Taal Volcano Protected Landscape Management

It's a SIGN

2011-10-22T06:22:00.000-07:00

First I heard of this idea about a "Hollywood like" sign in Taal Volcano, alternatives were already being brainstormed by the Provincial Officials, some of whom were already aware that it would be very costly, as it needed to be at least 14 meters to be seen clearly from Tagaytay. They were contemplating instead the arrangement of remaining legal fishcages on the lake to spell the words "ala eh".

As a matter of fact, at the meeting on October 11 of the Protected Area Management Board, the Taal Lake Aquaculture Alliance presented their plan to do just that, right after a proposal was presented by the Provincial Tourism Office for a consultant to undertake Master Tourism Planning through a consultative process. The latter proposal was decided to be for presentation to a forum when all the Mayors would be present.

Such Planning would have thoroughly gathered the information for decision making on these issues to be rational and based on real value. It is an activity that is stated in the Taal Volcano Protected Area Management Plan, a document that went through consultations with nearly 2,000 people. The tourism ideas raised during the consultation were many and varied and would only have made these offerings compete against each other without proper coordination, marketing and localization. Resulting tourism would have been patchy, each operator in cut-throat competition against each other and revenues hemorrhaging out of the region like a bullet ridden crime victim. As such, the Management Plan merely mandates that a tourism planning exercise be undertaken with the framework that developments need to be coordinated, and that communities benefit in real terms from them.

Each of the suggestions, like that of the sign, would then be subjected to different tools to determine their viability and presented to stakeholders. A product manual, a marketing plan and a site development plan would then be crafted. Such a suggestion would be within the site development plan, which comes AFTER the Tourism Master Plan.

A large sign could not have preceded all of these processes. The sign idea was the product of a brainstorming session, and was not even in the drawing board yet. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan took it up and could have given it only their support, but it would have been the PAMB that would give this a final go signal, and only if it was within the framework and as a result of integrated tourism master planning.

Somehow, it is hard to imagine the signage project reaching further than the proposal stage within the master planning process. First, the area is a permanent danger zone. The Philvolcs disallows permanent structures and tries to encourage people living there to resettle elsewhere. Could these structures have constituted a hazard to evacuation in case of an eruption? An Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) for a spa on volcano island was disallowed for many reasons, environmental and safety concerns having been raised. My own thinking is that the maelstorm of protest against that is similar to the one against this sign. This sight and this site is one of national patrimony and neither Korean developers nor politicians should be allowed to tamper with it, never mind if the reasons were honorable or otherwise. An ECC would have required the goal to be stated and alternatives to reaching that goal explored. It would seem to me that solid waste management within the entire lake basin would take precedence over other activities if we are to expect tourists to still flock to this attraction. This would have been the "preferred alternative" that an Environmental Impact Assessment would identify and select.

Of course, aside from the ECC, the PAMB clearance would have been required. The PAMB is aware of the numerous tasks in the Management Plan that cannot be accomplished for lack of funds. To look outside of that document and approve new things that would cost a lot while the current problems fester would have been a bad decision. Within the tourism planning framework, the question would have been whether such a sign will indeed attract more tourists or drive them away, what kinds of tourists it will actually attract (would they be the ones who like to imprint their presence into an area visited? graffitologists?), and whether the cost would be commensurate to the expected additional tourism revenue, if any.

Of course the legions who like Governor Vilma Santos-Recto came up with the theory that she let this loose deliberately just to remind everyone that these treasures are indeed in Batangas, and once it reached a critical mass, never really planned to push through with it.

Whatever the real story is, anything proposed for the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape has to be seen in the context of its Management Plan. The Plan is a living thing, to be implemented in a collaborative and adaptive manner. The Tourism Master Plan will be too if and when it is done. If this sign was submitted to these frameworks, no one would have felt compelled to use their creativity and photoshop skills for mockery. Not to say those photos would not be created (I mean admittedly, some of them were hilarious!!), only that it would be within the context of open consultations and not personal attacks for decisions already taken.

The situation also shows the power of the social network. Management Plan consultations were face to face and cost nearly a million to undertake. But the public came in droves and it did not cost anything to solicit comments on this signage proposal. If we could only use the social network to engage people as passionately in the entire Management Plan implementation, Taal would indeed be saved.

note:

That use of technology and the social network is what Pusod's E-Governance Project seeks to achieve. Through a facility called Text-Connect generously provided by Globe Telecom, Inc, ideas like these would first be forged in the furnace of public opinion and ownership of all decisions would be wider. Public officials will also be less sensitive about what is said as it will merely be par for the course.

Another postscript:

Hope they do an Ace of Base and say "I saw the sign" and it says Implement Management Plan first.

Build it and they will come. But will they act?

2011-09-25T15:53:00.000-07:00

This time last year, we were getting desperate. After one year of the passage of the Management Plan, there wasn't even a shadow of any money coming in to fund its implementation. Not from government, not from fees, not from grants. Of course, it was election year and everyone was too busy. In June, stakeholders reviewed the actions needed and postponed most of them for this year.

It's nearly 2012. If the Management Plan did in fact start in 2010, we are by now 20% into implementation. Luckily, 2010-2020 is a total of 11 years. We can technically write off the election year and this would be our first year of implementation.

If so, it isn't that bad. The plan will finally be published, thanks to FPE and counterpart from Pusod. The numbers of cages will be down to 6,000 this year. Although the count for round ones is still one, steps are being taken to ensure they will be dismantled before permits are renewed in January. And it looks like the agencies are being asked by the President himself to prepare a final phase out plan.

Funds were provided by UPS to Pusod to build a Taal Lake Conservation Center to house researches and researchers and Globe is powering a system for informing stakeholders of management plan status implementation by text, free for a year for PAMB members and at highly discounted prices for those who cannot afford a P100 subscription to the updating service.

The forests of Talisay and Laurel have finally been mapped and a real estate developer's meeting will happen on October 11. The PASu was able to collect PAMB fees from cages and gained approval for their use. The PAMB went on study tour to Twin Lakes Balinsasayaw and Apo Island in August and set the directions. Because of this, the Ways and Means Committee has proposed a fee system and the Research Council has elected a Chair and disseminated the information that PAMB clearances are needed for researchers. The Tourism Subcommittee will propose LGU contributions to undertaken Tourism Master Planning.

It's still a very slow start for a first year, even with 2010 as "partida", but it all rests on whether the PAMB is able to see opportunities recognize threats, and make timely decisions.

Within the last 20 years, the lake turned eutrophic from an oligotrophic state. There is no time to lose and if the PAMB does not react in a timely manner when threats are presented to it, it will be too late. A lot rides on the meetings in Batangas City this October 11. Major decisions will be made. This is a real test.

Correcting misimpressions about the Fishkill

2011-06-15T10:03:00.000-07:00

(Pusod, Inc's statement on the fishkill)

So many irresponsible statements are being bandied about regarding the fishkill in Taal Lake. Amidst all the riffraff, there are a few things that bear mentioning to clarify the issues.

The first is that only 360 fishcages were affected by the fishkill. That is out of over 7,000 cages in total, around 5% of the cages were affected. Since only 6,000 of them were given permits by the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape's Protected Area Management Board, only over a thousand cages were illegal. It cannot be said to be 5% of total aquaculture production, however, as there is no record or monitoring of stocking density or compliance with the prescribed size of the cage. When the price of fish dropped to a low of P2, the crisis reached all of the cages and extended even to fishermen in other water bodies.

The second is that any permits issued by the local government would be void as Taal Lake waters are not Municipal Waters but Protected Area. This is clear from the definition of Municipal Waters which excludes all protected areas. As such, the municipalities have no authority to grant fishery privileges over Taal Lake waters. The LGUs merely administer the permit system but it is the PAMB that authorizes issuance of permits for cages in a protected area. In 2007, the municipal governments pitched in to conduct a process for the determination of practical rules on fisheries in the lake and consultations among sectors. The PAMB which count the Mayors as members, unanimously passed these rules that limited the number of cages to 6,000 and prescribed their sizes, stocking densities and ownership by residents.

