Conservation Thread

[PeterIMA]

Gregor, The cyanide problem is not overblown. The IMA ran 6 cyanide testing laboratories from 1993 to 2001. There were over 48,000 measurements made. The problem was demonstrated to be real, and I published on these results in 2003 (book chapter from 2001 Marine Ornamentals Conference).

There no longer are functioning CDT laboratories, since they were taken over by BFAR in 2001. That does not mean the problem ceased to exist. You are stating your subjective opinion. How about some scientific studies like funding studies to dose corals in the field with cyanide and see what happens? BFAR already did this in 1986 and I published their findings. I also collaborated with Dr. James Cervino who published his studies on the effects of cyanide on corals in the Marine Pollution Bulletin in 2003.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.

 

[naesco]

Post edited for violating the User Agreement. Futher violations may result in the revocation of posting privileges.

I remind you of what you recently wrote:

Right! Righty
I am now looking forward to a more receptive and welcoming forum.

When it gets off the ground I think a good start would be to have the "regulars" post a little about themselves and why they post here.
I fully understand the frustrations many feel with the perceived inaction on the conservation front. I for one promise to be less extreme and give the new forum or this forums new focus a chance, eh.

- Righty

 

[mark@mac]

Gregor,

Thank you for your reply. Apologies for my mistake but my assumptions were only based on the figures you gave. You gave a range of possibilities for reducing the future costs but you never said how much each might reduce the cost nor what the actual or estimated cost is now. Reef Check has been working with MAC and MAQTRAC now for over four years, these figures should be available by now at least in estimate form.

To summarize what I understand from your last response,

A collection site may use a MAQTRAC equivalent but Reef Check is responsible for “advising” MAC on what methods qualify as MAQTRAC equivalents.
In regards to MAMTI (Indonesia and Philippines), Reef Check is responsible for assessing whether a collection area’s survey and assessment work meet MAQTRAC’s criteria.
Reef Check is the body that decides if a MAC Certification applicant area Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP) meets MAQTRAC resource survey and assessment criteria and is therefore ready to proceed to certification.
Reef Check, under the MAMTI project, does not want to deal with data (that it does not collect itself and therefore cannot “vouch for its accuracy”) that is “collected using other techniques.”
Reef Check has a set data base and analysis system and cannot or does not want to have to adapt to fit other methodologies.
Reef Check has an excellent group of Scientists working for it in support of its MAQTRAC work and collection area MAC Certification preparedness, assessment and recommendation system.
The MAMTI proposal was reviewed over the course of 2 years by “dozens of reviewers who are very sensitive to environmental issues.”

And as a follow-up

1. Does the MAMTI project pay for annual resource assessments to MAQTRAC for every MAMTI MAC Certified collection area throughout the life of the MAMTI program?”

2. If so, what is the budget allocation for each site?

3. If not, how is this cost to be covered?

4. Are all the sites being worked on in the Philippines and Indonesia part of the MAMTI Project?

5. What is the appeal process if a group of collectors believes that the MAQTRAC survey undertaken is inaccurate?

6. Who were the primary “reviewers” of the MAMTI proposal (say the top 6 reviewers)? You mentioned “dozens of reviewers” ?

Many thanks for your openness on these issues. This move towards transparency is much welcomed by the industry.

Best Regards,

Mark

 

[naesco]

Grego

I read with interest your recent post that the problem with use of cyanide in the Philippines was overblown.
Quite frankly, this came as a surprise because for the last 5 or 6 years most members of this forum have supported the use of net fishing, the net training of fishers and sent netting to the fishers. Your comments run counter to everything I have read and my own personal experience in the Philippines.

Please tell me;
1. What steps you took to stop the fishermen that were illegally harvesting fish with cyanide?
2. What is your organization doing to stop the rampant use of cyanide in the Philippines and the destruction it causes to the reef and the critters that live thereon.

