ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

 ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST ILLICIT WILDLIFE TRADING

How can we strictly enforce laws against illicit wildlife trading when the Department of Justice itself, through its spokesman, has admitted that our borders are porous? If people can be smuggled out of the country, how much easier would it be for wildlife—and not just live animals, but also eggs, hides, horns, scales, and even fish brood stock?

Outbound smuggling is one problem, but let us not forget inbound smuggling. What do you call that? Illegal imports. Both flows—outbound and inbound—are happening, and both are serious.

The sad thing is, there are speculations that in some cases, the very officials who are supposed to enforce the law are the ones breaking it. This undermines not only enforcement but also public trust.

The good news is that there is already a mechanism for coordination. The Philippines has a Wildlife Law Enforcement Action Plan (WildLEAP 2018–2028), which brings together agencies like the DENR, PNP, NBI, BFAR, Bureau of Customs, and even LGUs. The bad news? We do not hear much about what they are doing. Silence breeds suspicion. If they are making arrests, why are we not hearing regular reports? Transparency is itself a form of deterrence.

Smuggling Cases Close to Home

Over the years, we have heard about the illegal export of sabalo (mother milkfish), vital for aquaculture seed supply. More recently, there are whispers about ludong (lobed river mullet), one of the rarest and most prized fish in the Philippines, being smuggled out. This is alarming. Ludong is already nearly endangered; smuggling only pushes it closer to extinction.

Wildlife crimes are not victimless crimes. Every pangolin smuggled, every hornbill poached, every ludong exported illegally—these are losses to our biodiversity, our food security, and even our cultural heritage.

Who’s Supposed to Enforce the Law?

The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) under DENR is the lead agency implementing RA 9147 (Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act). But enforcement requires a whole network:

• PNP – conducts raids and arrests.
  
  

• NBI – investigates organized wildlife trafficking and cybercrime links.
  
  

• BFAR – protects aquatic wildlife, especially endangered fish and marine species.
  
  

• Bureau of Customs – intercepts smuggled wildlife at airports and seaports.
  
  

• LGUs – enforce local ordinances and monitor public markets.
  
  

• DOJ – prosecutes wildlife crimes.
  
  

Internationally, the Philippines also coordinates with CITES, INTERPOL, UNODC, and the World Customs Organization. So the framework is there. The problem is execution and follow-through.

What Needs to Be Done

First, the WildLEAP Task Force should report regularly to the public: How many arrests? How many convictions? How many wildlife rescues? Publishing these numbers will show taxpayers that the law is being enforced.

Second, Congress should review their budget. If the problem is underfunding, then allocate more resources. If the problem is inefficiency, then impose stricter oversight.

Third, we need to strengthen border security. DOJ Assistant Secretary Mico Clavano has publicly acknowledged that our archipelagic geography makes guarding borders difficult. But “difficult” does not mean “impossible.” The Philippine Coast Guard and the Navy should be part of the wildlife enforcement system. If we can guard against pirates and smugglers of cigarettes and oil, why not smugglers of wildlife?

Fourth, LGUs should step up. Illegal wildlife trade is not only international—it also happens locally, right in our markets. If LGUs inspected public markets more often, many cases of illegal selling of turtles, exotic birds, and protected fish could be stopped before they even enter the export chain.

The Bigger Picture

Why is this so urgent? Because the Philippines is a megadiverse country, hosting more species per square kilometer than most nations. Sadly, we are also a hotspot for wildlife trafficking. Pangolins, geckos, ivory, and even corals have all been seized in Philippine ports. The United Nations has warned that the illegal wildlife trade is now the fourth largest transnational crime in the world, after drugs, arms, and human trafficking.

We must remind ourselves: protecting wildlife is not just about saving cute animals. It is about maintaining ecological balance, supporting sustainable fisheries, and even preventing future pandemics. Many diseases—SARS, Ebola, COVID-19—are linked to wildlife trade.

Final Thoughts

The enforcement gaps are glaring, but the solutions are within reach. Coordination already exists on paper; it just needs to be lived out in practice. Transparency and accountability must be non-negotiable. And above all, communities must be part of the solution. Barangay-level monitoring, citizen reporting hotlines, and stronger cooperatives can create a grassroots shield against wildlife crime.