But not being sufficiently funded, the PAMB relies on the Municipal Governments for administration of the permit system and the Provincial Government's Task Force Taal Lake to enforce the allocation of cages among towns and barangays. The entity that has invested the most in ensuring some level of compliance with the Unified Rules has been the Provincial Government, spending millions each year in the last three years for its Task Force. However, there were delays by the municipal governments in providing the task force a list of the cages that could be granted PAMB permits, thereby preventing the Task Force from enforcing against illegal cages when the legal ones are not identified. Without the lists for the PAMB to use in issuance of permits, all cages would be illegal in that town. It is unrealistic for the Task Force to demolish all cages so any delays by the Mayors in submitting the names constitutes a delay in enforcement.

Another unfortunate circumstance to be considered is that the Unified Rules and Regulations were not signed by the DENR Secretary. While the rules under the NIPAS Act authorizes the PAMBs to issue rules for governance of protected areas, the NIPAS Act itself gives rulemaking power only to the Secretary. WIthout the Secretary's signature, cage owners and their political allies were able to gain concessions and enforcement consequently suffered delays.

Since the overturn that caused oxygen depletion is a natural occurrence, fishkills are bound to happen in Taal seasonally. Previous years of enforcement have only entailed dismantling of abandoned cages left by those who were unable to secure permits. In recent efforts, the remaining cages have had harvestable stock which could be forfeited in enforcement efforts. Observations that owners of cages started double stocking their licensed cages for fear that unlicensed ones would be dismantled and the stock forfeited. It stands to reason that the volume of fish affected by the current fishkill were a results of double stocking and non-compliance with the rules. At the senate hearing on the issue, Senator Recto was able to establish based on responses of those invited to speak that most of the ones affected were not only overstocking but were also owned by foreigners.

It would have been, as an Inquirer editorial pointed out, Cosmic Justice, but it is also critical to point out that the drop in prices of fish from P90 to P2 a kilo was disastrous to all others that were not affected. The impact on artisanal fishers who were lucky enough to have caught fish but could not sell it is the height of injustice. Those responsible for overstocking should at the very least be made liable for the damage to others that their non-compliance brought about.

The rules also required a P10,000 bond for each module of four cages to be deposited in an interest bearing account. The bond will answer for abandonment of a cage or its dismantling in case of violation and withdrawal of a permit,

In a sense, the fishkill was a wake up call that no further delays in enforcing the rules can be tolerated. Dismantling of remaining illegal cages will be undertaken within the week with four teams of the Task Force Taal Lake with resources from the Department of Agriculture. Stocking density, measuring fishcage sizes and reducing wastage in feeding regimens would be monitored, hopefully by the LGUs. This can be done by requiring self-monitoring reports, encouraging peer level reporting and monitoring the delivery of feeds. Some changes in the rules that would make monitoring easier, permit fees higher and non-payment of bonds punishable can be considered. A requirement of insurance provisions for fishkill events can also cover affected artisanal fisherfolk as beneficiaries.

As some sectors call for a zero fishcage policy, the lessons to be learned by those that benefit from the industry is that they can only continue benefitting from the lake if it is not abused. And the days of fishcages will be numbered not only from resource degradation but also if it continues to demonstrate that it is a ungovernable industry and political awakening will declare the lake free of cages.

Pusod is a member of the PAMB.

Remaining public forest lands in TVPL

2011-03-14T09:37:00.001-07:00

According to a 2007 map of the DENR IV Regional Office, many parts of LAurel, Talisay and event he peninsula between Tanauan and Cuenca are still classified as forest lands. Total area of the lands in question amount to 3,000 hectares. These are so fragmented, especially in Laurel, that they would be very hard to manage as contiguous forest.

When doing management planning in 2007/2008, we asked for a final map of the remaining public forest lands but it seems then and even now, not all the documents are in the hands of the regional office to allow them to say definitively that all these 3000 hectares are still publci forest lands.

As such, in partnership with Pusod through the Team Energy Kayak Taal initiative, DENR IV is overlaying tax, cadastral maps and titles to come up with the real score. The final maps are expected in a month or two, after which meetings with major developers in the area will be convened in order to map out a common strategy for increasing forest cover even in non-forest lands and private lands.

Current subzones include municipal watershed, which municipalities are free to declare themselves, private forest reserve, which developers are expected to carve out of their sellable areas from within the 20% open space requirement to devote to forest purposes, public forest reserves which would include the map resulting from the partnership.

It is hoped that with a more extensive and connected patchwork of forested areas, the TVPL can host releases of brahminy kites and even Luzon bleeding hearts again. And these can be the iconic attractions of the developments in the basin.

Trainor's Pool

2010-12-21T17:12:00.000-08:00

What if everyone who has ever said "save taal lake" was called to do so and show his mettle? What if every politician is asked, show us what you intend to do to save the lake and do it.

The TVPL Management Plan has been approved. All it needs is implementation. Implementation cannot happen if we rely on the government infrastructure alone. The Provincial Government is valiantly trying with its Task Force, which has so far demolished 5,000 cages. But there are only 7 DENR staff assigned to the management plan and so far, no one -- not the PAMB, nor the partners of DENR, know the work plan of the PASU for implementation and how that 7 staff will make a dent on the hundreds of things that need to be done and with what resources. The PAMB is still busy trying to solve the cage situation while other problems, like solid waste, is about to overtake it.

But there are so many people wanting to help and saying they know what to do. What if we open the opportunity for those people to really pitch in? Challenge them with the infrastructure they need?

What if we build a center where they could train people to do what is needed in the management plan? It would serve as an office and repository of their trainings, modules, and the monitoring of their trainees? Will people step up when the challenge is to work and to prove the effects of their "save the lake" prescriptions?

If we build it, will the trainers come?

Can we still save Taal

2010-10-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

For one of the most photographed views in the Philippines, recommended as a jewel of the country by nearly all tourist guides, saving Taal Lake cannot even lay claim today to a million pesos worth of conservation effort. If conservation had a penny for everytime we hear the slogan "Save Taal Lake" or everyting a tourist gazes at it and sighs, we would probably be swimming in funds.

The PAMB has zero funds at this time. To undertake the activities in the management plan, P100 million is needed. Many things can be done with only 20 million, but not even one million is forthcoming . . . from anywhere . . . at this time.

The tawilis is about to make an exit from this planet, on our watch. Many scientists are now saying that if studied, the data will point to its qualifying as critically endangered. This means a 50% chance to be extinct in ten years if nothing is done.

BFAR is validating its sanctuary and bravely fighting against Pangasius invasion, brought about by none other than the DTI. Its mandate is increased production but its people, notably RD Rosa Macas, have intelligently realized that its mandate is for the long term, not the short one. This state of mind could have been brought about by better water quality and the fact that production did not decline despite 5,000 cages dismantled between 2008 and 2009. Dr. Zafaralla also reports better diversity and KMMLT is gamely getting deputized and promising to undertake enforcement even without support from anyone.

But apart from those, 2010 was a year when efforts lagged. It was as if after the approval of the Management Plan in late 2009, conservation would happen by itself. It is November in two days and over 90% of what are scheduled to be accomplished in 2010 have not been done.

The Provincial Government has allotted 2 million in 2009 and 3 million in 2010, but all of it goes towards dismantling illegal cages. And because the provisions in the Unified Rules and Regulations on requirements for cage operation were ignored in favor of granting the Mayors full authority on selecting who gets a license, the selection has become so politicized that many cage owners are themselves complaining.

The dismantling took on the speed of a zombie hit by a freezing pea-shooter (trans. for the non-PVZ fans - sloooww). In March 2010, inventory yielded 1700 remaining illegal cages, but there were more cages being built than were being dismantled. Some confusion arose from the permits for replacing rotten ones that the DENR would give, and elections did happen when dismantling would have been dangerous due to the ban on firearms. But wait, does this mean that every elections period, law enforcement cannot happen? To top it all off, suro (the tawilis-catch method using trawl that scours the lake, leaving nothing behind) made a reappearance, and all other prior practitioners of illegal methods are gearing up to resume, if suro is not stopped.

