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