The following essay was published by the ECOTECH E-Mail Conference, UNESCO, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (September 1994).
INTEGRATED CONSERVATION STRATEGIES:
THE EXAMPLE OF CYANIDE FISH COLLECTION IN THE PHILIPPINES
Howard Latin, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark,
N.J. 07102, PH: 212-966-1911; FAX: 973-353-1445;
latin@andromeda.rutgers.edu
ABSTRACT: The dominant approach to conservation of endangered ecosystems and species,
reliance on international environmental treaties and national conservation laws, is consistently
failing. Instead, we must devise integrated conservation strategies combining environmental
laws with education, political organizing, economic assistance and incentives mechanisms to
reward ecologically benign behavior, and economic disincentives or legal sanctions to penalize
destructive behavior. The practice of cyanide fish collecting in the Philippines is used to
illustrate the need for adoption of integrated conservation programs.
I. GENERAL THEMES
My research on implementation of international environmental law (IEL) may be
summarized using several broad themes:
(A) Inadequate implementation of international environmental treaties and national conservation
laws is pervasive, more the norm than the exception. Environmental protection inherently is a
difficult, expensive undertaking, and virtually all developing states lack scientific knowledge,
managerial expertise, financial support, administrative frameworks, and political commitments
needed for implementation of effective conservation measures. Developed nations often ignore
or underfund their environmental protection programs to facilitate economic growth or reduce
administrative burdens.
(B) The current conservation-by-legal-fiat approach puts unrealistic emphasis on legal
obligations and devotes inadequate attention to other conservation requirements. Environmental
law by itself is clearly too frail a mechanism to accomplish the profound changes in social and
economic behavior required to ensure protection of endangered ecosystems and species.
(C) Effective conservation programs must INTEGRATE educational campaigns, scientific
research, property rights and new entitlement laws, economic assistance and incentives measures
to make conservation "profitable" for affected populations, and economic disincentives or legal
sanctions to curtail harmful activities. Aspirations for economic prosperity are the main engines
driving global ecological degradation, and conservationists must therefore find ways to persuade
affected peoples that natural systems are worth more to them alive than dead.
Laws designed to support these other types of integrated conservation measures are likely to prove more
successful than laws meant to serve as the primary means for environmental protection.
Most environmentalists know that better education, research, and economic assistance are
essential for conservation efforts; and NGOs have conducted many grass-roots campaigns to
empower local populations threatened by ecological degradation. There is, however, much less
recognition that these elements must be combined with environmental laws into integrated
strategies aimed at protecting selected natural features. Conservation laws cannot succeed when
affected peoples do not understand the benefits of environmental protection. Education can
seldom attain the desired behavioral modifications when the target populations lack viable
economic alternatives-- most people will not let their families starve to save trees or tigers,
whatever laws or education campaigns may say. Education also cannot eliminate selfish or
uncooperative behavior that often frustrates a local consensus on the need for conservation.
Economic assistance and incentive mechanisms can seldom work without property or entitlement
laws enabling people who conserve natural resources to capture the benefits of their efforts.
Given limited financial support available for conservation programs, economic incentives may
fail to create sufficient inducements unless supplemented by economic disincentives and legal
sanctions to deter harmful practices. I cannot emphasize too strongly the value of combining
these various elements into integrated conservation strategies. Previous attempts to achieve one
or another of these functions have often failed because of inattention to, or the inability to
achieve, other essential elements.
II. CYANIDE USE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Cyanide use for aquarium fish collection provides a vivid
example of the need for integrated conservation strategies. Entrapment of ornamental
fish for the private aquarium trade has led to extensive degradation of Philippine reefs (Yap & Gomez) and localized damage in
Indonesia, Mexico, Hawaii, and other areas (Golden, Watson). More than 2500 Philippine
fishermen use cyanide poison to stun fish and make collection easier, which increases short-term catches of desired species but
irreversibly damages the reefs, reduces overall fish populations, and impairs the
coastal region's ecological vitality and capacity to support subsistence-level activities. Cyanide is harmful not only because of its
direct effects but because it undermines the capacity of reefs to recover from intermittent stresses caused by sedimentation, pollution, and
other degradation sources. This practice has been a major cause (though not the
only one) of the rapid decline of Philippine reefs, which only two decades ago were among the most prolific in the world.