Food security and biodiversity are deeply intertwined. Smuggling out sabalo and ludong is not just theft from nature; it is theft from our people.

So the challenge is clear: enforce the law, close the borders, and protect what is ours. Because once these species are gone, they are gone forever. And no amount of apologies or budgets will bring them back.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-27-2025

RICE AS THE BAROMETER OF FOOD SECURITY

 RICE AS THE BAROMETER OF FOOD SECURITY

It is already obvious that our rice farmers are forced to sell their palay harvests at prices lower than their production costs. Imagine this: farmers spend around ₱20–₱22 per kilo to produce palay, but are forced to sell at ₱10–₱14 per kilo. That is a straight loss of about ₱10 per kilo. Who would keep farming under such conditions?

Now, we hear proposals about selling rice at ₱20 per kilo to more consumers. Good news for the urban poor perhaps—but what about the rural poor, the farmers themselves? If they keep selling at a loss, eventually they will stop planting. What happens to food security then?

This leads us to a bigger question: what should really be the definition of food security?

Too often, food security in the Philippines is reduced to the size of the rice inventory. But what good is rice without viands to eat it with? Shouldn’t food security also mean a reliable supply of poultry, meats, fruits, vegetables, fish, and even root crops? In truth, food security should be defined holistically—not only in terms of quantity (consumption) but also in terms of quality (nutrition).

We should also include in that definition access to potable water, cooking fuel, and electricity, because what use is rice if you can’t cook it?

Palay Prices and the Role of Government

The palay price crisis did not come from nowhere. The Rice Tariffication Law (RTL) stripped the National Food Authority (NFA) of its buffer stocking and price stabilization role. The NFA’s 2026 budget is pegged at ₱11.18 billion, but once you deduct personnel and operating expenses (~₱6 billion), only about ₱5 billion remains for palay procurement. That’s enough to buy just 320,000 tons of palay—or a measly 1.6% of national output.

Now compare that with our neighbors:

• India’s Food Corporation procures 30–40% of rice output every year.
  
  

• Thailand’s rice pledging scheme once covered 20–25% of production.
  
  

If they can do it, why can’t we?

Some experts suggest that the Philippines should aim to procure at least 20% of palay output, roughly 4 million tons. That would require ₱100 billion for procurement plus another ₱100 billion for warehouse infrastructure. A steep price, yes—but is it any steeper than the social cost of losing our rice farmers to bankruptcy and migration?

Rice as the Barometer

Dr. Ted Mendoza is right: rice is the barometer of our food security. If our rice farmers are suffering, then the entire food system is in crisis. When rice prices collapse at the farmgate, it signals a larger problem of market stabilization and government intervention.

But let us not stop there. The 1996 World Food Summit gave us a globally accepted definition of food security that still applies today. It has four dimensions:

1. Availability – Is there enough food produced, stored, or imported to meet demand?
   
   

2. Access – Can people afford and physically reach the food they need?
   
   

3. Utilization – Is the food being consumed in a way that supports health? This includes nutrition, water, and cooking methods.
   
   

4. Stability – Are these conditions reliable over time, or are they vulnerable to shocks like typhoons, wars, or inflation?
   
   

Notice how rice only addresses the first dimension—availability. But access, utilization, and stability are just as critical.

A Call for Holistic Food Security

The truth is, food security should mean food sovereignty. We should not only ensure that rice is cheap and abundant; we should also ensure that farmers, fisherfolk, and food producers live in dignity. After all, how can we expect food producers to continue feeding the nation if they themselves cannot eat properly?

Food sovereignty means that communities should have control over how their food is produced, distributed, and consumed. It means strengthening farmer cooperatives, investing in local food systems, and promoting diversified farming—not just rice monoculture. It also means linking food security to environmental sustainability, because there is no food security in the long run without healthy soils, clean water, and stable ecosystems.

So yes, rice is the barometer of food security—but let us not mistake the barometer for the whole climate. If rice tells us that farmers are in crisis, then the entire food system is under stress.

The solution? Restore the government’s Market Stabilization Role. Ensure fair farmgate prices. Build strategic warehouses. Invest not just in rice, but in poultry, vegetables, and fisheries. And above all, treat farmers not as charity cases, but as partners in securing the nation’s future.

Because food security is not just about keeping rice cheap for consumers. It is about ensuring that both producers and consumers can live with dignity, health, and resilience. (With credits to Dr. Ted Mendoza).

