|
By Marlon Alexander S. Luistro, Philippine
Center for Investigative Journalism
Editor’s note: The first two
parts reported how a proliferation of fish cages, coupled with weak
laws to enforce laws, is killing Taal Lake.
Last of three parts
TALISAY and SAN NICOLAS, BATANGAS:
Being officially designated as a protected area failed to save Taal
Lake from environmental degradation, and now some are saying even
Environment Secretary Joselito ‘Lito’ Atienza’s defiant “no
fish cages” stance for the lake will have the same result.
What may work, say scientists and
activists alike, is close coordination and cooperation among all
those who depend and benefit from the lake. And while they say
vigilant monitoring is a must these days, ensuring that everyone
understands the consequence of each one’s action is crucial if the
lake is to be kept from further deterioration.
“At the end of the day, it
doesn’t really matter whether Taal Lake (is) a protected area,”
observes environmental lawyer Ipat Luna. “What matters is
integrated management.”
“People have to be
convinced,” she says, “that when they obey the law and reduce
their profits, there will be a public benefit that extends to them
also.”
Taal Lake was declared a
protected area in 1996 under the National Integrated Protected Area
System (NIPAS) Act, and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources was put in charge of taking care of it.
Yet scientists say the lake has
become polluted and is now in the advanced stages of eutrophication,
which can only mean more algal blooms or red tide. The lake already
suffers from annual fish kills caused by red tide; there are also
fears that some of the lake’s endemic fish species are declining
in number.
Scientists have said that much of
the lake’s environmental problems are due to unregulated fish
farming.
As early as 2002, a study by the
Asian Regional Center for Biodiversity Conservation had pointed out
that protected area management had become more complex and
“demanding.” It was, the biodiversity center said, no longer
confined to protecting a site from illegal activities, but also now
required the extraction of participation from the local communities.
In 2003, a study conducted by
agricultural economist Arvin Vista also suggested a community-based
resource management policy as the solution to the Taal Lake’s
deteriorating water quality problem. This policy, wrote Vista, would
recognize local fisherfolk as owners of the lake’s resources,
which are managed and equally shared among community members, who
police themselves.
Early last year, it seemed that
the efforts to protect Taal Lake was finally headed toward that
direction when the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape – Protected
Areas Management Board (TVPL–PAMB) finished the unified rules and
regulations for fisheries (URRF) for the 24,356-hectare body of
water.
The unified fishery rules aims to
regulate the number of fish cages in the Taal Lake, designate fish-
cage zones, prohibit destructive fishing methods, and enforce other
rules pertinent to the lake conservation. These include a device
against the “palakasan system” between the operators and
municipal mayors by giving the TVPL-PAMB Executive Committee the
final authority over fish cage permits.
The TVPL-PAMB was able to put the
URRF together only after a six-month consultation with various
sectors affected by activities there.
The policy-making body has 137
members in all. Its executive committee is made up of the
Environment department’s regional executive director, the
provincial planning and development officer, the provincial tourism
officer, mayors of 15 lakeside towns and cities, 10 barangay
captains, and representatives from the Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources, the nongovernmental group Pusod Inc., and a local
organization of fisherfolk.
Two-year phaseout
But Atienza, who was appointed to
his post several months after the united fishery rules had already
been prepared, has refused to sign it unless it makes clear that
there will be no fish cages in Taal Lake after these are phased out,
which he wants done within two years.
“I cannot approve the URRF in
its original form because it only legalizes what is illegal,” he
told PCIJ in an interview, referring to the provision on regulating
the number of fish cages in the lake.
Indeed, technically, all the fish
cages in Taal Lake are illegal because although some secured permits
from local governments, not one of them has an environmental
compliance certificate from the Environmental Management Bureau and
a clearance from the TVPL-PAMB that are required of all developments
in protected areas.
Apparently, though, the TVPL-PAMB
has chosen to overlook this, and not necessarily because they all
heartily approve of having fish cages in the lake. Says San Nicolas
Mayor Epifanio Sandoval: “While we have nothing against the
secretary’s measure to get rid of the cages in Taal Lake, we are
asking him to set aside his plans now. We should rather focus our
attention on regulating the fish cages while we are still looking
for alternative jobs for the people.”
Sandoval was also among the 11
mayors who voted unanimously on a resolution asking Atienza to defer
his plan to phase out fish cages within two years. The mayors say
one only has to look at what had happened in the past, when
authorities ordered the dismantling of fish cages, for one to
reconsider an outright ban on these right away.
In 1996, then President Fidel
Ramos had ordered the dismantling and relocation of fish cages, fish
pens, and other aquaculture structures in Taal Lake and Pansipit
River. Ramos had said this was necessary to preserve the lake’s
endemic tawilis and maliputo.
The order was followed, but it
did not take long before the fish cages were back. According to the
mayors, this was because the displaced fish cage operators had no
other means of livelihood.
In May 2006, the provincial
government also issued a moratorium prohibiting the rehabilitation,
repair, and construction of fish cages in the lake that had been
damaged by Typhoon Caloy. This, too, was ignored.
Last year, the Talisay Municipal
Government established checkpoints in the town in order to prevent
transport of bamboo, which is used to build the fish cages in the
lake. But Talisay fish cage operators themselves say they were able
to build even more fish cages, transporting the bamboo to the lake
through fishing boats.
