) the mangoes were “location specific” or (b) they were still on the learning curve and the Filipino gang already knew what they were doing (rightly so) and already had some market share ...with some hard work thrown in.
horge":2hfqtlv6 said:
Based on what evidence? It is unlikely that the royalty would be enough to replace the whole industry … then it wouldn’t be worth the while of other countries to develop that particular industry. Think of it more as a licensing fee ... perhaps some of these funds would have gone to improved disease management / research.
Winner take all? I keep hoping we’ve moved beyond that. And that is the point of this part of the Convention on Biological Diversity: to level the playing field. Compensation for use of biodiversity can be, for instance, in the form of technology transfer. It is not to undermine competition or promote laxity.
Accessing others’ biodiversity under the rubric of economic determinism is simply another form of colonialism. Moreover, suggesting we screwed the locals in the past isn’t a really good reason for doing it in the future.
Blue hula
Kalkbreath":3jmgw644 said:
It's an interesting idea and as far as I know, not covered. I imagine that if you are dumb enough to deliberately introduce something (like the cane toad, foxes etc.) ... you'd have lost your rights to complain ...
But perhaps if a country could be held responsible for the damage ensuring from an escape ... they'd pay more attention to quarantine / smuggling on their end of the stick.
Blue hula
Blue,
I guess you noticed that the 1st draft of the MAC standards for aquaculture will be done at the MO conference. I'm guessing that some type of "surtax" will be suggested at this time. Since you seem to feel this is fair I have a couple of questions. If a cultured clown now sells wholesale for $8.00 US, how much do you think the tax would need to be? I always wondered why MAC was going to try and certify aquaculture, and now I'm fairly certain you have provided the answer. I also wonder who will get the money. No doubt 90% or more will be taken up in administrative costs. Seems to me we are just creating more bureacracy.
No certification and no surtax means you can sell cheaper. No? Me thinks this surtax will be bad for the big guys (like ORA) and good for the basement breeders.
I guess you noticed that the 1st draft of the MAC standards for aquaculture will be done at the MO conference. I'm guessing that some type of "surtax" will be suggested at this time. Since you seem to feel this is fair I have a couple of questions. If a cultured clown now sells wholesale for $8.00 US, how much do you think the tax would need to be? I always wondered why MAC was going to try and certify aquaculture, and now I'm fairly certain you have provided the answer. I also wonder who will get the money. No doubt 90% or more will be taken up in administrative costs. Seems to me we are just creating more bureacracy.
No certification and no surtax means you can sell cheaper. No? Me thinks this surtax will be bad for the big guys (like ORA) and good for the basement breeders.
Dizzy,
I honestly have no idea why MAC would certify cultured fish or what the surtax is meant for.
Whilst the compensation for biodiversity has been greatly discussed for pharmaceuticals and agriculture, there has been almost no discussion of it for aquaculture that I'm aware of. So on some levels I'd be surprised if MAC has made that link (but then, they could surprise me). Guess they will now if someone is lurking ...
If a surtax was added for the CBD, they would have to have a clear mechanism for administration, accountability and who gets it in the "supply" countries (e.g. BFAR? conservation NGOs ? local communities?).
I do think it is fair but I also think it is challenging and probably needs to be dealt with on a larger scale than MAC. Indeed, I'm not sure that MAC would have the resources to unilaterally implement such a program.
A dime per fish would ultimately make a big difference given volumes traded.
As to selling fish cheaper ... at least in Australia, retail prices are fairly insensitive to wholesale prices. Wholesale price stays low (no tax), fish shops just make more money.
Cheers, Blue hula
I honestly have no idea why MAC would certify cultured fish or what the surtax is meant for.
Whilst the compensation for biodiversity has been greatly discussed for pharmaceuticals and agriculture, there has been almost no discussion of it for aquaculture that I'm aware of. So on some levels I'd be surprised if MAC has made that link (but then, they could surprise me). Guess they will now if someone is lurking ...
If a surtax was added for the CBD, they would have to have a clear mechanism for administration, accountability and who gets it in the "supply" countries (e.g. BFAR? conservation NGOs ? local communities?).