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-26-2025

WILDLIFE PROTECTION VERSUS AQUACULTURE PROMOTION

 WILDLIFE PROTECTION VERSUS AQUACULTURE PROMOTION

Some call it a tension; I call it a lack of coordination. Or perhaps it is coordination—or the lack thereof—that is at the heart of the tension.

On one hand, we have the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) under the DENR, tasked with protecting our wildlife and ecosystems. On the other hand, we have the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under the Department of Agriculture, tasked with promoting food production and food security. These are both noble mandates. The problem is, when the two agencies pursue their goals without aligning with each other, we end up with conflict instead of complementarity.

Take one case in point: the BMB wants to protect our native freshwater species in rivers and lakes, while BFAR promotes tilapia culture. Tilapia may be cheap, resilient, and fast-growing, but it is an invasive species that preys on or outcompetes native fish. This leaves us with a paradox: in trying to ensure food on the table today, are we sacrificing biodiversity—and future food security—for tomorrow?

Another case: BMB wants to preserve the biodiversity in swamplands and wetlands, which are natural habitats for migratory birds, amphibians, and native fishes. BFAR, however, has historically promoted the conversion of swamplands into fishponds. That creates jobs, yes, but at the cost of losing entire ecosystems. Do we really have to choose one over the other?

The key to biodiversity management is balance. But how do we keep that balance?

I believe the solution is not just in the hands of BMB and BFAR. We need LGUs, the DOST, state universities, NGOs, and people’s organizations all sitting at the same table. In fact, I would go further: let us bring these issues to the Regional Development Councils (RDCs), where cross-sectoral coordination is possible. Food security and environmental sustainability should not be treated as separate silos—they are two sides of the same coin.

Globally, aquaculture is no longer a small side industry. It now provides more than 50% of aquatic food consumed worldwide, and demand is projected to double by 2050. This makes aquaculture indispensable. At the same time, conservationists warn that if aquaculture is done recklessly, it can cause ecological collapse—disease outbreaks, invasive species proliferation, and water pollution from fish feeds.

In Southeast Asia, several countries are now experimenting with sustainable aquaculture models. For instance, integrated mangrove-aquaculture systems allow shrimp and fish to be farmed while still maintaining biodiversity corridors. In Vietnam, farmers are testing closed-loop aquaculture that recycles nutrients and reduces waste. Why can’t we do the same here?

One promising approach is to prioritize native species for aquaculture, such as milkfish, catfish, and indigenous carps, instead of relying too heavily on imported or invasive species. Another is to invest in circular design systems: fish cages that minimize waste, wetlands that double as natural filters, and community-led monitoring of disease risks.

Here are some ideas that might help bridge the divide:

1. Policy Integration – Let aquaculture development be embedded within LGU biodiversity action plans and zoning ordinances. Don’t let one agency push for fishponds where another agency has declared critical habitats.
   
   

2. Community Co-management – Empower fisherfolk and indigenous peoples to co-manage aquaculture areas side by side with protected zones. After all, they are the most affected by both biodiversity loss and food shortages.
   
   

3. Eco-certification and Traceability – Promote aquaculture products that are certified as “biodiversity-friendly” or “sustainably farmed.” Consumers, especially in cities, are increasingly willing to pay for products that are good for both the people and the planet.
   
   

4. Restorative Infrastructure – Let’s think beyond fishponds and cages. Why not create aquaculture learning sites that also serve as biodiversity hubs, eco-tourism areas, or even cultural heritage parks?
   
   

At the end of the day, food security is important, but so is environmental sustainability. If we continue to push one at the expense of the other, we all lose. The better path is not “either-or” but “both-and.” Both food on the table and biodiversity in our rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Both livelihood for fisherfolk and conservation for future generations.

The challenge, therefore, is not to pick sides but to design governance systems where BMB and BFAR work hand in hand, instead of at cross purposes. We cannot afford turf wars in a time of climate crisis, dwindling biodiversity, and rising food demand. What we need is participatory governance, with RDCs as the platform, and circular thinking as the guiding principle.

