Cebu Daily News (CDN) hit the nail on the head when it declared that “Failure to protect wildlife is treason (Editorial/May 9).”
Institutional apathy and inaction have added to the worrisome and worsening issues of greed, ignorance and indifference that have taken a heavy toll on our rapidly dwindling and vastly threatened wildlife species and their habitats.
It simply is preposterous to continue to pretend that humanity can still survive when ecosystems collapse. We need nature more than nature needs us, if ever it does.
The unraveling of the largely unregulated selling and trading of sharks in Cebu, home to the world-famous thresher sharks, compelled CDN to ask why, despite the inclusion of certain species of sharks in the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), there has been “no national regulation to protect the species 13 years after the enactment of RA 9147 and 15 years after RA 8550.”
While it does take time to craft national statutes, which passage, unfortunately, do not automatically guarantee their implementation, this should not be an excuse for local government units (LGUs) not to perform their devolved mandate to maintain a healthful and balanced ecology and protect the health and livelihood of their constituents. Hopefully, Cebu City and more coastal LGUs will follow the lead taken by the Cebu provincial government.
Kudos to Cebu City Councilor Nida Cabrera for filing a resolution urgently requesting “the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) through National Director Atty. Asis G. Perez, in time for the celebration of the Month of the Ocean during the month of May, for the issuance of a Fisheries Administrative Order for a moratorium on catching sharks, parallel with the conduct of a scientific study on the shark population and status in the country, with the aim of formulating a national legal framework on sharks conservation” and appealing to all LGUs to have their own regulation on the capture and sale of sharks.
Without waiting for Congress to enact a law, Cebu province has crafted an ordinance granting special protection to thresher sharks, whale sharks (“butanding” or “tuki”), giant manta rays (“sanga”) and sun fish (“mola mola”), as vulnerable species of fish. The ordinance covered the vulnerable species of fish found in all municipal seawaters within the territorial jurisdiction of the province of Cebu. It penalizes the hunting, catching, possessing, transporting, selling, buying, distributing, wounding or killing of the protected species.
Provincial Board Member Thadeo Ouano, chairperson of the environment committee recently proposed an amendment to the ordinance by adding three more species of hammerhead sharks in the list. These species are included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The IUCN Red List is “a powerful tool to inform and catalyze action for biodiversity conservation and policy change, critical to protecting the natural resources we need to survive (https://www.iucnredlist.org/news).”
The IUCN Red List attributes the sharp decline of the shark population primarily to “fisheries over-exploitation, as sharks are caught as targeted and accidental catches in many different fishing gears, including gill nets, purse seines, longlines and trawls, and from small artisanal boats to giant industrial vessels.” According to an Oceana publication, The Beauty of the Beast, shark conservation challenges include a general lack of political will, gaps in scientific knowledge and negative public images. Legislative reform in fisheries management and threatened species protection and increased public awareness and changes in public opinion are needed to protect sharks.
Why do sharks need protection?
Unknown to many, including public officials and even fisherfolk, sharks are “important in maintaining the health and balance of marine communities. As apex predators, they directly and indirectly shape the flora and fauna components of the ecosystem. Removing sharks can destabilize the food web and have widespread negative ecological impacts on community structure and function. Indeed, declining shark populations are already resulting in disrupted marine ecosystems around the globe.”
In addition, “Sharks particular biological characteristics make them extremely vulnerable to fisheries exploitation and many populations cannot recuperate at the same rate at which they are exploited (The Beauty of the Beast).”
How do we then protect sharks? “Predators as Prey,” another Oceana publication, offers three key steps:
1. Reduce the number of sharks captured in commercial fisheries through improved shark management, including requiring strict species-specific fishing quotas and stock assessments.
2. End shark-finning by requiring that all sharks be landed whole with their fins still naturally attached.
3. Reduce the demand for shark products such as shark fin soup (and our fish ball?).
Our friend, Dr. Lemnuel Aragones, cautions that in crafting legislation, there has to be real public consultation including informing stakeholders why sharks should not be harvested, the sharks’ vulnerability, address the poverty in the fisheries sector and the growing human population. He cited the experience in Bohol where catching manta rays and cetaceans was prohibited and local fishers were disenfranchised. He laments that most ordinances and legislated laws have been prescriptive rather than participatory.
The issues facing our sharks and our own survival compel stakeholders to work together and find effective solutions. The recent development where government, media and civil society work together for shark protection is a fine example of local stakeholders taking ownership of the shared and collective responsibility to protect our invaluable wildlife species.
We long for the time, and hope it will be soon, when all local government units prioritize ecological integrity and connect it with the pressing food security and livelihood concerns now aggravated by climate change. Let us regulate the capture and trade of sharks as one of the essential first steps.