About Us Contact Us Photo Gallery Testimonials Screen Savers Home
         
EcoVitality

Combining Conservation and Development in Poor Countries		       

 

THE CYANIDE-USE PROBLEM: The Philippines and Indonesia are among the world's largest exporters of ornamental marine fish for the private aquarium trade. Many fish collectors in these countries employ cyanide to stun tropical fish, making collection easier, but widespread cyanide application damages coral reefs and marine ecosystems and threatens subsistence food sources for the nearby population. International NGOs have been trying for more than a decade to persuade fish collectors that they should use nets instead of cyanide, but cyanide use has been spreading to Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and other poor Pacific-rim coastal nations.

Cyanide use for fish collection is entirely driven by market economics, specifically by providing competitive advantages in terms of cheaper "production and supply" costs.  Cyanide use does not entail any historical traditions or religious affiliations in poor coastal regions--it is exclusive a result of increased profits for industry firms and middlemen who do not care about the externalized social and ecological harm they are causing.  Many fish collectors trained in net use become "backsliders" who resumed using cyanide because they could catch more fish and make more money for a given level of effort. Aquarium fish collection using cyanide is a classic "Tragedy of the Commons:"  Why should any fisherman make personal sacrifices to protect a marine ecosystem when his neighbor can earn more money with less difficulty by continuing to rely on destructive practices?  Cyanide fishing has been illegal in the Philippines and Indonesia for many years, but that illegal status has not made any real difference in the continuing use of cyanide for fish collection. The only US-based for-profit business established to import only net-caught fish from areas where cyanide is used failed to overcome the economic advantages of cyanide use and eventually was forced into bankruptcy.  The bottom line is that it remains considerably more profitable to catch aquarium fish in an ecologically harmful manner than in an environmentally safe way, and no amount of education or training has been able to change that simple reality. 

ECOVITALITY'S GOODFISH PROGRAM: EcoVitality planned to combat cyanide contamination by adopting two complementary approaches:  (1)  increase the profitability of using nets rather than cyanide for aquarium fish collection, and (2) concurrently decrease the profitability of cyanide- contaminated fish sales in wealthy consumer nations.  For an earlier discussion by EcoVitality's President of the need for concurrent positive and negative economic incentives to combat the cyanide problem, read this 1994 paper.  In an effort to increase the rewards for net use, two years ago we opened the GoodFish importing and wholesale facility in San Jose, CA, to market only cyanide-free fish and thereby to improve the prices poor coastal fish collectors would get for using nets instead of cyanide.  After operating the GoodFish facility for nearly two years, at a cost of close to $100,000, the GoosFish Program was forced to shut down its operations due to persistent losses resulting from competitive market disadvantages.  The cost of cyanide-free fish from reliable sources was substantially higher than the cost of cyanide-contaminated fish sold by other wholesale operations, and we could not enlist sufficient retail dealers willing to pay higher prices for healthier and ecologically preferable fish. The aquarium industry is extremely price-sensitive and, despite a lot of anti-cyanide rhetoric, very few dealers were willing to pay higher prices for cyanide-free fish.  This was the heart of the GoodFish Program's problems, dealers would not pay for healthier but more expensive fish taken using less environmentally destructive methods.  Our marketing problems  were exaccerbated by the 9/11 terrorist attack and its aftermath.  After 9/11, local California retail dealers reduced their purchase from GiidFish because of concerns about the looming recession, and we were prevented from shipping fish around the U.S. because of new security-oriented air cargo restrictions imposed by the FAA. After two years of financial losses, it became clear (in retrospect) that the GoodFish program could not successfully sell cyanide-free fish until AFTER the marketability and profitability of cyanide-contaminated fish are reduced in the U.S. and other consumer nations.

In 1999, we wrote the following optimistic paragraph reflecting our GoodFish Program emphasis on creating positive economic incentives for cyanide-free fish: "We believe many purchasers, both retail stores and individual buyers, would be willing to pay a little more in return for our focus on avoiding cyanide contamination.  And we also believe many aquarium keepers may choose to contribute to a realistic plan that will substantially reduce cyanide use if we are able to implement our program effectively.  Thus, we expect our marketing of cyanide-free fish will set an industry standard that many buyers will insist other operations must meet as well."  We were WRONG!!!  There are now a couple of market-incentive-based fish certification programs that are making the same fundamental assumptions, and we believe they are also likely to fail unless the profitability of cyanide-use can be significantly reduced.  That is the direction EcoVitality's anti-cyanide program is now focusing on.

With regard to reducing the profitability of cyanide-contaminated fish sales, this is a battle that must ultimately be fought in the wealthy consumer nations.  Many aquarium owners already know cyanide has harmful effects on marine ecosystems and cyanide contamination reduces the life expectancy of aquarium fish, thereby costing them money in the long run. The problem is to prohibit the sale of contaminated fish through legal measures or to deter sales through information disclosure enabling buyers to choose the safer, healthier fish.  To achieve this goal, EcoVitality  plans to undertake a series of aggressive legal and publicity measures:

STEP 1:  Two years ago, we submitted a Freedom of Information request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service asking for copies of all import permits for tropical fish shipped into west coast ports during the previous year. The FWS has  devised record-keeping procedures that make it really difficult for anyone to discover which companies are importing how much fish from which countries.   Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine a less informative record- keeping system for wildlife importing licenses.  We were nevertheless able to get some idea of the commercial fish-importation activity.   Now we must find ways to induce the FWS to obtain more useful information on potentially illegal imports, and then to take more aggressive action to ascertain which imports are in fact illegal.

