EDITORIAL - Check the fish on your table

A three-month fishing ban on the harvesting of small pelagic fish such as sardines, mackerel and herring from some of the country's major fishing grounds is supposed to be in effect from November 15, 2015 to February 15, 2016. A simple cursory check on these fishing grounds and a quick tour of wet markets throughout the archipelago will suggest, however, that the ban is being implemented on paper.

The above-mentioned fish species are still being harvested in commercial quantities from traditional fishing grounds and as a result find their way in great numbers to the country's wet markets as if no ban actually existed. The impunity with which the ban is being violated is shocking and the question cannot be helped as to whether the ban was just for show.

The ban is being implemented for the fifth time, for reasons that are plain and clear -- to conserve marine resources, especially of overfished species, by protecting them as they spawn during the period of the ban. Aside from the ban, there is also a prohibition in the use of illegal methods and means of fishing. In short, it is a ban that is rooted in the best of intentions but is being scuttled by the worst of motives.

The administration has reportedly committed itself to provide sufficient financial assistance to the appropriate government agency tasked to oversee and manage the fishing ban. The ban has still some way to go, but judging from what has been commonly observed, it is doubtful if the goals of the ban, and the money meant to bankroll it, have not all sunk uselessly to the bottom of the sea.

The usual suspicion is that corruption and the usual government untrustworthiness could be at play in the unfortunate scuttling of such a beneficial activity as a fishing ban aimed at protecting certain fish species from getting overfished. But there could also be other reasons for the failure of the fishing ban. One is that it is not politically expedient to deprive people of their means of livelihood in an election year.

Those who stand to be affected by the fishing ban are not only the fishing boat operators and the fishermen under their employ. Also to lose a great deal, if only temporarily, are the thousands of vendors who depend on their daily fish catch for them to scrape through their miserable lives. A ban could mean substantial losses for these people.

Given the political strength of their numbers, it would be unwise for local leaders in an election year to start cracking the whip on ban violators. Besides, after four successful implementations of the ban, what is a little failure this time. Moreover, entire fish species are not likely to disappear overnight simply because a three-month ban has deliberately been ignored.