Here’s a Letter on West Philippine Seas fisheries written by member-scientists of the Philippine Association of Marine Science (PAMS https://pams.ph) and endorsed by all PAMS members on 23 July 2021 during the 16th National Symposium in Marine Science.
Source: 
Media Release:
Short link: https://wp.me/paaccn-c0N
Why the Philippine Sea is Important to Filipinos: A Fisheries Perspective
The West Philippine Sea (WPS) has been and still remains as one of the most important fishing grounds in the Philippines, contributing to the national economy and to the social and economic well-being of coastal communities along its margins and even beyond its geographic extent. As marine fish experts who have done various government-funded scientific studies in this region and on fisheries in general, we present here some facts that cement the importance of the marine resources in the WPS, particularly around the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), to the country’s food security and fisheries production.
“Dangerous Ground”
The area named as “Dangerous Ground” in various nautical charts of the South China Sea/West Philippine Sea roughly corresponds to the KIG, considered to be part of the Philippine territory (P.D. 1596; R.A. 9522). This large area is poorly mapped; hence, the name serves as a warning to seafarers. However, contrary to what Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque’s statement implied, these navigational hazards are not just “rocks,” but are living shallow coral reefs that harbor high biodiversity, offer various ecological services, and support productive fisheries1,2. In fact, the KIG is estimated to include about one-third of the total coral reefs in the Philippines3. Besides being host to a rich marine biodiversity, coral reefs are considered to be one of the most productive marine ecosystems. Perceiving coral reefs as rocks is a common misconception.
More than just “rocks”
It is true that Scarborough Shoal, which is indeed not part of the KIG, is renowned for fishing. A recent study4 estimated that the shoal can produce as much as 31 metric tons of fish per square kilometer of coral reef area per year. Put into perspective, healthy coral reef areas closer to the mainland could produce between 15-20 metric tons of fish per square kilometer per year5. However, Scarborough Shoal is tiny compared to the entire KIG. Coral reefs in the whole KIG can potentially provide around 62,000 to 91,000 metric tons of fish per year4. This volume of fish could supply the fish needs of 1.6 to 2.3 million Filipinos per year, which is roughly equivalent to 1 to 1.4 times the population of Davao City (or up to 2.5 times the population of Cebu City)6. Moreover, these reefs show strong ecological connections with reefs near mainland Palawan7 and are potential sources of fish larvae to these reefs and those as far as the Sulu and Celebes Seas8, thus contributing to fisheries productivity even outside the WPS region.
Few fish to fight for?
The statements that there is not a lot of fish to quarrel over in the WPS and that it is not a known fishing ground were particularly troubling. If this were the case, why is it that about 55% of global marine fishing vessels operate in the South China Sea9 and about 13-21% of annual global marine fish catch worth at least US$21.8 billion10 comes from this area? Additionally, using data from Chinese fishing vessels operating in the KIG area from 2013 to 2016, Chinese researchers in 201811 estimated fish biomass of at least 1.94 million metric tons for just four fishery groups: large tuna, purpleback squid, bonitos, and jacks/trevallies. For comparison, the Philippines’ 2018 total marine capture fisheries production was only at 1.88 million metric tons.
In the Philippines alone, early estimates of fish catch from modified drive-in nets in the late 1990’s reached 78-105 metric tons per square kilometer per year12. Cumulative catches from 2000 to 2014 show that 27% of total marine capture fisheries production in the Philippines comes from the WPS13 while the estimated fisheries production from coral reefs in the KIG could potentially contribute another 3-5% to the total Philippine marine fisheries production4. With one-third of the total marine fish catch in the country coming from this region, government officials should refrain from downplaying the importance of the WPS as a major fishing ground and an important source of fish for our countrymen.
Fish for Filipinos
Considering that 30% of total protein intake and 70% of the total animal protein intake by Filipinos is taken from fish14, it is important that our fishers have continued access to the productive fishing grounds in the WPS. Besides its contribution to food security, marine fisheries in the WPS provides employment to about 1.8 million people, most of which comes from the small-scale fishing sector15. With fishers already having the second highest poverty incidence among the basic sectors16, the government should be making more active efforts to ensure that fish from Philippine seas shall be reserved exclusively for the benefit of the Filipinos17, and to address the massive poaching being done within our sovereign waters. The need to strengthen the security of fishing operations in the WPS is actually one of the specific actions identified for the capture fisheries sector under the national fisheries development plan developed by DA-BFAR18 in consultation with multi-sectoral stakeholders.