Resorts and developments are sprouting up one after another. Most do not even bother to secure a PAMB permit. But without the howl raised against one Korean spa, they seem to be happily developing and advertising.

At this time, there is no conservation project ongoing save for a P100,000 fund from a coal company to groundwork Chapter 4 of the Management Plan on forest and watershed conservation. Apart from that, we are only relying on DENR and BFAR resources and hoping the Province will continue dismantling cages and still undertake the Tourism Master Planning as required by the Management Plan

In the meantime, there are a few things that can already be done using available resources:

1. Start the waiver requirement for and charge PAMB fees from tourists going into Volcano Island.
2. Follow the URR on the requirements for getting a fishcage permit.
3, Secure the PAMB share from the fishcage fees and pass fee resolutions for other uses asap.

and a few that must be started soonest:

1. Gather the solid waste plans of all the towns and cities and prioritize interventions, including closure of remaining illegal dumpsites.
2. Coordinate all tawilis researches to determine conservation status and institute drastic conservation measures.
3. Inventory all existing developments and send notices that they are required to get PAMB permits.

Those notices of violation should be flying out from the PASu office fast and furiously.

In the meantime, I am hanging up my towel and focusing on something else before I get too frustrated and quit altogether.

TVPL is on Facebook!

2010-09-11T04:05:00.000-07:00

The Philippines has one of the fastest uptakes of FB in the world. Huge media networks have social networking officers that mine the site for viewers and clicks.

TVPL should not be far behind. As it is so easy to post updates on FB, that might be the site that will have more frequent, but less insightful and introspective posts on Taal Lake.

A PAMB meeting has been set for the first week of October. On the agenda is a bill filed by Cong. Collantes creating a Taal Lake Development Authority. Is such an authority needed and should it be composed of the Secretaries of the different departments rather than the Mayors of the 13 towns and 3 cities? Will the Secretaries have the time to attend the meetings of such an authority? Will this new authority if created assuming the bill passes into law, ignore the management plan created through painstaking consultation and negotiation and come up with something highly technical, filled with physical infrastructure and ambitious details that can only be classified as pipe dreaams? Or will this Authority be the body that the plan has been waiting for who will rule with an iron hand and enforce the laws, especially on fishcages in a non-lackadaisical manner as if we have all the time in the world?

The Secretary of the DENR has again taken a position that there should be NO cages in Taal Lake at all. The provincial government, whose modest target it is that only 6,000 will remain based on carrying capacity studies, took two years and millions of pesos to remove 5,000 cages. Illegal owners are able to build at a much faster rate, thousands in a month, which is exactly what happened when the tight rein on the cages relaxed during elections this year.

Meantime, FVR whose baby the Philippine Council on Tagaytay Taal was, is planning on reviving it.

Are we going to be consigned to keep changing the guard just when some measure of success has been achieved or are we going to do our damnedest to make whatever there is work?

Alert Level 2

2010-06-24T12:02:00.000-07:00

What is a PAMB for if it is not called to meet when there is an impending disaster in the Protected Area? By now, 12 of the 16 Batangas towns and cities are under a declared state of calamity. All are coastal towns and cities except Lemery which is a wonder because Taal town on the opposite bank of Lemery was not under the declaration.

Money can now be released from the calamity funds. What will happen to the money for those towns WITHOUT evacuees? There are only three towns WITH TERRITORY ON VOLCANO ISLAND.

It would be great if as early as now, late as it may be for a drill, a drill is nevertheless undertaken to see how long it will take for residents to evacuate on a signal. This will be a good use for calamity funds.

If Philvolcs really thinks the Volcano Island should not be settled, isn't the present the best time to drumbeat this?

Will the calamity funds of these towns be hostaged to this volcano or should we, by now, have all the necessary preparation to allow all residents in the danger zone to just watch an eruption from afar without much cost and save our calamity funds for those calamities that are less expected.

It may be callous but if people choose to live where they are told not to live, why should 4.5M in public money be spent every week that this volcano is restive just to host them elsewhere in safety? If, instead, that money is allocated for stand by calamity equipment like rescue vehicles, real evacuation centers so the schools are spared, training on Emergency Medical Services, boats and makeshift hospital wards. Or better yet, use the evacuation money for a drill even though it's still alert level 2!!

A good friend told me today that a disaster is defined as a situation wherein there is already a need to mobilize outside resources to meet needs because stand by resources are no longer adequate. This means that disaster (of smaller scales) can really be completely averted by mere preparation and stand by resources. Our being the most vulnerable of nations to climate change is also a distinction we hold. Is it because we as island peoples are really fatalistic? Or would we just prefer that the funds that should have been allocated to our own security and safety are safely in personal pockets?

And for crying out loud, why have a school there to begin with if we don't want children to live close to danger!!!

Nangkaan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas

2010-04-11T06:55:00.000-07:00

The road from Nangkaan to Lumang Lipa is steep but people walk it daily with their wares, selling cooked fish atop the hill and coming back down with rice, or selling vegetables to the lakeside folk and coming back up with their money. the children walk up and down the road too, on their way to and from school. Because of them, the roadside is littered with plastic wrappers of all kinds, and residents seem to think it's no use telling them off. Greater things have been accomplished and i think it wouldn't take much.

It's because the adults too are guilty that they could not tell the kids how to do things right. Plastic is burned with regularity and if not, the trash is dumped into what are called agbang or deep indentations in the landscape. The trash would have one obvious destination -- the lake.

I asked why they no longer have the traditional snacks, the one that do not come from factories but home kitchens - suman, biko, bibingka, even panutsa. Sugar is expensive, they would say, and I would rather not spend time mixing. Hence the litter on the street.

There is no question the local chief executives care about the lake. But right now, the immediate threat is what people complain about -- the excess cages on the lake, People don't complain about the garbage so they don't have to do anything about it. people are used to not having government collect their waste, and they do reuse and recycle what they could.
Just across from my house, about 5 meters from the road in a path used by a family with a kubo downhill is a dump of about 50 pieces of used diaper.

A solid waste management plan that is well implemented is sorely needed or this pristine area will become a regular dump.

If we succeed too much, we will fail

2010-03-06T16:10:00.000-08:00

In July 2008, I encountered a disturbing article that well managed nature parks are bad for nature. This is because good governance tend to attract people to move closer to the parks. In our situation, it is even worse because they are able to move IN.

http://ipatluna.multiply.com/journal/item/134/nature_parks_are_bad_for_nature

But I think it is not bad management that has kept population levels in the basin at under half a million. It has been that these lands have always been private and perceived as such. The small pockets of government land have not been spared the burgeoning population growth. And such is happening at a breakneck speed on any remaining public forest lands below the Tagaytay ridge.

If the remaining public forests are not mapped, the view from that perch will be like that of Baguio and residents in Laurel and Talisay would be living on the edge, figuratively, watching out for landslides.

For the Love of Taal Lake

2010-03-05T15:57:00.000-08:00

Taal Lake is probably THE Philippine scene that is most photographed. Nearly everyday, someone posts a picture of Taal Lake on the net. Just as politicians hope that visible support during campaign translates to votes, I continue to hope these expressions of awe captured on film or digital data translate to initiatives in the protection of the ecosystem of Taal Basin.

The Manila Times today has an article about Rep. Vicky Reyes's bill on a Taal Lake Development Authority. There was no mention of the existence of a Protected Area Management Board. This bill is actually many years old and has been filed and refiled. Both the Manila Times writer and Rep. Reyes would do well to bone up on what is happening now to inform the legislative process. What, for example, would be the difference between the current PAMB and a TLDA? What is already working and what can the PAMB experience teach us?

So far, only one of the candidates for Congress in the 3rd district of Batangas where most of the lake basin lies has contributed to the PAMB's efforts -- Rep. Tita Reyes, current Mayor of Malvar. Another candidate has large billboards proclaiming that Taal needs to be saved. I would like to know how his efforts, if any, are coordinated with other conservation efforts, because the Management Plan is the PAMB-approved menu of priority conservation actions. Outside of that and their initiatives need PAMB clearance! And it might be a reinvention of the wheel!

