Ret Talbot Live

Fuzzy Economics about Banggais in Tropical Fish Hobbyist Magazine

The call for a boycott on wild-caught Banggais, for me at least, goes to the heart of something about which I care deeply—the way that the marine aquarium hobby affects the socioeconomics of developing island nations.

While I am not prepared to jump on a soapbox and call foul to the whole “Boycott the Banggai Bandwagon,” I have been disheartened to hear how readily some individuals have completely dismissed the value of a sustainable trade in wild-caught Banggais for collectors and others on the supply side of the trade. A recent article in Tropical Fish Hobbyist about the Banggai situation emphatically stated the following:

Harvest of this species is not an important part of any local economy, and its trade is only supplemental at all levels. There are only about 230 fishers throughout this species' range that collect the fish, representing approximately 0.2 percent of the total human population of the area. At the current payment rate of 1 to 2.5 cents per fish (US$0.01 to 0.025), its economic value, even in a depressed region, is barely significant. It is obvious how little this species' collection helps support needy people.

It is obvious how little this species’ collection helps support needy people? Did he really just write that? Putting aside all other factors for a moment, that comment seems plain insensitive to me.

The author of the article goes on to "do the math,” claiming that 900,000 individual Banggai cardinalfish are exported yearly with a 55% mortality rate between collection and export. As such, he suggests that 1.8 million fish are collected each year, which is 7826 fish per collector per year. This, according to the author, "represents a supplemental income for each collector of between US$78 and US$195 per year."

To a western reader of Tropical Fish Hobbyist, $195—less than many aquarists spend on a single livestock purchase for their aquarium—might seem inconsequential, but let’s turn to someone with a local perspective and see what that person has to say.

To dismiss the local collection of this species as being ‘not an important part of any local economy’ betrays a lack of understanding about conditions here. It also ignores the fact that the collectors are as important to the trade as anybody else in the trade chain, including exporters, importers, and retailers…. While the hobbyists and suppliers in the demand countries may eventually manage to successfully breed this species in a way that is economically viable for them, we are concerned that even less consideration will then be given to the collectors at the supply end, or for the wild stocks. Captive breeding does not necessarily lead to conservation of the species in the wild.

To me, this point is a critical one as well over 90% of all marine aquarium fishes are wild-caught. In other words, the industry will have a connection to collectors and wild stocks at the supply end for the foreseeable future, yet this is not something we tend to talk about. In my opinion, we as an industry should be having the conversation about how our industry affects the socioeconomics of developing nations as least as much as we are so confidently recommending the boycott of a single species about which the data is fiercely debated.

But let’s put the debate about the species aside for a moment and return to the economics of it as put forth by the author of the Tropical Fish Hobbyist article. My connection on the ground in Indonesia has this to say in response to the numbers bandied about in the article:

The assertions that this trade at best provides ‘a supplemental income for each collector of between US$78 and US$195 per year.’, and that a cessation in trade would affect ‘Only a handful of people.’ are being used to justify possible trade restrictions, but from the recent information we have, would seem to be incorrect. These assertions also betray a lack of empathy for the communities for whom this trade is important, and on whom, for the time being at least, the trade in BCF largely depends. We were recently told that, for example, there are currently 30 collectors in Bone Baru, one of the collectors' villages in the Banggai area. They currently receive Rp. 350 (US$ 0.03) for each fish, and can sell up to 700 a week. This converts to 980,000 Rupiah (US$ 86.50) per month, (at 29 Jan 2009 rates), which is about US$1000 a year - significantly higher than the figure quoted above. Of course, this is still only a little under USD 3 a day, and there are a number of variables that affect the amount earned by each collector. These include irregular demand, periods of bad weather, mortality rates and so on, so the collectors' incomes are by no means guaranteed. However, for these collectors and their families, it still represents a significantly higher income than that earned by many of their fellow villagers.

To be clear, I am not advocating that everyone run out and buy a wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish. In fact, I have gone “on the record” stating that I think it is best to NOT buy wild-caught Banggais until more data is available. As I have written previously in this blog and elsewhere though, that data is being collected as we speak. Let's give it some time and support, and, in the interim, I hope we can all move forward with mutual respect while keeping the animals AND the local people in the forefront of our deliberations.

The Banggai Boycott; bluster, betrayal or benefit?

As those of you who regularly read this blog know, I have been following the call for a wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish boycott with interest. One reason I am so interested in this issue is the fact that it seems to have captured so much air time in the hobby press, and yet there seems to be little effect on the average hobbyist.