I do think it is fair but I also think it is challenging and probably needs to be dealt with on a larger scale than MAC. Indeed, I'm not sure that MAC would have the resources to unilaterally implement such a program.
A dime per fish would ultimately make a big difference given volumes traded.
As to selling fish cheaper ... at least in Australia, retail prices are fairly insensitive to wholesale prices. Wholesale price stays low (no tax), fish shops just make more money.
Cheers, Blue hula
clarionreef
Advanced Reefer
- Location
- San Francisco
The surtax notion on aquaculture & clownfish breeders to pay for er...certifying them...reveals a group bent on its own perpetuation and a need to confer its label to validate ITSELF more than anything more far reaching.
Breeding clownfish and farming corals are wonderful developments. Why tax and punish them ? Are there not more important things to do like getting the trade right where it comes from first, ie the ocean?
Imagine the following...."Sure those are cultured...but if they're not 'certified' it means nothing!"
Really? If they're cultured it means a great deal more then being certified already!
I drove by a Toyota lot today that said "Certified used cars" and futher on down the road was a sign in front of a smog mechanic that said..."We certify gross polluters!" [ It didn't say we fix em...it said we certify em. ] I was spooked by the irony.
Seems anything can be certified for a price.
Steve
Breeding clownfish and farming corals are wonderful developments. Why tax and punish them ? Are there not more important things to do like getting the trade right where it comes from first, ie the ocean?
Imagine the following...."Sure those are cultured...but if they're not 'certified' it means nothing!"
Really? If they're cultured it means a great deal more then being certified already!
I drove by a Toyota lot today that said "Certified used cars" and futher on down the road was a sign in front of a smog mechanic that said..."We certify gross polluters!" [ It didn't say we fix em...it said we certify em. ] I was spooked by the irony.
Seems anything can be certified for a price.
Steve
Hi, Blue 
The "convention" was being discussed in the context of local wild-harvest VS. foreign translocated mariculture. The reason I brought up chocolate is that it was EVENTUALLY translocated --heck, even we grow it here.
If any plentiful local resource is marketable, then the origin country is going to eventually/inevitably tap it wild for revenue, creating competition between 'local' wild harvest and foreign, translocated mariculture. Since the convention penalizes one side of the competition, then it might be a little pedantic to say the convention does not affect the inescapable other.
I'm aware of the aquaristic ability to husband and propagate MO nearly anywhere in the world, as anyone with a halfway-decent reef tank should have an inkling of. The UK and Dutch mobs still cannot beat wild harvest in terms of quantity, and often of quality and price as well.
A thing may be possible, and yet not feasible economically, in the face of direct competition.
One doesn't try to break into an industry.
You try to break into a market.
In that sense, ANY translocation mariculture of MO is in fact breaking into the 'local business'.
MO wild harvest and mariculture may be different approaches, but they try to reach the same object and are (for our purposes) in direct competition. Translocators shoulder a huge disadvantage in terms of expenses to replicate natural conditions (max volume of production not being the least) in the host country. Their only native advantage is shipping distance, and even there, the march of technology in transportation reduces the advantage.
The translocator country can try to erect trade barriers, but that's th sort of challenge that the Guimaras experience grew out of, no?
Again, IndoPhil MO exoporters don't HAVE to invest in climate simulation. They can "grow" corals in the native environment for nearly zero cost. Setting up an MPA or a fallow-rotation scheme is enough for most purposes.
IndoPhil exporters largely haven't much use for a great deal of the technological advantages (climate simulation, really) you're claiming for foreign ops. They are thus not at much of a technological disadvantage.
I'd rather not comment on derivative products --or even the further-removed synthetates modelled on wild derivatives-- from a translocated specimen. That has little parallel to mariculture and sale of whole MO lifeforms.
A ban or trade barrier would be totally outside the purview of the convention we are discussing anyway, and would be contested at the WTO. The ban has to have a basis, and then its up to those targetted to fight it in the WTO, or to do a Guimaras.
I tried to pre-empt all this, precisely by trotting out Guimaras: a foreign ban or trade barrier, countered by intense political pressure and then corrective measures in defense of the local industry affected (mangoes and other Philippine fruits).
