Biodiversity conservation admittedly is difficult in a country that is heavily populated, and has depleted renewable natural resources.
As a consequence of the depleted status of these resources, government agencies face difficulties in deciding on issues of conservation and utilization of these resources.
The Department of Environment & Natural Resources, and the Bureau of Fisheries & Aquatic Resources are particularly in this difficult position because of their dual mandate to protect, and at the same time manage and protect natural resources that are exploited for human use as food. This explains why decisions made by officials of these two agencies are sometimes controversial.
But because biodiversity resources and the environment are degraded due to such factors as pollution and overexploitation, ways to allow recovery before exploitation should be priority options. To this end, attempts by both BFAR and DENR to effect recovery of biodiversity have been made in 2011.
BFAR has reportedly proposed a traditional measure to improve the standing stock of fishery and associated biodiversity species in some fishing areas by closing these areas to fishing for a certain period of time.
This was opposed by the fishing industry, arguing that this would lead to lack of fish locally and to importation of fish.
Of course, the closure would result in loss of income on the part of the fishing industry, and I suspect this is the primary reason for its opposition.
It is hoped that BFAR will insist on its plan to close these areas to fishing otherwise, the fish stocks will never recover in the future.
In this connection, a lesson can be learned from tuna fishing in the Sulawesi Sea: because of lack of conservation measure, the yellow fin tuna has become very scarce in Philippine waters of the Sulawesi Sea, and tuna fishers have to go very far towards New Guinea to fish as a result of local depletion.
The DENR, particularly the Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB), has decided through the ICRMP to establish new marine protected areas (MPAs) and rehabilitate non-functional MPAs established earlier to allow dwindling biodiversity species, including fishery species, to recover their abundance and biomass in five main regions of the country. At least 50 MPAs are targeted to become functional early next year.
Local government units are asked to accomplish this objective. Much has already been achieved this year, but more has to be done to ensure that LGUs will take the full responsibility of sustainably managing and protecting these MPAs.
MPAs with no-take zones have been demonstrated to improve marine biodiversity and fishery catches after a certain period of protection, and are the most promising strategy to prevent coastal fisheries from total collapse.
On land, the DENR has waged a campaign against illegal capture and trade of wildlife species.
Despite the many cases that escaped apprehension, thousands of individuals of marine invertebrates, birds and reptiles, particularly the tokay gecko and the sea turtles, have been confiscated by Philippine authorities, and cases have been filed in the courts of justice against the perpetrators of the crime against biodiversity.
The various government agencies concerned and the citizens who helped in providing information leading to the apprehension of the perpetrators of the crime should receive public commendation for their contributions to saving Philippine biodiversity.