As I have written elsewhere, hobbyists appear to still be buying wild-caught Banggais, as no local fish store I have frequented recently (and I make a vocational habit of frequenting many) is carrying captive-bred Banggais, and none of those local fish stores report that they have had a single customer request captive-bred Banggais.

Yet whenever wild-caught Banggais come in, “they sell like hotcakes” (actual quotation from one store owner who himself was unaware of why selling wild-caught Banggais might be an issue).

Weird, isn’t it?

Review of National Implementation of Banggai cardinalfish Act

Gayatri (from LINI) just sent me an e-mail with long-awaited news pertaining to the Banggai situation and the November meeting in the Banggai Islands about which I have previously written here. The full report can be found on the LINI webiste.

In short, the meeting took place on November 23 and 24th in Palu. The agenda was to review program implementation on the Banggai cardinalfish, and, according to Gayatri, the meeting was well attended, including Banggai collectors and officials from the district government of the Banggai Islands, the Banggai cardinalfish committee, staff from the department of Fisheries and Marine Affairs (Jakarta), and several NGOs.

According to Gayatri, it became apparent, based on the data presented, that a more efficient chain of custody between the collector and the exporters’ facilities needs to be established. From LINI's report:

The local traders from Bone Baru, who also own two boats, are currently the main buyers of BCF. The boats brought the BCF to Tumbak, and the fish were sold to the Tumbak traders who then shipped them to Jakarta, Bali, Surabaya, and also to Singapore. The price paid to the collectors for each BCF is currently Rp. 350 (US$0.03), and the first buyers (middlemen) will sell them in Tumbak for Rp. 1,250 (US$0.11) each fish. A boat owner claimed that mortality is high during the holding of the fish in Tumbak while waiting for the local buyers in Tumbak purchase their fish. Sometimes the sellers had to wait for one week in Tumbak until the fish are sold. In order to cover the fuel costs, each trip they needed to take to take an average of 7000 fish each time.

This report, of course, is based on the notion that the trade is wild caught Banggai cardinalfish should continue, which runs counter to much of the sentiment expressed in the current hobby literature here in the States. In his article in the January 2009 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist ("Cardinal Sin"), Kieron Dodds writes: "I, myself, will forego purchase [of Banggai cardinalfish] altogether, feeling the most responsible thing is to just say 'no.'"

It boils down to this: Is the possibility of being directly responsible for the extinction of a species, and the complete ban on all imports that might follow, worth having that one species in your tank right now? I would put forth that the most responsible thing to do at the moment would be to not purchase Banggai cardinalfish at all unless you dealer can verify that it is a captive-bred individual. 

Stay tuned...

Marine Aquarists and a New Marine Monument off the Northern Marianas

Remember when President Bush declared a massive undersea area near Hawaii as a protected marine monument? That action was startling to many environmentalists who believed the President’s record on environmental issues was significantly less than stellar. But it happened, and now it may happen again.

Maybe.

A Proposed New Marine Monument off the Northern Marianas

A new marine monument in U.S. territorial waters off the Northern Marianas is currently under consideration, but too many chefs may be spoiling the soup, and the end result may be the failure to preserve and protect the full scope of the originally proposed monument.

If the land we know today as Yellowstone National Park is still understood to be the crown jewel that William Henry Jackson and Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden convinced Washington to preserve as a National Park, than the area north of Guam is certainly its underwater counterpart. This is, after all, home to the Mariana Trench—the ocean’s deepest canyon. The undersea ecosystems here are unique and largely untouched. They provide an opportunity to observe sea life in its true natural state.

President Bush’s Environmental Legacy in Jeopardy?

Preserving this area for future generations, not to mention for its intrinsic value, would certainly seal the deal in terms of establishing Mr. Bush’s environmental legacy. In fact, it would, at least on paper, make him the United States President who has officially done the most for marine ecosystems.

Democracy in all its glory is at work, however, and the White House, intent on giving all constituencies their moment to speak, is, according to sources close to the issue, reconsidering the extent of the originally proposed marine monument. For one, local officials are against the marine monument as it is viewed as yet another federal incursion (the Feds recently upped the ante on immigration policy and the minimum wage in the Islands).

Other opponents include recreational fishing groups such as the American Sportfishing Association, the military and those with an eye to the areas potential for energy development and even mining. These groups worry that a marine monument such as the one initially under consideration at the White House would preclude activities and endeavors which ought not to be precluded in an area that, after all, belongs to the taxpayers.

James Connaughton, who is taking the lead on the proposed marine monument at the White House, recently told NPR, “What we're trying to do is sort out where there are, in fact, some conflicting uses and sort out where those concerns don't actually exist.”

The reality is that the more voices that are heard, the less likely we are to see this proposed marine monument come to fruition.