Sorry, but no:
1. Because of the standing ban on Philippine fruits we had ZERO market share, actually.
2. The Filipino gang furthermore DIDN'T know what they were doing (insofar as what had to be done to recapture any market) --the theretofore unheard-of quarantine procedures HAD to be set up and quick.
3. The Filipino gang were the ones behind on the learning curve --you can check the fruticulture protocols extant in China and Thailand at the time --ours was a joke.
As for rhetoric, hehe, I did also repeatedy indicate the apparent location specificity of the resource. Nevertheless, the technological superiority you like to cite as an advantage of the translocator applied to Thailand and especially to China even then --they would have gotten it right eventually. Just like chocolate was eventually translocation-farmed with success.
The very-threatening challenge from China and Thailand is what lit a fire under the Philippine fruit industry and their political patrons-- and barely in time.
The royalty would only have to be enough to keep a handful of politicians-cum-agronomists happy, actually. In the case of local MO 'industry' the number of people to 'buy out' is even smaller. **cough**Philippine rice** cough**...
The putative 'licensing' money would go almost anywhere BUT.
JMO on Philippine politics and economics.
can be, could be, not (meant) to...
The road to perdition and all that...
We'll find out in the end, or not --no bar to discussion, is there?
I'll certainly respect your right to hold that opinion.
I do think I have no small experience with nor small exposure to the scars of colonial subjugation, and will hold onto my own opinions.
Slow down. I perceive that you strongly believe in this convention, and what you believe its aims to be... but you're close to crossing a line there:
I suggested nothing of the sort; that 'precedent justifies wrong'.
It's easy to confuse conquistador atrocities with conquistador entrepreneurship.
The former was prosecutable and irrelevant to our discussion of the convention today, unless you're prepared to argue that Spain or the US will occupy the Philippines all over again, or the Dutch/Portuguese/Spanish/British the Indonesian and malay archipelagoes.
The relevant latter... to wit, the colonists' success and/or failure at translocation of marketable resources was my only focus.
Now, if you were referring to screwing the locals out of profits...
The brutalized slaves of the Aztecs were never possessed of the desire or ability to profit from world trade of their natural resources. They were screwed out of a lot of other things ---but not as a result of translocation farming. Actually, it was the in-situ exploitation of their resources that made Amerindians suffer horrifically, from the glittering cranium of Potosi to the dust of Oaxaca. But yes, again, this is irrelevant as there is no modern parallel to our interest.
To indulge a last digression: some have already suggested, if we all feel badly enough about translocation farming, then we can send an accumulated bill on the "victims'" behalf to the tomato, corn, chocolate, and potato farming, non-American countries of the world.
The bill would be addressed to most of the Third World thereby, and there's the rub, no?
The countries who most badly need to resort to translocation farming are often the ones with the fewest natural resources.
Again I respect your position, and have offered mine
Your parting accusation rankled, but I grant I may have misread it.
horge
"Merong mga ibaaaa, pa-English-English paaaa
Pero kung pakikinggan...mali-mali naman
Huwag na laaaang..."
-excerpt from a Mike Hanopol oldie, thrown teasingly at me by my niece after skimming through this response of mine
blue hula":7bevf9uj said:
The "convention" was being discussed in the context of local wild-harvest VS. foreign translocated mariculture. The reason I brought up chocolate is that it was EVENTUALLY translocated --heck, even we grow it here.
If any plentiful local resource is marketable, then the origin country is going to eventually/inevitably tap it wild for revenue, creating competition between 'local' wild harvest and foreign, translocated mariculture. Since the convention penalizes one side of the competition, then it might be a little pedantic to say the convention does not affect the inescapable other.
I'm aware of the aquaristic ability to husband and propagate MO nearly anywhere in the world, as anyone with a halfway-decent reef tank should have an inkling of. The UK and Dutch mobs still cannot beat wild harvest in terms of quantity, and often of quality and price as well.
A thing may be possible, and yet not feasible economically, in the face of direct competition.
One doesn't try to break into an industry.
You try to break into a market.
In that sense, ANY translocation mariculture of MO is in fact breaking into the 'local business'.