The article on the TLDA bill reads as if no work is going on in Taal Lake. Unlike many areas where only foreign funding has made the drafting of management plans possible, the TVPL boasts of a management plan that was arrived at with contributions in cash and kind from the local governments, the NGO community and the fisherfolk sector. An earlier regulation the PAMB came up with, the Unified Rules and Regulations on Fisheries, was the impetus for the dismantling of over 5,000 fishcages by a Task Force formed by the Provincial Government consisting of law enforcement agencies, and NGO-PO participation.

An on-the-ground inventory of remaining cages is currently underway, to be compared with aerial shots taken from a PAF plane. Dismantling of illegal cages will continue once inventory results are in, despite the coming elections. Heritage mapping is ongoing among local tourism officers, a research council will be convened within April, BFAR is continuing water quality monitoring, certain communities are engaged in weekly coastal clean-up.

Are any of these known to everyone who loves Taal?

Highlights of the plan

2010-01-27T23:04:00.000-08:00

The plan is for ten years but could be accomplished in five - pretty simple, mostly problem solving -- law enforcement, solid waste, population, draw the forest line and protect it. Simple, straightforward. Manage disasters and tourism, keep water clean, keep species thriving, study it all and keep the institutions that have the mandate to protect humming.

Target full census in three years and then a stable population for more than the ten years. Current 2007 stats place basinwide population at under 350,000. At 65,000 hectares, it's 1,800 sqm per person!! Clearly, population should NOT go any higher.

Solid waste cannot be dumped anywhere in the basin, it cannot go into the dry creeks either so we either stepp up and do as close to zero waste as possible and/or find a final resting place for what we cannot reuse, reduce or recycle. And the major challenge is just plain and simple law enforcement. If no one is watching, the lake will be dead in a decade, no one would be the first to obey if everyone is violating.

If we can't do it, we don't deserve this ark. We had better get off and find a corner in which to wither away.

One month into implementation

2010-01-26T18:52:00.000-08:00

The Management Plan of TVPL is one month into implementation. So far, fees are being collected for the cages, an aerial survey of the remaining cages has been undertaken with the help of Fernando Airbase, the Basic Ecotourism Course has been conducted for tourism officers of lakeside towns and other stakeholders, and the final version isn't even printed yet!! The Provincial Tourism Office will be starting to gather data from the participants for heritage mapping.

The BFAR is continuing its water quality monitoring, DENR will be doing fishcage inventory scientifically, Pusod will be contacting the NCCA Translation Committee for help with an official translation of the plan into Filipino and the URR into English.

The PASu has written the component towns and cities for their personnel assignments to the PASu office. And the Task Force Taal Lake is gearing upp for action despite the coming elections. More later.

FIRST DAY of Management Plan

2009-12-31T15:01:00.000-08:00

Today is the first day of the implementation of the Management Plan for Taal Volcano Protected Landscape.

How do you judge whether a plan is good? As one of the things I have been proud to be part of in 2009, I
tend to be defensive about its contents. But it is not mine, not my organization's, not even the PAMB's. Over
a thousand people weighed in on this plan and much more than what it contains, and what the final approved
version says, these people now all know that this plan is based on counterparting, where all the stakeholders are expected to take part.

The test of the pudding is in the eating. A good plan will help guide actions of all stakeholders. When the time capsule
is unearthed ten years from now, I don't expect to get a pat on the back for our foresight in what the plan contains. In fact, except for a few ambitious goals, the plan is really just to get us back on track, enforce the laws and get governance to be integrated in the lake basin. We may laugh at the goals and objectives ten years down the line, but what I'm hoping is that we will know when to change course and why.

One of the surprising things the process has yielded for me is this: Based on 2007 stats, the basin only has a population of under 350,000. For 65,000 hectares just an hour from Metro Manila, this is very low. Laguna Lake BAsin has 11 million people living in the basin. This is probably a gross underestimate, and the plan gives the PASu office three years to complete the Survey and Registration of Protected Area Occupants.

The Plan is to keep population at the current level. How this is to be achieved is a matter of debate, but obviously, it is a mix of both making livelihoods and education better, availability of options and support and just convincing people that the plan will be good for them.

One thing is for sure, though. The more people take this plan out of the hands of the few and into their own, the better implementation will be and a brighter future for the residents of the lake basin.

Taal Volcano Protected Landscape Management Plan approved

2009-12-22T13:23:00.001-08:00

Governor Vilma Santos-Recto is helped by DENR IVA Regional Director Nilo Tamoria lower the time capsule. Looking on from left to right are Kilusan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda sa Lawa ng Taal President Milagros Chavez, Talisay Mayor Florencio Manimtim, San Nicholas Mayor Epifanio Sandoval, Barangay Captain Antonio Maligaya, PPDO Arsenio Cay (bending), PENRO Max Soriano and Provincial Administrator Vic Reyes. Other Mayors in attendance (not in photo) were Malvar Mayor Cristeta Reyes, Mataasnakahoy Mayor Danilo Sombrano, Cuenca Mayor Celerino Endaya and Sta. Teresita Mayor Anne Marie Reyes.

23 December, 2009

After almost two years of gathering experts and holding public consultations, the Protected Area Management Board of Taal Volcano Protected Landscape unanimously approved on November 26, 2009 a ten-year Management Plan for the lake basin. Attended by 125 out of 157 members, the approval held in Lipa City was solemn, attended by eight mayors and marked by lighting candles each representing one chapter of the plan. The candles for Chapters 9-11 were lighted by the Regional Directors of DENR and BFAR.

On December 17, 2009, the approved plan was placed in a time capsule and buried on the grounds of the Batangas Capitol marked by a Sampaga tree planted by the Governor herself. The capsule is to be unearthed after ten years to see how the lake has fared.

Taal Lake used to be covered by the Tagaytay Taal Integrated Master Plan crafted under the auspices of the Presidential Commission on Tagaytay Taal. The Commission was abolished by President Joseph Estrada in 2000, due to the fact that there is already a Protected Area Management Board which has jurisdiction over the lake basin. The Master Plan was for 1995-2014, in all of seven volumes and had major infrastructure aspects. It covered only half the towns surrounding Taal Lake plus five towns in Cavite. One of the main prescriptions of the Master Plan was to declare the entire basin as a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Areas System Act (NIIPAS Act 1992). Proclamation 953 issued in 1997 accomplished this task. The PAMB was created with a membership of about 30, consisting of the planning officers of the towns in the basin. The existence of the PAMB was reported to be the reason President Estrada abolished the PCTT – so that there would be no overlap in jurisdictions.

In 2004, at a meeting of key stakeholders including the Chief Executives of all the lakeshore municipalities , issues of Taal Lake Management were coming to the fore and the Mayors were briefed about the status of the Protected Area Management Board. They decided to sit on the Board themselves instead of be represented by their planning officers. In 2006, a covenant among all the mayors and the Governor was signed for the protection of the lake. This covenant and the resulting commitments led first to the drafting and approval of a Unified Rules and Regulations for Fisheries in the lake, and then to the crafting of the first protected area management plan in the country that is funded jointly by the local governments and is in two languages (English and Filipino). PAMB membership now stands at 157, with a 35 member Executive Committee.

In a Memorandum of Agreement signed in 2007, the PAMB Executive Committeecommitted to contribute P75,000 for each town, P2,000 for each barangay and P500,000 for the Provincial Government to fund the process of management planning to be facilitated by Tanggol Kalikasan. At the outset, the plan was to be simple enough for the stakeholders to be involved in. The funds were to be used in coordinations, preparations, drafting and public consultations,.

A Technical Drafting Committee was created where all the member experts willingly worked on pro bono as their counterpart in the conservation of the protected area. In May 2008 the draft was completed and consultations began the following month for nearly a year. The PAMB Executive Committee approved it line by line in a marathon meeting at Mambucal, Negros Oriental. It is set to be implemented starting January 2010.