Marine Aquarists and Marine Monuments; What Do We Want?

As a marine aquarist, I would like to see this area preserved.

Of course it’s easy for me to say that because, at present, this area is relatively unimportant in terms of supplying the marine aquarium industry with marine animals and organisms that cannot be collected elsewhere; it’s not like shutting down Tonga for live rock or the Revillagigedo Islands for clarion angelfishes.

But the reality is that there is currently no recreational fishing industry there. There are no military installations, no planned energy development and no mines. Yet these groups are opposing the marine monument because of either 1) what they may want to do there one day or 2) on principle.

When it comes to preserving the potential to fish recreationally, test a military invention, develop an energy source, or establish a mine in the area, I just don’t see the argument. With as much of the world’s oceans as we have already impacted through a variety of anthropogenic stressors, I cannot see how we should not leap at the opportunity to put a relatively small slice of pristine ocean off limits.

A Matter of Principle

Regarding the principle, this is a little more challenging for me. The area belongs to the government and, in turn, to every United States citizen, so shouldn’t every citizen have the right to make their case for how they want to use it? In theory, I agree, but I also believe there are times when the intrinsic value of a place should trump individual rights. It’s the same reason I adhere to a bevy of regulations that limit what I may do in National Forests where I both work and recreate frequently.

In short, as a marine aquarist, I want to see portions of the ocean preserved in as pristine a state as possible for future generations. Why? Because, as a matter of principle, I want the generations to come to not have to go to an aquarium or a natural history museum to be able to experience the majesty and wonder of the Seas.

Banggai Cardinal Update from Dr. Alejandro A. Vagelli

For a variety of reasons, the Banggai Cardinalfish issue has grabbed the attention of people from all aspects of the marine aquarium industry. As I have stated before, it is certainly not the most serious issue which faces this industry, but it is one that has received the air time. I have attempted to report on this issue over the past few months in an unbiased fashionn, presenting any and all sides of this complicated issue.

Today I want to share with you (in full--sorry it's long) the thoughts of Alejandro Vagelli, Director of Science & Conservation at the New Jersey Academy for Aquatic Sciences and Adjunct Professor in the biology department at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Alejandro e-mailed me today with the following information, and I requested his permission to share it with you. Much of this information has been shared previously in other forums, but, at the risk of redundancy, it seems appropriate to add it in full here as well. As always, I welcome any comments.

The link (below) will take you to the Live Reef Fish Bulletin, where three articles dealing with the conservation of Banggai cardinalfish were published and can be freely accessed.

I was invited to write a paper about my experience with the proposal to include the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES and its conservation status. In my paper I summarize the biological characteristics of the BC and point out their value from a biological and ecological stand point. I describe the current conservation situation of the species based on data from my last fieldwork in the Banggai Archipelago, including collecting pressure, population situation, and habitat degradation. Then, I relate in some detail what happened with the proposal, from my original recommendation until its defeat at The Hague, exposing the truth about several issues that have been intentionally misrepresented by both government officials and economic interest groups.

With regards to the other two articles dealing with Banggai conservation, I think both are particularly revealing about the truth behind the Indonesian claims of conservation actions directed to the Banggai cardinalfish before the CITES meeting (June 2007).

Also, they show, unfortunately, the official disregard about their compromise about setting a responsible management plan, as promised during the CITES meeting (Lilley was recently contracted by the local government to help to develop a management plan on Banggai cardinalfish, but to me, his paper is clear evidence of his lack of qualification for this work ). I can tell you that there is no much behind the typical big –fancy names such as “ “Banggai Marine Conservation Area Management”! , but they need to show something at the next meeting!  So they are creating now this NGO (LINI) with staff from MAC ( Mr. Lilley ‘s wife is the MAC director –or similar- in Indonesia) and will be spending resources in finding out where the BC populations are , and how they live….. !

Link: http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/18/index.htm

I will leave to you the judgment of these contrasted versions of the Banggai cardinalfish reality.  However, I want to correct (in bold) a few claims about biological aspects of BC that were published in one Mr. Lilley‘s paper:

Page 3 (intro)...because of concerns from some quarters that over-collection might lead to its extinction in the wild. Several BCF population studies point to this possibility (Kolm and Berglund 2003; Vagelli and Erdmann 2002; author’s observations) but accurate current wild population estimates are still unavailable”

Current wild populations are available and were judged accurate enough to be used by IUCN to included this species in the red list as endangered.

Page 5 According to the collectors, BCF populations occur around many of the 123 islands in the Banggai Archipelago, but there was general agreement  among collectors interviewed that these populations may be suffering from overexploitation. 

