IS THERE AN INTEGRATED CENTER FOR BREEDING ALL KINDS OF NATIVE FISH?

IS THERE AN INTEGRATED CENTER FOR BREEDING ALL KINDS OF NATIVE FISH?

The short answer is yes — and that is the good news.
The bad news? It still looks like we are working in separate silos.

Here in the Philippines, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) operates the National Inland Fisheries Technology Center (NIFTC). This center is the closest thing we have to an integrated hub for breeding and revitalizing native freshwater fish species. It is involved in induced breeding of ayungin, biya, dalag, native hito, martiniko, and even ulang or freshwater prawn. It also works on hatchery systems, rearing methods, and restocking programs in lakes and rivers.

On paper, that sounds impressive. And it is.

But then comes the next question: why do we also have the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) — another attached agency of the Department of Agriculture (DA) — doing fisheries research, aquaculture science, and resource management? NFRDI is supposed to be the research arm of BFAR and was created under the Philippine Fisheries Code. So now we have BFAR implementing, NFRDI researching, and both attached to the same department.

I cannot help but ask: why do we need two separate agencies with overlapping functions under one department? Are they perfectly synchronized — or are we duplicating effort, budgets, and manpower?

Then comes the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) through PCAARRD, which also funds and coordinates fish breeding and aquatic research. On top of that, we host the SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department (AQD) in Iloilo — an international organization serving all of Southeast Asia — and of course, we also have the UP College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences shaping future experts.

So now we have:

• DA → BFAR → NFRDI
  
  

• DOST → PCAARRD
  
  

• International partner → SEAFDEC/AQD
  
  

• Academe → UP and other universities
  
  

All working on fisheries.

My question is simple: Where is the master roadmap?

Is there a single public document that shows where the Philippines is going in terms of native fish conservation — which species we aim to save, where breeding centers will be located, how restocking will be monitored, and how communities will be involved?

Because the problem is real and urgent.

In Laguna Lake alone, native fish species dropped from about 71% in the 1960s to only around 4% by 2016–2017. That is not decline — that is collapse. And when native fish collapse, ecosystems collapse with them. Food security weakens. Culture disappears. Livelihoods shrink.

This is why native fish breeding is not just a scientific project. It is:

• Biodiversity protection
  
  

• Food security
  
  

• Cultural preservation
  
  

• And potentially, a powerful driver of community-based circular economies
  
  

Imagine barangay-level hatcheries linked to aquaponics, retention ponds, flood control systems, and local protein production. Imagine native fish being bred, grown, consumed, and replenished locally — instead of depending entirely on imported fry or invasive species.

But this will not happen through fragmented programs.

What we need now is a truly integrated National Native Fish Breeding Network — one that:

• Aligns DA, DOST, SEAFDEC and the academe
  
  

• Has a clear species recovery roadmap
  
  

• Connects science directly to barangay-level implementation
  
  

• And measures success not just by reports, but by fish returning to our rivers and lakes
  
  

Yes, we do have NIFTC. Yes, we do have NFRDI, PCAARRD, SEAFDEC and our universities. But without a unified direction, we risk doing many good things — separately — and still losing the war.

So I ask the uncomfortable question:

Do we really have an integrated center for breeding all kinds of native fish — or do we only have pieces of one?

Because our native fish do not have the luxury of waiting for bureaucracy to catch up.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/09-29-2026

WHO HAS THE RIGHTS TO DESTROY OUR MOUNTAINS?

 WHO HAS THE RIGHTS TO DESTROY OUR MOUNTAINS?

I hope I am only dreaming. Or maybe I am just a victim of fake news. But I keep hearing stories of entire mountains being excavated, scooped out, flattened — not for national security, not for public safety, not even for essential infrastructure — but for sand, soil, gravel, rocks, and minerals to be sold elsewhere for profit.

In these stories, permits are allegedly signed by mayors and governors as if they personally owned these mountains, as if nature came with a transferable title. Even worse, some of these same officials are rumored to be the very ones running the operations. If this is true, then what we are witnessing is not development. It is legalized plunder.