The richness of the West Philippine Sea cannot and should not be underestimated and undervalued. We are presenting these figures and facts to urge the national government to adopt a more assertive and responsive pro-Filipino management approach for the WPS, and to enlighten the public on the critical role of this region for ecological resilience, food security and sustainable development. We understand the challenges of safeguarding the WPS and protecting our own fishers in responsibly accessing its bounty, and we are willing to extend our collective expertise to work together in achieving these goals. (✓)
[Signed]:
Hazel O. Arceo, Rene A. Abesamis, Victor S. Ticzon, Jerome Benedict P. Cabansag, Wilfredo L. Campos, Badi R. Samaniego, Rollan C. Geronimo, Rodulf Anthony T. Balisco, Kent Elson S. Sorgon, Samuel Mamauag, Moonyeen Alava, Vincent V. Hilomen, Richard Muallil, Cleto L. Nañola Jr.
_________
Editor’s Note: Words and opinions solely by the authors’.
_________
References:
1HANCOX D, PRESCOTT V. 1985. A Geographical Description of the Spratly Islands and an Account of Hydrographic Surveys Amongst Those Islands”, Maritime Briefing (University of Durham) 1:6.ISBN 1-897643-18-7
2ALIÑO PM, QUIBILAN MCC (eds). 2003. The Kalayaan Islands: Our Natural Heritage. Quezon City: UP Marine Science Institute. 92 pp.
3ONG PS, AFUANG LE, ROSELL-AMBAL RG (eds). 2002. Philippine biodiversity conservation priorities: a second iteration of the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Quezon City, Philippines: Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Conservation International Philippines, Biodiversity Conservation Program – University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Developmental Studies, and Foundation for the Philippine Environment. 113 pp.
4ARCEO HO, CABASAN JP, LUCIANO RMA, HEYRES LJD, MAMAUAG SS, ALIÑO PM. 2020. Estimating the potential fisheries production of three offshore reefs in the West Philippine Sea, Philippines. Philippine Journal of Science 149:647-658
5ALCALA AC, RUSS G. 2002. Status of Philippine coral reef fisheries. Asian Fisheries Science 15: 177–192.
6Assuming a per capita consumption rate of 40 kg of fish per year. Population of Davao City and Cebu City from Philippine Statistics Authority
7JUINIO-MEÑEZ MA, MAGSINO RM, RAVAGO-GOTANCO R, YU ET. 2003. Genetic structure of Linckia laevigata and Tridacna crocea populations in the Palawan shelf and shoal reefs. Marine Biology 142: 717–726
8PATA PR, YÑIGUEZ AT. 2019. Larval connectivity patterns of the North Indo-West Pacific coral reefs. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0219913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0219913
9SUMAILA UR, CHEUNG WWL. 2015. Boom or Bust: The Future of Fish in the South China Sea. The Oceans Asia Project – Fisheries Management In The East And South China Seas, University of British Columbia. 33 pp.
10TEH LSL, WITTER A, CHEUNG WWL, SUMAILA UR, YIN X. 2017. What is at stake? Status and threats to South China Sea marine fisheries. Ambio 46:57–72 DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0819-0
11ZHANG J, QIU Y, CHEN Z, ZHANG P, ZHANG K, FAN J, CHEN G, CAI Y, SUN M. 2018. Advances in pelagic fishery resources survey and assessment in open South China Sea[J]. South China Fisheries Science 14(6):
118-127. doi: 10.12131/20180037
12ALIÑO PM, NAÑOLA CL, OCHOVILLO DG, RAÑOLA MC. 1998. The fisheries potential of the Kalayaan Island Group, South China Sea. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Marine Biology of the South China Sea; 1996 Oct 28 – Nov 1; Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, p. 219–226.
13PAULY D, LIANG C. 2020. The fisheries of the South China Sea: Major trends since 1950. Marine Policy
121:103584
14ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK. 2014. State of the Coral Triangle: Philippines. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, 103 pp.
15FUNGE-SMITH S, BRIGGS M, Miao W. 2012. Regional overview of fisheries and aquaculture in Asia and the Pacific 2012 (RAP Publication 2012/26). Bangkok, Thailand: Asia-Pacifi c Fishery Commission, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 139 pp.
16Philippine Statistics Authority 2018
17Section 5. Republic Act No. 8550, as amended by Republic Act No, 10654.
18DA-BFAR. Comprehensive National Fisheries Industry Development Plan (CNFIDP MEDIUM TERM 2016-2020).