The Banggai Archipelago comprises less than half of their imaginary 123 islands. There are about 60 islands with a size of about 1 km or larger. In fact the Banggai cardinalfish occurs in only 32 islands within the entire Archipelago.

Page 6: BCF live in groups in and among coral heads, anemones, seagrass, jellyfish, and sea urchins (Fig. 4). If the reef is badly degraded or there are high levels of nitrates in the water (i.e. near dwellings, piers and raw sewage outlets), algal growth is encouraged, which in turn promotes the proliferation of black long-spined sea urchins, Diadema setosum. In areas where the coral cover has been destroyed and the reef flat is covered in algae, numerous groups of Diadema sea urchins become the main refuges for BCF

BC living with jellyfish?? (more below) High levels of nitrates? Where? Inside the Banggai harbor? Algae growth caused by nitrates, therefore leading to urchins? This may be part of a marine biology course, but is not the reality in Banggai. There is no connection between urchin use by BC and coral cover being destroyed. Urchins (together with anemones and branching corals) are substrates with which BC is naturally associated. In areas where coral cover is destroyed by dynamite, BC is absent.

The fish were also observed swimming very close to the walls of piers. In other words, it seems likely that, once the reef has been degraded and there are no more corals or seagrass in which BCF can hide, they will “make do” with hiding in the sea urchins, which proliferate when the area becomes covered in algae.

The few piers constructed in the Banggai region do not represent the natural oceanographic environment of the Banggai islands, where over 96% of the BC population is found. Evidently the author is not familiar with published work on the ecology of the species. BC rarely is found in any low cover- rubble -open area. The overwhelming majority of BC inhabit both coral reefs and seagrass beds, which are not being diminished. In fact, the largest group ever localized was found within seagrass beds associated with anemones. After that one, the largest groups were found in both seagrass and coral reef areas associated with urchins.

 Although not observed firsthand, the team was told that BCF could occur in significant numbers in association with a certain (unidentified) species of jellyfish. Because BCF have a very low capacity  for dispersal, as they do not have a pelagic larval stage, it might be that the jellyfish provide a means of dispersal for BCF by passive drifting on ocean currents. It is important to understand this and other dispersal mechanisms for species management  purposes. DNA studies (Hoffman et al. 2005) indicate significant genetic differences within BCF sub-populations, which need to be preserved for the continued well-being of the species.

Let’s assume that BC can disperse pelagically associated with the tentacles of large jellyfish!! able to drift about 30 cm off the bottom without becoming tangled in urchin spines, coral branches, seagrass leaves, etc., and that BC somehow can move away from the reef protected by the jellies (that coincidentally happen to drift where the BC are located and eager to move with them), and assume that they are able to drift with "ocean currents."  Now, how can this amazing statement be reconciled with the very next one: that DNA studies by Hoffman et al found such large genetic differences among populations (which is only possible if the populations remain isolated without gene exchange for very long periods of time)??, and how do we reconcile that assumption (which the author found credible enough to mention) with the fact that this species does not occur naturally outside the Banggai Archipelago? Can this occur because the aforementioned ocean currents taking the jellyfish loaded with BC only exist between a few very closely localized islands?

The facts are: a) large (easily seen by the naked eye) jellyfish are conspicuously absent in the Banggais (and it is hard to imagine jellies easily drifting in the shallow areas inhabited by BC).   b.) BC do not associate with planktonic jellyfish, nor with any pelagic organism. BC is a sedentary species that remains attached to benthic living substrates. They display highly developed homing behavior and never remain higher than about 1m in the water column above substrates,  but more commonly less than half of that height.

Are MPAs the Solution?

Marine protected areas (MPAs) afford a unique kind of protection to marine ecosystems. While the notion of MPAs is a well established and accepted spatial management strategy in the United States and, to a lesser degree, Europe, it is not a familiar concept in areas that boast the most tropical reef biodiversity. I’m thinking especially of Indonesia, where MPAs have, at best, a spotty track record. When it comes to the recovery of and conservation for an endangered species like the Banggai cardinalfish, some people believe MPAs (and, specifically, no-take zones), are the best approach.

In the case of the Banggai cardinalfish, and as I’ve already reported here, the local government plans to implement certification of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish for the marine aquarium trade in conjunction with establishing MPAs. Some critics of certification, however, favor MPAs as the primary management strategy, not as a adjunct to certification.

“I am in favor of the implementation of MPAs as part of a larger spatial strategy,” says Peter Rubic, a Fisheries Research Scientist with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). “New laws passed by the Indonesian government through Marine Affairs and Fisheries can allow for zoning and spatial management.” Rubic is an expert on fish habitat and conducts spatial habitat suitability modeling (HSM) for FWC. He also has a longstanding relationship with the marine aquarium industry.