Thank you

 

[Tropic]

Naesco-
why are you so aggressive? Based on your post that Righty erased, you seem to be very hostile towards him and the situation of him witnessing cyanide use. At least give him a chance to explain before going bonkers. The way you wrote your post, it sounded like you wanted him to go down and kick off on the locals butts for fishing THEIR waters with cyanide. I understand you are torqued up about Gregor's statement, i didnt read it the same way as you. I think the point he was trying to make, is that cyanide is a problem, but there are much more destructive issues playing out that deserve more attention now, otherwise, the cyanide wont be an issue because there wont be anymore fish as the ecosytem will be in shambles.

Wouldnt you agree that when you go to a foreign country to help set up protocols to foster stewardship and longetivity of a fishery, that it makes more sense to analyze all of the problems and then prioritize them? This is what this discussion is about, and yes cyanide use is one topic of many that play into this.

Here is a tip, when you are in a foreign country, dont let your emotions be so knee jerk, if you were to run down to the shoreline (as a Canadian) to freak out on some filipinos, you might not get the warm and understanding reponse you would hope to get. In fact, you very well may end up in a hospital or somewhere worse. I havent been to the Philippines, but many other places, and i have noticed that they dont take kindly to repremands from foreigners! Furthermore, the notion that aggression will solve a civil problem like this is totally absurd. Making them understand in a non confrontational and friendly way is the only approach to take.

So, Gregor, please elaborate on your previous post.

sincerely

Eric K.

 

[naesco]

I have major concerns in light of the cyanide comments that were made.

If conservation areas are determined you can bet your bottom dollar that the losers that use cyanide will enter those areas and use cyanide to capture the fish there.
Therefore you must deal with the cyanide issue rather than ignore it.

For the record I would have no problem running down to the shoreline and doing whatever is necessary to stop that illegal practice.
I would call the police and do whatever I could to interfere with what they are illegally doing. I would not choose to do nothing.

I have some advice for you as well.
You do not need a helmut and a gun to do the right thing! Just do whatever you can to do the right thing.

 

[sdcfish]

Naesco,

I would like to know what your personal experiences have been regarding cyanide use in the P.I.

Where have you seen the problems and what vast knowledge do you have to make such claims?

Nobody here is saying they are ignoring cyanide problems.....where do you get such information?

Best regards

Eric

 

[sdcfish]

Either way, I am concerned that this thread is getting off topic...and I am also to blame.

Question back to Greg,

What has the general sentiment been in the Philipines from local exporters, divers, and local gov't agencies regarding the re-trainings and possible partial closures of their fishing grounds?

Regards

Eric

 

[naesco]

Naesco,

I would like to know what your personal experiences have been regarding cyanide use in the P.I.

Where have you seen the problems and what vast knowledge do you have to make such claims?

Nobody here is saying they are ignoring cyanide problems.....where do you get such information?

Best regards

Eric

I would be happy to answer your questions.
Eric, most of the information I have received is from or through this forum.
Mary Middlebrook, an industry person and past director of MAC posted several years ago about "Cyanide, Industry's dirty little secret". I have also read with concern our own expert on cyanide, Dr. Rubec's essays on the effects of cyanide on the fish and the reef.
I have spent one week diving near Palawan in the Philippines. I saw the destruction wrought by cyanide. I spoke with the local fishers who told me about cyanide fisherman from other localities arriving at their fishing grounds and using cyanide with the very visible results.

Eric, cyanide is very much a part of conservation and IMO cannot be minimalized as Greg has posted (read his post).
Unless you deal with the problem of cyanide up front, the cyanide fishers and the industry ilk that support them, will simply enter those 'conservation areas' and harvest the fish with cyanide again.I am awaiting a reply form Greg to the questions I have posted and those posted by others on this important conservation concern that was initially raised by Greg.

 

[sdcfish]

Thanks Naesco....that pretty much explains everything to me.

Regards,

Eric

 

[naesco]

Thanks Naesco....that pretty much explains everything to me.
Regards,
Eric

Your welcome Eric.