Yes, the government does have the power to grant extractive rights — for mining, quarrying, or timber — but let us be very clear: not even the government has the moral authority to grant anyone the right to completely destroy a mountain. A permit is not a license to erase an ecosystem.

So where is the national government in all this?
Where is the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)?
Do they even know how many mountains have already been disfigured, hollowed out, or wiped from the map?

We loudly condemn corruption in flood control projects — and rightly so, because people die in floods. But what about corruption in mountain destruction? Isn’t that just as deadly, only slower? When mountains are stripped, floods become worse. When forests disappear, droughts become harsher. When watersheds are destroyed, water shortages follow. The bill always comes due.

And who keeps track of the wildlife that vanishes when a mountain is carved apart?
The birds, the insects, the reptiles, the plants found nowhere else on Earth?
Do they get listed as “collateral damage”? Or do they simply vanish without official record?

This is not just an environmental issue. This is a governance crisis.

Mountains are not just piles of rock. They are living systems. They store water, regulate climate, prevent floods and landslides, and feed our rivers. They are also cultural landscapes. For many Indigenous communities, mountains are sacred — not commodities, not quarries, not profit centers. Destroying a mountain is not just environmental destruction; it is cultural erasure.

So who really has the rights here?

Legally, the state issues permits.
Economically, corporations claim contracts.
Politically, local officials wield signatures.

But morally, mountains do not belong to politicians, corporations, or even the present generation alone. They belong to the people who live with them, to future generations, and to the ecosystems that took thousands or even millions of years to evolve.

If a mountain is destroyed today, can the law still run after the offenders tomorrow?
Can accountability still happen after the last tree has fallen and the last slope has collapsed?
Or will everything be dismissed as “already done”?

Instead of racing to destroy what is left of our natural defenses, we should be racing to reforest, rehabilitate, and protect what still stands. Instead of counting quarry revenues, we should be counting how many watersheds we have saved, how many forests were restored, and how many communities protected from floods and landslides.

Perhaps what we truly lack is not laws — we have many of them — but the political will to enforce them without fear or favor. Perhaps what we truly lack is the courage to say no to short-term profit and yes to long-term survival.

So I ask again, and I ask it loudly:

Who has the right to destroy our mountains?
Because from where I stand, the only real right that exists is the duty to protect them.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/09-28-2026

ARE INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI THE FUTURE OF PLASTIC RECYCLING?

ARE INSECTS, BACTERIA AND FUNGI THE FUTURE OF PLASTIC RECYCLING?

Just when the battle against plastic pollution seemed hopeless, we may have found new hope — not in massive machines or costly chemicals, but in tiny living organisms. Insects, bacteria, and fungi are now emerging as natural plastic fighters, evolving enzymes that can break down what once took centuries to degrade.

It is deeply ironic that science created plastics — and now science may be what finally defeats them.

Researchers have discovered that a bacterium called Ideonella sakaiensis can digest PET plastics commonly used in bottles, breaking them back into reusable chemical components. Scientists have since engineered “super-enzymes” that work even faster, turning plastic into reusable raw materials in hours instead of centuries. Certain fungi can metabolize polyurethane, while insects like mealworms and waxworms, through their gut microbes, can digest even stubborn plastics such as polyethylene.

Why does this matter?

Because the scale of the plastic problem is terrifying. The world produces more than 400 million tons of plastic every year, yet only about 9–12% is recycled. The rest ends up buried, burned, or floating in our oceans as deadly microplastics. Traditional recycling mostly “down-cycles” plastics into lower-quality products. Biological recycling offers something radical: breaking plastics down into their pure building blocks so they can be used again and again — a true circular economy.

Some companies are even developing enzyme kits that would allow compostable plastics to be added safely to household compost piles. Imagine that — plastics finally becoming soil instead of garbage.

Just as exciting is the possibility of community-level recycling. For barangays and small communities, this technology could enable local compost hubs where plastics are biologically processed instead of dumped in landfills. This could reduce hauling costs, generate green jobs, and restore degraded environments.

But let us be clear: this is not yet a silver bullet.

Many common plastics remain difficult to break down. Most of these biological solutions still work best under laboratory conditions. Scaling them up safely and affordably remains a major challenge. There are also legitimate concerns about unleashing engineered microbes into the environment without strict safeguards.