Gayatri Reksodihardjo of LINI (Yayasan Alam Indonesia Lestari) agrees in principle with the MPA concept, but, in her experience, MPAs have been relatively unsuccessful in the Banggai Islands. “While there have been some small local efforts to develop MPAs in the Banggai area,” says Reksodihardjo, “these have been very small-scale, implemented mainly by villagers, but, according to the collectors, these efforts were not given any support by government or enforcement agencies, and therefore failed.”

I asked Reksodihardjo why, in her opinion, MPAs in Indonesia have not met with success.

“While in developed countries,” she responded, “the concept of MPAs is well understood, and has a basis in law, here the situation is different.”

In her experience, large scale, “official” MPAs, while they look good on paper, are frequently drawn up hastily without consulting all the stakeholders or doing adequate research. “They may have had no community support or involvement in their development,” remarks Reksodihardjo, “and there may be no part played in their management or maintenance. Then without adequate funds, expertise, human resources, or political will on behalf of those government agencies nominally responsible for enforcing the management of these MPAs, the areas will be plundered and degraded.”

For Reksodihardjo, the problem with MPAs is not the MPA in theory, rather it is the way the MPAs are often implemented. “Taking away any sense of ownership of resources from local communities is a recipe for disaster,” she believes.

So what is the answer? Reksodihardjo believes that no-take zones will need to be developed as part of an overall, data-based Banggai cardinalfish management plan. Nonetheless, she believes, it will be the communities themselves that need to be given the responsibility of simple management and enforcement of these no-take zones, with backup from government and enforcement agencies.” Reksodihardjo cautions that this is only possible if, and only if, all of the stakeholders are on the same page from the outset.

“From our experience in other areas,” Reksodihardjo says, “the coordinated stakeholder approach to resource management, with the communities themselves being directly responsible for the management of their marine resources, with government and local NGO support, is a much more viable and realistic option.”

Politics and Vagelli's Story Behind the CITES-Banggai Cardinafish Issue

In "Banggai Cardinalfish Threatened with Extinction?", I quoted Matt Pedersen who said the fish was, "on some level...recognized as endangered species." As I pointed-out in "Banggai Cardinalfish Boycott or Bluster", the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) does not see it that way. In fact, CITES said,

The information provided in the proposal to support inclusion [of the Banggai cardinalfish in CITES Appendix II] did not demonstrate a decline to criterion levels for population size. Although one subpopulation has been extirpated there was no evidence of decline in area of occurrence or number of subpopulations to criterion levels. Recent harvest levels are compatible with productivity although there are risk factors.

So why do Pedersen and others maintain that the species is endangered? A big part of it has to do with the IUCN Red List, which did, in 2007, list the Banggai cardinalfish as "Endangered." And a big part of the Banggai cardinalfish's listing on the IUCN Red List has to do with a man by the name of Alejandro A. Vagelli.

Vagelli, manager of science and conservation at the New Jersey Academy of Aquatic Sciences, is a IUCN “Coral Reef Fishes Red List Authority” and one of the leading scientific voices on the Banggai cardinalfish. His institution, The New Jersey Academy of Aquatic Sciences, plays an active role in conservation efforts, especially species survival. As the Academy's website states:

Research focuses on the study of the reproductive processes of aquatic animals to provide alternative means for breeding, or aquaculture.  Among the species the Academy studies are the jellyfish, sea ravens, gobies, and the Banggai cardinalfish.

In the 1990s, Vagelli started laboratory research on mating, embryological development, and juvenile development of the Banggai cardinalfish. In 1999, he published some of that research in Environmental Biology of Fishes.

With grants by the AZA Conservation Endowment Fund and the National Geographic Society, Vagelli was able to travel from Camden, New Jersey to the Banggai Islands, where he conducted field studies designed to estimate the size of the Banggai cardinalfish population indigenous to the area. "Should the census show a relatively small population," said an Academy spokesperson before Vagelli's field work began, "we will make a plea to the Indonesian CITES authority to put this species on CITES."

They did, and, as you already know, CITES said "no," but more on that in a bit.

According to the Academy, before Vagelli's work on the Banggai cardinalfish, only three scientific studies had been published on the species. They are:

• Kouman’s original description of the species in 1933
• an osteological study by Fraser in 1972
• Allen and Steen’s description of some of the ecological and reproductive behaviors in 1995 

During the last decade Vagelli has traveled to Indonesia to study the Banggai cardinalfish many times. His work, as has already been mentioned, was critical to the species' listing on the IUCN Red List (September 2007), and, when he failed to get CITES on board (June 2007), Vagelli went straight to the marine aquarium hobby.