Among the main features of the plan are activities to maintain and monitor water quality, zoning for forests, fish sanctuary and agro-tourism, a reliance on counterpart contributions by stakeholders, better law enforcement, keeping current population levels, disaster preparedness and solid waste management.

Meanwhile, the Taal Lake Task Force created by the Governor to implement local government agreements under the Unified Rules and Regulations for Fisheries is wrapping up efforts at dismantling excess cages. The Task Force reports having dismantled over 5,000 cages in a year and a half of continuing operations. New registrations and PAMB clearances in 2010 are expected to further clean up the lists of allowed fish cages and operators.

For further information, please contact

Mr. Audie Salac, Protected Area Superintendent’s office: 043 723 4084
Mr. Arsenio Cay, head of the PAMB’s Plans and Programs Committee, 043 723 3286
Mr, Ricky Nunez, Pusod President and head of the PAMB’s Disaster Management Committee, 043 757 3192.

Ipat G. Luna, Tanggol Kalikasan
09175048265, http://taal-lake-blag.blogspot.com/

Photo shows from left Mayor Endaya of Cuenca, PASu Audie Salac and Mayor Danilo Sombrano.

Building Institutions

2009-11-26T16:56:00.000-08:00

Over the last two days, I've been in and out of meetings where I only had a tiny role. An it was as it should be.

After two water forums we organized years ago, the City of Lipa decided to take heed and act. The SP passed an ordinance creating the Lipa Headwaters Council. At its meeting last Wednesday, they talked about easements and boundaries, water catchments, rainwater collectors and the ordinances needed to implement the national laws. They were preparing for their Lakbay Aral in San Carlos to study a scheme for payments for environmental services in the watershed there. It was very satisfying to see the fruits of early initiatives take off and go on its own.

In the afternoon was the meeting of Task Force Taal Lake. In the newly renovated office of the Provincial Administrator, people were studying the minutes of the last meeting and passing around the accomplishment report -- 5,000 cages demolished since August 2008 -- all based on agreement and a URR unsigned by the Secretary to date. Had we waited for a signature, had we lobbied for our original stand of zero cages rather than facilitate a consensus, there would still be 13,000 cages on the lake and increasing instead of just 8,000. Around 2,000 more need to be removed and the Task Force is all set to go, targeting to finish by end of the year barring bad weather. And this time, the cages to be targeted are no longer the abandoned or recently abandoned due to the threat of demolition but the ones that are in the middle or towards the end of the grow. It will be a test of wills but if the Task Force is unable to do it, next year's licensing process and regulation will already be a lost cause..

The next day, in a very well attended PAMB en banc meeting, there was a quorum of 125 out of 150 members. The ratification process began with the Provincial Planning Officer, Mr. Arsenio Cay explaining the process the Management Plan went through and emphasizing the contributions of each LGU from barangay to Province in funding it as well as the pro bono services of the Technical Drafting Committee. It was followed by a moving candle-lighting ceremony where each Mayor lighted a candle representing each Chapter of the plan from a large candle representing the PAMB. Then there was a turnover of a copy of the plan in a time capsule along with a Champaka seedling to Mr. Cay. It would be buried near the Planning office at the next Execom Meeting and Christmas Party on the second week of December.

Among the strong features of the plan are: (1) strong law enforcement and agreement to comply; (2) a strong push for keep the populations levels constant for the next ten years and beyond: (3) zoning the majority of the land area as Agro-Tourism Zone and setting aside forest reserves and a tawilis sanctuary; (4) water quality monitoring and biodiversity survey; (5) disaster planning and climate change adaptation; (6) a research council, center and bi-annual technical conference; and (7) institutional development of the PASu office and the PAMB.

Representatives from 11 towns and one city were present, including 8 mayors. Absent were representatives from the towns of Taal, San Jose and the Cities of Tanauan and Tagaytay. Too bad since Tanauan has the most number of residents inside the protected area boundaries and Tagaytay has much to gain or lose. The Management Plan as approved by the Execom last September 18 was ratified unanimously. Several resolutions on fees to be charged (in order to fund the jumpstart year of operations to the tune of 100M) were passed and others were deferred for the Execom to decide. A bond of P10,000 for each fishcage was also agreed upon to be forfeited in case of abandonment or deliberate sinking during a fishkill. It will be collected and held by each LGU and interest will go to the LGU for its transaction costs.

Of course our role in the sidelines, helping craft the procedures and the action plans, remain. But the track has been laid.

Trooping to the OSEC

2009-08-20T15:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, folks concerned with Taal Lake trooped to the Office of the Secretary on two sides. One side is Task Force Taal Lake, set up by the Provincial Government to enforce fishcage regulation as agreed upon by the Mayors in the Protected Area Management Board. Another is the side of the Mayor of Talisay, the town with the most number of fish cages, and several fishcage owners who want an extension of time until December to comply. The Secretary said an extension to December is out of the question considering that by November, the politicians will be starting to file their candidacy.

The Talisay fishcage owners were asking to harvest until December. They were told as early as February that this was going to happen but as elsewhere in this country, people no longer believed enforcement can happen. Tilapia raising takes 6-7 months, which means they still bought new fry after February. When the Task Force kept going and reaching targets, they could not believe it. When the Provincial information office started going on the radio announcing that demolitions will be taking place in Talisay, they did not get their fish out. On demolition day, there was crying and pleading all around and days later, they were at the OSEC saying they would themselves take the cages out and keep to the agreed upon 2,000 if they are only given until December.

We recall about a year ago when it was obvious that enforcement was going to happen, cage owners from Pulo requested that their area be included in the fishcage zone. It was with reluctance that the PAMB agreed, despite the fact that the island was being reserved for tourism purposes. The condition was that they were just going to share in the 2000 allocation of Talisay and that there would be no additional allocation.

Twice after that, as the Task Force neared Talisay, the Mayor asked for an additional 1,000 allocation contravening the condition given for including Pulo in the zone and was denied. As a last straw, he asked for an extension, the very plea he brought to the office of the Secretary. The Mayor of San Nicolas stated it clearly -- if they had begun work reducing to comply as early as the agreement to regulate, they would not be in this position now.

The decision of the Secretary was initially to give them until October. Later in the meeting, he said experts say that it will be hard to accomplish the task in October onwards due to weather conditions. Also, the other towns also asked for extensions and were not granted any. Even further, the spokesperson for the Governor said that the latter's position was to continue.

The leader of the small fisherfolk spoke up. Her organization was tapped to help in the enforcement and she herself had to be the one confronting a couple crying and pleading for them to stop pulling the cage full of fish to shore. The operations were stopped for an hour when the Mayor submitted the list. Then it went on again. She reiterated along with the Mayor of Malvar that it was the local residents, the poor, who were losing livelihood while there are foreigners who are providing financial backing. The Mayor of Talisay said he admitted there were foreign financiers for the operations but that only the residents who worked the cages came to him for permits. The Secretary stopped him from continuing as he might get in trouble for admitting to allowing dummies.

In the end, it was decided that since the cages could not all be demolished in one blink, it will be phased demolitions starting with the abandoned cages, then the foreign-owned (including the ones with dummies) and so on. According to Colonel De Castro, only a few abandoned cages are left, meaning they would be starting on the foreign-owned soon. The Secretary said the Mayor should know which they are but if he doesn't as he claims only the residents applied under their own names, then the DENR itself knows and will act.

This will test the mettle of the Task Force. Does the Mayor's list of 2,000 submitted on the day of the demolition only include those of local residents without foreign ownership or financing? The use of Philippine waters is reserved for Filipinos and no less than the Constitution protects this right to exclusive access. Questions remain -- are the plates being distributed to the real locals or did his list contain dummies for foreigners? Apparently, just constructing one of those metal round cages costs 600,000, not something the locals can easily afford and if they could, they are probably not the ones that the phased demolitions intended to protect.