This is why government action is crucial — and urgent.

The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) should already be deeply involved in developing and testing these technologies locally. If foreign licensing becomes necessary, then the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) must protect national interests in technology transfer. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) should define environmental safety rules. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) would regulate products once enzyme kits and bio-recyclers enter the market. And when implementation reaches the community level, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and LGUs must take charge.

Frankly, I believe this calls for a national inter-agency task force on biological recycling — before technology overtakes our policies.

The bigger question now is not whether this science works. It already does. The real question is:

Are we ready to adopt it? Are we willing to invest in it? Or will we once again wait until the technology is expensive, foreign-owned, and beyond the reach of ordinary Filipinos?

If insects, bacteria, and fungi are now ready to fight plastic, then humanity must also be ready to fight — with policy, funding, community action, and political will.

We created the plastic crisis.
Nature may be showing us the way out.
The only question left is whether we choose to follow.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/09-27-2026

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOOD CONTROL AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT?

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLOOD CONTROL AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT?

Flooding is becoming an all-too-familiar nightmare in our country, but it seems our understanding of how to deal with it hasn’t caught up. We keep talking about flood control, but what we truly need—and what we rarely deliver—is flood management.

To put it simply: flood control means building things to stop flooding. Think dams, levees, floodwalls, retention basins—the physical, structural defenses. On the other hand, flood management is smarter. It’s holistic. It combines those very structures with policy, planning, early-warning systems, smart zoning, and community preparedness.

In other words, flood control is just one piece of the puzzle. It’s like elementary school: basic, essential, but limited. Flood management, by contrast, is graduate school—it demands deeper thinking, systems-level solutions, and long-term strategy.

So why has our Congress focused almost exclusively on flood control? Why the obsession with concrete dikes and ditches? Because flood control is tangible, visible. It shows up in the budget, in construction contracts, in ribbon-cutting ceremonies. But that visibility can also be a smokescreen. There have been repeated reports of substandard flood control works, overpriced projects, even “ghost” projects. 

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has admitted that we don’t yet have a genuine, integrated master plan for floods. We’re doing piecemeal projects—dikes here, drainage channels there—but no coordinated nationwide strategy. That fragmented approach speaks volumes about how shallow our interventions are.

Meanwhile, politicians like Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri have called out this piecemeal budgeting as a major problem. Rather than a few big, well-designed programs, what we get is scattered funds for projects that may or may not work. And critics argue that many of these projects serve the interests of contractors more than the safety of communities. Senator Panfilo Lacson has long warned of corruption and anomalies in flood control funds. 

So yes, it’s time we moved beyond just building dikes. We need flood management—a smarter, broader, more resilient system. Here’s what that would look like:

1. Integrated planning across agencies — Local governments, national agencies, and communities must coordinate. Flood management isn’t just DPWH’s job.
   
   

2. Land‐use policy and zoning — We should discourage settlements in flood-prone areas. Instead, we should direct growth toward safer zones.
   
   

3. Early-warning systems and community education — Technology matters. Alerts, evacuation routes, flood drills—all of these save lives, not just infrastructure.
   
   

4. Nature-based solutions — Restore wetlands, reforest riverbanks, rehabilitate floodplains. These act as natural sponges when the rains come.
   
   

5. Advanced technological tools — Flood prediction can be strengthened by data analytics, AI, even satellite monitoring. We can also use fluid-dynamics models to understand how water moves through our systems.
   
   

6. Policy reform backed by legislation — Bills being discussed in Congress already reflect this. 

We must spread the responsibility, not just leave it to DPWH to drop concrete where water flows. That’s what flood management calls for: a system that is both structural and adaptive. It requires long-term vision, multi-party cooperation, and yes, brighter minds.

If we continue treating flood control as our endgame, we will keep repeating the same mistakes. But if we embrace flood management—real, integrated, people-centered flood management—we just might break the cycle of flood disaster in this country.

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It's a reminder that changing outcomes requires changing structures, feedback loops, or mental models—not just repeating actions within the same paradigm.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/06-26-2026