The federal Lacey Act prohibits importation into the US of any wildlife product taken in violation of the laws of the originating country. This Act was adopted precisely to help control the destructive wildlife trade in settings where the environmental laws of originating states could not be enforced in those nations.  The Philippines has been a prime example of this gap between idealized formal written laws and non- compliance in practice.  When we received the FWS response to our Freedom of Information inquiry, an aide to the FWS Chief of Enforcement offered to describe the two FWS Lacey Act prosecutions in the area of cyanide contamination:   Only two Lacey Act cases brought by FWS in more than 20  years of illegal cyanide use is hardly a record to be proud of.  There are various reasons for persistent FWS passivity despite its Lacey Act mandate, including recent budget and personnel restrictions, but the foremost reason is the adage: "The squeaky wheel gets the grease!"  Not enough people have been squeaking on behalf of the victims of cyanide fish contamination.

We intend to encourage FWS to begin enforcing the Lacey Act in the cyanide-fish context.  To do this, we will probably threaten to sue them not because they have consistently been violating their statutory mandate, which happens all the time, but rather because they have knowingly been perpetuating a multi-million dollar annual fraud on American consumers by allowing cyanide-contaminated fish imports to be sold in the US without randomly testing the fish for contamination or adopting any other preventive measures.  FWS has been letting contaminated imports in without any inspection despite their knowledge of the cyanide problem and despite the desire of  aquarium owners to avoid buying cyanide-contaminated fish.  We may start by finding a producer from 60 Minutes, 20/20, or a similar program to interview the FWS Director and ask for an explanation of this passivity in the face of a known, on-going fraud against American aquarium owners.  We will also contact several Senators and Representatives who are on the appropriate committees and ask them to question the FWS Director about the Agency's continuing indifference both to the fraud against American consumers and the environmental damage resulting from FWS violation of the Lacey Act.   We believe this pressure will bring about a change in FWS policy, with more active oversight of aquarium fish imports.

STEP 2:  If the FWS agrees to cooperate with us, to test fish imports for cyanide contamination on a reasonably frequent basis, and to enforce the Lacey Act against partially contaminated fish shipments, as the Agency should have been doing for years, we will help publicize their new enforcement efforts in a positive light.  Will this approach persuade FWS to begin meeting its statutory mandates?  We believe FWS may respond to public and media pressure. If not, we will initiate a real lawsuit against them.  If FWS does begin to enforce the Lacey Act provisions, even if imperfectly, that will make a major change in the economics of aquarium fish importation because large shipments would be denied access to the American market if some of the fish are found to be contaminated.  EcoVitality will be helping and encouraging FWS inspectors to do more rather than less.

STEP 3:  Because EcoVitality has been a seller of net-caught, cyanide-free aquarium fish, we may be able to sue other ornamental fish importers and wholesalers on the grounds of "unfair competition" if they market cyanide-contaminated fish without disclosing the fact of contamination to potential purchasers. Because no consumer wants to buy cyanide-contaminated fish, it is certain that the courts will find illegal practices when the importing and wholesale enterprises are proven (this is the hard, but not impossible, part) to be dealing in cyanide-contaminated fish without disclosing this "material information" to prospective purchasers.   Moreover, if they are selling contaminated fish while claiming ignorance of the problem, the courts will question whether these importers have taken adequate measures to protect the public against a known fraud.  The importers and wholesalers will not be able to adopt a "see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil" passive approach in light of the long and well-known history of cyanide contamination within the industry.

STEP 4:  If importers and wholesalers know (or should know) they have been selling substandard merchandise and nonetheless continue without adequate inspection on the basis that they did not contaminate the fish themselves, this behavior is just as much of a fraud against consumers as any deliberate attempt to sell defective goods. Through EcoVitality ads in aquarium magazines and other means, we will offer to provide free cyanide tests for consumers AFTER they have purchased ostensibly cyanide-free fish:   Indeed, we believe all aquarium- and pet-stores now assure prospective customers that they are not selling contaminated fish. 

The fundamental aim of STEPS 1-4 is to make selling cyanide-contaminated fish in the US so potentially risky, difficult, and unprofitable that importers, wholesalers, and retailers will begin DEMANDING net-caught fish and rejecting contaminated fish.  They will begin investing a little money in testing or quarantining randomly selected fish to ensure shipments are free of contaminated fish.  They would let the suppliers know they will refuse payment and cancel contracts if contaminated fish are found.   If future shipments of cyanide-fish may be banned by the FWS (not all will be), if dealers that buy the shipments may be sued for unfair competition and fraud (not all will be), and if wholesale distributors will be at risk of fraud suits with high legal costs when they sell cyanide-contaminated fish (let them prove they could not have known about the contamination), commercial traffic in cyanide-contaminated fish in the US is going to be far less profitable and reliable. 

We are not yet sure whether Europe has environmental protection laws equivalent to the Lacey Act, but they certainly do have unfair competition and fraud laws.  If the EcoVitality strategy proves successful in the United States, the largest market for imported tropical aquarium fish, we should have little difficulty in establishing European legal contacts that would be interested in supporting the same kind of approach in European Union countries.

The EcoVitality anti-cyanide strategy now is to decrease the profitability of cyanide use.  Other, better-funded NGOs can try to increase the profitability of sustainable fish collection through market incentive measures, but we do not believe these programs can succeed without initiatives like ours that reduce the profitability of cyanide-using enterprises.  Both dimensions require the availability of reliable (for litigation) scientific tests for cyanide contamination.   Because cyanide testing is an integral requirement of our approach, we are now looking for particularly sensitive and dependable tests.  This is our highest priority at the moment.

All text and photos on this web site are the intellectual property of EcoVitality and
all rights are reserved unless otherwise stated.   Contact us for reuse permission.