Note: The Secretary still maintained that there is no URRF and that the cage allocations are all illegal. I respect the position of the Secretary which is shared by the Archbishop even though I do not see the illegality. The PAMB authorized the Task Force to issue plates to those listed by the Mayors in the numbers allocated under the URRF, the only illegality being that they previously had no PAMB clearances. The plates now serve as the PAMB clearance. The people actually doing the demolitions and the local governments funding it are retaining the numbers agreed upon under the "unsigned" URRF. What I understand is that there is no debate about clearing out the 40%. Now if that is accomplished, then they can talk about clearing the remaining 60% next year. In the meantime, discussing the 60% against 0 cages is not too helpful when the challenge to just keep up the demolition is hanging over all our heads.

see column of Rina David http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090821-221306/Coal-and-other-environmental-issues

Technical Drafting Committee work done.

2009-08-14T06:28:00.000-07:00

The people have spoken, the experts have responded. Two days of consolidating the responses and justifications of the experts on the results of the public consultations and we are ready to rewrite. Will do the edits and substantial changes, and generate the Gantt Charts and work and financial plans.

Approval by Execom in September (hoping that the Mayor of Tagaytay can come) and by the PAMB en banc by December. Within the next few months, Task Force Taal Lake created and funded by the Provincial Government under Governor Vilma Santos-Recto is expected to finish demolishing all the cages that are not within the carrying capacity determined by BFAR consultants AKVA PLAN NIVA. Under the able leadership of Provincial Administrator Vic Reyes, the teams are gearing up to start on the town with the most number of cages -- Talisay. Anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 cages are expected to be demolished by 4 teams in the coming weeks. With three towns in compliance, Dr. MAcrina Zafaralla already reports a return of the algal diversity that she has been monitoring for years. This diversity has dipped to 4 types in the last few years but is not bouncing back to figures from 5-10 years ago.

New Year's Day 2010, the Protected Area Superintendent hits the ground running with a newly refreshed lake, clear of at least 40% of its cages and 10-year plan. Sweet!

View the draft management plan here. Proposed revisions (with justifications) still welcome until end of August. Please send to ipatluna@pusod.org.

The Plan 2010 to 2020 vision.

2009-07-16T05:16:00.000-07:00

Whew! 16 consultations all done. The only hold-out was Tagaytay. It was scheduled, twice, but was postponed and a new date was never set by the planning officer and the mayor. Oh well, you can't win them all.

But in all 16 consultations, we had at least a hundred people who understood what this is all about, each of them with a constituency to whom we hope they will speak and relay the message.

We are gearing up for consolidating the results of these 15 consultations. We made the plan realistic but what we heard from the people were desires to make it stricter, make the plan stronger. We could do that, but only with their help.

But this is only a plan. Without strong political will to enforce and implement, all our efforts would have been wasted -- long pro bono hours working on the plan, talking to people, individually and in groups.

And so what is needed is a Taal Lake Foundation, whose sole purpose is to make it all happen.

This plan is the hope. If we cannot do it here, we cannot do it anywhere.

Taal Lake is our acid test. We cannot fail.

What's wrong, what's up and what's next for Taal Lake Conservation

2009-05-06T08:37:00.000-07:00

Everyone loves Taal Lake. Everyone hates those who are perceived to be despoilers, as the Korean firm Jung Ang found out the hard way when it tried to set up a spa at the very lip of the crater of our heart of hearts. But then almost everyone also eats Tilapia, and prefers it fresh and meaty with nary a hint of the mud and muck it leaves behind. We need to rake over this muck by stating the obvious -- that despite the sharp decline of illegal fishing in the lake (thanks largely to the persistence of the Kilusan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda sa Lawa ng Taal), unregulated fish cages is choking it of oxygen and life.

WHAT"S UP: In a recent documentary from GMA 7 at http://www.pinoychannel.tv/watch/v-138035?title=I%20Witness%200427, we are informed of what's wrong and what's up at least in fisheries regulation. Previous posts in this blog already discuss at length the refusal of Secretary Atienza to sign the consensus document which the Protected Area Management Board passed. Despite the lack of signature, though, and as practiced in nearly all the other Protected Areas in the country, the PAMB's word is law. But only if they follow it through with implementation, which in this case the DENR person (Protected Area Superintendent who is concurrently the CENRO) has the mandate to do. I don't envy his position. His boss wants all the fishcages out and he doesn't have the funds or the human resources to take them out. Meantime, there is a consensus on the ground among many sectors, including the local government units to merely reduce the number of cages to 6000 from its current 12,000. And the provincial government was able and willing to bankroll the implementation and has shown it since June 2008. The rigid position of the Secretary may be appreciated but it sounds just like that sign in the restaurants : your credit is good but we need cash. (The back story of the URR drafting is documented in a paper by this blogger and co-author Vida Gonzales which may be downloaded at www.elaw.org/system/files/effective.participation.doc and which won the award for one of 5 best papers in the 12th World Lakes Conference in Jaipur, India).

Aside from implementation of the URR by a Task Force Taal Lake set up by the Provincial Government, management planning is going on concurrently. Through a Memorandum of Agreement , the PAMB assigned the task of undertaking the drafting of and public consultations for a management plan to Tanggol Kalikasan, funded through contributions from local governments. Again, it is the local governments that came through, when the mandate is with a national agency of government. Each of the 13 towns and 3 cities are contributing P75,000 towards this goal, each barangay P2,000 and the provincial government P500,000. Currently, 10 towns have finished their consultation, with 6 more to go. The draft was written with a view towards realistic implementation, with no excuses and assuming very little funding but the counterpart contributions of the sectors consulted. As such, it is threadbare and focuses on priority actions that have a very large potential for implementation despite obstacles. The general trend is that the public is ready for stricter management measures that may require larger infusions of funds for enforcement.

The ten-year plan (2010-2020) is set to be revised based on consultation results in July and August, submitted to the PAMB Execom in a PAMB capacitation/study tour in September and approved by the PAMB en banc by December or earlier.

Many people have placed higher personal stakes in the success of the process, including local government planning, environment and agriculture personnel who set up the public consultations and created the 3D map of the basin, volunteeer experts who wrote and rewrote the draft, facilitators from the national agencies and academe notably BSU. As such, a good number of people would be utterly disappointed if this plan does not see the light of implementation. While there are indications of cooperation and counterpart contribution among the stakeholders during the consultations, there needs to be a non-government body that would keep pushing for successful implementation through the changes in local administrations, through the coming and going of other NGO's and in continuing support of the over 30-year old people's organization, the Kilusan ng Maliliit na Mangingisda sa Lawa ng Taal.

WHAT'S NEXT: The answer may lie in a Taal Lake Basin Conservation Foundation. It is time the private sector got in on the act and bankrolled some of these initiatives. Such a dedicated foundation will inure to the benefit of private entities enjoying the basin's ecological services, including developers, tourism operators, feedmills, and the like. Taal Basin is a highly visible and strategic investment for their corporate social resonsibility portfolios. And they would be at the tail-end of an already mature conservation process that began with zero regulations on fishcages and tourism and continues to this day with a consensus on fishery rules and a management plan that is realistic and doable.

And when set up, this Foundation can then capitalize on the fame and beauty of this landscape to continue to bankroll implementation of the management plan through fundraising events and the sale of copies of the management plan, and of high quality merchandise related to the lake's conservation (such as bandannas for use to go up the crater with the management zones and some prescriptions printed on them). However, it is important that the Foundation not be the domain merely of big business with large corporate social responsibility budgets but of ordinary people who were overawed and would like to pitch in with P100 or with volunteering to join the landed fish catch survey or the terrestrial biodiversity monitoring or the monitoring of accredited tourism eestablishments for compliance with rules.

The Battle for Taal Lake

2008-12-21T01:35:00.000-08:00

i am one of those who have wished for a long time that I will see the end of fishcage culture in Taal Lake. They were unsightly and while tilapia is a tasty, poor man's fish, it hasn't gotten good reviews from cardiologists.

So it was with this mindset that we set about trying to get government to do something about the lake. It was a surprise for municipal councils to find, for example, that the lake's status as a protected area puts it outside the definition of Municipal waters and therefore, they were not quite the ones to regulate.