I need you to understand that I fully support all of the other comments that Greg has made and the goals of his organization.

Wayne

 

[sdcfish]

Thanks Wayne....

I just would hope you can keep an open mind and re-think everything you have read or heard up to this point. Not all sides of the industry have voiced strong opinions here.

Best regards

Eric

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Mark,

Why don't you just make your point instead of beating around the bush with 20 questions? I think I have already answered most of these previously. I get the feeling that you are trying to imply that the costs of resource assessments are too high and I have addressed that. In fact Reef Check is getting overall about 25% of the MAMTI budget with three partners. We use those funds to pay for resource assessment and the fisheries management plans and rehab work. Some additional sites have been added to the MAMTI project because we need to find co-financing and through that process we add sites.

The Reef Check fisheries management plan is simply a set of recommendations to the local Collection Area Management Committee and they can discuss with us about any of them. There is no need to "appeal" -- they are the ones making the final decisons.

I would guess that most people in the trade would be surprised at what a rigorous process it is to get a proposal approved by an organization like the World Bank. The proposal is written and then reviewed and then re-written and then re-reviewed and rewritten again and again over a multi-year period. During this process the proposal must be passed by the donor organization, USAID, the US State Department, the Philippine Dept of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries, and Department of Finance and the equivalents in Indonesia. As I recall, some of the top reviewers of the MAMTI proposal were:

Chip Barber -- former IMA now USAID
Dr. Marea Hatziolos, World Bank coral reef expert
Carl Gustaf Lundin, now head of IUCN Marine
Dr. Barbara Best, coral reef expert, USAID
Sam Keller, IFC
Director Sarmiento, Phil BFAR
Dr Alan White, coral reef expert COP, USAID


Greg

 

[Reef Check HQ]

We all know that CN is a poison to both vertebrates and invertebrates including corals as it interferes with the cytochrome system. "(it is thought to exert its ultimate lethal effect of histotoxic anoxia by binding to
the active site of cytochrome oxidase thereby stopping aerobic cell metabolism)" see: www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/cwbw/Ch10.pdf

But lets think beyond the rhetoric and examine the science and use a little common sense to see if we can figure out what the effects of CN use might have had on Phil coral reefs.

First the science. There are a couple of papers showing that CN kills corals and fish in the lab and in the field. OK -- that makes sense.

A lot of lab testing has been done and CN is sometimes detected in fish. OK that makes sense (although whether that testing is reproduceable and reliable is an open question. All testing has been stopped in the Philippines because of these questions.)

But what about real fishermen using CN under real collection conditions where the water currents are rapidly mixing and diluting the highly water soluble CN?

As far as I know, there is no paper that has looked at a coral reef as a whole -- say a kilometer reef front by 100 m wide where cyanide fishing is regularly practiced and then introduced CN fishing to a new reef where it has never been practiced and compared the results. To make a valid argument that CN is damaging coral reefs on a large scale in a country the size of the Philippines (7000 islands most with reefs) then I think it is fair to ask the scientist to be able to demonstrate the large scale impacts claimed. As far as I know, this has not been done.

Lots of divers go to the Philippines and claim to see lots of CN damage and dynamite fishing damage -- and most don't have a clue what they are looking at. As someone who started my career in coral taxonomy and discovered and named such important trade species such as Nemenzophyllia, I have spent a great deal of time staring at corals underwater. Differentiating between a coral that died from CN, dynamite, disease, Acanthaster, sediment, Drupella, storms etc etc. even a few weeks after it died is very very difficult. Most people have not had the luxury that I have had of living on a number of Philippine reefs and diving there every day for several years, watching the fishermen at work, the Acanthaster and Drupella eating corals, the storms and disease killing them.

In my personal experience, watching and working with CN fishermen in the center of CN use, Mactan and Olongo Islands, I have seen very minor damage from CN -- typically white fringes on coral around holes where they chased a fish. Remember, these fishermen are not trying to kill the fish so they are dosing as minimally as possible at a level to STUN not kill the fish.