“Even while we’re talking,
people are building cages here because it’s their source of
income,” comments fish cage operator Vicente Llona.
A 2004 study conducted by
environmental science researcher Imelda de los Reyes of the
University of Batangas showed that majority of the 569 fish cage
operators interviewed consider the job as their “primary source of
livelihood.” Most of the operators were high school graduates who
were now supporting at least three family members. Only a few
percent of them had other sources of income like hog and
poultry-raising, running a sari-sari store, and as drivers.
The Fisheries bureau meanwhile
says that at least 145,000 individuals would be affected once the
cages are removed. The count includes an estimated five family
members assumed to be dependent on each of nearly 9,000 fish cage
operators in Taal Lake.
The unified fishery rules itself
try to avoid any form of intransigence from displaced fish cage
owners and operators by giving them a year in which they can
transfer their fish farms into the designated zones.
The Fisheries bureau Inland
Fisheries Research Station chief, Leah Villanueva, has also asked
Atienza to give the unified fishery rules a chance. Villanueva, who
chairs the PAMB Subcommittee on Fisheries, says, “Within two years
if nothing has changed and the water quality has worsened, then we
would recommend removing all the fish cages in the lake.”
Regulating greed is key
She thinks that the fish cages
would no longer be harmful to the lake if only fish cage operators
would follow the suggested stocking density per cage and feeding
practices by the Fisheries bureau. “When we regulate the fish
cages, fish kills could be prevented and the water can now circulate
freely in the area,” she says.
This is echoed by freshwater
biologist Dr. Lourdes Castillo, who adds, “Aquaculture as a
technology is okay. It’s the greed of people that’s making it
wrong.”
She also says that while
unregulated fish cage operations are largely to blame for the
lake’s environmental woes, attention must be paid as well to other
factors, among these activities in the surrounding watershed.
Because the lake serves as the
catch basin of waters drained from the watershed, any changes there
would affect the water quality, quantity, and flow of the lake
waters.
Castillo warns against converting
land areas beside the Taal Lake into residential sites, noting that
massive deforestation of trees in the slope could cause soil
erosion, bringing huge sediment loads in the rivers, streams, and
lakes.
In the meantime, Asis Perez, head
of the green group Tanggol Kalikasan, says that no amount of effort
from the Environment department and the Fisheries bureau to solve
Taal Lake’s problems will succeed without the participation of
local governments. This is also true of the unified fishery rules,
he says.
“The real challenge here,”
says Perez, an environmental lawyer, “is how you can integrate all
these interests, these valid concerns so that you can have a better
lake, productive, and at the same time, not being deteriorated.”
Milagros Chavez, leader of the
Kilusan ng Maliliit na mga Mangingisda sa Lawa ng Taal, which has
been fighting for fish cage regulations in the lake since the 1990s,
believes as well that any regulation in Taal Lake would be effective
only if the Fisheries bureau, local governments, and fish cage
operators coordinate in enforcing it.
Earlier this month, Batangas
Governor Vilma Santos-Recto announced her plans to start dismantling
the estimated 1,200 abandoned fish cages in Taal Lake. She also
said, “[Any] plans for Taal Lake cannot be done overnight and the
same is true with alternative livelihood. But to regulate [fish cage
operations], we have to start already.”
The governor seemed disinclined
to agree with Atienza’s insistence of ridding the lake of fish
cages entirely, commenting that the environment secretary “was
alarmed with the [condition of] Laguna de Bay. That was why he
wanted a total dismantling [of cages].”
In fact, Atienza has said he
would start working on Taal Lake as soon as he finishes
rehabilitation activities in Laguna de Bay. Demolition of illegal
fish cages began there last month.
The environment secretary even
threatened to file administrative charges at the Ombudsman against
the local officials who would defy his order and allow fish cages to
stay in the Taal Lake. Atienza said nobody could prevent the
Environment department
anymore from rehabilitating the
country’s rivers, lakes, and seas. “Anybody who [tries will]
have a problem,” he said.
LGU support needed
Lawyer Luna, though, believes
that the Environment department would be able to remove the cages
only if it gets the support of the local governments.
At the very least, Protected
Areas Superintendent Laudemir Salac seems to understand the need to
involve local communities in protecting Taal Lake. He told PCIJ last
year that he planned to ask the mayors of the 13 lakeside towns to
assign a person from their municipality who could be trained and
hired by the Environment department as a full-time park ranger.
Once this happens, he said, the
Environment department would have 13 additional protected area staff
to help guard the whole 65,000-hectare Taal Volcano Protected
Landscape. At the time, the department had only five forest rangers
to monitor the entire area – with only one among them assigned
full-time to the Taal protected area.
Salac said he would request the
local governments involved to pay the salaries of the new personnel
until the Environment department had generated sufficient income
from entrance fees to be collected from visitors to Taal Volcano and
Taal Lake. Years before, the interim protected areas board had
imposed an entrance fee of P10 for each visitor, but this was not
really implemented due to the lack of staff.
PCIJ asked Salac why the
department was acting only now, when the lake was already polluted.
His reply: “Perhaps it was only now that the need was realized.”
To be continued
|