Why did Vagelli go to the hobby? Because most of the negative impact on the Banggai cardinalfish is directly related to the fish's popularity in the marine aquarium hobby and habitat destruction secondary to destructive fishing techniques. Given the marine aquarium trade's impact on the species, Vagelli has chosen to actively collaborate with aquarium industry experts. This collaboration, in large part, resulted in Eric Borneman's influential and often-cited presentation at MACNA 2008, where he called for an immediate boycott on wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish (you can view the slideshow from the presentation here).

But let's back up a year and and one half to June of 2007 when the United States withdrew its proposal to list the Banggai cardinalfish on CITES' Appendix II. I have already given CITES' side of the story, but, according to Vagelli and others, there is a story behind the story. To learn about that story, I'll turn directly to Vagelli.

In July of 2007, Vagelli posted his side of the story at Marine Ornamental Fish & Invert Breeders Association (MOFIB). While the full post is required reading for anyone truly interested in the Banggai issue, I will highlight only a few salient points here.

In his post, Vagelli set out to, in his own words, "lay out the facts about the real situation of the Banggai cardinalfish, the impact of its trade in the local economy and the failure of CITES to protect this species." The gist of the Vagelli's post is that CITES' decision was based on myriad factors, least of which was the science.

...it is very disappointing to see when an organization such as CITES, that it is supposed to focus on technical/scientific data to determine the conservation status and protection needs of species, lets politics and interest groups dictate the fate of species under enormous pressure by the international trade. It is even more frustrating when, like in the case of the Banggai cardinalfish, countries and interest groups purposely use misleading information and fabricated data to easily convince other parties (who made no efforts to critically judge, either the proposal or the opposing reasons) about the inappropriateness of the proposal.

In his post, he addresses the major cited reasons for opposition to including the Banggai Cardinalfish on CITES Appendix II (including insufficient and misrepresented data, illegal research and economic impact). Vagelli concludes,

By accepting the propaganda, and by ignoring the information provided in the proposal and additional documents, as well as the supporting position of the IUCN and many conservation organizations, CITES choose to give more value to the above economic figure than to the survival of an entire species endangered by the international trade, which is more appropriately what CITES should be focusing on. This species is truly representative of the Banggai islands. It is found no place else in the world and is unique to a small number of suitable habitat patches within its range. The cultural impact of loosing this species would go way beyond the loss of economic activity associated with it. In some ways, this fish defines the identity of the region and as such has a very high intrinsic value.

In the end, a great opportunity to put in place a long-term conservation project has been lost, and consequently the Banggai coral reefs ecosystems, which are relentlessly degraded by dynamite and other destructive fishing methods, the Banggai cardinalfish, and the local people are the big losers. The CITES II listing would have encouraged the development of local aquaculture activities and would have provided needed funding to develop and enforce a sustainable management plan which would have assured not only the future of the species but long term economic benefit for the local residents from this species. As it is now, the species is at extreme risk as is its economic impact. You cannot continue to make money from something that is no longer there.

Unfortunately, nationalistic sensitivities, political pressure and various economic interests played a more influential roll in deciding the protection of the Banggai cardinalfish than the available information about the conservation status and trade of the species, and the actual position of the local people and NGO that supported the proposal.

Is the reason that CITES member nations like Australia, Japan, Thailand, Iran, and Indonesia opposed the United States proposal really because they believed the science was flawed, the research had been conducted illegally or the economic impact to local economies would be too great? Or were there other forces, as Vagelli and others maintain, at play?

Likely the truth is not quite as black and white as the Banggai cardinalfish's stunning markings (okay, admittedly it's back and silver), but the bottom line is that the future of the species hangs in the balance, and having said that, can we afford to not proceed with caution?

But how should we proceed?

Vagelli's recommendation to hobbyists as of September 2008 is clear: "I urge the hobbyist community to avoid acquiring wild capture Banggais until proper protective measures/trade regulations are in place." By "proper protective measures/trade regulations," Vagelli says he means "CITES or equivalent."

But is CITES, especially given the allegations regarding its political wranglings, the only way? While Vagelli is probably correct when he says that a CITES Appendix II listing "would have provided needed funding to develop and enforce a sustainable management plan which would have assured not only the future of the species but long term economic benefit for the local residents from this species," isn't it not true that the same ends can be achieved even without CITES? Is it not true, after all, that (as I have previously reported here) a draft management plan for the Banggai cardinalfish fishery is set to be reviewed next month (November 2008)? Is it not true that this draft management plan is the result of a series of meetings facilitated by the national government for the specific development of a comprehensive, data-based management plan? Even without the CITES listing, the Banggai fisheries district has started monitoring the harvest of Banggai cardinalfish, and the Banggai district government has established a number of marine conservation areas, which are ready to be implemented.

