Editor:
Neil A. Sims, Black Pearls Inc., P.O. Box 525, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725,
USA
Phone: +1 808 3256516; Fax: +1 808 3253425
Email: nasims@aloha.net
Production:
Information Section, Marine Resources Division, SPC, PO BOX D5,
98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia
Fax (687) 263818); Email: cfpinfo@spc.org.nc.
Prepared with financial assistance from France.
|
Note from the editor
We have recently had the pleasure of travelling
through several of the Pacific Island countries, looking at joint-venture
development opportunities for pearl culture within the Small Island
States on behalf of the Forum Secretariat. Part of this work involved
examination of various tax and investment regimes, as they apply to
pearl culture. The results were surprising for the dramatic differences
in receptivity to foreign investment expressed in the different countries
codes. These ranged from an outright ban on any foreign ownership in
any pearl culture-related enterprise in one country, attempting to protect
local ownership in existing farms, to attractive tax incentives in island
countries seeking to jump-start outer island economies (have you noticed
the price of copra lately?). There were also many countries that seemed
lost in the muddle in between.
The conflicting attitudes to foreign investment
were perhaps best exemplified in a draft fisheries development plan
that we recently offered comments on, for a country with a nascent industry.
The plan called for foreign investment to help get pearl culture moving,
but stated the express intention, once the industry was up and running,
of eliminating all foreign ownership and turning pearl culture over
to exclusively local ownership. This seems hardly a persuasive argument
for someone to plonk his money down!
We must, of course, declare an interest here: we
are intimately involved in the argument, with our Marshall Islands subsidiary
being largely financed by overseas investment. We are ourselves an overseas
partner in this and other ventures. So it is not appropriate for
us, or for anybody else, to tell any Pacific Island nation how they
should develop their pearl culture industry. It is not appropriate for
anyone to tell any prospective farmer in the Pacific how he should raise
his capital. It is, most definitely, his own business.
Foreign investment is a double-edged sword, and
is not always needed. French Polynesia and the Cook Islands have both
been able to bootstrap their pearl farming operations, with extended
family co-operatives using spat collectors to raise farm stocks. Spat
collecting may also work in some open reef areas of the Pacific (note
the recent work in Solomon Islands by the ICLARM-CAC), and farming there
may follow a low-capital, labour-intensive path.
However, where hatcheries or other capital-intensive
investments are needed, then foreign investment is a logical source
to tap. There simply is not enough capital available in the Pacific
Islands to warrant its venturing this far out on the risk-to-return
scale.
Finding investment is perhaps a little like fishing:
you have to be in the right place at the right time, and you have to
have good fresh bait. Prospective farmers that are seeking foreign investment
should therefore make sure that they know what precisely is offered
in the tax and investment codes in their countries (and in their competitors).
Who would an interested investor first contact? Where would they be
steered towards? What tax, duty, or other breaks are offered? Are there
supporting, binding documents to this effect? The desire for foreign
investment and/or technical assistance in pearl culture also needs to
be clearly stated somewhere. The Fisheries Sector Development Plan is
a good place to start.
If there are few or no incentives, it is probably
time to call your friends in the political and bureaucratic arenas.
Yes, there may be more biologists than businessmen amongst our readership,
but the two interests intersect very sharply, at precisely this point.
If you are wanting to grow an industry, you must ensure that it is given
the proper nutrients to nourish it.
My trip also enabled me to spend some time at the
Tahiti pearl auction in April. This was an epiphany, an eye-opening
experience. The marketing efforts of M. Coeroli, et al., should be resoundingly
applauded by us all.
Another recent event (actually an obvious step to
improve seeding techniques, once you think about it for more than a
minute) has been the increasing use of antibiotic-coated nuclei for
seeding. We found many folk in French Polynesia using these nuclei,
and we include here an abstract from a recent paper announcing some
early results on trials.
Our trip also enabled us to meet with many of youfarmers
and prospective farmers, fisheries department folk and pearl marketers.
It has been pleasing to hear how well received the POIB is, and how
useful most of you seem to find it. Thank you. Suggestions or contributions
are always welcomed, as you are all well aware. And if you mention your
appreciation to the SPC staff or the French Ambassador next time you
run into them, it would ensure that your message is received in the
right circles.
Neil A. Sims
|
|
|
Contents
Research Notes and Reports
Myanmar pearling: past,
present and future
by Tint Tun
ACIAR project enters second
phase
Pearling progress in Tonga
Lessons learned in two years
as a P. margaritifera farmer
by Jerry Myers
An open invitation from
Kavieng
A letter from India: A plea
for diversity, and a success story
by Daniel S. Dev
Research on Pinctada
radiata in the Red Sea
by Mohammed Hamed Yassein
GIAs new pearl programme
offers students comprehensive pearl knowledge
|