OVERSTOCKED AND OVERBURDENED
Experts say Taal Lake has a carrying capacity of 6,000 fish cages. Last June, there were about 6,796 registered fish cages in the lake, although the real number is probably higher, since many of the cages have no permits. The sizes of fish cages in the lake also vary, and can each measure anywhere from 81 square meters to 40 square meters. (BFAR says there are more than 9,000 fish cages in Taal Lake, while the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office–Calaca, says there are 10,474, of which more than half are illegal.)

Experts say local fishcage operators equate bigger fish stocks and huge amounts of fish feed to bigger harvests. Aquaculturist Josephine de la Vega says this is why fish cage operators in the lake usually stock 375 tilapia fries per cubic meter in a cage instead of BFAR’s recommended 50 fries.

“The body of water can be used for aquaculture,” says UPLB freshwater biologist Dr. Lourdes Castillo, “but you have to make sure that you wouldn’t overburden the water.”

“When you overstock, you overfeed,” she says. “There are many excess wastes that would decompose. These would consume (dissolved) oxygen and fish would die.”

It did not help the lake any that an interim TVPL-PAMB meandered for some nine years before its membership was enhanced by the entry of the likes of small fisherfolk, and only because of the initiative of green groups Pusod Inc. and Tanggol Kalikasan, which is currently headed by lawyer Perez.

Created in 1997, the interim body consisted of the DENR regional chief, provincial planning officer, representatives from both local governments and NGOs, as well as those from other agencies in the area. But its function was limited to approving development permits for projects, such as resorts, within the Taal Lake basin.

Fisherfolk leader Milagros Chavez says that the interim TVPL-PAMB simply ignored whatever fishery issue that groups like hers raised, including the growing problem with fish cages.

“Because there was no functional agency that would manage the lake and local government units were on their own, nobody monitored the overall health of the lake,” says environmental lawyer Ipat Luna.

The “revitalized” TVPL-PAMB, however, remains hampered largely because of lack of funds. In 1997, its interim version had imposed a P10-entry fee on each visitor to the protected area, but this was not collected because of the DENR’s shortage of personnel.

Luna also says up until 2006, the TVPL-PAMB was unable to collect from the Integrated Protected Area Fund (IPAF) the annual amount due it.

Then again, the NIPAS Act has no specific figure for the fund; the law says only that IPAF would come from the government’s annual budget. According to Perez, the annual allocation came to just P20,000 per protected area.

These days, the TVPL-PAMB relies solely on voluntary contributions from the provincial government, lakeshore municipalities, and barangays to finance its meetings and other activities.

In the meantime, DENR’s Principe seems to believe that there is nothing wrong with the sprawling lake that is under his care. He told PCIJ in a phone interview last June: “Most of the lake’s waters are still clean and I think you can still drink them.”