The marine protection organisation issued a strongly worded statement on March 17 asserting that BFAR has chosen to interpret the ruling in favour of large commercial fleets rather than defend the rights of small fishers.
“Instead of fighting for the rights of 2.2 million municipal fisherfolk as mandated by law and the Constitution, the BFAR is interpreting the Supreme Court First Division ruling in a way that benefits large commercial fleets,” said Von Hernandez, Oceana vice president.
He noted that even though the Supreme Court decision was not yet final, BFAR’s actions have already influencing perceptions and actions on the ground.
“This lamentable interpretation of the ruling, which is not yet final, is unfortunately causing widespread confusion among local government units, enforcement agencies and fisherfolk. One wonders whether this is part of an intentional effort to set the narrative and slowly open municipal waters to commercial fishing interests,” said Hernandez.
Specifically, the organisation criticised BFAR for its handling of the implications arising from the Supreme Court decision favouring Mercidar Fishing Corporation.
According to Oceana, the agency had previously exhibited “sloppy handling” of the case, which contributed to the adverse outcome.
Damaging effect on small fishers
The current controversy centres on BFAR’s public position that the ruling now allows Mercidar to operate within municipal waters.
BFAR Director Elizer Salilig stated during the public hearing of the Senate Committee on Agriculture that it would not affect municipal fishers.
However, Senator Kiko Pangilinan contested this, citing testimonies of local government officials and fisherfolk.
Fishing operators now entering municipal waters are unfairly competing with the catch of municipal fishers, causing the rapid decline of catch and income for small fishers.
“What we are experiencing now is that we have to go farther and farther just to catch fish, we spend more time fishing, and our catch is getting smaller. This is proof, based on our own experience, that fish in municipal waters are gradually disappearing,” said National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) Artisanal Fisherfolk Sectoral Representative Restituto del Rosario.
A barangay leader from Nasugbu, Batangas, Marlon Limok, provided an enforcement perspective, recounting that his Bantay Dagat team apprehended a commercial fishing vessel owned by Mercidar in October.
The vessel was operating only 10 kilometers from shore. He noted that the vessel had almost 15,000 kilos of fish in its hold.
“The impact is huge… If our municipal fishers were to catch that amount, they would not be able to finish it even after several months of fishing,” said Limok.
Oceana warned that BFAR’s current trajectory, when combined with external pressures such as rising fuel costs linked to war in the Middle East, would create ideal conditions for increased illegal commercial incursions into municipal waters.
“The increasing price of fuel brought on by the ongoing war in the Middle East should prompt BFAR and our enforcement agencies to double down on vessel monitoring measures and work more closely with local government units to uphold the law to protect the 15-kilometer municipal waters instead of legitimising its plunder,” said Hernandez.
Oceana pointed to its recently published Fisheries Audit report that found the Philippine fisheries sector is in rapid decline.
It called on BFAR to “abandon its pro-commercial fishing stance” and support local government units in protecting their municipal waters.
Hernandez concluded: “Our fishers are the ones putting food on our table, yet they are the ones going hungry and struggling from poverty. Instead of enforcing science-based recovery measures as mandated by law, DA-BFAR is peddling amendments that would let commercial fishing fleets raid municipal waters – the final refuge for our recovering stocks and small fishers. This is incompetence meeting greed, and it’s shrinking our fisheries and emptying people’s nets.”