MO wild harvest and mariculture may be different approaches, but they try to reach the same object and are (for our purposes) in direct competition. Translocators shoulder a huge disadvantage in terms of expenses to replicate natural conditions (max volume of production not being the least) in the host country. Their only native advantage is shipping distance, and even there, the march of technology in transportation reduces the advantage.
The translocator country can try to erect trade barriers, but that's th sort of challenge that the Guimaras experience grew out of, no?
Again, IndoPhil MO exoporters don't HAVE to invest in climate simulation. They can "grow" corals in the native environment for nearly zero cost. Setting up an MPA or a fallow-rotation scheme is enough for most purposes.
IndoPhil exporters largely haven't much use for a great deal of the technological advantages (climate simulation, really) you're claiming for foreign ops. They are thus not at much of a technological disadvantage.
I'd rather not comment on derivative products --or even the further-removed synthetates modelled on wild derivatives-- from a translocated specimen. That has little parallel to mariculture and sale of whole MO lifeforms.
A ban or trade barrier would be totally outside the purview of the convention we are discussing anyway, and would be contested at the WTO. The ban has to have a basis, and then its up to those targetted to fight it in the WTO, or to do a Guimaras.
I tried to pre-empt all this, precisely by trotting out Guimaras: a foreign ban or trade barrier, countered by intense political pressure and then corrective measures in defense of the local industry affected (mangoes and other Philippine fruits).
Sorry, but no:
1. Because of the standing ban on Philippine fruits we had ZERO market share, actually.
2. The Filipino gang furthermore DIDN'T know what they were doing (insofar as what had to be done to recapture any market) --the theretofore unheard-of quarantine procedures HAD to be set up and quick.
3. The Filipino gang were the ones behind on the learning curve --you can check the fruticulture protocols extant in China and Thailand at the time --ours was a joke.
As for rhetoric, hehe, I did also repeatedy indicate the apparent location specificity of the resource. Nevertheless, the technological superiority you like to cite as an advantage of the translocator applied to Thailand and especially to China even then --they would have gotten it right eventually. Just like chocolate was eventually translocation-farmed with success.
The very-threatening challenge from China and Thailand is what lit a fire under the Philippine fruit industry and their political patrons-- and barely in time.
The royalty would only have to be enough to keep a handful of politicians-cum-agronomists happy, actually. In the case of local MO 'industry' the number of people to 'buy out' is even smaller. **cough**Philippine rice** cough**...
The putative 'licensing' money would go almost anywhere BUT.
JMO on Philippine politics and economics.
can be, could be, not (meant) to...
The road to perdition and all that...
We'll find out in the end, or not --no bar to discussion, is there?
I'll certainly respect your right to hold that opinion.
I do think I have no small experience with nor small exposure to the scars of colonial subjugation, and will hold onto my own opinions.
Slow down. I perceive that you strongly believe in this convention, and what you believe its aims to be... but you're close to crossing a line there:
I suggested nothing of the sort; that 'precedent justifies wrong'.
It's easy to confuse conquistador atrocities with conquistador entrepreneurship.
The former was prosecutable and irrelevant to our discussion of the convention today, unless you're prepared to argue that Spain or the US will occupy the Philippines all over again, or the Dutch/Portuguese/Spanish/British the Indonesian and malay archipelagoes.
The relevant latter... to wit, the colonists' success and/or failure at translocation of marketable resources was my only focus.
Now, if you were referring to screwing the locals out of profits...
The brutalized slaves of the Aztecs were never possessed of the desire or ability to profit from world trade of their natural resources. They were screwed out of a lot of other things ---but not as a result of translocation farming. Actually, it was the in-situ exploitation of their resources that made Amerindians suffer horrifically, from the glittering cranium of Potosi to the dust of Oaxaca. But yes, again, this is irrelevant as there is no modern parallel to our interest.
To indulge a last digression: some have already suggested, if we all feel badly enough about translocation farming, then we can send an accumulated bill on the "victims'" behalf to the tomato, corn, chocolate, and potato farming, non-American countries of the world.
The bill would be addressed to most of the Third World thereby, and there's the rub, no?
The countries who most badly need to resort to translocation farming are often the ones with the fewest natural resources.
Again I respect your position, and have offered mine
Your parting accusation rankled, but I grant I may have misread it.
horge
"Merong mga ibaaaa, pa-English-English paaaa
Pero kung pakikinggan...mali-mali naman
Huwag na laaaang..."