In the Philippines, the world's largest exporter of ornamental aquarium fish, the "[u]se of sodium cyanide to collect marine aquarium
fishes is illegal but widespread." (Pajaro, 1992a) In 1990, the Haribon Foundation
for Conservation of Natural Resources, a leading Philippine NGO, began an ambitious effort to persuade aquarium fish collectors to
switch from cyanide to reliance on fine-mesh nets. This project, with support from a
Canadian NGO, Ocean Voice International (OVI), other NGOs, several marine scientists, and government officials, was based on the
realistic view that retraining fish collectors to use nets would not be sufficient by itself.
The project combined net training with community organization efforts, creation of collectives or associations to increase community
profits from fishing activities, education about basic ecological processes (McAllister
& Ansula), designation of marine reserve areas following the research findings of Professor Angel Alcala (Alcala), and increased
cooperation with law enforcement officials to deter illegal collection methods. The Haribon
project staff taught a group of former cyanide users to become proficient net users and a cadre of community organizers to help village
populations control destructive practices. The trainers and organizers were then sent
to live in or visit consenting villages on a rotating basis. The trainers taught fishermen how to use more protective netting methods
and shared in their daily work activities. The organizers taught villagers
about the value of sustainable development and tried to involve the entire community
in the fish collection and marketing process. The scientists provided ecological education about the value of eliminating cyanide
use and setting aside some marine reserves to replenish fish stocks.
Despite these ambitious and relatively expensive efforts, Haribon found that of 279 trainees monitored, only "27.8% were converted to
net users, while a majority persisted in using cyanide." Although many users claimed
they had reduced reliance on cyanide poison, the Haribon report concluded "only when they can catch more and, therefore, earn more will
they use the nets." (Pajaro, 1992a) Haribon's chief scientist told me that considerable
backsliding occurred since their monitoring results were obtained (Pajaro, 1992b)--this kind of backsliding is probably inevitable when
some resource exploiters retain what is perceived as an unfair advantage by continuing
to use ecologically harmful practices. The Haribon report concluded:
Full conversion of cyanide users can only be assured when the whole of those in the aquarium industry including the collectors, the managers or middlemen, the importers, the hobbyists, the foreign suppliers of cyanide, law enforcers and the government [are] involved in the process of change. . . . The documented experiences tell us that problems affecting solutions are not purely technical and, hence, require solutions involving a combination of social, economic and scientific strategies. (Pajaro, 1992a)
Another important aspect of the problem arises from the fact
that aquarium fish buyers in the Philippines are often the same people who sell cyanide
pellets to the fishermen. Some middlemen have been unwilling to purchase the catches of collectors who stop using cyanide because
cyanide sales are more profitable than fish sales from the entrepreneur's perspective.
(Spiller, McAllister) The ability of middlemen to condition ornamental fish purchases on sales of cyanide suggests that the village
cooperatives have not been successful in providing alternative marketing channels for
many fishermen.
The Haribon project was more broadly conceived and better supported than most Third World conservation initiatives: It addressed the
cyanide poison problem from a variety of perspectives including education, law, and
community organization, and it tried to provide economic incentives for less harmful practices. Yet, the inability (or inadequate
attempts) to control the actions of non-cooperators undermined the efforts expended to
encourage good behavior. Indeed, the Haribon report recognized that meaningful changes in aquarium fish collection methods
require economic incentives for protective actions and economic disincentives for harmful
practices: "Incentives for aquarium fish collectors who have converted [to] using nets [are] needed. A mechanism of issuance of
permits and licenses only to certified non-cyanide gatherers should be formulated.
Higher prices should be offered to those who exerted effort to collect fishes [through] seemingly harder but
environmentally- safe means." (Pajaro, 1992a) Unfortunately, the project did not possess
the financial or government support needed to impose effective constraints on cyanide
poison users and the Philippine businessmen who enable and encourage this practice.
Should the Haribon Foundation project be regarded as a failure or a limited success? The educational and community organization
components may provide some long-term benefits for some villagers, and cyanide use
may have been reduced to some extent. One OVI leader sent me an e-mail message claiming that backsliders use less cyanide than they
previously did. (McAllister) This response illustrates an unfortunate tendency to
believe that progress has occurred if "conditions would have been even worse" without the conservation efforts being assessed. The
proper test is whether the threatened ecosystem or species has been protected against
substantial further degradation, and I have seen no claims that damage to Philippine reefs from cyanide use has been arrested or even
significantly slowed. Given countless ecological degradation problems and comparatively
limited support for conservation programs, we cannot afford to invest our scarce environmental protection resources in projects where
the conclusion is: "The operation was successful, but the patient died."