Because in the long run, the survival of both our people and our planet depends not on competition, but on coordination.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-25-2025

BREEDING AND REWILDING LOBED RIVER MULLET

 BREEDING AND REWILDING LOBED RIVER MULLET

The good news is that our government has kickstarted a lobed river mullet (ludong) conservation project through Oplan Sagip Ludong, initiated by BFAR Region 2. The bad news is that this project is likely not getting enough funding, support, or attention. For now, it remains mainly a regional initiative, when it should be a national priority.

Ludong, scientifically known as Cestraeus goldiei, is no ordinary fish. It is rare, seasonal, and herbivorous, feeding exclusively on river algae. It is also catadromous—meaning it migrates downstream to the sea to spawn before returning upstream. That makes it doubly vulnerable to overfishing, dam construction, and river pollution. No wonder it is often called the “President’s Fish” because of its high market value and exclusivity. At one point, it was selling at ₱4,000 to ₱5,000 per kilo in local markets. But behind the prestige lies a sobering reality: ludong is classified as “near endangered” or “near threatened.”

If we don’t act now, it could slip down the ladder of conservation categories: from “vulnerable” to “endangered,” to “critically endangered,” and eventually to “extinct in the wild.” And once it’s gone, there’s no turning back.

Here are my questions: what is the actual surviving population of ludong today? What are the numerical targets for the next five years? Unless BFAR and DENR publish these numbers, the public will remain in the dark, and accountability will be weak. Conservation is not just about slogans; it’s about measurable outcomes.

Another concern is the enforcement of the ban on catching and selling ludong. Reports suggest that despite the prohibition, ludong still finds its way to black markets and private dining tables. If this is true, then implementation is failing. Moreover, we must extend the ban to cover ludong roe (fish eggs), because harvesting eggs directly threatens the next generation of the species.

Beyond enforcement, we need science. The Department of Science and Technology (DOST) should accelerate genetic barcoding studies to clarify whether ludong populations in Luzon are truly unique or related to lobed river mullets found in Sulawesi, Vanuatu, or Fiji. If the Luzon ludong is genetically distinct, then it deserves the full weight of “endemic species” protection. If not, then at the very least, we can learn from regional conservation models. Either way, scientific clarity is essential.

What’s missing, in my view, is a comprehensive rewilding program. Breeding ludong in captivity is only half the battle. To rebuild healthy river populations, we need rewilding efforts aligned with watershed rehabilitation and anti-pollution campaigns. Otherwise, even if hatcheries succeed, there will be no suitable habitats for restocking. BFAR’s research centers in Claveria and Aparri are commendable first steps, but they must be scaled up, not left struggling with limited funding.

Let us also broaden the collaboration. Why is this effort mainly BFAR’s alone? Where is the DENR, which oversees freshwater ecosystems? Where is DOST, which could provide scientific innovation? Where is the DA, which could link conservation with fisherfolk livelihoods? Even LGUs along the Cagayan River basin should be fully mobilized. Without multi-agency coordination, the program risks becoming another well-meaning but underfunded project.

Globally, the lobed river mullet (Cestraeus plicatilis) has been recorded in places like Sulawesi, Okinawa, and New Caledonia. However, these are scattered populations, possibly even distinct species. In the Philippines, ludong’s story is not just ecological but cultural—woven into the identity of Cagayan Valley communities. Protecting it is both a scientific obligation and a matter of heritage.

So, what do we do next?

1. Nationalize Oplan Sagip Ludong. Turn it into a flagship biodiversity program, not just a regional experiment.
   
   

2. Set clear population targets. Publish baseline numbers and five-year goals to measure progress.
   
   

3. Strengthen enforcement. Include a ban on the sale of ludong roe and crack down on black markets.
   
   

4. Invest in science. Push for genetic studies, captive breeding, and rewilding programs.
   
   

5. Align with river rehabilitation. A healthy ludong population depends on clean, flowing rivers.
   
   

6. Promote fisherfolk participation. Give local communities a stake in protection—through ecotourism, conservation-linked livelihoods, or hatchery partnerships.
   
   

The ludong is a symbol of what we stand to lose if we neglect our rivers. It is also a symbol of what we could achieve if we align science, policy, and community action. The choice is ours: let ludong become a legend of the past—or let it swim again in abundance, a living testament to Filipino stewardship.

The question remains: will we wait for this species to vanish before acting decisively, or will we breed and rewild it now while we still have the chance?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 

12-24-2025