At the same time, I asked everyone I knew in the scientific community on the impacts of tilapia on tawilis and other endemic fish fry and they basically said they couldn't say -- there are no studies to show it had a biological impact, except for the obvious pollution. And my colleague would keep saying it's a battle between aesthetics and food. After all, people catch tilapia out in the open water, they have man as predator, what real harm can they do to the endemic fishes? The point is, we don't know. Applying the precautionary approach, we should at least prevent seeding. However, this is the one thing the artisanal fisherfolk are asking for. Some have even gone so far as saying that tilapia tastes better and have more meat and less bones than tawilis anyway.

But these are not questions that could be settled by science before rules are agreed upon. At the time, each town had an ordinance over waters that were not defined and which the town had no jurisdiction to issue permits. A set of rules agreed upon by coastal towns was needed and in coming to consensus, some public policy issues were settled. The consensus was to reduce cages by 40% and strictly enforce aquaculture guidelines on those that remained. It was an amazing local consensus.

The Governor and the Archbishop issued ringing endorsements of the new rules on paper. But after Lito Atienza stood his ground and said he will not sign the new rules, the lines were drawn. The Archbishop thought it might after all be best to rid the lake of all its cages. Am not sure he knows that Pondong Batangan has previously helped people set up cages. I respect his position. Vice Governor Leviste recently said something about the conflict between the PAMB and the Secretary and affirmed that a complete clearing was possible as it was done in Pansipit.

In my estimation, everyone's focus should be on what is common ground. As far as the demolition of the 40% of cages, everyone stands on the same ground. We have to first show that to be possible, then we can discuss how to unite on the remaining 60%. If we cannot even effect a 40% reduction, why bark for 100% when your bite could not reach 40%?

PASu

2007-11-20T21:22:00.001-08:00

I do have to say a thing or two about the position of Protected Area superintendent. I don't want previous posts to give the impression either that it is not an important and powerful position nor that the ones occupying it are useless. In referring to the PASu previously, the one that allowed the rules to sleep in his desk was already replaced. The PASu now is the CENRO himself, but his hands are also tied by his lack of resources. He does have the great idea of soliciting th help of local governments to do the job, something that is realistic, relies on an admission of the limitations of his office and its resources and also builds stakeholdership and community. But that request is not an easy thing to get granted. From previous experience of asking local governments for contributions, it takes a great deal of convincing and because they each have their own ideas of what would work for their areas, and to make that a commonly acknowledged need takes grunt work as well as some courtship. And if removing the cages is the first task of these local goverment personnel working as a task force under the PASu, he cannot expect that the request can be granted.

In any case, good luck to the PASu in the tight situation he is finding himself in. May he absorb some of the PASu Felix Mirasol spunk in swimming against the tide and in convincing his superiors to let him do what is realistic and needs to be done for the protected area.

Hope springs Eternal : Lito may still sign the URR

2007-11-18T08:18:00.000-08:00

Lito Atienza wants zero fishcages in Taal Lake

http://www.denr.gov.ph/article/view/4582

I have run out of expletives. In my angst about these rules, I seem to have forgotten that once, when I started work on Taal Lake, I would have rejoiced at this gung-ho pronouncement that the ravenous tilapia would be counting the end of its days there.

But I am older now, and wiser. And I am no longer interested in the self-righteous quest to turn Taal into some decor or leisure park with a bold dividing line between those that enjoy it and those that serve those that enjoy it. What is important is how to make it serve so many of us in all the different ways it has done so thus far.

So the Solomonic choice is to reduce the number of cages. By about 40%. By a semblance of an agreement among many sectors. Democracy can work in crazy ways but here, for this one perfect moment in time, everyone seems to be on board with a carefully negotiated plan. Everyone but Atienza.

The PAMB voted for these rules unanimously, the DENR regional officers were there, too. Cage owners were haggling but not on the numbers anymore. The fisherfolk who also originally wanted zero cages, now haggled to place a small number in some of their own areas as well. Thankfully, there were no violent objections to this reduction. I suppose if they ask themselves, even the cage owners felt that was fair. Even they feel sacrifices have to be made.

It's funny how being Secretary might give one the illusion of power in addition to the real power they have. Dismantle those cages, all of them, he says. But who will bell the cat? At a meeting last week, attended by the Governor and 11 mayors of towns around the lake, a unanimous decision was reached standing by the terms of the URR and saying no to a proposed provision for a phase out of all cages in two years. Atienza insists the URR makes the illegal legal. He must be talking about the provision in the fisheries code stating that all cages in lakes should be out in two years after passage. Well it's been over five but it seems reality favors another provision of the SAME law which says only 10% of the surface area of lakes shall be allowed for cages. The law, in fact, is contradictory.

DENR would only be able to dismantle those cages with the help of the LGU's, but 11 of their leaders already said no, they could not do it. How does DENR imagine it could ever accomplish such a task, by hauling mayors' asses before the Ombudsman on fishery code violations? Haven't they learned something from the solid waste experience?

I am not against doing what has to be done even if displacement would occur if the stakes are very high but to imagine that "alternative livelihood" is a magic potion that will make everything better is just naive. First of all, where will this potion come from? WIll the people accept it in place of the millions earned in tilapia and bangus? Again, who is expected to deliver this alternative livelihood? DENR? Or the mayors who already said no?

So let's build the scenarios. Since March this year when the PAMB approved the rules and the Secretary was expected to sign, more cages were built and 120 new pens were erected right on Pansipit River. If DENR wanted to show it could accomplish zero cages, all they had to do was prevent new cages being built in Pansipit or remove the ones Pusod reported were built there this year. It would have served fair warning and no new cages would have been built. After all, the Protected Area Superintendent, a DENR employee, is the person with the mandate to implement. Since typhoon Caloy, there was already an order from the Governor that no new cages should be built. If the DENR felt then that this was good for the environment, they could have done a lot to stop the new cages and the new pens.

Instead, cages shot up to nearly ten thousand, three thousand more than last year. Not one piece of bamboo has been pulled out of the water in Pansipit. So this zero cages can only be seen by many as posturing.

Without a signature on those rules, there are no rules. Ordinances for fishery privileges are null and void as these are not municipal waters. If Atienza wants to remove the cages, he would first need to pass rules on how to do it and mobilize the resources to enforce those rules. But no one has reason to fear the PASu yet as the moratorium was never enforced, no cages were warned. Just last year, a report was received by the PAMB that new cages were being built and it tasked to the PASu and the PASu said there were ONLY 26 new ones. No cause for alarm. There is no reason to expect anyone to tremble at Atienza's pronouncements given that record of his man in the field.

If he signs it and water quality still goes down, he will have every right to write new rules for zero cages. If in two years, enforcement of these URR do not deliver results, it would seem that everyone will be ready to make a judgment that those cages just could not be regulated and there will be a concerted effort at stopping them. But now, no one really believes that Atienza could do it. So if he wants the lake clean of cages, the way to do it would be to sign these rules and challenge everyone that if these do not result in better water quality within a deadline, he will come down hard and remove all the cages. I still have a glimmer of hope that he will see his way to achieving his goal in this way rather than by thumping his chest.

No, it is just talk and it is talk that is endangering the lake even more. What the lake needs is a signature on the URR and if that is not forthcoming, those that agreed to these rules will have to use them anyway. This is legally possible in many, many ways and the DENR will only be put to the sidelines because they will not have helped bring about positive changes that are sorely needed.

But they must not be allowed to obstruct these negotiated rules that have, before they have even seen an official signature, already transformed people of diverse interests here into a community in agreement.

The Saga of the Unified Rules and Regulatons

2007-11-16T17:07:00.000-08:00

AIM would have been thrilled to have these rules as one of their case studies. It is an exercise that reflects some of the pitfalls of genuine democracy and the challenges of decentralization.

Early in 2006, a newly reconstituted Protected Area Management Board tasked with the management of Taal Volcano Protected Landscape took their oath. It was January and from a mere 30 or so representatives who did not have political power, 137 new members who held elective positions and the power to bind their respective political units to decisions were sworn in. They quickly prioritized the problems and came up with a handful of major ones. One was particularly urgent -- the lack of integrated regulations in fisheries.