I don't mean to suggest that the Banggai cardinalfish should not be listed as a CITES Appendix II species, but I do believe that, in the interest of the species, we need to also look forward at the positive steps that are occurring as we all work toward a sustainable Banggai cardinalfish fishery, not to mention a sustainable and robust marine aquarium hobby.

Lots more to come, so please stay tuned.

Does LINI Support a Wild-Caught Banggai Cardinalfish Boycott?

Those of you who have been following my entries regarding the resurgance of the Banggai cardinalfish issue in the wake of Eric Borneman's call to boycott wild-caught individuals at MACNA know that I have been speaking with Gayatri Reksodihardjo of Yayasan Alam Indonesia Lestari (LINI). LINI is involved right now with creating a comprehensive management plan for the Banggai cardinalfish that will provide a sustainable trade in wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish. As such, it might appear self-evident that LINI would not support a ban or boycott on wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish, but many of you have asked me just that. Does Gayatri support Eric's call to action? When I posed this question to Gayatri, she responded with several questions of her own that help to define the scope of the issue:

Will a boycott of wild-caught BCF help the survival of species and the ecosystems in Banggai? Are these issues even under serious consideration by the traders in the buyer countries, and should they be? Whose responsibility is it anyway?

These are obviously complex issues, and the only thing upon which everyone seems to agree is tha we don't have the data, cooperation or clarity to answer any of them definitively. Nonetheless, Gayatri took a crack at it.

We are trying to understand Eric’s point of view," says Gayatri. "If only we could believe that [a boycott] would somehow act as an incentive for people to change their mindset and practices.

Gayatri wonders why, if aquarists are truly concerned with the welfare of individual species, a boycott of the trade in other species where, according to her, the exploitation levels are more alarming, is not being discussed.

Why not boycott the collection of hard corals, blue tangs, and many other highly sought-after species, she asks. "Is it because these are of much higher value, and it is still profitable to buy wild-caught rather than captive-bred or propagated?"

Point taken, but when it comes to the specific issue at hand, where does LINI come down? Does LINI support the call for an immediate boycott in the trade of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish?

"Now that this issue has attracted more attention among the traders and end-buyers worldwide, we would rather see the Indonesian end of the trade given a chance to get its house in order, as it were," says Gayatri. "In the case of the BCF, the implementation of a management plan will go a long way towards regulating trade in the Banggai area, and provide an opportunity to offer greater protection to the marine resources there. Given sufficient support and goodwill, we predict that the development of a management plan and its successful implementation, including sustainable collection practices for the BCF – with government and industry support--will then serve as a model for the future of the MO trade here in Indonesia."

As I have previously reported here, a draft management plan, according Gayatri, is expected for review in November 2008, although, as she points out, "sufficent support and goodwill" will be essential to not only completing the management plan but, more importantly, implementing it.

"If after another five years," Gayatri says, "the evidence shows that the situation overall has not improved, then by all means let us reconsider our strategy. The point is that now we have a window of opportunity to make some significant changes for the better."

Beyond supporting the sustainable trade in wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish in the interest of giving aquarists a choice between wild-caught and tank-raised individuals, LINI sees the socio-economic benefit to the people throughout the Banggai Islands as a reason to forgo a boycott.   

"An immediate boycott would cause financial hardships to the collectors, and they would lose what little incentive they currently have to protect their resources. These people are among the poorest sector of Indonesian society. They have no alternative sources of income, no assets, no savings, and most are in debt–largely to the fish buyers who loan them money and thereby force down the prices paid for the fish even lower. The current situation promotes a type of ‘economic slavery’. We predict that one impact of a boycott would be to make many of the collectors revert to the use of cyanide and bombs to catch food fish. This would work directly against the development of any management plan."

Banggai Cardinal Fish Threatened with Extinction?

I was chatting with Matt Pedersen the other day about the Banggai cardinalfish situation and sustainable collection and export practices at the local level. We both agreed that a well-managed, sustainable trade in wild-caught BCF was appropriate, but, as Matt warned, “What stands in the way is that wild-caught Banggais are probably not really being 'fair traded', or at the very least, they are so inexpensive that captive-bred fish cannot compete.” Matt's concern is that such a situation is, as he puts it, “wrong with a fish that has low fecundity and on some level HAS officially been recognized as an endangered species.”

But wait. Didn’t I write in Banggai Cardinalfish Boycott or Bluster? that it had been determined that “the species did not meet the biological criteria for Appendix II listing” according to CITES? Doesn’t that mean that, as the criteria for Appendix II listing states, the Banggai cardinalfish does NOT need to “be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival”? So how can Matt say that the species has “officially been recognized as an endangered species”? I’m so confused.