-excerpt from a Mike Hanopol oldie, thrown teasingly at me by my niece after skimming through this response of mine
Blue Hula,
I'm not sure that its correct to assume that countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia lag behing Western countries in terms of technology, etc for MO fish aquaculture. SE Asia actually seems to be well ahead of western countries in terms of reef fish aquaculture in general.
The problem is that the focus to date has been on the live reef fish trade rather than the MO trade. Grouper aquaculture, for instance, is far more advanced in countries such as Taiwan, Indonesia and the Phils than in most other countries - East or West. The Gondol Research station in Bali, for example, was one of the pioneers in full cycle culturing of the panther grouper, and SEAFDEC in Tigbauan has also done some remarkable work with grouper aquaculture.
While I realise that groupers aren't quite the same as say pomacanthids, I'd be surprised if many of the techniques that allowed for breakthroughs in grouper aquaculture weren't easily transferable to MO fish. The lack of effort in the direction of MO has more to do with national priorities and economics rather than capability. Indonesia's national aquaculture focus, for example, is on food fish production.
Things are changing, however, and MO fish aquaculture is gaining more momentum in the region, particularly amongst the South Pacific island nations, but also in Indonesia and the Phils. Taiwan, apparently, is already well into it.....
I'm not sure that its correct to assume that countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia lag behing Western countries in terms of technology, etc for MO fish aquaculture. SE Asia actually seems to be well ahead of western countries in terms of reef fish aquaculture in general.
The problem is that the focus to date has been on the live reef fish trade rather than the MO trade. Grouper aquaculture, for instance, is far more advanced in countries such as Taiwan, Indonesia and the Phils than in most other countries - East or West. The Gondol Research station in Bali, for example, was one of the pioneers in full cycle culturing of the panther grouper, and SEAFDEC in Tigbauan has also done some remarkable work with grouper aquaculture.
While I realise that groupers aren't quite the same as say pomacanthids, I'd be surprised if many of the techniques that allowed for breakthroughs in grouper aquaculture weren't easily transferable to MO fish. The lack of effort in the direction of MO has more to do with national priorities and economics rather than capability. Indonesia's national aquaculture focus, for example, is on food fish production.
Things are changing, however, and MO fish aquaculture is gaining more momentum in the region, particularly amongst the South Pacific island nations, but also in Indonesia and the Phils. Taiwan, apparently, is already well into it.....
Welcome to the board Suriden,
First I should say that the comment about technology wasn't meant to sound as patronising at it will have come across ... I specifically indicated technology / infrastructure for COMMERCIAL production as I was aware of the work at SEAFDEC and Gondol. Nevertheless, in rereading the post ... I didn't quite capture what I meant to say. Do you know if any have made the shift from R&D to commercial production? There are some technology / infrastructure issues associated with that transition. I'd add that SE Asia is also leaps and bounds ahead in polyculture systems.
As to transferability ...I'm not sure. I know SEAFDEC was also working hard on some MO species but these were proving very challenging even for them ... and certainly in the case of some of the focal species, no one else has cracked them yet either.
Best wishes,
Blue hula
First I should say that the comment about technology wasn't meant to sound as patronising at it will have come across ... I specifically indicated technology / infrastructure for COMMERCIAL production as I was aware of the work at SEAFDEC and Gondol. Nevertheless, in rereading the post ... I didn't quite capture what I meant to say. Do you know if any have made the shift from R&D to commercial production? There are some technology / infrastructure issues associated with that transition. I'd add that SE Asia is also leaps and bounds ahead in polyculture systems.
As to transferability ...I'm not sure. I know SEAFDEC was also working hard on some MO species but these were proving very challenging even for them ... and certainly in the case of some of the focal species, no one else has cracked them yet either.
Best wishes,
Blue hula
Horge,
I sat down to reply and realised that our combined posts (your response + quotes from mine) is 5 pages long in Word and thus I've decided to simply admit defeat with a few short comments.
First, I don't feel particularly strongly about the CBD per se. Indeed the original comment was a "have fun" addendum to the more serious ecological implications of shifting things around.
I do feel strongly about economic imperialism masquerading as entrepreneurship and industry. One can make a reasonable argument that the wealth of the west is subsidized by the labour, environment and resources of developing countries.
The CBD was pushed for by developing countries to help balance the scales a bit. In terms of MO aquaculture vs. wild capture ... I for one would rather see healthy sustainable fisheries in the source countries then an abandonment of these areas because, heck, we can culture what we need at home.
Second, the screwing comment was in reference to the pillaging mentality of colonialism - then and now. And it was a perhaps overly strong reaction to a seemingly happy acceptance of rampant market forces. I'm Canadian after all - we like big gov't and taxes to balance the market. My apologies if I read to much in it.
As to the US colonising the Philippines again ... I expect them to invade Canada within the next 20 years (one of the reasons I moved to Oz) :wink: so the Phils could be in for it too.
Blue hula
I sat down to reply and realised that our combined posts (your response + quotes from mine) is 5 pages long in Word and thus I've decided to simply admit defeat with a few short comments.
First, I don't feel particularly strongly about the CBD per se. Indeed the original comment was a "have fun" addendum to the more serious ecological implications of shifting things around.
I do feel strongly about economic imperialism masquerading as entrepreneurship and industry. One can make a reasonable argument that the wealth of the west is subsidized by the labour, environment and resources of developing countries.
The CBD was pushed for by developing countries to help balance the scales a bit. In terms of MO aquaculture vs. wild capture ... I for one would rather see healthy sustainable fisheries in the source countries then an abandonment of these areas because, heck, we can culture what we need at home.
Second, the screwing comment was in reference to the pillaging mentality of colonialism - then and now. And it was a perhaps overly strong reaction to a seemingly happy acceptance of rampant market forces. I'm Canadian after all - we like big gov't and taxes to balance the market. My apologies if I read to much in it.
As to the US colonising the Philippines again ... I expect them to invade Canada within the next 20 years (one of the reasons I moved to Oz) :wink: so the Phils could be in for it too.
Blue hula
Blue Hula,
Didn't find your comments at all patronising. Your comments and those of Horge have been very interesting.
The reason for mentioning the research and development institutions in Indonesia and PI is that the CBD emphasises capacity building largely in the context of national R&D capabilities in many cases. The aim being to enable a country to effectively harness its own biological resources, thus provide a level playing field. The INBio-Merck agreement is one example.
There are a number of commercial grouper hatcheries operating throughout the region. The bottleneck has been the development of growout facilities/businesses. This is being overcome steadily in places like Indonesia and Vietnam, but is still an issue in many countries. The new phase of the collaborative multi-country grouper work will be focusing a lot more on this issue.
The reasons for SEAFDEC's challenges with blue tangs (Paracanthurus hepatus) are complicated and not necessarily a reflection of difficulties with transferring technology from grouper aquaculture to MO.
Didn't find your comments at all patronising. Your comments and those of Horge have been very interesting.
The reason for mentioning the research and development institutions in Indonesia and PI is that the CBD emphasises capacity building largely in the context of national R&D capabilities in many cases. The aim being to enable a country to effectively harness its own biological resources, thus provide a level playing field. The INBio-Merck agreement is one example.
There are a number of commercial grouper hatcheries operating throughout the region. The bottleneck has been the development of growout facilities/businesses. This is being overcome steadily in places like Indonesia and Vietnam, but is still an issue in many countries. The new phase of the collaborative multi-country grouper work will be focusing a lot more on this issue.
The reasons for SEAFDEC's challenges with blue tangs (Paracanthurus hepatus) are complicated and not necessarily a reflection of difficulties with transferring technology from grouper aquaculture to MO.
Thanks for the discussion, blue
I too will capitulate the points with a few, nay, but a single comment:
If everyone had the welfare of innocents at heart, as you clearly do, then treaties and covenants would matter less.
horge
-----
Welcome to the board, Suriden!
I too will capitulate the points with a few, nay, but a single comment:
If everyone had the welfare of innocents at heart, as you clearly do, then treaties and covenants would matter less.
horge
-----
Welcome to the board, Suriden!
Sponsor Reefs
We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.
Click here to sponsor $10:
