In a very recent news release, the BFAR warned of another fish kill. This is expected and as I predicted, will continue to occur in such regularity. The reason is obvious, the damage inflicted on the lake has seriously undermined the ability of the lake to sustain life. The cages continue to operate because of the lifeline provided by the 50 pumps.
BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) should take action to bring back the ecosystem to a life sustaining mode. This is a very tall order that would have a very high social and economic cost. While actions of BFAR to monitor the oxygen levels and enhance oxygenation of water by running 50 pumps a short-term option, these are pallative solutions.
BFAR should develop a restoration plan that aims to reduce the anoxic stratum. There is no other way but to do this:
1. Suspend operation of ALL CAGES for 6 months. Allow cages to finish the harvest before the 6 month ban. The potential loses of this action is prohibitive but much cheaper than the value of the damage to the ecosystem.
2. Provide safety nets for all workers directly affected. Compute the value of the cost for the safety nets.
3. Let the owners of the fish cages and the local governments that gave the permits to shoulder the costs.
4. During the 6-month lake recovery period, BFAR should continue to monitor the lake conditions, stop the engineering solutions to aerate the lake and undertake a modelling study to determine the biological capacity of the lake to accommodate cages, a cost benefit analysis of different scenarios on usage of the lake like a) a no-cage scenario with only small scale capture fisheries in the lake; b)a combination of wild capture cum cage culture;
The decision to take would rest on the results of the study. The 6 months reprieve would also show us the restorative capacity of the lake, providing us with knowledge of how nature works, and the guidance to handle similar future events.
Should BFAR choose the status quo, recovery of the lake would take forever because:
1. the cages present would continue to pollute the lake and improvement, assuming the cages are doing good practices, would be slow with no guarantee it would be restored back.
2. it would be more expensive as the pumps would continue to make the fish survive but this additional cost in form of subsidy and is not incorporated into the price of the fish. I suggest BFAR stop the use of the pumps to artificially sustain cage culture, the money instead should go to providing support for the displaced workers.
3. At the current state of the health of the lake, it is highly possible the fish disease outbreak risk is high because with lower oxygen levels, the fish in the lake are under stress.This could compromise the palatablity of the fish from the lake.
In the end, a status quo scenario would end up more expensive, providing us with less healthy fish that is subsidized by taxpayers money. NOT A VERY PALATABLE OPTION
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A Fishview: Good and Bad Practice in the aftermath of the Fishkill
In my earlier blog,i outlined what is happening in Taal lake and why fish kills occur. The lack of oxygen is one of the many manifestations of a disturb ecosystem where existing practice of fish rearing grossly violates laws of nature.
What should done:
1.There is a need to study the circulation pattern of Taal lake (or any natural lake) before location of cages could be identified. Cages, even if it is floating hinders, alters and redirects flow of current that impedes its natural process of replenishment of nutrients and water.
2. The number and stocking density of each fish cage should be carefully estimated to conform to the natural carrying capacity of the lake. Current policy simply regulates the number of cages but is silent on the amount of water enclosed by the cage, a more important consideration as the density or the number of fish to be stocked should be highly regulated. This is key to maintaining the integrity of the water quality.
3. Establish an independent lake monitoring body that implements and regulates the lake policies. A monitoring team should be created to monitor the quality of lake water.
4. All cage operators should secure from the DENR an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC)before being issued by the local government of the necessary business permits. Currently this is not being done but such policy exist under the Fisheries Code (RA 8550).
5. Before any ECC will be given by DENR,an environmental bond should be required to be deposited by the fish cage owner as security that when such fish kills or any environment-related disruption occur or a violation of existing ECC, the money could be used to rectify the damage.
6. If the government is keen on providing livelihood to the local fisherfolk, minimize the cages and invest in replenishment of the natural fish stock in the lake. CONVERT THE LAKE INTO A WILD FISHERY. GET RID OF ALL THE CAGES. It would serve more people, no extra government expenses on rebuilding the cages or providing altenate livelihood in case of fishkills. Simply said, a wild caught lake fishery would provide more food, job security and livelihood than all those fish cages combined. The fish don't need to be fed, no worries about overfeeding, pollution arising from bad culture practices and no corruption of local governments by the so callled investors.
7. To be really equitable, right to erect cages should be raffled, given to small scale operations rather than the large ones. A maximum of three years lease period that is not renewable. Note that the ROI is less than a year for a cage of 5x5.
8. For Bureau of Internal Revenue to really look into the income of these cage owners that earn a minimum of half a million per cage per year. I'll bet that none of these operators paid honestly taxes based on their earnings.
9. Remove from the local government unit the regulatory function and transfer this to the bureau of fisheries. Afterall, fish swims and water quality has no bouundaries
What should not be done:
As expected, we hear both local and national government officials offering help and subsidies. Some are good but many are wrong. Below is a wish list of what should not be done
1. It is wrong to provide assistance to the cage operators. They are the ones responsible (both legal and illegal)for overstocking the lake over time, polluting slowly the lake through their greed and through bad fish rearing practices. The legal ones knows the illegal ones and they are to blame for not reporting the illegal ones.
2. To provide subsidies and other support for restocking or rebuilding their cages
3. To simply destroy the illegal ones. the structures and nets should be confiscated and burned so that it could not be reused. Better yet not to allow any fish cages in the lakes.
4. For governments to do the cleaning of the mess the private sector created.
Who are the winners and the losers of this fish kill?
The losers of the fish kill are the people around the lake, the tourists and those dependent on the tourism sector. I would not consider the cage owners as losers as this is simply just a temporary setback, having relished its profits for many years.
The main winners will be the hatchery owners that supply the fingerlings and seeds for thhe cage operators. They are now all smiles and take notice that prices of bangus and tilapia fingerlings have gone up.
What should done:
1.There is a need to study the circulation pattern of Taal lake (or any natural lake) before location of cages could be identified. Cages, even if it is floating hinders, alters and redirects flow of current that impedes its natural process of replenishment of nutrients and water.
2. The number and stocking density of each fish cage should be carefully estimated to conform to the natural carrying capacity of the lake. Current policy simply regulates the number of cages but is silent on the amount of water enclosed by the cage, a more important consideration as the density or the number of fish to be stocked should be highly regulated. This is key to maintaining the integrity of the water quality.
3. Establish an independent lake monitoring body that implements and regulates the lake policies. A monitoring team should be created to monitor the quality of lake water.
4. All cage operators should secure from the DENR an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC)before being issued by the local government of the necessary business permits. Currently this is not being done but such policy exist under the Fisheries Code (RA 8550).
5. Before any ECC will be given by DENR,an environmental bond should be required to be deposited by the fish cage owner as security that when such fish kills or any environment-related disruption occur or a violation of existing ECC, the money could be used to rectify the damage.
6. If the government is keen on providing livelihood to the local fisherfolk, minimize the cages and invest in replenishment of the natural fish stock in the lake. CONVERT THE LAKE INTO A WILD FISHERY. GET RID OF ALL THE CAGES. It would serve more people, no extra government expenses on rebuilding the cages or providing altenate livelihood in case of fishkills. Simply said, a wild caught lake fishery would provide more food, job security and livelihood than all those fish cages combined. The fish don't need to be fed, no worries about overfeeding, pollution arising from bad culture practices and no corruption of local governments by the so callled investors.
7. To be really equitable, right to erect cages should be raffled, given to small scale operations rather than the large ones. A maximum of three years lease period that is not renewable. Note that the ROI is less than a year for a cage of 5x5.
8. For Bureau of Internal Revenue to really look into the income of these cage owners that earn a minimum of half a million per cage per year. I'll bet that none of these operators paid honestly taxes based on their earnings.
9. Remove from the local government unit the regulatory function and transfer this to the bureau of fisheries. Afterall, fish swims and water quality has no bouundaries
What should not be done:
As expected, we hear both local and national government officials offering help and subsidies. Some are good but many are wrong. Below is a wish list of what should not be done
1. It is wrong to provide assistance to the cage operators. They are the ones responsible (both legal and illegal)for overstocking the lake over time, polluting slowly the lake through their greed and through bad fish rearing practices. The legal ones knows the illegal ones and they are to blame for not reporting the illegal ones.
2. To provide subsidies and other support for restocking or rebuilding their cages
3. To simply destroy the illegal ones. the structures and nets should be confiscated and burned so that it could not be reused. Better yet not to allow any fish cages in the lakes.
4. For governments to do the cleaning of the mess the private sector created.
Who are the winners and the losers of this fish kill?
The losers of the fish kill are the people around the lake, the tourists and those dependent on the tourism sector. I would not consider the cage owners as losers as this is simply just a temporary setback, having relished its profits for many years.
The main winners will be the hatchery owners that supply the fingerlings and seeds for thhe cage operators. They are now all smiles and take notice that prices of bangus and tilapia fingerlings have gone up.
Friday, June 3, 2011
A Fishview on the Fish Kills
Fish kills stink. Like the rancid fish oil going through the decay process, the main reason for the massive deaths of fish in fish cages and natural lakes is MISMANAGEMENT and GREED. It is not the lack of oxygen that every Juan de la Cruz have been told. Lack of oxygen is a manifestation that nature is reacting to human intervention of a natural system. Let us analyze in greater detail what was happening and use Taal lake to represent all the natural lakes (there are man-made lakes, e.g. result of open pit mining) of the country.
Taal lake is a classic oligotrophic lake example which is deep, with very little circulation because its exit to the sea through a river is very shallow. Because of this character, only the top portion has circulation that go as deep as its sill. Now, if you put there large number of cages and without any consideration on its natural circulation pattern, these made made structures hinder or changes the circulation pattern, disrupting the replenishment of nutrients from the sea etc and more importantly its vertical circulation. Ecological disruption #1.
Now the fish needs to be fed because oligotrophic lakes is not very productive. The excess feeds (arising from poor culture practices) and the fish droppings would initially contribute to the fertility in form of increased total N. Many of these excess food and droppings accumulate on the bottom and never rot because of lack of oxygen at the bottom and, partly also because of the high sulfur dioxide content, rendering the bottom layer, anoxic. Over time as these excess food and droppings continue to settle and accumulate, the anoxic portion of the lake becomes higher and higher. Ecological disruption #2.
The vertical temperature profile of Oligotropic lakes is highly stratified. This stratification normally disappears or get reduced when cold, dense water from rain settles to the bottom displacing the anoxic warm water layer to the surface. This happens only very seldom, perhaps once every two or three years.
What probably happened last week was that the anoxic part was almost at the surface where small amount of rain triggered the vertical circulation. On normal situation where the anoxic part is just a small percentage of the lake water, these layer, when coming up are oxidized by the upper water layers. But this time when a huge part of the lake water is already without any oxygen, the oxidized water at the surface is not enough to maintain a dissolve oxygen level sufficient for fish in the cages to survive.
What are the consequences of the fish kill? The investments and loss of livelihood in the fisheries sector represent a minor cost to the overall loses that media failed to account for. These are:
1. Loss of biodiversity. what we are seeing are fish in the cages. what about other fish species like the tawilis, an endemic sardines. what about the fishes that have no bladder that sink at the bottom, the other organisms, the snails, the insects that need the lake for their young to survive, the algae, the primary producers that start the food chain, all these could not function because of our greed to make profits?
2. Collapse of the ecosystem integrity. This by far is the most serious impact of mismanaged fish cages. the whole process of life cycle in the lake is disturbed and we do not know its consequences.
3. Land based impacts - tourism sector, a major source of livelihood is just one of the directly hit by the fish kill, the boat that ferries, resorts, horse rides, and thenumerous peddlers, suppliers of goods and services.
4. Health - impacts to health could run up to millions as bans on sale of fish reached the markets.
Our local managers need to understand that normality is not restored when bangus would not die in the cages, or when water clears up, or when the foul odor disappears. The impacts on the lake will be felt on the land, by humans and non humans,not just by fishers but by farmers, tourists, and all those that support and dependent on the lake.
Normality returns only after we see that human activities like rearing fish obeys the laws of nature, that profit is not the main governing policy but respect of nature.
When fish kills occur, it means that nature complains and fights back. Its consequences is wide and could be long lasting. Nobody gains and everybody loses.
Taal lake is a classic oligotrophic lake example which is deep, with very little circulation because its exit to the sea through a river is very shallow. Because of this character, only the top portion has circulation that go as deep as its sill. Now, if you put there large number of cages and without any consideration on its natural circulation pattern, these made made structures hinder or changes the circulation pattern, disrupting the replenishment of nutrients from the sea etc and more importantly its vertical circulation. Ecological disruption #1.
Now the fish needs to be fed because oligotrophic lakes is not very productive. The excess feeds (arising from poor culture practices) and the fish droppings would initially contribute to the fertility in form of increased total N. Many of these excess food and droppings accumulate on the bottom and never rot because of lack of oxygen at the bottom and, partly also because of the high sulfur dioxide content, rendering the bottom layer, anoxic. Over time as these excess food and droppings continue to settle and accumulate, the anoxic portion of the lake becomes higher and higher. Ecological disruption #2.
The vertical temperature profile of Oligotropic lakes is highly stratified. This stratification normally disappears or get reduced when cold, dense water from rain settles to the bottom displacing the anoxic warm water layer to the surface. This happens only very seldom, perhaps once every two or three years.
What probably happened last week was that the anoxic part was almost at the surface where small amount of rain triggered the vertical circulation. On normal situation where the anoxic part is just a small percentage of the lake water, these layer, when coming up are oxidized by the upper water layers. But this time when a huge part of the lake water is already without any oxygen, the oxidized water at the surface is not enough to maintain a dissolve oxygen level sufficient for fish in the cages to survive.
What are the consequences of the fish kill? The investments and loss of livelihood in the fisheries sector represent a minor cost to the overall loses that media failed to account for. These are:
1. Loss of biodiversity. what we are seeing are fish in the cages. what about other fish species like the tawilis, an endemic sardines. what about the fishes that have no bladder that sink at the bottom, the other organisms, the snails, the insects that need the lake for their young to survive, the algae, the primary producers that start the food chain, all these could not function because of our greed to make profits?
2. Collapse of the ecosystem integrity. This by far is the most serious impact of mismanaged fish cages. the whole process of life cycle in the lake is disturbed and we do not know its consequences.
3. Land based impacts - tourism sector, a major source of livelihood is just one of the directly hit by the fish kill, the boat that ferries, resorts, horse rides, and thenumerous peddlers, suppliers of goods and services.
4. Health - impacts to health could run up to millions as bans on sale of fish reached the markets.
Our local managers need to understand that normality is not restored when bangus would not die in the cages, or when water clears up, or when the foul odor disappears. The impacts on the lake will be felt on the land, by humans and non humans,not just by fishers but by farmers, tourists, and all those that support and dependent on the lake.
Normality returns only after we see that human activities like rearing fish obeys the laws of nature, that profit is not the main governing policy but respect of nature.
When fish kills occur, it means that nature complains and fights back. Its consequences is wide and could be long lasting. Nobody gains and everybody loses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