Here’s the deal. Matt was referring to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUNC) Red List of Threatened Animals which lists the Banggai cardinalfish as “endangered.” So what is the IUNC Red List? To quote directly from the Union’s website:

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species provides taxonomic, conservation status and distribution information on taxa that have been globally evaluated using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. This system is designed to determine the relative risk of extinction, and the main purpose of the IUCN Red List is to catalogue and highlight those taxa that are facing a higher risk of global extinction (i.e. those listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable).

So yes, as Matt reminded me, the Banggai cardinalfish “on some level HAS officially been recognized as an endangered species.” So then why would CITES turn around and say that this animal should not receive the protection that Appendix II provides? The answer to that question is either simply that CITES did not accept the data upon which the IUCN based their listing or…

…well it’s a BIG or, and it opens up a whole other can of worms (and I’m talking a can of big pink polychaetes worms), which I will leave to another entry. Suffice it to say that it may have something to do with politics, international law and “Vagelli, A.,” a “Coral Reef Fishes Red List Authority” and one of the leading researchers on the Banggai cardinalfish.

Stay tuned.

Banggai Cardinalfish Update from the Field

Gayatri Reksodihardjo e-mailed me the other day about my 22 September blog entry regarding the Banngai cardinalfish (BCF) which calls for a boycott of wild-caught BCF from within the industry. For those who don’t know, Gayatri is with Yayasan Alam Indonesia Lestari (LINI), a local Indonesian not-for-profit organization established in January 2008. LINI’s mission is “to support the conservation and management of coastal marine resources throughout Indonesia, by empowering coastal communities, and promoting fairer, more sustainable practices of marine resource use.” Staffed by individuals who originally worked for the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC), LINI encourages the marine aquarium industry to adopt the MAC standards and implement best practices towards eventual certification (MAC International now focuses solely on certification).

While funds for BCF work have been slow to come from the local government due to local politics and administrative restructuring in the Banggai district, LINI is moving forward with the goal of “a win-win situation” according to Gayatri. “The government supports the plan to implement certification of wild-caught Banggai cardinalfish for the marine aquarium trade, and LINI will support the government in providing the necessary training for eventual certification.” Gayatri says the long-term goal is to encourage captive breeding in buyer countries while focusing on capacity building at the supply side.

“We strongly believe that buyers need to be able to make more informed choices about the organisms they buy,” says Gayatri. “We think that it is still important to have wild-caught fish on the market that have been caught in well-managed sites, using best practices.”

Of course this only works when sites are well managed and everyone involved in collection, holding and export is using best practices. This is currently not the case in the Banggai Islands when it comes to the Banggai cardinalfish, but LINI is working hard to change that. Gayatri reports the following recent accomplishments of which aquarists and industry insiders should be aware:

·         A series of meetings were facilitated by the national government for the development of a Banggai Cardinal Fish Management Plan. The draft plan is expected to be reviewed in November 2008.

·         The Banggai fisheries district has started monitoring the harvest of BCF from the Banggai area. Six months’ worth of harvest data have now been collected, and a review of the harvest figures and potential quotas will be conducted toward the end of this year. These data will be used as one of the key tools when reviewing the management plan of the area.

·         The Banggai district government established a number of marine conservation areas in 2007. These will need to be fully implemented with the full understanding and support of the local communities.

·         A population survey assessment for BCF populations outside the Banggai Islands will be conducted later this year. Populations in Bali, for example, could provide another significant alternative source of good quality wild-caught fish if properly managed.

·         The BCF will be the flagship species for the trade here in Indonesia, and the current work on the species will provide a model for the development of management plans for other highlighted species of marine aquarium fishes.

There is obviously a lot more to report, but this is latest from Banggai. I have expressed to Gayatri that I am committed to presenting information from the field through a variety of outlets, but I hope to always publish here first. I firmly believe the Banggai cardinalfish situation is an important and timely one that, in many ways, is a microcosm of the broader industry. With transparency, honest communication and constructive collaboration between all stakeholders from hobbyists to collectors we can use this microcosm as a place to test, observe and tweak strategies that may then be adopted industry-wide.

As I’ve said before (and I’m sure I’ll say again), this is a complex issue, and various stakeholders have strong opinions based on their unique perspectives. As such, I welcome all comments. Whether or not you agree with LINI’s approach or support MAC, I think we can all agree a win-win situation is in everyone’s best interest.

Defining what a win-win looks like in both the short- and long-term is the trick, now isn’t it?