III. POSSIBLE DISINCENTIVE MEASURES
BANNING THE ACTIVITY--From a purely environmental
perspective, the ideal solution to the cyanide poison problem would be to abandon
the private aquarium trade entirely because even "safe" collection practices entail
damage to marine ecosystems. The netting alternative is certain to lead to many harmful scrapes and collisions with vulnerable reef
structures, especially if fish collectors continue to be paid on a piece-work basis,
and netting could also reduce the breeding stock for some ecologically important species. From an implementation viewpoint, a
complete ban may also be more administrable than trying to regulate specific collection
methods. However, if a ban on aquarium fish collection is enforced, it would deprive thousands of Filipinos of their livelihoods and
may force them to engage in even more destructive forms of resource exploitation.
One e-mail respondent noted that after the Philippine Island of Palawan "was closed to fish collecting due to the use of
cyanide, "there was a marked increase in the use of dynamite to collect food fish.
This practice has destroyed more reef than 10 years of cyanide use could." (Greco)
Any conservation approach that seeks to make conservation profitable for affected populations will require difficult compromises
between economic and ecological considerations. In most contexts, the realistic choice is
between competing modes of exploitation, not between exploitation and nature preservation excluding all human uses. Before the necessary
hard choices can be made, we must first acknowledge that conservation-by-legal-fiat and
conservation- by-education usually cannot be successful by themselves.
SELECTIVE EXPORT RESTRICTIONS--The Haribon Foundation suggested granting export licenses only to wholesalers who purchase fish
collected by nets. In order for this approach to work, there must be a cyanide
test or some other means to determine which fish have been properly caught. One OVI
leader, in contrast, wrote: "Testing in our view is socially undesirable at the moment, because it takes time to train collectors.
What do they and their families do in the meantime?" (McAllister) This comment was
made at least two years after the Haribon project began. While the OVI view evinces empathy for cyanide fish collectors, it denies
the lesson that economic or social disincentives are necessary to induce many of the
collectors to give up destructive practices. Experience from the Haribon project indicates that many collectors will not adopt nets,
which are less profitable and less convenient to use, as long as they are not compelled
to do so.
AQUACULTURE OR FISH RANCHING--I have had several conversations with Dr. Daphne Foutin, a leading expert on clown
anemonefish, about how to devise fish collection practices that would reduce the related
ecological damage. After attending the Fifth Marine Aquarium Conference of North
America in September, 1993, Dr. Foutin reported that there "is no real justification
for field collection of anemonefishes . . . since all species, I learned, have been successfully bred in captivity." She also noted
that "putting cinder blocks on sand for fish larvae to settle in . . . certainly has
potential--experimental reef ichthyologists have been putting out cinder blocks to assess larval density for years." Yet, Dr. Foutin
concluded that "nobody [at the Conference] knew of anyone--now or ever--who has tried to 'ranch' reef fish."
(Foutin) Disparate tropical species would require different aquaculture or ranching
procedures, but any initiatives in this area must entail far more money and effort than necessary to collect ornamental fish from the
wild using ecologically harmful practices. The simple reason why no one has tried to
"ranch" reef fish, to use Dr. Foutin's expression, is because reaping or raping natural reefs is cheaper for the exploiters. Thus,
the failure to implement effective economic disincentives or legal sanctions would surely
render fish raising operations economically infeasible. Moreover, if the operations were conducted in laboratories in developed
nations or even in locations in developing nations removed from the coastal regions, these
activities will not provide positive inducements for people to protect the reefs. Substituting aquaculture or related procedures for
cyanide fish collection without involving the former collectors may, as with a ban on
collection, simply induce affected collectors to shift to more destructive activities. Any aquaculture project that excludes fish
collectors from the benefits may also induce those fishermen to adopt more harmful collection
methods to reduce their prices and retain their market share. The central problem here is not one of technology, but rather of
economics: prices for ornamental fish almost never incorporate environmental
externalities and hence few market opportunities exist for ecologically preferable but more
expensive practices.