Towns were going about their own business issuing permits and taking care of their own portions of the lake. everyone admitted there were no boundaries in the water and that what one town did to despoil the lake, the others suffered. At a meeting in Max's Restaurant in Lipa City, Vice MAyors and Council members of lakeside towns came to the realization that they could not even just pass an integrated ordinance because the lake waters were NOT municipal waters. Hence, the towns did not even have the power to issue permits for the use of the lake or fishery privileges. What would have legal effect are protected area rules and regulations, crafted by the Protected Area Management Board.

The PAMB's Executive Committee tasked the Fisheries Sub-committee to start with the process of coming up with integrated rules. Headed by Ms. Leah Villanueva, tireless head of the research center of BFAR on the Tanauan shores of the lake, the subcommittee went about its business ensuring that money was available for the process from the LGU's themselves, that there would be wide public and sectoral representation in the process and that it would be approved.

Starting in September, a drafting committee started work and technical consultations were conducted, where all Municipal Agriculturists were involved as well as fisherfolk and cage owner representatives. The agreement was that it would be in Tagalog, to be completely understood by all. The technical consultations were a huge success where analysis of the issues and the responses required were translated into wording for the rules. Forty to fifty people at each consultation, all with direct hands-on experience with fisheries in Taal Lake, argued, bargained, told stories and demanded changes in the wording of the draft flashed on the screen. Side meetings of the Fisheries Sub-committee as well as of ad hoc groups were also meeting. One of the ad hoc meetings was to determine the allocation of cages among the towns, considering the prescriptions for cages that were surfacing: only 6000 cages in 1500 modules would be allowed, 20 meters distance per module, 100 meters from shore, 200 meters from the mouth of Pansipit would be clear, etc. The Provincial Planning and Development Office drew up a map and we counted the cages that could fit in the zones that would be cages given the parameters.

Two major public consultations were held in Talisay and in Sta. Teresita, the latter during World Wetlands Day. Over a hundred people participated in each public consultation and major provisions were revised or added to the draft. Aside from an impassioned plea to include one barangay on Volcano Island as fisheries zone, the issue on cages, expected to be the most contentious, received little objection. Instead, longer time was used up on how to deal with baklads (fishpens) and even hook and like fishing and the colors of the boats for each town.

In March 2007, the Executive Committee approved the URR unanimously, with a slight reservation on the allocation of cages to towns, which was in a separate document anyway. Only three weeks later, the PAMB en banc, reaching quorum by a wide margin, approved the rules unanimously.

As if exhausted from the seven months of gruelling arguments, bargaining and negotiations, the URR slept in the desk of the Protected Area Superintendent for three months afterwards. It was only in June and July, as the issue on the Korean Spa was heating up, that it was inquired about and the subcommittee found out that it had not left the local office of the DENR. It needed the signature of the DENR Secretary. It took another coupel of months for it to reach the DENR Central Office, at which time a new Secretary was appointed.

Some sectors are asking whether it was really necessary to get the signature of the Secretary for rules already approved by the PAMB. As much as I would defend the right of the PAMB to have the final say in making rules, and because most PAMB's actually do so without having to wait for the signature of the Secretary, the PAMB powers do not expressly state that it has the power to make rules. Instead, that power is given to the Secretary in Section 10. As such, to be completely safe with the rules, I lobbied to have it signed by the Secretary.

More later: Atienza wants his own rules, refuses to sign and the result: there are no rules at this time and cages continue to increas . . .

The real deal

2007-07-03T14:15:00.000-07:00

TV Coverage really has its limits. It can only skim over issues instead of going to the heart of the matter. Print journalists take hours to interview and are able to cull the really important but TV news reporting is a he said she said thing. Usually no real depth.

Take the issue of the Korean Spa on Taal Volcano. There are really four issues here - environment, safety, heritage and law.

On the environment, frankly, the area is one of the most active volcanoes in the world. It is by nature a disturbed habitat, with its plants and animals well suited to disruption of the natural sort. A single building would probably not hurt, although it sets a precedent for more buildings. Frankly, as long as mitigating measures are put in place, the environment is not a priority issue here.

On danger, there is no question that it is dangerous. But have you heard the networks even once mention that Everest should be closed? Percentage wise, many more people have died there just trying to climb. Phivolcs says that no one should sleep there and it is only okay for day trips. So if the Spa commits that all guests will only be there for the day, what then? And if we really care about the danger, 3000 people live on volcano island, sleeping there everyday, with their kids. Do we care more about the danger to spa guests than them?

On heritage, it does piss me off that one of the most popular scenes in the country now has Korean signage. Why didn't Pinoy's think of setting up there first? It is a national shame that we have to rely on foreigners to help us appreciate our own and then shoot the project down.

Having said all that, there is just one simple thing -- it is illegal. The management plan of the Taal Volcano Protected Landscape classifies the area as Strict Protection Zone -- meaning no commercial activities allowed. Why this classification? Because of the danger, not really the biodiversity. But who should have pointed this out?

There is, in fact, a General Manager for the protected area. This should not even have been seen by the Protected Area Management Board not approved by the Environmental Management Bureau if the Protected Area Superintendent clearly stated that it is strict protection zone and is illegal.

To their credit, the PAMB did say that the final arbiter is the DENR in the EIA process, required waivers from the owners, employees and guests stating that they are undertaking a dangerous activity and holds no person responsible should anything happen to them, required that 70% of staff be hired from local labor and ensured that the boats to be used to transport them to the islands are boats of locals and not their own boats to ensure their contribution to the local economy. There were similar conditions on the EIA but it was DENR who should have known the zone and nipped this in the bud.

Finally, let me say this. The mayors of the surrounding towns have been attending PAMB meetings religiously but the Mayors of the three cities have not. Now that this issue exploded, Governor Santos and Mayor Tolentino are weighing in. With all due respect, the proper time for them to weigh in was at the PAMB meeting. Not every project is required to be approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Did they approve all the houses there of the 3000 people whose lives are on the line eacht ime they sleep?

In any case, Secretary Reyes has suspended the ECC due to violations and has called on the PAMB to recall the clearance for lack of transparency and because of the zoning. Democracy takes time but it is participation that makes it effective.

We call on the Mayors of Lipa, Tanauan and Tagaytay to fully participate in the Protected Area Management Board.

Residents protest the Korean SPA

2007-06-24T18:17:00.000-07:00

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.php?article_id=73111

2007-05-27T01:08:00.000-07:00

The Unified Rules and Regulations for Fisheries that will govern the fishing and aquaculture industries of Taal Lake has been passed by the Protected Area Management Board in an en banc meeting last March 2007. It will be signed by the DENR Secretary hopefully soon. This cures the legal defect of municipalities issuing fishcage licenses when there is legally no municipal water to speak of since the entire lake is a protected area. Fisherfolk who are complaining that the cage stewards are preventing them from fishing now have a legal argument -- the cages have no valid and legal permit until the rules and regulations are signed by the Secretary and made effective.

The absolute jewel of Batangas

2007-04-17T18:19:00.000-07:00

Taal Lake hosts endemic species across many families as it was intermittently part of the ocean during its long and interesting geological history. The Hydrophis semperi, a freshwater seasnake, and the Sardinella tawilis, a freshwater sardine and the basis of commercial fisheries in the lake, are only two of the vertebrates that are endemic to the lake. Remaining unnamed are probably a wide variety of invertebrates that have adapted to freshwater just as the snake and the sardine. Furthermore, many of these may actually be threatened with extinction.
Taal Volcano Protected Landscape consists of around 65,000 hectares of the Taal Lake Basin, with 24,000 inside it comprising the lake area. The entire basin was proclaimed a protected area in 1997 pursuant to a 1992 law called the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS). However, the NIPAS did not get Congressional appropriation and each park is expected to generate its own revenue and craft its own appropriate management structure. 16 towns are included and 187 villages, and to ensure stakeholder ownership, all of these villages and towns have a legal right to be represented in the Protected Area Management Board which should meet at least yearly.