A number of people have made their careers claiming that CN fishing has destroyed Philippines reefs -- and all I can say is -- show me the evidence from a good BACI sampling design on the scale of a real reef -- not a lab experiment or artificial appliation directly onto a coral.

Now lets use teh common sense approach. There are many reefs where CN fishing has been practiced by hundreds of fishermen for over 50 years now, and they do not appear to be any worse off than reefs where no CN fishing has been practiced.

I am just giving my personal experience/observations here, not trying to say that I have done the needed field experiments. So you can take my opinions and add a few dollars and buy a cup of coffee or ignore them.

To me, the problem with the CN issue is that it has diverted energy and resources away from solving the real problems which are how to come up with fiancial incentives to increase fish supply and reduce fishing pressure on wild caught fish. Hopefully, through our current work we can find a few answers.

Greg

 

[Reef Check HQ]

Naesco(?) asks,

"1. What steps you took to stop the fishermen that were illegally harvesting fish with cyanide?
2. What is your organization doing to stop the rampant use of cyanide in the Philippines and the destruction it causes to the reef and the critters that live thereon."
**********
In the old days, we would tell BFAR where the CN fishermen were but no one took it too seriously in the 1970s/80s.

Now, as part of MAC certification, all fishermen are required to stop CN fishing and are trained in net fishing. This work is overseen by MAC and so I am not going to get into discussing work that is outside of Reef Check, but my personal observations of the results of this training and talking with the fishermen are that this has gone quite well and certainly everyone is using net fishing during our CPUE monitoring with the fishermen in certified areas.

CN fishing is illegal just about everywhere and I believe is punishable by death in the Philippines. So it is not Reef Check's job to enforce local laws. Under MAMTI, what we can do is to try to educate fishermen about the problem, and to require as part of setting up MPAs that the local managers work to stop all CN fishing by both certified collectors and anyone else fishing in the area. Remember, CN fishing is done for both food fish and aquarium fish.

Many NGOs and the governments have been trying to stop CN fishing for more than 20 years and it is silly to think that any of this "education and training" is going to work unless we can give fishermen fianancial incentives to stop. The fishermen know CN is "bad" -- they know it is illegal and dangerous, yet they use it because it is one efficient method of fishing. As they say in Tagalog, "Gutom ang mga anak ko." My kids are hungry.

Greg

 

[reefcheck-rsphil]

Hi I'm Rex from the Philippines (RC) working as Rehabilitation Scientist.. I
would like to Add to Greg's comments about the Post larvae work, but first I must say that it is all tied together with our Marine Protected areas work in the Philippines.

Basically there are many protected areas in the country - some 700-800 plus declared in law, many of which are unfortunately "paper parks" which have been initiated sometimes too quickly, sometimes in the wrong place and for a variety of reasons after a couple of years they have failed leaving disillusioned fishers in their areas, which is not good if they have for instance shifted from cyanide to net fishing (as is the case in Tubigon,
Bohol, Central Visayas portion of the Philippines etc).

Another thing we are seeing more recently is that even with strong community management and if the MPA is working on the social and management side (functional management group, monitoring and evaluation in place, good law protecting it and law enforcement activities (see Alan Whites work on setting up an MPA database in the country) fish stocks are just not really recovering well - the case in point in Tubigon, Bohol, Philippines - here you have an active Local Government Unit, law enforcement and a history of Coastal management for over a decade now, unfortunately their MPAs (there are four declared) are recovering very slowly (Biophysically - Coral reefs and Fish and invertebrate stocks).

Hence, we have been looking with our partner ECOCEAN into how to work to give these areas a quick "boost" to their biomass and species stocks, using post larvae coming from the wild (and heading for Tubigon reefs), catching a very small portion of these, growing them up and then seeing what is the best way to speed up the recovery process. We hope this will be a small added incentive to fishers organizations and local government who are doing coastal management activities, but who are seeing slow progress, to not only boost fish biomass, but also to begin to understand also some of the factors in the country that have led to the current state of the fisheries. Greg noted population, I would like to add near shore pollution, destructive fishing and sometimes even lack of political will and poor planning.