IMPORT RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER DEMAND-ORIENTED MEASURES--If the Philippines did implement an effective program to reduce the impacts
associated with cyanide fish collection, a likely consequence is that their collectors,
middlemen, and exporters would lose sales and market share to collection activities in developing states that do not impose
conservation measures. I have observed aquarium fish collection using poisons in
Indonesia, and believe it is a problem in Palau and other tropical locations. As travel
and communications facilities improve and as aspirations for development increase in Third World nations, the dangers of international
competition creating an environmental "race to the bottom" will grow commensurately.
Unfortunately, Philippine problems with illegal fish collection, logging, and trade in endangered species may not be amenable to purely
Philippine solutions as long as resource exploitation and conservation values are
affected by international conditions.
Even in the absence of international competition considerations, imposing import restrictions or disclosure requirements on businesses
in developed states that facilitate the billion-dollar market for ornamental fish may
be more effective than controls applied exclusively on the supply-side of ecologically harmful practices. The recent dolphin/tuna
controversy and the largely successful American regulatory response offers an applicable
analogy. I believe the Haribon project did not devote enough attention to bringing demand-based environmentalist pressures to bear on
Philippine exporters, and it is doubtful their project could succeed in the long run
if they cannot promote either regulatory controls or voluntary industry self-regulation in the importing nations.
CONCLUSION
I attribute the lack of success of the Haribon project directly to its inability to control the profitable but ecologically harmful
behavior of many "hold outs," collectors who refused to follow the retraining program
and the middlemen who enabled this non-participation. In the absence of economic disincentives or enforceable legal sanctions to
limit destructive collection practices on "free" reefs, educational campaigns and economic
incentive programs were almost certain to fail. I believe this failure was predictable, and perhaps preventable, because the Haribon
project did not implement measures embodying all necessary elements in an integrated
conservation strategy.
The concept of integrated conservation strategies should be
viewed as a template rather than a detailed program because the ecological, economic,
and social characteristics of environmental protection issues vary widely and appropriate remedies must be comparably varied.
Nevertheless, each element--law, environmental entitlements, education, economic
incentives and disincentives, legal or social sanctions--has inherent weaknesses and
will generally function more effectively in combination with the other components than by itself.
This paper has only presented a brief sketch of the characteristics and benefits of integrated conservation strategies. They will
surely be difficult and expensive to implement in most biodiversity protection settings. In many important contexts they may be impossible
to accomplish successfully. And in other contexts the administrative burdens, political
opposition, and opportunity-costs will be extremely high. Yet, it is time to acknowledge that worldwide conservation failures have been
very common while lasting successes are quite rare under conventional approaches. We
must also recognize that over-reliance on hortatory legal pronouncements is wasting scarce conservation resources and precious time.
I believe integrated conservation strategies are essential not because they will be
easy to implement, but because in most environmental contexts long-term ecosystem and species protection is not going to happen any
other way.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
1. Alcala, A. (1988) The effect of marine reserves on coral fish abundances and yields of Philippine coral reefs. Ambio (17)
No.3, 194-99.
2. Foutin, D. (September 17, 1993) Letter to author from Dr. Daphne Foutin, Kansas Geological Survey.
3. Golden (1991) Reef raiders: fish trappers learn to live without cyanide and dynamite while stalking america's favorite pets.
Sea Frontiers (37) 22-27.
4. Greco, F. (January 27, 1994) E-mail letter to the author from Mr. Frank M. Greco.
5. McAllister, D. (February 8, 1994) E-mail letter to author from Mr. Don E. McAllister, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, and
President, Ocean Voice International.
6. McAllister, D. & A. Ansuna (1993) Save Our Coral Reefs: A Coral Reef
Care Manual for the Philippines and Neighboring Seas.
7. Pajaro, M. (1992a) Alternatives to sodium cyanide use in aquarium fish collection: a community-based approach. In press.
Proceedings of the 7th Int'l Coral Reef Symposium (Guam: 1994)
8. Pajaro, M. (1992b) Conversation between the author and Maravic Pajaro of
the Haribon Foundation, 7th
International Coral Reef Symposium, Guam, June 23, 1992.
9. Spiller, G. (July-Sept. 1993) Sustainable livelihood
alternatives for coral divers in the Philippines. Sea Wind (7) No.3, 2-6.
10. Watson (November 1991) Fish under the volcanoes. Freshwater and Marine Aquarium (14) 176-78.
11. Yap, H. & E. Gomez (1985) Coral reef degradation and pollution in the East Asian seas region. Environment and Resources in the
Pacific (UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies) (4) 184-207.