Fishing vessel operators: VMS will expose galunggong 'trade secret'

The three private firms operating commercial fishing vessels said Tuesday that the government order mandating the installation of vessel monitoring system (VMS) on commercial fishing vessels will expose trade secrets, particularly in catching galunggong.

The lawyer of the firms opposing Fishing Administrative Order (FAO) 266 said that the monitoring scheme will disclose what particular time of the day they caught the particular fish such as galunggong.

"For tuna fishing, there are migratory pathways so there is not much trade secret to that. In galunggong, [vessel] operators have to determine where the schools of galunggong are,” said Atty. Arnold Naval, counsel for Royale Fishing Corp., Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources, Inc., and RBL Fishing Corporation during the oral arguments on the pending Supreme Court case.

“That is a trade secret already, your honor,” said Naval.

“Galunggong fishing operates on trade secrets on where to fish [them]. This [fish] float in a certain area of the water, they do not migrate to other borders, so it is a challenge for the fishing vessel operator to know where to catch them, your honor,” he added.

FAO 266 has been earlier declared unconstitutional by the Malabon Region Trial Court for violating right to privacy and protection from unlawful search, prompting the government to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

“The worst thing that could happen is that they will load fuel, spend millions to go to a particular area only to expect another fishing company that beat them to a draw in that particular fishing ground,” Naval explained.

Unregulated fishing

Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra, who is arguing in favor of the government’s policy, defended the VMS scheme by arguing that it facilitates efficient use of government resources in fighting illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.

“What is our alternative to real-time VMS? We would have to send patrol vessels out in the high seas, in the EEZ (exclusive economic zone), to determine what commercial vessels are doing out there,” Guevarra said.

“That would be a problem for logistics, since BFAR only has 18 patrol vessels  capable of going to EEZ and the high seas. It would be almost impossible to use an alternative way [like this] in monitoring the location of the vessels. This satellite-based monitoring device is the most cost-effective way of doing it,” Guevarra added.

Guevarra then argued that the VMS provides not real-time, but near real-time data, which is necessary since commercial fishing vessels could be out in the sea for as long as eight months.

“The manual accomplishing of log sheets only happens upon their return to port, which takes weeks, if not months,” Guevarra pointed out.

Guevarra also dismissed the claim of the respondents that the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) implemented the VMS policy without scientific basis by citing that the VMS policy is anchored on consultation among the world’s marine conservation experts held in Rome back in 2006, on top of the fact that BFAR’s mandate to conduct scientific studies.

“They (participants in Rome consultation) were unanimous that all member states should adopt a vessel monitoring system, and the adopting of the VMS was dutifully followed by BFAR. The international consultation is sufficient scientific basis,” Guevarra said.

“Knowing BFAR, they are our fisheries experts, and it has been, for many years, collecting scientific data. I would find it rather unbelievable that BFAR, after being there for many decades, is not doing any scientific study pertaining to the conservation measures,” Guevarra added. —VAL, GMA Integrated News