Ok, I'd be happy to respond to any other constructive questions from persons in this forum and will follow on from Dr. Hodgson's comments on the work we are doing here on rehabilitation hand in hand with the Local Government Units, the Bureau of Fisheries staff, local stakeholders and most importantly the ornamental fishers around the country.

Best wishes

Rex

 

[Reef Check Scientist Phil]

Hi to all,

First, let me introduce myself more. I am Filipino and I grew up in Mindanao (although my parents are from Bohol in the Visayas region). I studied and worked in the University of the Philippines and did my master's degree in Sydney, Australia. Right now, I am the Reef Check Chief Scientist for Philippines and Indonesia and I am basically managing the MAQTRAC surveys including the analyses and writing the recommendations based from the results. My background is reef fish ecology. I finished my PhD in the University of Southern California in reef fish larval dispersal (mtDNA sequence analyses and larval behavior) and in general to infer how reef fish populations are being replenished. When I finished my PhD, I basically transferred to USC's rival school, UCLA (that's where Reef Check used to be based).

I have been working for Reef Check and its work with MAC since 2002. But I have been doing fish surveys since 1991. I have dived in many reef areas in the Philippines and some in Indonesia. The fish survey experience I had (species surveys and sizing these fishes), my marine fisheries background (fish stock assessments, fisheries models) and my local background basically gave me the necessary tools for this job.

Now, what is MAQTRAC? (I also suggest you download the manual and read in case you have suggestions.) It stands for the Marine Aquarium Trade Coral Reef Monitoring Protocol. Gregor Hodgson and I designed the field manual with numerous inputs from colleagues and researchers. The objectives of the manual include: (1) determining the status of the ornamental targets (number and size distribution); (2) providing a scientific basis for collection limits; (3) recommending locations for no-take zones (as part of the reef rehabilitation strategy); (4) determining over-all coral reef health.

The MAC standards and certification program includes the Ecosystem and Fisheries Management Standards. This is where MAQTRAC and other Reef Check rehabilitation activities come in. For MAQTRAC, we want to know what is in there first to guide the collection activities and to set collection limits. How do we do this? It is quite a challenge since we are probably making a precedent here. Coral reef fisheries is enormously complex. It is a multispecies fisheries using different collection methods and landing data is diffuse. So what we have done (and presented to numerous fora where other scientists could comment) is to use existing fisheries assessment models and adapt these to the fisheries. To recommend collection limits, we need to know the rates of population growth and mortality of target organisms. To do this, we record size class data of target ornamentals and use computer software to infer growth, natural and total mortality and exploitation rates. The coral analysis is even more challenging! Luckily, we have numerous people as well to consult. All of these we do in trying to transform the trade, conserving coral reefs while still providing my countrymen a means of livelihood.

Now, how do we make MAQTRAC sustainable. Greg has mentioned several options and I am just going to expound on these. During the first surveys, we record all the ornamental organisms in an area (whether traded or not). This is essential since we want to know what is in there ( because target species collection also changes) but for long-term sustainability we are planning to do the traded species only. But the other options also include training local collectors (which we have been doing during our standard community interactions) with the assistance of local university scientists to do MAQTRAC. We also analyze catch records from collectors and also from exporters in looking at CPUE temporal trends and to infer collection limits for cryptic species.

That's it for now.

Yours,

Domingo G. Ochavillo, PhD
Chief Scientist
Reef Check Philippines

 

[clarionreef]

Gentlemen,
Welcome to the forum.
I lived and worked with aquarium fisherman in Buhol back in 1983 and wonder how they're doing now.
Do you have any news of Panglao Island, Cortez, Clarin and Batasan?
I would hope that they all figure in the forefront of positive initiatives today.
Sincerely, Steve

 

[mark@mac]

Hi Gregor,

Until I (and this forum) get more information, it is impossible to make any kind of point or imply anything. You have not really answered any of the questions in my previous email with the exception of the reviewers list (which I thank you for) thus the only person to say anything about the costs being possibly too high has been you. I understand that you think what Reef Check is doing with MAC and CCIF is brand new but it isn’t and it’s specific components are not. Resource assessments, monitoring and management planning for fisheries (including coral reef based fisheries) are not new nor are all the Reef Check / MAQTRAC methodologies unique nor the only ones being used globally. Certainly artisanal fisher training and extension programs are not new. Training and extension programs specifically for marine aquarium fishers have been going on for years by a number of organizations including MAC. The way MAMTI is combining them may be new but since we don’t have enough information about the MAMTI system this can’t be taken as a given.

Knowing what Reef Check’s total % of MAMTI does not really answer any of the questions either since I don’t even know how much in total the “25%” stands for or what its budgeted for. When writing this kind of proposal, it would seem to be important to have budgeted x amount per site (at least a general figure) for different activities such as initial assessment, resource management planning and follow up monitoring and annual assessments (as required by MAC Certification) to be able to come up with a realistic budget. MAMTI is not the first proposal MAC has written for this kind of work and I hope it is not the first that Reef Check has written. So if you don’t mind, since we are trying to take a step by step approach to learning and understanding and not have to rely on general numbers and hearsay, I will re-ask the same questions since they are relevant to understanding how Reef Check is planning to carry out its MAMTI mission. But first:

To summarize what I understand from your last response(s):


The Collection Area Management Committee’s make the final decision on whether their collection area site can proceed to certification (contact a certifier and start the formal certification process) - Reef Check only advises them whether they are ready or not but cannot stop them from moving forward or interfere in any way with them moving forward towards certification if they so choose.
None of the six MAMTI proposal reviewers mentioned in your response are from the industry.
Food fisheries are a much bigger problem in coral reef destruction.


New questions arising from your last post:


Is the “Reef Check fisheries management plan” the same thing as MAC’s “Collection Area Management Plan (CAMP)?” I am having a bit of a problem understanding this process and would be grateful for further enlightenment.
How does MAMTI deal with the food fisheries?
None of the reviewers mentioned are from the industry, who in the industry reviewed the proposal?
Is one of the reviewers you mention i.e. Dr. Alan White, now a MAC Board member?


I am trying to take a systematic, non confrontational approach to understanding the issues Gregor thus the simple questions most of which require very short answers. I hope you understand Gregor that MAMTI is MAC’s largest program now and MAC is responsible for setting up a workable certification system WITH the marine aquarium industry thus questions about how MAMTI was developed and is functioning are very important to this trade. The questions from my previous posting that I still hope to get clear and simple answers for are:

1. Does the MAMTI project pay for annual resource assessments to MAQTRAC for every MAMTI MAC Certified collection area throughout the life of the MAMTI program?”
2. If so, what is the budget allocation for each site?
3. If not, how is this cost to be covered?
4. How many of the sites being worked on in the Philippines and Indonesia are MAMTI Sites?

Many thanks Gregor.

Best Regards

Mark

 

[PeterIMA]

Dr. Ochavillo, Welcome to the Industry Behind the Hobby.

I am curious to learn what types of fisheries stock assessment models you are using? How do you gather the data that is needed by the models? Often there is little or no landings data collected by BFAR or municipal governments. Does your staff gather length frequencies data. If so, where is it collected? How?

You mentioned that corals reefs are complex multispecies systems. Are you using single species stock assessment models (like VPA, cohort analyses, FISAT) or are you using multispecies models (like Ecopath, Ecosim, multispecies VPA)? Do the models use age-length keys to derive fishing mortality (F), natural mortality (M), and total motality (Z)? Please let us know what fisheries models you are using.

Peter Rubec, Ph.D.
Fisheries Research Scientist
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission