In Turbulent Seas-The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries

i

In Turbulent Seas:The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

With assistance from:Coastal Resource Management Project

of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources

supported by theUnited States Agency for International Development

Philippines

In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheriesii

In Turbulent Seas:The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

2004

Printed in Manila, Philippines.

Citation:DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 2004. In turbulentseas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines, 378 p.

This publication is made possible through support provided by the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) under the terms and conditions of Contract No. AID-492-C-00-96-00028-00. Additional support for printing has been provided by the Philippine EnvironmentalGovernance Project (EcoGov) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR),supported by USAID and by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHon behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany through its Visayan Sea Coastal Resources andFisheries Management (VisSea) Project. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or GTZ. This publication may be reproduced or quotedin other publications as long as proper reference is made to the source.

Cover: (Top to bottom) Fishers clearing net (S.J. Green); fish on ice (S.J. Green); muro-ami fishing vessel(A. White); and coral reef and fish (E. Cu Unjieng).(Backdrop) Calm seas at Ticao Pass, Masbate (A.E. Sia).

CRMP Document No: 02-CRM/2004

ISBN 971-92753-4-0

iii

Acknowledgments vForeword viPreface viiSection I. General Introduction and Overview

Profiling the status of Philippine marine fisheries: A general introduction and overview C.Z. LUNA,G.T. SILVESTRE, M.F. CARREON III, A.T. WHITE and S.J. GREEN 3

Section II. Status of Marine Fisheries and HabitatsA brief historical review of living marine resources research in the Philippines D. PAULY 15

Overview of Philippine marine fisheries N.C. BARUT, M.D. SANTOS and L.R. GARCES 22

Overview of the small pelagic fisheries E.C. ZARAGOZA, C.R. PAGDILAO and E.P. MORENO 32

Fisheries for tuna and other large pelagic fishes E.C. ZARAGOZA, C.R. PAGDILAO and E.P. MORENO 38

State of the demersal fisheries N.B. ARMADA 42

Status of the blue crab fisheries in the Philippines J.A. INGLES 47

The live reef food fish trade in the Philippines S. MAMAUAG 53

Status of the Philippine marine aquarium fish trade D. OCHAVILLO, G. HODGSON, C. SHUMAN and R. RUZ 60

Philippine coral reef fisheries: Diversity in adversity P.M. ALIÑO, C. NAÑOLA, W. CAMPOS, V. HILOMEN,A. UYCHIAOCO and S. MAMAUAG 65

Capture fisheries for larval and juvenile fish R. HERMES 70

Fisheries in deep-water areas of the Philippines J.O. FLORES 72

The significance of coastal ecosystem stewardship to fisheries productivity P.M. ALIÑO, M.P. ATRIGENIO,M.C.C. QUIBILAN and M.G.J.P. TIQUIO 79

Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines: Government and community look for new solutionsA.T. WHITE and R.O.D. DE LEON 84

Seagrass ecosystem of the Philippines: Status, problems and management directions M.D. FORTES andK.F. SANTOS 90

Status of water quality in Philippine coastal and marine waters M.L.S.D. MCGLONE, G. JACINTO, I. VELASQUEZ andD. PADAYAO 96

Marine protected species in the Philippines M.N.R. ALAVA and J.A.B. CANTOS 109

Philippine fishing boats G.D. AGUILAR 118

Trends and status of fish processing technology J. ESPEJO-HERMES 122

Economics of fisheries management in the Philippines R. TOWNSEND 127

Economics and environment in the fisheries sector D.C. ISRAEL 131

Poverty profile in Philippine fisheries R. SANTOS 138

Women in fisheries in the Philippines I.M. SIASON 144

Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia: An overview of key challenges and opportunitiesG. SILVESTRE and D. PAULY 150

Section III. Fisheries Management, Policies and ToolsThe evolving role of national government agencies in coastal and fisheries management W.P. JATULAN 171

Equitable access and preferential use of municipal waters by municipal fisherfolk J.R. GARCIA 175

Local governance for municipal fisheries: Can local governments afford to have coastal resource management asa basic service responsibility? R.V. EISMA 180

The changing role of local governments: Bohol provincial government and fisheries management N.M. PINAT andS.J. GREEN 184

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheriesiv

The Philippine tuna industry gets organized S.N. SWERDLOFF 189

Information management systems for Philippine fisheries M.F. CARREON III 192

Perspectives on a licensing system for municipal fisheries H. TRUDEAU 197

Commercial fisheries licensing system E.B. ALESNA, J.Q. DIZON-CORRALES and A. CABANGBANG 200

Size limits on fish caught N.B. ARMADA 202

Fisheries management and enforcement M.N. GUIDOTE 206

Evidence for fishery enhancement effects of marine reserves in Central Philippines A.C. ALCALA, G.R. RUSS andA.P. MAYPA 215

Marine protected areas P.M. ALIÑ0, H.O. ARCEO and A.J. UYCHIAOCO 219

Marine protected areas: Urgent call for an offshore marine sanctuary under Republic Act 8550 R. HERMES 223

Management rating system for marine protected areas: An important tool to improve management A.T. WHITE,A.T. MENESES and M.F. OVENDEN 226

Multiple small-scale marine sanctuaries in municipal waters: The Magsaysay example W.R. ADAN 232

Artificial reefs and fish aggregating devices: Help or hindrance? R.P. BABARAN 237

Invertebrate stock enhancement M.A. JUINIO-MEÑEZ 241

The potential role of restocking and stock enhancement in the management of marine invertebrate fisheries in thePhilippines J. BELL and L. GARCES 246

Olango birds and seascape tour: A people-oriented ecotourism venture M.M.M. FLORES 252

Challenging the status quo of marine capture fisheries management: The need for public education and policyadvocacy programs R. PESTA ÑO-SMITH 256

Waters of missed understanding V.B. SANTOS 261

Poaching in Philippine marine waters: Intrusion of Chinese fishing vessels in Palawan watersA.B. BENAVENTE-VILLENA and M.D. PIDO 265

Regional fisheries management planning: A work in progress J.Q. DIZON-CORRALES 269

Integration of fisheries into coastal area management R. HERMES 273

An overview of capture fisheries management in the context of integrated coastal management M.D. PIDO 277

Section IV. Case Studies in Fisheries Assessment and ManagementStatus of Lingayen Gulf fisheries: A brief update G.T. SILVESTRE and V.V. HILOMEN 285

Status of fisheries in San Miguel Bay G.T. SILVESTRE and V.V. HILOMEN 292

Bioeconomic modeling of fisheries policies in Lamon Bay, Philippines M.A. CAMPOS 300

Fisheries management in Honda Bay B.J. GONZALES 305

Overexploitation in the Visayan Sea: Designing a project solution R. HERMES, N.B. ARMADA, R.A. APARRI,E.C. ZARAGOZA and U. LOHMEYER 312

Danao Bay Community-based Coastal Resource Management Project: From top down to bottom up W.R. ADAN318

Panguil Bay: Change over time in fisheries M.I. TUMANDA, JR. 322

A local government alliance approach to integrated coastal zone management: The Gingoog Bay DevelopmentCouncil experience W.R. ADAN 327

Fish resource assessment and management recommendations for Davao Gulf N.B. ARMADA 332

Ecoregion fisheries management: A new approach to address biodiversity loss caused by fisheries in the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas J.A. INGLES and R.B. TRONO 336

Section V. Conclusion and RecommendationsSustaining Philippine marine fisheries beyond “turbulent seas”: A synopsis of key management issues and

opportunities C.Z. LUNA, G.T. SILVESTRE, M.F. CARREON III, A.T. WHITE and S.J. GREEN 345

Appendix I. Directory of Contact Persons and Participants during the Profiling Process 361

v

Acknowledgments

This book represents the collective effort of many individuals and organizations. The editors responsible foroverall quality, introduction and conclusion are:

Geronimo Silvestre Fisheries Specialist, CRMPStuart J. Green Fisheries Component Task Leader, CRMPAlan T. White, Ph.D. Chief of Party, CRMPNygiel Armada Associate Professor, University of the Philippines in the Visayas

College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, and Fisheries Specialist, CRMPCesar Luna, Ph.D. Fisheries Specialist, CRMPAnnabelle Cruz-Trinidad Policy Component Task Leader, CRMPMarciano F. Carreon III Deputy Chief of Party, CRMP

Many government and nongovernment agencies and organizations have participated in the development andwriting of this book through the authors whose affiliations are noted. A series of workshops have molded theoverall content of the book and its policy directions summarized in the papers, introduction and conclusion.Those organizations with major contributions include:

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the Department of AgricultureDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources through the Coastal Resource Management Project and the

Philippine Environmental Governance ProjectUniversity of the Philippines-Marine Science InstituteUniversity of the Philippines in the Visayas

Marie Sol Sadorra accomplished copy editing and production coordination. Khristine R. Custodio did bookdesign and layout. Rafael T. Martinez, Jimely O. Flores and Jessie O. Floren provided the maps; Khristine R.Custodio and Leslie S. Tinapay, the graphics; and Dexter Allen Besa, the artwork. Ysolde A. Collantes madethe cover design. They are all of CRMP of Tetra Tech EM, Inc.

Acknowledgments

In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheriesvi

Foreword

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources publishes a Philippine Fisheries Profile on ayearly basis based on the latest available data gathered from field sites and fish trading activities aroundthe country. This book, In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries, enhances theinformation from the profile, integrates other aspects of the fisheries of the country not highlightedand, most significantly, gives a “snapshot” of fisheries in the Philippine context and looks at the healthof the resource, the economics and socioeconomic situation of the country and selected fish stocks togain a common understanding on what is happening to the fisheries. The book then goes on to look intothe status of the implementation of fisheries management tools and how these have been applied in thecountry through various fisheries management projects that have been or are currently implemented.Furthermore, it looks at some key case studies from around the country, highlighting the successes andfailures of various fisheries-related interventions.

As a developing nation, the Philippines is very dependent upon this natural resource, fisheries,for the livelihood of its coastal peoples, as the main supplier of animal protein to our fast-growingpopulation, as well as its considerable contribution to the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP). If weare to continue to supply the country with export revenues, employment and food, then we perhapsmust take a long good look at what is happening in the country’s fisheries as we move into the nextdecade.

I would like to congratulate the many authors and institutions that have assisted in thispublication. I hope that we all use this publication to help us move into an age of fisheries management,for which this publication provides a clear basis and road map for how things should be in the future.

Malcolm I. Sarmiento, Jr.DirectorBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesDepartment of AgricultureQuezon City, Philippines

vii

Preface

In Turbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries is the second in a series of fisheriesmanagement publications of the Coastal Resource Management Project. It provides a comprehensivesnapshot of the current status of marine fisheries of the Philippines in all of their complexities. The booklooks beyond the economics and production and covers the whole Philippine marine ecosystem and thestatus of the different sectors that have a stake in this potentially rich resource.

The book concept was developed through a series of meetings among key stakeholders,government and nongovernment organizations, academic institutions and private sector representativeswho felt the need for a comprehensive compendium of the state of the country’s fisheries and fisheriesmanagement interventions. These meetings were followed by a series of workshops to produce thistimely publication. The editors and authors have attempted to include all the different Philippine fisherysectors through a variety of stakeholder groups with many perspectives.

Philippine fisheries, renowned for their biodiversity and value, but generally in a very poorstate of “health”, are described herein. There is an urgent need for better management and protectionof these resources that contribute substantially to the country’s economy and the livelihood of severalmillion people. These resources are essential to the country’s food security and the subsistence of someof the most marginalized people in Philippine society.

Finally, this book is attributed to the various specialists, technical experts and scientists whoparticipated in the meetings and workshops. The editors would like to thank each contributor personally.The title, “In Turbulent Seas…” reflects the reality of fisheries in the country today. The editors haveattempted to provide a balanced view of the complex issues while looking at the many proposed solutionsto fisheries management. The glimmer of hope seen in the case studies needs to be extended nationwide.Let us all read and make use of this publication with all of its ramifications for improved fisheriesmanagement in the Philippines!

The Editors

Preface

1Profiling the status of marine fisheries

S E C T I O N I

General Introductionand Overview

In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries2


Profiling the Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries:A General Introduction and Overview1

1 This paper can be cited as follows: LUNA, C.Z., G.T. SILVESTRE, S.J. GREEN, M.F. CARREON III and A.T. WHITE. 2004.Profiling the status of Philippine marine fisheries: A general introduction and overview, p. 3-11. In DA-BFAR (Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. CoastalResource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

CESAR Z. LUNAGERONIMO T. SILVESTRE

STUART J. GREENMARCIANO F. CARREON III

ALAN T. WHITETetra Tech EM, Inc.

Coastal Resource Management Project5th Floor, CIFC Towers

North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Philippines

Background

The term “marine fisheries” refers to the extractionof wild living resources in coastal and open seas in theservice of human needs or markets. Marine fisheriesresources include numerous fishes as well asinvertebrates such as crustaceans, mollusks and seacucumbers. In the Philippines, two distinct sectorscomprise marine fisheries - a large-scale or commercialsector and a small-scale sector, which is also calledartisanal or municipal sector. The Philippine FisheriesCode of 1998 defines municipal fishing as fishingwithout using vessels or with vessels of 3 GT or less.Fishing with vessels of more than 3 GT isconsidered commercial fishing. Legally,commercial fishing is restricted to areasoutside municipal waters or waters beyond15 km from the shoreline.

The country’s marine fisheries providevarious economic and social benefits. In2001, the sector produced 1.8 million t offishes and invertebrates, or 57% of the totalfish production (Figure 1), which was valuedat P67.4 billion (BAS 2002). The country’scapture fisheries production (includinginland fisheries) ranked 13th in the world(FAO 2002). Through exports consistingmainly of tuna, octopus, crab and crab fat,the marine fisheries sector earned at least

P10.7 billion in foreign exchange for the country (BAS2002). In 1997, the municipal and commercial fisheriessectors directly employed 675,700 and 56,700 fishers,respectively, and generated additional employmentin ancillary activities such as fish processing, marketingand boat building (Barut et al. 2001). More than half ofthe animal protein in the average Filipino diet comesfrom fish (Espejo-Hermes, this vol.). With itscontribution to employment and food security, themarine fisheries sector is a major factor that maintainseconomic and social stability, particularly in rural areaswhere fishers reside.

Despite their social and economic importance,however, many problems beset Philippine marine

Figure 1. Contribution by sector to total Philippine fisheries production in 2001.Marine fisheries contributed more than half of the total fish production by volume(BAS 2002).


fisheries. These include declining catch rates that aresymptomatic of overharvesting, degradation of criticalcoastal habitats, intense conflicts among resource users,poverty among artisanal fishers and increasing fooddeficiencies with dire implications for economic andsocial stability in rural, coastal areas of the country. Overthe years, these problems have intensified and spreadthrough most of our coastal and marine areas. As theseproblems have worsened and become national in scope,the need to formulate and implement a program ofintegrated action and coordination to remedy thesituation has become extremely urgent. The availableinformation, however, for this purpose is widelydiffused and often in specialist language. They requireeffective translation and integration to promoteconsensus about the prevailing situation, effectivemanagement directions, and efficient operational uptakeand programming by concerned agencies.

It is against this background that this profile, InTurbulent Seas: The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries,was born. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(BFAR) had regularly published (often annually) itsseries providing profiles of Philippine marine fisheries,briefly highlighting key trends and developments inthe sector. The management of BFAR, however,recognizes the need to provide a deeper understandingof the prevailing marine fisheries situation in the countrybeyond the form and substance of the previous profiles.Hence, the current form of this 2004 version of the profileseries. BFAR, in collaboration with the Coastal ResourceManagement Project (CRMP, which is funded by theUnited States Agency for International Development)of the Department of Environment and NaturalResources, assembled key experts and stakeholders fromthe fisheries and marine science community in thecountry to provide a synoptic picture of the prevailingmarine fisheries situation and viable directions for theirimproved management. BFAR believes this is anessential step in informed consensus-building andconcerted action for integrated coastal management andsustainable fisheries. We elaborate below the rationale,process and conceptual framework resulting into thisbook, and provide a brief glimpse of the variouscontributions.

Rationale for the Profile

Turning the tide for Philippine marine fisheriesrequires a concerted, nationwide effort in which allstakeholders - fishers, resource managers, policymakers,research institutions, nongovernment organizations(NGOs) and others - will have key roles to play. Such aconcerted action to address the myriad issues andchallenges of Philippine marine fisheries should be based

on a comprehensive analysis of its status. Yet theinformation dealing with marine fisheries remainsscattered among various research institutions andagencies in different forms such as data, field reportsand assessments. Furthermore, these studies andassessment reports are often incomprehensible to manystakeholders. Typically, such reports focus on specificaspects or situations in marine fisheries, thus leaving totheir potential users the task of connecting theirsignificance to the larger picture. Moreover, thesereports often fail to translate the managementimplications of their findings into useful courses of actionfor management authorities. Clearly, there is a need tosystematically select useful information and consolidatethem into a composite picture that is sufficientlycomprehensive for effective action. Moreover, theconsolidated information should be translated into aform and language easily understood by a wideraudience.

The main purpose of this profile is to provide asynoptic picture of the status, problems and directionsfor improved management of Philippine marine fisheriesand other coastal resources. Moreover, it is intended asa comprehensive yet handy reference volume usable tothe wider audience of fisheries and coastal resourcestakeholders interested in sustaining the benefitsderived by the country from its marine resources.Specifically, the profile seeks to:• provide a concise yet comprehensive view of the

status of Philippine marine fisheries - resources;environment and resource users; social, cultural,economic and ecological aspects; as well as thepolicies and currently available tools for resourcemanagement;

• identify appropriate management directions orobjectives for Philippine marine fisheries given theircurrent status and evident future trends; and

• explore viable interventions to achieve our fisheriesmanagement objectives and sustain the benefitsderived by the country from its marine fisheries.Given the highly participatory nature of the profiling

process, which involved a wide array of institutions andstakeholders, the profile also seeks to establish a widerconstituency for fisheries reforms and concerted actionfor sustainable fisheries in the country. Concededly, thisrequires continuous efforts. BFAR and its partners haveevery intention to sustain such efforts through futureupdates of the profile and related follow-up actions inthe area of information and education.

The Profiling Process

Given the above-mentioned objectives for the


Figure 2. The profiling process.

First drafts

Consensus on fisheriesmanagement framework

and call to action

Technicallyedited drafts

Contributors forspecific topics

Outline of profile

First WorkshopMultisectoral meeting* to

initiate the profiling process

Exchanges betweencontributors andtechnical editors

Publishing of profile

Third WorkshopMultisectoral meeting* on

fisheries managementframework

Second WorkshopWriting Workshop for

Contributors

∇

∇

∇ ∇

∇

∇

∇

∇

∇

*Academic/research groups, NGOs, government agencies and other stakeholders.

profile, BFAR and CRMP initiated the profiling processby sponsoring a multisectoral meeting attended byresource managers, policymakers, and representativesof research institutions and NGOs in Manila in September2002 (Figure 2). This was the first in a series of threeworkshops. Each invited representative presented thethrust and current activities of their respectiveorganization, particularly with regard to marine fisheries.These presentations confirmed that a substantial amountof information on various aspects of marine fisheriesexists. Subsequently, BFAR and CRMP staff presentedthe rationale and tentative outline of the profile.Workshop participants then divided into workinggroups to discuss issues and identify information gaps.The outputs of the working groups helped improve theprofile outline and provided inputs to a then evolvingconceptual framework. Finally, the participantsidentified topics in the outline that were within theirareas of expertise and volunteered to write short articleson these topics.

The contributors who volunteered in the firstworkshop were invited to the second workshop in CebuCity in March 2003. Over three days, the contributorswrote their first drafts. Technical editors were alsoassigned to oversee each section of the profile. Fromthen on, contributors worked with the technical editorsuntil the completion of their individual papers.

Also during the second workshop, a draft fisheriesmanagement framework was presented to the

participants that contained a network of issues, fisheriesmanagement objectives and recommended interventions.A third and final workshop was held in May 2003 inManila to finalize the fisheries management frameworkas well as a consensus statement summarizing the keyrecommendations of the authors and other participantsin the profiling process.

The profiling process used and its mode ofimplementation holds several advantages for fisheriesin developing countries like the Philippines. The highlyparticipatory mode used, involving numerous expertsand stakeholders in each aspect of marine fisheries (seeAppendix 1 to this volume which provides a list ofparticipants during the profiling process and theirinstitutional affiliations), allows for more robust diagnosisof the relevant status and directions for fisheries,especially on particular resource groups. Cross-validationof data, analyses and conclusions across local expertswith first-hand and extended knowledge of nationaland local fisheries contributed to more robust andinformed results. Moreover, given the paucity ofinformation and short history of quantitative fisheriesresearch characteristic of fisheries in developingcountries, the resort to multiple experts and stakeholderseffectively helps overcome shortcomings in informationavailability (and access). This promotes the use of the“best available scientific evidence”, facilitates arrival atconsensus (and where such cannot be achieved) andhelps overcome inaction in the face of (real or imagined)


information scarcity within the bounds of theprecautionary principle.

Throughout the profiling process, particularlyduring the workshops, the enthusiasm of the volunteercontributors and the workshop participants wasevidently very strong. In the seriously troubled sectorthat is Philippine marine fisheries, the willingness ofthis community to come together is one sign that offersgreat hope for the future.

Conceptual (Marine Fisheries “System”)Framework

Our response to the challenge of sustaining marinefisheries will be determined to a large extent by howwe view what constitutes relevant parts of the wholemarine fisheries “system”. As the saying goes, “out ofmind, then out of sight”. Our perception of the “world”of marine fisheries, the “mental maps” we draw ofwhat constitutes parts of such a “system”, determinesour definition of relevance and scope of marinefisheries “reality”. Such perception (or cognition)determines, among others, effective diagnosis of thefull set of problems, the range of relevant managementprescriptions, and effective communication amongstakeholders. Moreover, such perception of the marinefisheries “system” is usually conditioned, among others,by our values and norms, disciplinary trainings andlife experiences. There are thus many ways in whichthe marine fisheries “system” may be defined. We offerbelow a view of the marine fisheries “system” webelieve to be sufficiently comprehensive for purposesof the book, and one which facilitates effectivecommunication and problem/solution identification.A realization from past fisheries managementfailures is that we must adopt an integrated coastalmanagement approach. This is needed to addressboth the direct fishery issues as well as thecontextual issues that are undermining fisheriesworldwide.

We start detailing the elements of our marinefisheries “system” with a simple (and conventional)way of looking at fisheries as given in Figure 3. Whilethis traditional framework is simplistic and lacks manydetails, it is valuable in expanding on general basicprinciples of fisheries management. This frameworkrecognizes and illustrates the basic interdependencebetween the economic activities collectively labeled as“fisheries” (the capture sector) and the fisheriesresources (various aquatic plants and animals) to sustainthe flow of goods (i.e., catches) and benefits (e.g.,nutrition, incomes, employment, export receipts) wederive from marine fisheries. The framework alsorecognizes that the fisheries resources emanate from,

and are sustained by, natural processes and habitats(i.e., the natural environment). Moreover, theframework recognizes that fisheries form part of (andare influenced by) the larger social, economic andpolitical realities and processes (as mediated byinstitutions) of the human dimension. Given thisbackground, it is widely accepted that fisheriesmanagement authorities should: (1) establish fisheriesor exploitation regimes that optimize and do not impairthe sustained flow of goods and benefits derived fromthe fisheries resource base, in conjunction with allcoastal resources that interface with fisheries; (2)promote the harvest of resources in a responsiblemanner that does not damage the resource base andits supporting natural environment; (3) promote equityof the exploitation regime and the distribution ofbenefits derived from marine fisheries; and (4) promoteefficient and effective institutions (i.e., to includecustoms, laws, policies and organizations) that canensure sustained productivity, equity, environmentalintegrity and optimum value to society (in the broadsense) from our marine fisheries and coastalresources. We encourage the readers to keep thesemanagement principles and objectives in mind as theygo over the various contributions to this compilation.

From our simple framework in Figure 3, we candetail the marine fisheries “system” framework forpurposes of the current book. We do this by elaboratingthe components of our rudimentary fishing system inFigure 3, recognizing the inherent complexity of thefisheries system. We elaborate the details only to theextent that helps clarify our thinking, particularly withregard to policy directions. Working on the naturaldimension, we begin by recognizing the distinct typesof fisheries resources - invertebrates, demersals,pelagics and so on (Figure 4). We also recognize thatthese resources are sustained by the marineenvironment - particularly critical habitats andecosystems, such as mangroves, seagrasses and coralreefs, and habitat characteristics such as water quality.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of theconventional view of a fishing “system” (adaptedfrom Silvestre 1996).


Turning our attention to the human dimension, weseparate fisheries into its commercial and municipalsectors, thus, recognizing the characteristic duality ofPhilippine fisheries. We also recognize other economicactivities that interact with the fisheries and have theirown impacts on the marine and coastal environment.

In addition to a more detailed specification of thefisheries, other economic sectors, fisheries resources,and various components of the coastal and marineenvironment, the “system” framework in Figure 4 alsoaccounts for the institutions that regulate and influencethe economic sectors that directly or indirectly utilizefisheries resources and/or impact on the marineenvironment. This is so because our aim is to

consolidate information that may be the basis ofeffective policy. Finally, the uppermost box in Figure 4reminds us that the status of Philippine marine fisheriesis influenced by the larger development context of thecountry. Currently, this development context ischaracterized, among others, by conditions of economicunderdevelopment, inequity, high population growth,widespread poverty and weak institutions – leadingto what many social scientists refer to as a crisis in the“structure of opportunities” (David 2002) in Philippinesociety.

The marine fisheries “system” framework detailedin Figure 4 principally guided the selection of papersincluded in this profile. It is sufficiently comprehensive

Figure 4. A systems view of the fisheries, the resources they exploit, the habitats that sustain the resources and other relevantcomponents of the human and natural dimensions. This conceptual or “system” framework guided the development of the current profile onthe status of Philippine marine fisheries (expanded from Silvestre 1996).


for purposes of the rationale and objectives for comingup with the profile. We note that it is scale-independent, and thus may be used at different spatialscales (i.e., from national to local) as appropriate. Weencourage the readers, for purposes of tractability, touse this “system” framework as they go over thevarious contributions to this compilation. Situating therelevant aspect of marine fisheries being discussed bya contribution in this “mental map” will facilitategetting the composite picture of the whole “system”.We revisit the basic principles/objectives and the“system” framework (Figures 3 and 4) in the last sectionof the profile when we draw together and summarizethe main policy implications of the various contributionsto the challenge of restoring the “structure ofopportunities” in the Philippine marine fisheries sector.

Overview of Profile Contents

This profile contains papers contributed by variousauthors that describe the elements of our conceptualframework in Figure 4. The papers are divided intofive sections, which are briefly outlined below.

Section I: General Introduction and Overview

This section contains this paper, which introducesthe profile and provides an overview of its rationale/objectives, elaboration process, conceptual frameworkand contents.

Section II: Status of Marine Fisheries and Habitats

The papers in Section II elaborate on the status ofvarious marine resources (as well as critical marinehabitats and habitat characteristics), the fisheries onthese resources and the ancillary fisheries activities inour conceptual framework (Figure 4). Thesocioeconomic condition of fishers and members offishing households – key stakeholders in the marinefisheries sector – are also covered.

Two reprints start off the section to provide thecontext. Daniel Pauly traces the development ofPhilippine marine resources research from the Spanishperiod to the mid-1980s to provide an historicalperspective to the volume. Note here, among others,that although overfishing was already a matter ofconcern in the 1970s, the policymakers of the 1980swho needed a national assessment of marine fisherieshad no recourse but to rely on expert opinion. NoelBarut et al. provide a brief sectoral update coveringthe environment, fisheries production trends, andissues and opportunities in Philippine marine fisheries

using data and studies available up to mid-1990s.The next papers focus on the status of particular

types of fisheries in the country and the resources theyexploit. Ester Zaragoza et al. contribute two papers,one on small pelagic fisheries and the other on fisherieson tuna and other large pelagics. Nygiel Armadaconsolidates data and literature on the major trawlablefishing grounds from as early as the 1940s up to thepresent to determine the status of demersal resources.He quantifies the decline in biomass and documentsevident changes in species composition. Jose Inglesdescribes one of the most economically importantinvertebrate fisheries, that of blue crab Portunuspelagicus. Samuel Mamauag writes about the largelyexport-oriented trade in live food fish, such as groupersand other species caught from reefs, including theecological impacts of the trade. Domingo Ochavillo etal. describe the marine aquarium fish trade, a foreignexchange earner that is sadly associated with cyanidefishing. Porfirio Aliño et al. investigate coral reeffisheries, noting that catch rates are among the lowestin the world. Rudolf Hermes documents the capturefisheries for larval and juvenile fish, including variousspecies involved, growth overfishing and bycatchproblem. Jimely Flores describes a resource that is onlybeginning to be explored, that of the deep-sea.

The next set of contributions describes the state ofthe marine environment that sustains Philippine marinefisheries. Porfirio Aliño et al. make an integrativeassessment of the critical fisheries habitats, such as coralreefs, seagrasses and mangroves. Alan White and Royde Leon present the status of mangroves and nationalpolicies for their management. They point to successfulexperiments in community stewardship that, ifeffectively replicated in other areas, offer hope ofreversing the degradation trends. Miguel Fortes andKristine Santos describe the status of seagrass resources,identifying increased population and eutrophicationas the most significant threats to these resources. Todetermine the status of water quality in the country’sfishing grounds, Maria Lourdes San Diego-McGloneet al. consolidate water quality assessments of 12Philippine bays. They review past studies in ManilaBay to document the progression of impacts causedby increasing population. They do the same for Bolinao,Pangasinan, to elucidate the impacts of mariculturedevelopment. Moonyeen Alava and Jose Cantosreview the status of vulnerable or endangered marinespecies, including sea turtles, dugongs, cetaceans, whalesharks, mantas and seahorses, reflecting the combinedeffects of intense exploitation and habitat degradationon these resources.

Two papers describe the most important ancillary


fisheries activities. Glenn Aguilar describes the currentfishing boat making industry as largely a backyardindustry that produces boats without the benefit ofengineering design. He summarizes the size structureof fishing boats, essentially profiling the compositionof fishing effort in the country. Jasmin Espejo-Hermesdescribes the fish processing industry, including thetrend towards increased mechanization and increasingreliance on imported fish.

The socioeconomics of fisheries is also covered inSection II. Ralph Townsend explains concepts used infisheries economics, such as maximum sustainable yield,maximum economic yield, open access, limited entryand individual transferable quotas. He shows that anycombination of fisheries management measures,including those that have been tried so far in thePhilippines, will ultimately fail without mechanisms tolimit entry. Danilo Israel reviews the economicperformance of the fisheries sector and thesocioeconomic conditions of fishers, noting the declineof productivity over time, the massive poverty amongfishers and the economic losses from associatedenvironmental problems. Ronet Santos reviews povertyin the context of Philippine fisheries, coveringunderlying causes and extent as well as fisheriesinterventions aimed at its alleviation. Ida Siasondocuments how women, though seldom involved inactual fish capture, conduct various support activities,such as securing credit that make fishing possible inthe first place.

The section winds up with a reprint illustratingthat the problems of overfishing and habitatdegradation are not unique to the Philippines, and thusthe folly of long-term reliance on imports andpostponing effective management for domestic fishfood security. Geronimo Silvestre and Daniel Paulyprovide a survey of the regional fisheries managementsituation with emphasis on eight South and SoutheastAsian countries (including the Philippines). Theyelaborate common biological and developmentfeatures, issues and needs in the marine fisheries ofthese countries – generic trends which also providethe rationale for wider and cost-effective regionalcollaboration through sharing of lessons and effectivemanagement approaches.

Section III: Fisheries Management, Policies and Tools

Section III contains contributions covering the legalframework, organizations, policies, programs/initiatives and tools related to fisheries managementin the Philippines (i.e., the “institutions” part of theconceptual framework in Figure 4). The complex of

institutions represents, among others, the instrumentsby means of which society seeks to attain its objectivesin the fisheries sector and obtain optimum value forthe nation (in the broadest sense). The effectivenessand efficiency of these institutions determinemanagement success, and the current condition ofmarine fisheries illustrates the ability (or inability) ofexisting institutions to deal with the challenges of theprevailing situation.

William Jatulan provides an overview of nationalagencies and their role in various aspects concerningcoastal and fisheries management. Tracing theevolution of fisheries policy, Jeneen Garcia sees hopein the progressive development from centralizedmanagement and apathy towards equity issues to thebeginnings of true community-based management andthe granting of preferential access to artisanal fishers.Rose-Liza Eisma tackles the question of how to sourcefunds needed by local government units to finance themanagement of coastal resources within theirjurisdictions. Currently, many regard municipal andcity governments as the focal points for coastal andfisheries management. Nunila Pinat and Stuart Greenhighlight the role of the provincial government inmanagement using Bohol as a case study. Illustratingthe importance of actions by stakeholders and theirorganizations in improving management, StanleySwerdloff describes the establishment of a federationof tuna fishers and other efforts of the Philippine tunaindustry to organize and act.

The next papers cover important tools and/oractivities for improved management of the country’smarine fisheries. Marciano Carreon writes about theproblems facing information management systems infisheries, most of which are in their infancy. HughTrudeau analyzes the prospects of establishing afunctioning municipal fisheries licensing system andidentifies elements that must be in place if such a systemis to have any real chance of being implemented. EdwynAlesna et al. describe problems with the existing licensingsystem for commercial fishing. Nygiel Armadaexpounds on the theory behind minimum sizeregulations and discusses issues surrounding theirapplication in Philippine fisheries. Marlito Guidoteanalyzes law enforcement, which is often the insufficientor missing element in attempts to manage fisheries.

Given the substantive potential ascribed to marineprotected areas (MPAs) for improved management offisheries and coastal habitats, five papers cover MPAsin Section III. Often the enhancement of fisheries is thestated objective for establishing MPAs; yet there arefew studies that present rigorous scientific evidence ofsuch enhancement. Among the few works that provide


evidence of the positive effects of MPAs are those byAngel Alcala et al. on the Sumilon and Apo marinereserves, which are often cited in international literature.The reprint they contribute to this book summarizesthe evidence of fishery enhancement contained in theirmany earlier publications. Porfirio Aliño et al. cover basicconcepts associated with MPAs, provide a brief historyof their use in the country and discuss recommendationsto maximize their benefits. Rudolf Hermes points outthat a provision in the Fisheries Code of 1998 allows forthe establishment of MPAs beyond the 15-kmjurisdiction of municipalities, yet to date fisheriesmanagement has not taken advantage of this provision.He identifies a shoal where such an offshore MPA couldbe established. Alan White et al. describe a system formonitoring the performance of MPAs that will facilitatecomparison and help identify success factors in theirestablishment and management. Documenting theestablishment of a network of MPAs in Misamis Oriental,William Adan describes the evolution of communityreception from initial resistance to eventual participationand widespread support.

The next four papers cover other important toolsfor improved fisheries and their management. RicardoBabaran discusses artificial reefs, which were a popularfisheries management tool in the past, and their closecousins, fish aggregating devices. Two papers explorethe enhancement of invertebrate stocks. Marie AntonetteJuinio-Meñez provides an overview of the use of thistool, while Johann Bell and Len Garces focus on therequirements of a responsible stock enhancementprogram and briefly describe current experiments withthis management tool in the country. Monina Floresdescribes the successful establishment of a community-managed ecotourism venture that has minimized acommunity’s dependence on fishing. She providesimportant perspectives in developing alternativelivelihoods so important to viably reducing fishingcapacity in coastal fisheries.

Section III ends with papers that deal with importantmanagement perspectives and policy issues. Theproblems in fisheries are partly the result of the relativelylow priority given by the government to the fisheriessector. Rebecca Pestaño-Smith argues that advocacy andpublic education are the keys to reversing the currentneglect of this sector. Virgilio Santos provides a briefdiscourse on policy trends with increasing “bias” in favorof municipal fishers. As an example of his provocativeviews, he regards the expansion of municipal waters asthe unfortunate result of misinterpretations of the LocalGovernment Code and past fisheries laws. AdelinaVillena and Michael Pido deal with poaching in Philippinewaters, with emphasis on intrusions by Chinese fishingvessels in the Palawan area. Joezen Corrales discusses

the importance of fisheries management planning at theregional scale to integrate diffused local initiatives anddocuments the ongoing planning exercise for RegionVII. Two papers discuss the evident need for integrationof fisheries and coastal management. Rudolf Hermesexplores the practicalities of making this integration areality in the Philippine setting, while Michael Pidoreviews the concepts of integrated coastal managementand outlines the rationale for implementing fisheriesmanagement within this larger framework.

Section IV: Case Studies in Fisheries Assessmentand Management

Section IV focuses on case studies in particular fishinggrounds, covering various aspects of the conceptualframework in Figure 4 for specific areas/localities. Thesecontributions provide site-specific examples reflectiveof the prevailing national marine fisheries situation.

Geronimo Silvestre and Vincent Hilomendocument the status of two severely overfishedembayments, the Lingayen Gulf (in northwesternPhilippines) and San Miguel Bay (in the Bicol regionalong the Pacific coast of Luzon). Maribec Camposdescribes the situation in Lamon Bay (in QuezonProvince) and, using bioeconomic modeling, evaluatesalternative policies for fisheries in the area. BenjaminGonzales writes about fisheries management in an areashowing signs of full exploitation, Honda Bay inPalawan. Rudolf Hermes et al. describe the VisayanSea Fisheries Resources Management Project, which isattempting to establish ecosystem-based managementin a 10,000 km2 area shared by four provinces in theVisayas. William Adan documents the case of an NGOthat finally achieved success in its coastal managementinitiatives in Danao Bay when it shifted from a top-down to a bottom-up approach. To assess the effectsof fisheries management interventions in Panguil Bayunder the Fisheries Sector Program of BFAR, MarcelinoTumanda compares the situation in the 1990s beforethe introduction of interventions with the situation fiveyears later, based on resource and ecologicalassessments conducted during the two periods. WilliamAdan describes the situation in Gingoog Bay and howfour municipal governments and one city governmentorganized a council to coordinate coastal and fisheriesmanagement in the area. Nygiel Armada presents thestatus of fisheries in Davao Gulf as well asrecommendations for their improved managementbased on an exhaustive assessment conducted in 1995.Finally, Jose Ingles and Romeo Trono describe theefforts of the World Wide Fund for Nature to initiatethe management of the Sulu-Sulawesi MarineEcosystem, a large marine ecosystem shared by the


Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. This case studyillustrates that the Philippine marine waters are onlypart of a wider marine ecosystem and ultimatelymanagement, although difficult, should ideallymove beyond the current geopolitical boundaries.

Section V: Conclusion and Recommendations

The last section contains a synoptic analysis of thekey issues and recommendations resulting fromintegration of the various contributions outlined above.It also includes a statement from participants in theprofiling process calling for urgent and concerted actiontowards improved management of the country’smarine fisheries for the benefit of the current and futuregenerations of Filipinos.

Conclusion

This profile is by no means perfect and can standimprovements in a number of ways. BFAR envisionsimproving the profile in future updates and the inputsof readers in this regard will be invaluable and highlywelcome. Beyond the limitations, however, it shouldbe noted that the fisheries and marine sciencecommunity in the country has taken an importantpositive step on the road to sustainable fisheries andimproved coastal resource management by meansof this book. Let us not allow remaining limitations toget in the way of the consensus and real gains we haveachieved thus far. These are critical times for Philippinecoastal resources. The decisions and actions we maketoday will determine whether we can reverse thealarming degradation trends in this sector. Given theimportance of fisheries and the marine environmentto our nation, every Filipino is a stakeholder in thesedecisions.

This profile presents a wide range of topics andperspectives, and in coverage, it is indeed unprecedentedin the country. Beyond providing information, it ishoped that it provides the foundation for seriousreflections, debates, reforms and concerted actionstoward sustainable fisheries. Moreover, it is hoped thatthis compilation will encourage the reader to participatein the discourse and concerted efforts to steer Philippinecoastal resources towards sustainability and beyond itscurrent condition of being “in turbulent seas”. Weencourage you to read on and experience the “gustsand turbulence” of the current situation, amidst thestories of hope, essential management directions andalternative visions for the future which the bookpresents.

References

Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos, L.L. Mijares and R. Subade. 200,1.Philippine coastal fisheries situation: A strategic review. Bureauof Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.

BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 2002. Fisheries statistics ofthe Philippines, 1997 - 2001. BAS, Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines. 74 p.

David, R.S. 2002. Nation, self and citizenship: An invitation toPhilippine sociology. Department of Sociology, College of SocialSciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines, QuezonCity, Philippines. 368 p.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2002. Yearbooks of fisherystatistics summary tables – 2001. http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/summtab/default.asp.

Silvestre, G.T. 1996. Integrated management of coastal fisheries:Lessons from initiatives in San Miguel Bay, Philippines. ICLARM,Manila. 13 p.

Historical review of living marine resources research 13

S E C T I O N I I

Status of Marine Fisheriesand Habitats


Abstract

A review, starting with Spanish colonial times, ispresented of research on the living marine resourcesof the Philippines. The first efforts were mainlytaxonomic, with a gradual transition to the descriptionof gears and fisheries. Biological studies wereconducted mainly since the country’s independence.Since the 1970s, increasing signs of resource depletionand destruction (especially in the case of coral reefs)have led to an increased awareness of the need forquantitative studies and for resources management.

Introduction

This contribution was written to fulfill threeseparate tasks:

1. to provide, as its title implies, a historical reviewof the study of marine living resources in thePhilippines from colonial times to the present;

2. to provide access to the literature on those marineresources not covered by the other contributionsincluded in this volume; and finally,

3. to provide a conceptual framework for these othercontributions, each of which covers separateaspects of what actually should be viewed as acoherent whole.The various sections of this contribution are

arranged chronologically under headings characterizingthe four periods that were identified.

A Brief Historical Review of Living Marine ResourcesResearch in the Philippines1

The Spanish Period: Not Much Science

Although pre-Spanish lore and folklore containsa multitude of references to the closeness of the earlyFilipinos to the seas surrounding them, and to fishand fishing (see e.g., Ochotorena 1981), it is only withthe onset of the Spanish colonial period that writtenmaterials became available which document thisrelationship. However, this documentation remainedanecdotal (see entries to “fish and fisheries” in theIndex, p. 400-401, of Blair and Robertson 1973) and atno time during the Spanish colonial period were worksproduced which even remotely matched those written,under circumstances otherwise similar to those in thePhilippines, by say, Hamilton-Buchanan (1822) or Day(1875-1878) in the Indian subcontinent, or by Bleeker(see Lamme 1973) in what is now Indonesia.

In fact, most of the scientific contributions onPhilippine marine resources were at that time writtenby European scholars of non-Spanish origin. Thus, forexample, among the 44 references in Jordan andRichardson (1910), who published the firstcomprehensive checklist of Philippine fishes, only threewere in Spanish; in the case of two of them, moreover,these authors felt compelled to write that “theidentifications are not always trustworthy”. Thereasons for this lack of interest in the scientificinvestigation of natural resources have been laid outin masterly fashion by J.P. Rizal (1891), Philippinenational hero and writer, in “The Class in Physics”,

DANIEL PAULY2

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources ManagementMCPO Box 2631, Makati City 0718

Philippines

1 This paper is a reprint of the full article which originally appeared as: PAULY, D. 1986. A brief historical review of livingmarine resources research in the Philippines, p. 3-18. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.) Resources, management andsocio-economics of Philippine marine fisheries. Dep. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10, 217 p. (ICLARM Contribution No. 320).

This paper can be cited as above or as follows: PAULY, D. 2004. A brief historical review of living marine resources researchin the Philippines, p. 15-21. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulentseas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 Current address is: Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, NW Marine Drive Research Station, 6660 NWMarine Drive, Building 022, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4.


i.e., Chapter 13 in “El Filibusterismo”, which commenton the state of science teaching at the eve of the lastcentury:

“Padre Millon” went deeply into science,knew the physics of Aristotle and Padre Amat,read carefully his “Ramos,” and sometimesglanced at “Ganot.” With all that, he would oftenshake his head with an air of doubt, as he smiledand murmured: “transeat”.

“In regard to chemistry, no commonknowledge was attributed to him after he hadtaken as a premise the statement of St. Thomasthat water is a mixture and proved plainly thatthe Angelic Doctor had long forestalled Berzelius,Guy-Lussac, Bunsen, and other more or lesspresumptuous materialists. Moreover, in spite ofhaving been an instructor in geography, he stillentertained certain doubts as to the rotundity ofthe earth and smiled maliciously when its rotationand revolution around the sun were mentioned [.. .]. This was the professor who [. . .] called theroll and directed many of the students to recitelesson from [. . .] memory, word for word. Thephonographs got into operation, some well, someill, some stammering, and received their grades.He who recited without an error earned a goodmark and he who made more than three mistakesa bad mark.”

Pannier (1982), writing on science in LatinAmerica, noted – as did Rizal, but in a less entertainingstyle – that “the development of science during thecolonial period was greatly inhibited for severalcenturies owing to the scant information transmittedfrom Europe on the advance of European scientificthought and to the prevailing religious dogmatism”.

The U.S. Period: Taking Stock

The prevailing attitudes were to change radicallyat the turn of the century. Early champions of U.S.rule in the Philippines were quick to agree that “thePhilippines have been cursed by Spanish influencesince the day of Magellan’s discovery” and that therewas a need “for American citizens, with the welfareof their (!) country at heart, [. . . .] to familiarizethemselves with the details and conditions in thesenew dominions and in the countries adjacent to them(White 1898).

And indeed the “details and conditions” soonbegan to pour out. In 1905, the results of a detailedcensus were published through which firstquantitative information on numbers of fishersthroughout the Philippines, and on their catch weremade available (see Table 1 for an example of thenumerous quantitative data one can find in thatcensus report).

The data in fact allow for a first estimation of thecatch per fisher at the beginning of the century, as canbe obtained by dividing the number of fishers in thePhilippines (Anon. 1905) by their catch, or 500,000 tper year/119,000 fishers = 4.2 t per year per fisherwhich is considerably more than the 1.3 t per fisherper year reported at present (see Smith et al. 1980),and not necessarily less accurate, given the lack ofreliable statistics still prevailing to date.

Scientifically more important, however, was thesystematic ichthyological work which Jordan andRichardson (1910) initiated, which A.W.C.T. Herrecontinued and which, finally, led to the emergence ofa distinguished group of Filipino ichthyologists (H.A.Roxas, A.F. Umali, P.R. Manacop, H.R. Montalban,D.V. Villadolid and others).

Table 1. Number of fishers in 1903 in the Philippines by “race” and sex according to the first US census (see Anon.1905).a

a Thus, according to this census, there were in the Philippines, in 1903, 27 “mixed”, 62 “yellow”, 11 “white” and 3“black” fishers as well as 5,536 “brown” and 1 (!) “mixed” female fisher (!). It is a pity no details are available on howtheir “race” was assessed. This table also illustrates into which intellectual swamp one can be misled by preconceivedideas.b Close to the total figure of 119,000 used elsewhere in the census report and in this paper.

11 -62 -27 1 111,159 5,536 3 1 116,799b

+

Brown Mixed Yellow White Black Total


The task ahead of this group was the collection,description and classification of the some 2,400 marinefish species of the Philippines – the most diverse fishfauna in the world. By the onset of World War II, thistask was essentially completed (see Herre 1953).

Most of the publications which emerged from thiswork have been reprinted in four handy volumes byTFH Publications for the Smithsonian Institution(Philippines Bureau of Science MonographicPublications on Fishes, 1 volume, and SelectedIchthyological Papers from the Philippine Journal ofScience, 3 volumes).

This was fortunate because the war, whichscattered the members of the school, also led to thecomplete destruction of the ichthyological collectionsand library of the Bureau of Fisheries (Herre 1953), ablow from which fish taxonomy in the Philippinesnever fully recovered.

Philippine Independenceand Post-war Reconstruction

Post-war reconstruction and independence fromUSA required, with regard to marine resources, morethan the somewhat esoteric work that had beenconducted before: they required the quantitativeassessment of resources. The emphasis of marineresearch which had been centered on taxonomy thusbecame explicitly fishery-oriented, and a number ofstill valuable reports were issued under arehabilitation program executed by staff of USFisheries and Wildlife Service, working with 2 staff ofthe Philippine Bureau of Fisheries (see e.g., Umali andWarfel 1950 or Warfel and Manacop 1950). Blanco andMontalban (1951) give a bibliography covering thisperiod.

In the late 1950s, Dr. K. Tiews, working for afisheries project of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO), added tothese efforts, and a large number of publicationscovering major fishing grounds and resource speciesof the Philippines were published by him and hisassociates, notably I.A. Ronquillo and by other Filipinoresearchers. This period lasted approximately to theend of the 1960s. The role of fisheries in the Philippineeconomy of this period and the problems of the sectorwere summarized by Storer (1967).

Tiews (1958) presented a brief account of fishery-related research in the Philippines up to this period,and which is particularly pertinent to the topic of thiscontribution:

“The first marine research in the Philippinesdates back 160 years, and since then the mainefforts of researchers of many nations have beendirected to identifying the very rich fauna of thearchipelago. Albert W. Herre, in his Check List ofPhilippine Fishes [. . .] records no less than 2,277fish species grouped in 205 families and 716 genera.Oceanographic research by deep-sea expeditionsin the Philippine Archipelago has contributedgreatly to knowledge of the area. Mostnoteworthy are the British “H.M.S. Erebus andTerror” (1839-43), the Spanish frigate “Navarra”(1857-58), the British “H.M.S. Challenger” (1872-76), the U.S. fisheries steamer “Albatross” (1907-1912), the German survey vessel “Planet” (1907-1912), the German cruiser “Emden” (1927), theDanish steamer “R.S.S. Dana II” (1929), the Dutchsteamer vessel “H.M.S. Villebrord Snellius” (1930),the American warship “Cape Johnson” (1945), andthe Danish Navy Corvette “Galathea” (1951).However, the first applied oceanographicinvestigations of value for commercial fisherieswere carried out from 1947 to 1950 by thePhilippine Fishery Programme of the United StatesFish and Wildlife Service. During this period anintensive exploration of Philippine and adjacentseas was made by the “U.S. M/V Spencer F. Baird”.More than 1,100 oceanographic stations wereestablished over an area of more than 800,000 sq.mi. The data collected are still being compiled andanalyzed in the United States.

“After the termination of the PhilippineFishery Programme in 1950, the Bureau ofFisheries continued oceanographic research in theprincipal fishing areas, such as Manila Bay andLingayen Gulf. The operation had to bediscontinued in 1955 for a general overhaul of theresearch vessel “M/V David Starr Jordan”.Because of lack of funds, this delay lasted until1957.

“Although fisheries research in the Philippines,especially from 1947-54, indicates a modernapproach to fishery problems through systematicscientific studies, little attention has been paid toreal marine fishery biological research. Specialresearch has only occasionally been undertakento describe the several larval forms of marine fish,to determine the racial status, spawning andfeeding habits of tuna, and the taxonomy andfeeding habits of Rastrelliger spp. The lack of a well-balanced fisheries research programme minimizedthe usefulness of the oceanographic surveys incoastal areas intended to contribute to theexplanation of fishery phenomena.


“The activities of the Bureau of Fisheries inmarine fisheries biological research are hardlysignificant compared with its other activities. Greatendeavors have been made, for instance, in thefields of fresh- and brackish-water fisheriesbiology, aquaculture, fish processing and especiallyin fisheries technology. The lack of knowledge ofthe biology and life history of the important marinefood fishes, of their behaviour, distribution andmigration, etc., became more obvious in recentyears when controversies arose among differentgroups of fishermen regarding depletion of theresources and extension of the fisheries.”

From the 1970s to the Present:The Overfishing Problem

The modern theory of fishing, which developmentwas initiated by F.I. Baranov, F.S. Russel and M.Graham before World War II, was elaborated in thelate 1950s (Schaefer 1957; Beverton and Holt 1957;Ricker 1958) but it took almost one decade for it tofully take roots in its area of origin (Northern Europeand North America).

It is therefore not surprising that approaches andmethodologies based on this theory, such as thedetailed analysis of catch and effort data or theestimation of growth and mortality parameters of fishshould not have been performed up to the end of the1960s by any of the fishery biologists working in thePhilippines, be they Filipinos or foreigners.

In the 1970s sharply declining incomes amongsmall-scale fishers led to a number of socio-economicstudies of their living conditions (Smith et al. 1980)and to various government-sponsored loan schemesaimed at motorization of boats and gear improvements(Small Fisherman’s Loan Programme, “BiyayangDagat”, KKK Programme, etc.)

It is also in the 1970s, however, that it becameclear that the available database on the Philippinefisheries was woefully inadequate, both in quantityand quality, to assess the status of the marine fisheriesand of the resources.

This led, on one hand, to attempts, in cooperationwith the FAO/United Nations DevelopmentProgramme South China Sea Fisheries Developmentand Coordinating Programme in Manila, to overhaulthe fishery statistical data collection system of thePhilippines and, on the other hand, to attempts toestimate the fishery potential of the country usingindirect methods, such as via comparative studies ofmaximum sustainable yield per area (Smith et al. 1980).Also an attempt was made to apply the “Delphi”technique to the estimation of the potential yield of

the Philippine marine fisheries. As the results of thisattempt have not been well disseminated, a briefaccount of this exercise is given in the followingparagraphs.

The Delphi method, which was first developed toassess the bombing requirements of the US Air Force(Dalkey and Helmer 1951) is essentially an approachfor helping experts in a certain area to reach a usableconsensus on a given controversial issue in their areaof expertise, given that conclusive evidence is notavailable. The main feature of the method is that itusually allows for an increasing consensus through aniterative, anonymous process which completelyeliminates the nefarious group-dynamics effect ofnormal committee work (Linstone and Turoff 1975).The method has been rarely applied to fisheries (butsee Zuboy 1981, for what might be the first publishedinstance).

In late 1980, the Resource Policy and StrategyResearch Program of the Ministry of Natural Resourcesof the Philippines sent an invitation to various fisheriesexperts to participate in a Delphi exercise on stockassessment, as follows:

“The object of this exercise is to come up withapproximation of the extent and potential of thecountry’s marine fishery resources. Empiricalresearch in this area has up to the present beenminimal, making resource management decisionsextremely hard to arrive at. In the absence ofdefinite resources information, the judgement ofexperts in the field is now being sought so that aset of workable resources estimates that will beof practical value to the resource manager may bemade available. Such resource estimate will servetwo aims: (1) the management of presentlyexploited fisheries; and, (2) the development ofhighly (promising) but still unexploited fisheries”.

This citation is from the material sent along withthe invitation. Also included were a brief descriptionof the Delphi method itself, miscellaneous BFAR catchstatistics, a surface area estimate of the Philippine shelfand questionnaires pertaining to the first iteration ofestimates, which was conducted throughcorrespondence.

On 21-23 November 1980, a Workshop on theAssessment of the Philippine Fishery Wealth (MarineSector): A Delphi Approach was held in Baguio, inwhich the final iterations were to be performed bythe participating experts who came from variousnational and international agencies (including theauthor of this paper).


The meeting did not go on as planned in that nearthe end, the anonymity essential to the Delphi processbroke down and the various experts began to argueamong themselves about the validity of “their”estimates. Figure 1 and Table 2 present some of theresults achieved at this stage, as polished up by staffand consultants of the Fishery Industry DevelopmentCouncil (FIDC) and of the Natural ResourcesManagement Center (NRMC) shortly after themeeting itself. Time will tell whether these potentialyield estimates are correct or not.

Since this meeting was conducted, a vast amountof empirical data, reports and papers have becomeavailable which may make it superfluous to resort, as

far as stock assessments are concerned, to indirectapproaches such as the Delphi method.

The reader compiled and introduced by Aprietoet al. (1986) contains, for example, a number ofimportant contributions on the marine fisheries of thePhilippines, along with an exhaustive coverage of themajor bibliographic sources on the living marineresources of the country.

The compilation and the references therein showthat the scientific evidence is now available on the basisof which sound management decisions can be made.Hopefully, such decisions will be made, given thatthe marine fisheries of the Philippines are in sore needof management.

Table 2: Estimated potential of Philippine marine waters.

Source: NRMC/FIDC Workshop on Assessment of Philippine Fishery Wealth (Marine Sector):A Delphi Approach.

Area Species

Total marine area

A. Coastal waters

Region I (Tayabas Bay, Sibuyan Sea,Visayan Sea, Samar Sea and related bays)

Region II (Bohol Sea, East Suluand related bays)

Region III (Moro Sea, Davao Gulf,Southeast Mindanao Coast)

Region IV (West Sulu Sea, Palawan,Mindoro)

Region V (North and Northwest Luzon)

Region VI (Pacific Coast except SoutheastMindanao)

B. Oceanic water

All fish

All fishDemersalPelagic







Pelagic

Estimated PotentialYield (1,000 t)

1,650+200

1,400+200600+200800+200

210+3090+30

120+30

196+3084+30

112+30

140+2060+2080+20

462+70198+70264+70

112+2048+2064+30

280+40120+40160+30

250+50


Figure 1. Examples of intermediate results obtained during the Delphi exercise to estimatepotential yield of Philippine fisheries (see text). Note that in this round not all participantscontributed a figure for all Philippine coastal water fishes.


Literature Cited

Anon. 1905. Censo de las Islas Filipinas. Vol. IV. Agricultura,estadistica social e industrial. US Census Office, Washington,DC, USA.

Aprieto, V., J. Saeger and D. Pauly, Editors. 1986. Selected paperson marine fisheries research (1947 to 1986). Dept. Mar. Fish.Tech. Rep. 9, xx + 436 p.

Blanco, G.J. and H.R. Montalban. 1951. A bibliography of Philippinefishes and fisheries. Philipp. J. Fish. 1(2): 115-138.

Blair, E.H. and J.A. Robertson. 1973. The Philippine Islands 1493-1898: Exploration by early navigators, descriptions of theislands and their peoples, their history and records of theCatholic mission as related in contemporaneous books andmanuscripts showing the political, economic, commercial andreligious conditions of those islands from their earliest relationswith European nations to the beginning of the 19th century:Translated from the original/edited and annotated by E.H.Blair and J.A. Robertson: With historical introduction andadditional notes by E.G. Bourne; with maps, portraits andother illustrations. Cacho Hermanos, Inc., Mandaluyong, Rizal,Philippines. 19 volumes.

Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploitedfish populations. UK Min. Agric. Fish., Fish. Invest. (Ser. 2)19: 533 p.

Dalkey, N. and O. Helmer. 1951. The use of experts for theestimation of bombing requirements: A Delphi experiment. R-1283-PR. Rand Corporation, California,USA.

Day, F. 1875-1878. The fishes of India, being a natural history ofthe fishery known to inhabit the seas and fresh waters ofIndia, Burma and Ceylon. Volumes 1 and 2. Dawson, London,UK.

Hamilton-Buchanan, F. 1822. An account of the fishes found in theRiver Ganges and its branches. Edinburgh and London, UK.

Herre, A.W. 1953. Checklist of Philippine fishes. US Dep. Int.,Fish. Wildl. Res. Rep. 20. 977 p.

Jordan, D.S. and R.E. Richardson. 1910. A check-list of Philippinefishes. Philipp. Bur. Sci. Monogr. Publ. Fish 1: 3-78.

Lamme, W.H. 1973. Collected fish paper of Pieter Bleeker. W. JunkPublishers, The Hague, Netherlands.

Linston, H.A. and M. Turoff. 1975. The Delphi method. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA.

Ochotorena, M. 1981. Ag tobig nog keboklagan: A Subanon folkepic kinaadman. J. South. Philipp. 3: 348-543.

Pannier, F. 1982. Science in Latin America, p. 226-242. In C.Moraze (ed.) Science and the factors of inequality. UNESCO,Paris, France.

Ricker, W.E. 1958. Handbook of computation for biological statisticsof fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 119. 300 p.

Rizal, J.P. 1891. El Filibusterismo. 4, Ghent, Belgium. 286 p.Schaefer, M.B. 1957. A study of the dynamics of the fishery for

yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Bull. I-ATTC/Bol. CIAT. 2: 247-268.

Smith, I.R., M.Y. Puzon and C.N. Vidal-Libunao. 1980. The Philippinemunicipal fisheries: A review of resources, technology andsocioeconomics. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 4, 87 p.

Storer, J.A. 1967. Aspects of fisheries in the developing Philippineeconomy. Stud. Trop. Oceanogr. 5: 363-374.

Tiews, K. 1958. Research activities on marine fisheries biology in1957. Philipp. J. Fish. 6(1): 71-105.

Umali, A.F. and H.E. Warfel. 1950. Guide to the classification offishing gears in the Philippines. US Dep. Int. Fish. Wildl. Serv.Res. Rep. 17. 165 p.

Warfel, H.E. and P.R. Manacop. 1950. Otter trawl explorations inPhilippine waters. US Dep. Int., Fish. Wildl. Serv. Res. Rep.25. 49 p.

White, T. 1898. Our new possessions: a graphic account,description and historical, of the tropic islands of the seawhich have fallen under our sway, their cities, people andcommerce, natural resources and the opportunities they offerto Americans. Chicago, USA.

Zuboy, J. 1981. A new tool for fishery managers: The Delphitechnique. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 1:55-59.


Abstract

Marine fisheries are an important source of protein,livelihood and export earnings for the Philippines. In1994, total marine fisheries catch was 1.67 million t(62% of total fisheries production) valued at aboutUS$1.65 billion3. Of this total, 277,000 t were demersalfishes, 885,000 t small pelagics, 305,000 t tunas and203,000 t other species or groups. Current catches haveleveled off since 1991 (at a level near estimatedmaximum sustainable yield) and existing fishing effortis clearly too high.

This paper reviews the status of marine fisheriesand the development of trawl fisheries in thePhilippines. The combined effects of excessive fishingeffort and environmental degradation havecontributed to the depletion of fishery resources,particularly coastal demersal and small pelagic fishes.

Introduction

Fisheries are an important component of theagricultural sector in the Philippines. In 1994, theyaccounted for 4.3% of gross domestic product and18% (US$2.5 billion) of gross value added by theagriculture, fishery and forestry sectors. Fisheries

Overview of Philippine Marine Fisheries1

provide livelihood to about 1 million individuals orabout 5% of the country’s labor force. Fishery exportswere about 172,000 t in 1994 valued at US$578 million.Fish consumption in the Philippines is high at about28.5 kg/capita/year.

Marine fisheries landings in 1994 were about 1.67million t valued at about US$1.65 billion. Thisrepresented roughly 62% of the total fisheriesproduction in the country; the rest was contributedby the aquaculture and inland fisheries sectors. Themunicipal (i.e., small-scale) fisheries sector contributed47% (787 000 t) of marine fisheries catches, while thebalance (885 000 t) came from the commercial fisheriessector.

The increased demand for fish from a rapidlygrowing population and increasing exports hassubstantially increased fishing pressure on the marinefishery resources in the past two decades. In February1996 the National Fisheries Workshop on PolicyPlanning and Industry Development pointed toresources depletion and environmental degradationas the key issues facing the fisheries sector. Decliningcatch rates in many traditional fishing grounds andthe leveling off of marine landings since 1991 supportthese conclusions. The sections below provide anoverview of the status of Philippine marine fisheries.

NOEL C. BARUTMUDJEKEEWIS D. SANTOS

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesDepartment of Agriculture, Quezon City

Philippines

LEN R. GARCES2


Philippines

1 This paper is a reprint of the full article which originally appeared as: BARUT, N.C., M.D. SANTOS and L.R. GARCES.1997. Overview of Philippine marine fisheries, p. 62-71. In G. Silvestre and D. Pauly (eds.) Status and management oftropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p. (ICLARM Contribution No. 1390).

This paper can be cited as above or as follows: BARUT, N.C., M.D. SANTOS and L.R. GARCES. 2004. Overview ofPhilippine marine fisheries, p. 22-31. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.2 Current address is: The World Fish Center, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960 Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia.3 In 1994: $1 = P23.75.

Overview of marine fisheries 23

Marine Environment and Activities

The Philippines is an archipelago consisting of morethan 7,100 islands. It extends about 2,000 km in a south-north direction, between 4o05’ and 21o30’ N latitude,from the northeast coast of Borneo to 150 km offTaiwan (Figure 1). The total territorial water area,including the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), is about2.2 million km2. The shelf area, down to 200 m covers184,600 km2.

Pioneering expeditions that contributedsignificantly to information on Philippine hydrographywere those of the Nuestra Señora de Buena Esperanza

(1587), Desire (1588), Cygnet (1688), Elizabeth (1762),Atrevida and Descibierta (1792), Santa Lucia and Magallanes(1800), Rhone (1819), Samarang (1843), Royalist (1850-1854), Riffleman and Nassau (1868-1869) (Sebastian 1951).Oceanographic data were also made available throughsimilar explorations during the late 19th to the mid-20 th centuries. The Danish Galathea collectedoceanographic information in Manila Bay, Dinagat andSurigao between 1845 and 1847. In 1875, the BritishH.M.S. Challenger Deep Sea Expedition conductedinvestigations in the Sulu Sea and the Visayas. From1907 to 1909, the marine life of the islands wassurveyed extensively by the Albatross Philippine

Figure 1. Marine jurisdictional boundaries of the Republic of the Philippines.


expedition which was sponsored by the US Bureau ofFisheries. Other explorations that followed were theGerman survey vessel Planet (1907-1912), the Germancruiser Emden (1927), the Danish research vessel R.S.S.Dana II (1929), the Dutch research vessel H.M.S.Willebrord Snellius (1903), the Japanese Manshu, Yamato,and Musashi (1934-1942) and the US naval vessel CapeJohnson (1945). In 1947-1950, the S.F. Baird, under thePhilippine Fishery Program of the US Fish and WildlifeService, conducted an extensive investigation of theCelebes Sea, Sulu Sea, South China Sea and the watersof the Philippine Sea covering an area of more than2,074,500 km2. In 1951-1952, the Galathea made anintensive biological survey of the Philippine Deep.

The waters east of the Philippines are affected bythe major large-scale ocean currents of the Pacific. Themajor current system affecting the Philippines is theNorth Equatorial Current which flows westward acrossthe Pacific, hits the eastern coast of the country andsplits into northward and southward branches. Thenorthward branch flows along the east coast of theVisayas and Luzon, moving to Taiwan and Japan asthe Kuroshio Current. The southward branch becomesthe Mindanao current, moving southward along theeast coast of Mindanao. The influence of the strongseasonally reversing monsoon winds on watercirculation is more pronounced on the western side ofthe Philippines. During the northeast monsoon a cyclonicpattern of surface water movement develops in theSouth China Sea with a northwesterly flow along thewestern coasts of Palawan and Luzon. During thesouthwest monsoon water movement in the SouthChina Sea is generally northeasterly, flowing outthrough the straits between Luzon and Taiwan (Wyrtki1961; Soegiarto 1985). The work of Wyrtki (1961)described the water masses in the area. Historicalhydrographic data indicated that Philippine waters arevery similar to those of the western Pacific.

The country’s marine environment is distinctlytropical in character, with relatively warm and less salinewaters. Sea surface temperatures are generally above28oC in summer and only a few degrees lower duringthe cold months. Salinity variations are very small,especially in the eastern parts of the country. Thesevariations increase during the moisture-laden southwestmonsoon in the western parts of the country. The watersare typically poor in nutrients, with small upwellings,gyres and mixing processes occasionally enhancing localproductivity. Nutrient depletion can extend to depthsof 50-100 m in open waters. The thermocline depth isusually about 150 m and varies seasonally. Nutrientconcentrations and biological productivity are highestover the shelves, declining rapidly with depth anddistance from the coast.

Water quality studies in the country are limitedto highly localized and pollution-prone areas. Evidentin all these studies is the deterioration of water qualitybrought about by mine tailings, agricultural runoffs,siltation, domestic sewage and oil spills. Almost allresults indicate abiotic and biotic parameters (e.g., pH,salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, heavy metalcontent, coliform count) exceeding standards set bythe Environmental Management Bureau of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources.

Coral reefs abound in shallow water areas notsubjected to low salinity from freshwater inflows,sedimentation and physical perturbations, with about27,000 km2 of coral reef area within the 30 m depthcontour. There are more than 70 genera and 400 speciesof hard corals documented, as well as about athousand associated fish species (Gomez et al. 1994).Reef areas contribute substantially to fisheriesproductivity, with fish yields ranging from 5 to 37t .km-2 (Alcala and Gomez 1985). Extensive corallineor hard bottoms are found around Palawan, Sulu, theVisayas and the central part of the country’s Pacificcoast. A large portion of Philippine coral reefs has beensubjected to serious degradation which reduced theirproductivity (Yap and Gomez 1985). Major destructivefactors are sedimentation and siltation from coastaldevelopment and activities, illegal and destructivemethods of fishing and overfishing (Gomez et al. 1994).Coral cover data from various surveys of Philippinereefs indicate that 5% are in excellent condition (morethan 75% living coral cover), 25% in good condition(50-75% living coral cover) and the rest in fair andpoor condition (below 50% living coral cover) (Gomez1991).

Mangrove communities are integral and importantcomponents of the coastal ecosystem. These arecategorized into mangrove swamps composed mainlyof large trees and associates, and nipa swamps whichare characterized by stemless palm growths. Forty-one species of mangroves have been identified in thePhilippines. These yield by-products such as timberand other building materials, high-grade charcoal,tannins, resins, dyes and medicines. Mangrove areasare under pressure for conversion to other uses,notably aquaculture and human settlement. In 1965,mangrove areas covered about 4,500 km2. Ten yearslater, only about 2,500 km2 were left. Sixty percent ofthis decline was due to conversion into aquacultureponds for milkfish and prawns (Primavera 1991). By1981 an aggregate cover of only 1,460 km2 was intact.This prompted government and nongovernmentagencies to suspend permits for mangrove conversionto fishponds, accelerate reforestation activities and spurcommunity-based management.


Seagrass communities regulate water flow andwave energy together with coral reefs and mangroves.There are 16 seagrass species recorded in thePhilippines, second only to Western Australia amongthe 27 countries of the Indo-Pacific region. Extensiveseagrass beds have been identified in Bolinao, Palawan,Cuyo Island, Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor, Zamboanga andDavao. Seagrass communities in the country manifestsigns of degradation due to the combined effects ofnatural calamities, predation, aquaculture,deforestation, siltation and destructive fishing methods(Fortes 1990).

Seaweed beds, like coral reef, mangrove andseagrass communities, play a vital role in the coastalenvironment. They provide feeding and nurserygrounds for different types of marine macro andmicroorganisms and interact with seagrasses to controlocean wave action. Aside from its ecological functionthis group of marine macrobentic algae is also animportant human food source. There are 190 speciesof seaweed recorded in the Philippines. About 150species are considered economically important butonly a few are cultivated (particularly Eucheuma spp.).Other species under the genus Sargassum and Gracilariaare harvested from natural beds. To date, thePhilippines is the world’s leading supplier of Eucheuma,producing about 80% of total world supply. There areabout 80,000 seaweed farmers with 350,000 dependentsthat rely on the seaweed industry in the country(Dakay 1992).

Marine Capture Fisheries

Philippine marine fisheries are conventionallysubdivided into municipal (small-scale) and commercialfisheries on the basis of vessel gross tonnage.Municipal fisheries include capture operations usingboats less than 3 GT and those that do not involve theuse of watercraft. A license is issued by the municipalitywhere the boat is registered, hence the name. Fishingpermits are issued to fishing boats by the municipalitywhere they intend to fish. Commercial fisheriesinclude capture fishing operations using vessels of 3GT and above. Commercial fishing vessels are requiredto secure a commercial fishing boat license from theBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)before they can operate. Until recently commercialfishing vessels were only allowed to operate in watersbeyond 7 km from the shoreline. With theimplementation of the Local Government Code in 1992,coastal waters within 15 km from the shoreline arenow considered municipal waters and commercialfishing is not allowed within this area.

Figure 2 illustrates the total marine, commercialand municipal fisheries catches in the Philippines from1950 to 1994. Total marine landings showedaccelerated growth during the periods 1962-1975 and1985-1991, but leveled off to around 1.65 million t inthe early 1990s. This was brought about by the declinein municipal fisheries landings being compensated bythe commercial fisheries sector, which may be

Figure 2. Philippine marine fisheries production by sector from 1950 to 1994 (BFAR and BASstatistics, 1994).


indicative of increasing resource depletion andcompetition in nearshore fishing grounds.

In 1994, the marine landings of 1.67 million tconsisted of 17% (277,000 t) demersal fishes, 53%(885,000 t) small pelagics, 18% (305,000 t) tunas and12% (203,000 t) miscellaneous species or groups. Figure3 illustrates the trend in demersal and small pelagicfish production in the Philippines from 1970 to 1994.Note that the catch of demersals has leveled off since1976. The catch of small pelagics, on the other hand,was almost the same from 1976 to 1988, increasedrapidly from 1988 to 1992, then declined from 1992 to1994. These catch trends in the face of continuouslyincreasing fishing effort reflect assessments indicatingoverfishing of demersal and small pelagic fish stocks.

The trawl is commonly used by the commercialsector to exploit demersals while gillnets, hook andlines and “baby” trawls are most commonly used bymunicipal fishers in catching demersal species orgroups. Silvestre et al. (1986) provide a detailed reviewof trawl and demersal fisheries development in thePhilippines and the consequent decline of demersalbiomass in the country’s coastal waters. Numeroustrawl surveys have been conducted in Philippine waters(see Appendix III) which document this decline andwhich potentially offer numerous insights forimproved fisheries management if standardized andanalyzed more exhaustively.

The commercial sector commonly uses bagnets,purse seines and ringnets for catching small pelagicswhile municipal fishers dominantly use gillnets, beachseines and round haul seines. Roundscads, sardines,anchovies, mackerels, big-eye scads, round herringsand fusiliers dominate small pelagic catches in thePhilippines.

Six species of tuna dominate Philippine landings,i.e., yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), big-eye tuna

(Thunnus obesus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis),eastern little tuna (Euthynnus affinis), frigate tuna(Auxis thazard) and bullet tuna (Auxis rochei). The mostcommon gear used by the commercial sector in catchingtuna are purse seines and ringnets, while municipalfishers mainly use handlines. All these gears areoperated jointly with fish aggregating devices knownas payao. Tuna production increased from about 9 300t in 1970 to 125 000 t in 1976 with the introduction ofpayao in 1975. Wider use of payao has contributed tothe high level of tuna catches in the country.

The available information on fishing effort islimited. Table 1 gives a summary of the number ofcommercial fishing vessels in the Philippines, by geartype, and gross tonnage from 1967 to 1987. Note thatthe trawl, bagnet and purse seine were the mostwidely used gear during this period; also a shift tolarger vessels (i.e., from 3-5 GT to 10-<50 GT) isevident. Similar vessel information prior to 1967 isunavailable, while information after 1987 is difficultto extract due to changes in methods of fisherystatistics collection resulting from the transfer of suchfunctions from BFAR to the Bureau of AgriculturalStatistics (BAS). Information pertaining to municipalfisheries is far more limited, although periodicinformation may be available from national censusesoccasionally conducted in the past (Dalzell et al. 1987).

The potential yield from the marine fisheryresources of the Philippines has been studiedextensively (Munro 1986; Silvestre et al. 1986; Dalzelland Ganaden 1987). Estimates of maximum sustainableyield (MSY) from conventional fishery resources varywidely between 1.1 and 3.7 million t. The higherestimates are based on overly optimistic yield-per-unit area figures and do not consider productivitydecline with depth. The scientific consensus since the1980s is that MSY from conventional resources is

Figure 3. Demersal and small pelagic fisheries in the Philippines from 1970 to 1994 (BFAR and BAS statistics).


Tabl

e 1.

Tot

al n

umbe

r of

com

mer

cial

fish

ing

vess

els

in th

e Ph

ilipp

ines

by

gear

type

and

tonn

age

from

196

7 to

198

7 (B

FAR

sta

tistic

s). S

ee te

xt.


1.650±0.250 million t, i.e., 600±100 thousand t ofdemersals, 800±100 thousand t of coastal pelagics and250±50 000 t of tunas or oceanic pelagics (BFAR 1995).

Figure 4 illustrates the results of the assessmentof demersal fisheries. The figure indicates thefollowing: MSY for exploited demersal resources (i.e.,excluding offshore hard bottoms around Palawan,southern Sulu Sea area, and the central part of thecountry’s Pacific coast) is about 340,000-390,000 t, whilethe maximum economic yield (MEY) ranges from280,000 to 300,000 t worth of fish and invertebrates.Subsequent refinements of this assessment yieldedsimilar results (Silvestre and Pauly 1987). Note thatthe MSY of 340,000-390,000 t, when combined withthe MSY estimates for unexploited or lightly fishedhard bottom areas of 200,000 t, come very close to theconsensus demersal MSY of 600±100,000 t noted above.

Assessment of the exploitation status of currentlyfished demersal stocks indicates that these resourcesare biologically and economically overfished. Studiesindicate that the biomass of currently fished stockshas declined to about 30% of its original levels in thelate 1940s (Silvestre et al. 1986). It can also be noted inFigure 4 that fishing effort could be reduced by three-fifths without substantially reducing demersal yields.The annual rent dissipation from overfishing of thedemersal stocks is about US$130 million per year.Reduction of fishing effort and reallocation of thosedisplaced to lightly fished, hard-bottom areas isrequired.

Figure 4 also illustrates the results of theassessment of small pelagic fisheries. The data indicatethe following: MSY for small pelagics of about 550,000t; MEY of 250,000 t for fish and invertebrates in the

Figure 4. Surplus production model of demersal and small pelagic fisheries in thePhilippines providing estimates of MSY and economic rent for exploited areas/resources (Silvestre and Pauly 1986; Dalzell et al. 1987).


exploited fishing grounds; and a maximum economicrent (MER) of $290 million worth of fish andinvertebrates (Dalzell et al. 1987). Subsequentrefinements of this assessment have yielded similarresults (Trinidad et al. 1993). The MSY figure of 550,000t, when combined with MSY estimates of 250,000t forlightly fished small pelagic resources or fishing grounds(i.e., in waters off Palawan, parts of the country’sPacific coasts and some parts of Mindanao), virtuallyequals the consensus small pelagic MSY of 800±100,000t noted above. Thus, available information alsoindicates that the small pelagics are biologically andeconomically overfished. The consequent rentdissipation is about $290 million annually. Fishing effortis particularly high in nearshore coastal areas, especiallythe traditional fishing grounds. Effort level in the mid-1980s was already more than twice the level necessaryto harvest MSY (Figure 4). The obvious need for smallpelagic fisheries is to reduce effort and reallocate theexcess to lightly fished areas. There are indicationsthat this expansion has occurred since the work ofDalzell et al. (1987).

The assessment of tuna indicates that the fishingpressure on the stocks in Philippine waters is high(Dalzell and Corpuz 1990; BFAR 1995). The magnitudeof the catches and the concentration of fishing effortwithin a small surface area indicate a very high localfishing mortality. There is a need to expand to otherfishing areas (further offshore) off the South ChinaSea and the Pacific coast of the country. Such a movemay increase the size of tuna catches in Philippinewaters, which largely do not meet export marketrequirements. Commercial fishing operations areknown to have expanded to Indonesia, Micronesiaand Papua New Guinea through joint venturearrangements from private sector initiatives.

The oceanic large pelagics such as marlin,swordfish and sailfish are not fully exploited at present.From a landing of 17,000-25,000 t in the late 1980s, thelarge pelagic landings have declined to 9,000-15,000t inthe 1990s.

Nonconventional resources such as oceanic squidand deep-sea shrimp occur in Philippine waters. Atpresent there is no established fishery for theseresources and there is very little information to assessresource potential.

Management Issues and Opportunities

An excessive fishing effort level is evident fromthe various countrywide and site-specific fisheriesassessments conducted in the Philippines. Speciescomposition changes reflective of growth, recruitmentand ecosystem overfishing have occurred in many

areas (Silvestre et al. 1986; Pauly et al. 1989; Cinco et al.1994). Economic overfishing is also quite evident.There is a need to improve fisheries management, ingeneral, and to effect effort reduction, in particular. Itshould be noted, moreover, that distributional inequityand conflict between municipal and commercialfisheries is an issue in many areas, particularly innearshore, traditional fishing grounds. For instance,in the San Miguel Bay fisheries in the early 1980s, 50%of pure profits went to 95 trawlers owned by 35households, and the rest went to 2,288 municipal gearunits owned by 2,030 households (Smith et al. 1983).Thus, effort reduction should be sensitive toconsiderations of distributional equity.

The decline of fishery resources in the Philippines,particularly of demersals and small pelagics, ispresumably a combined effect of excessive fishingeffort and coastal environmental degradation. Thequantitative link of resource decline to habitatdegradation, however, is difficult to document.Habitat degradation is more complex and serious inhighly populated coastal areas. Habitat degradationdue to pollution is mostly site-specific. Table 2illustrates a typical coastal transect, indicating activitiesand issues which require attention for effective coastalfisheries management in the Philippines. These issues,taken within the larger framework of integratedcoastal zone management (ICZM), require increasedattention and support in the Philippines. ICZM schemeshave been implemented in 12 selected coastal areas inthe country under the ADB-funded Philippine FisheriesSector Program (1991-1997). Participatory schemes thatdevelop the knowledge and capability of stakeholdersand local governments (consistent with the 1992 LocalGovernment Code) to manage their resources havebeen initiated successfully, requiring wider replicationand continued support.

Improvement of information inputs into thefisheries management decisionmaking process requiresimmediate action in the Philippines. The statistical gapsresulting from the transfer of fisheries statisticscollection from BFAR to BAS after 1987 need urgentattention. In this context, we note the availability ofnumerous trawl surveys conducted in the Philippines(Appendix III). The work of Silvestre et al. (1986) andSilvestre and Pauly (1987) illustrate some of the insightswhich can be derived from these underutilized data.Retrospective analyses of these surveys using recentlydeveloped techniques such as population, communityanalysis (McManus 1986, 1989) and ecosystem analysis(Christensen and Pauly 1993, 1996) and along the linessuggested in Pauly and Martosubroto (1996) canprovide numerous insights which can improve fisheriesmanagement in the Philippines. The availability of


Tabl

e 2.

Coa

stal

tran

sect

indi

catin

g ac

tiviti

es a

nd is

sues

rel

evan

t to

inte

grat

ed c

oast

al z

one

and

coas

tal f

ishe

ries

man

agem

ent i

n th

e Ph

ilipp

ines

.


sound, scientific information will facilitate the elevationof resource allocation decisions into objective ratherthan emotional debates.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the staff of the Pelagic ResourcesSection, BFAR, particularly Ana Marie Coronel,Criselda Malit, Jenneth Manzano, Clarita Ulanday andVal Manlulu for their assistance in locating, preparingand encoding statistical information used in this paper.Thanks are also due to Salud Ganaden, Luz Regis andLeony Mijares for their assistance and suggestions inthe preparation of the paper, and Geronimo Silvestreof ICLARM for his technical guidance.

References

Alcala, A.C. and E.D. Gomez. 1985. Fish yields of coral reefs inCentral Philippines. Proc. 5th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 5: 521-524.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1950-1987.Fisheries statistics of the Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1995. On theallocation of fishing area for exclusive use by the municipalfisheries sector: a policy brief. BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines.

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly, Editors. 1993. Trophic models ofaquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 26, 390 p.

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1996. Ecological modeling for all.Naga, ICLARM Q. 19(2): 25-26.

Cinco, E.A., J.C. Diaz, R. Gatchalian and G.T. Silvestre. 1994.Results of the San Miguel Bay trawl survey. In G. Slivestre, C.Luna and J. Padilla (eds.) Multidisciplinary assessment of thefisheries in San Miguel Bay, Philippines (1991-1993). ICLARMTech. Rep. 47 (CD-ROM).

Dakay, B.U. 1992. The state of the seaweed industry in thePhilippines, p. 23-27. In C. Calumpong and E. Mines (eds.)Proceedings of the Second Philippine-U.S. PhycologySymposium/Workshop, 6-10 January 1992. Silliman UniversityPress, Dumaguete City, Philippines. 376 p.

Dalzell, P. and P. Corpuz. 1990. The present status of small pelagicfisheries in the Philippines, p. 25-51. In C.R. Pagdilao andC.D. Garcia (eds.) Philippine tuna and small pelagic fisheries:status and prospects for development. Proceedings of theSeminar-Workshop, 27-29 July 1988. Zamboanga StateCollege of Marine Science and Technology, Zamboanga City,Philippines. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Researchand Development Book Ser. No. 7.

Dalzell, P. and R.A. Ganaden. 1987. A review of the fisheries forsmall pelagic fishes in Philippine waters. BFAR Tech. Pap. Ser.10(1), 58 p. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines and Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.

Dalzell, P., P.Corpuz, R. Ganaden and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimation ofmaximum sustainable yield and maximum economic rent fromthe Philippine small pelagic fisheries. BFAR Tech. Pap. Ser.10(3): 23 p.

Fortes, M.D. 1990. Seagrasses: A resource unknown in the ASEANregion. ICLARM Educ. Ser. 5, 46 p.

Gomez, E.D., P.M. Aliño, H.T. Yap and W.Y. Licuanan. 1994. Areview of the status of Philippine reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull.29(1-3): 62-68.

McManus, J.W. 1986. Depth zonation in a demersal fishery in theSamar Sea, Philippines, p. 483-486. In J. Maclean, L. Dizonand L. Hosillos (eds.) The First Asian Fisheries Forum. AsianFisheries Society, Manila.

McManus, J.W. 1989. Zonation among demersal fishes of SoutheastAsia: the southwest shelf of Indonesia, p. 1011-1022. In O.Magoon, H. Converse, D. Miner, L. Thomas Tobin and D.Clark (eds.) Coastal Zone ’89. Proceedings of the SixthSymposium on Coastal and Ocean Management. AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, USA.

Munro, J.L. 1986. Marine fishery resources in the Philippines:catches and potential, p. 19-45. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G.Silvestre (eds.) Resources management and socio-economicsof Philippine marine fisheries. Dep. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10,217 p.

Pauly, D., G.T. Silvestre and I.R. Smith. 1989. On development,fisheries and dynamite: a brief review of tropical fisheriesmanagement. Nat. Resour. Modelling 3(3): 307-329.

Pauly, D. and P. Martosubroto, Editors. 1996. Baseline studies ofbiodiversity: the fish resources of Western Indonesia. ICLARMStud. Rev. 23, 312 p.

Primavera, J.H. 1991. Intensive prawn farming in the Philippines:ecological, social and economic implications. Ambio 20: 28-31.

Sebastian, A.R. 1951. Oceanographic research in the Philippines.Philipp. J. Fish. (1): 147-153.

Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly. 1986. Estimate of yield and economicrent from Philippine demersal stocks 1946-1984. Paperpresented at the IOC/WESTPAC Symposium on Marine Sciencein the Western Pacific: The Indo-Pacific Convergence, 1-6December 1986, Townsville, Australia.

Silvestre, G.T., R.B. Regalado and D. Pauly. 1986. Status of Philippinedemersal stocks-inferences from underutilized catch rate data,p. 47-96. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.)Resources, management and socioeconomics of Philippinemarine fisheries. Dep. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10, 217 p.

Silvestre, G.T. and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimate of yield and economicrent from Philippine demersal stocks (1946-1984) using vesselhorsepower as an index of fishing effort. Univ. Philipp. VisayasFish. J. 3(1-2): 11-24.

Smith, I.R., D. Pauly and A.N. Mines. 1983. Small-scale fisheriesof San Miguel Bay, Philippines: Options for management andresearch. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 11, 80 p.

Soegiarto, A. 1985. Oceanographic assessment of East Asian Seas.In Environment and resources of the Pacific, p. 173-184.UNEP Reg. Seas Rep. Stud. 69: 244 p.

Trinidad, A.C., R.S. Pomeroy, P.V. Corpuz and M. Agüero. 1993.Bioeconomics of the Philippine small pelagic fishery. ICLARMTech. Rep. 38, 74 p.

Wyrtki, K. 1961. Physical oceanography of the southeast Asianwaters: scientific results of marine investigations of the SouthChina Sea and Gulf of Thailand 1951-1961. Naga Rep. Vol. 2.Neyenesch Printers, California. 195 p.

Yap, H.T. and E.D. Gomez. 1985. Coral reef degradation andpollution in the East Asian Seas, p. 185-207. UNEP Reg. SeasRep. Stud. 69: 244 p.


Overview of the Small Pelagic Fisheries1

ESTER C. ZARAGOZACESARIO R. PAGDILAOERIBERTO P. MORENO

Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and DevelopmentDepartment of Science and Technology

Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines

Introduction

In the Philippines, small pelagic fishes as a groupconsist predominantly of roundscads (Decapterus spp.,Carangidae), anchovies (Stolephorus spp., Engraulidae),sardines (Sardinella spp., Clupeidae) and mackerels(Rastrelliger spp., Scombridae). Also included in thisgroup are the round herrings (Clupeidae), fusiliers(Caesionidae), bigeye scads (Carangidae), flying fishes(Exocoetidae) and halfbeaks (Hemiramphidae). Smallpelagic fishes are usually found in continental shelfwaters (not exceeding 200 m depth). They generallyattain maximum weights not exceeding 500 g, and havefast growth rates and short life spans. Most smallpelagics exhibit schooling behavior and areplanktivores, although some are piscivores in theirlater life stages. The abundance of small pelagic fishesis highly seasonal, and is affected by the seasonalproductivity cycle in coastal waters influenced bymonsoon winds, rainfall and plankton biomass.

The fisheries on small pelagic fishes comprise animportant segment of the country’s fisheries industry.In 2001, the small pelagic fisheries production wasabout 1.1 million t or roughly 35% of the total fisheriesproduction. Small pelagic fisheries are considered themain source of inexpensive animal protein for lowerincome groups in the Philippines. These groupsconstitute about 70% of the population and spend over65% of their income on food. Thus, fisheriesmanagement is very important for the country’s foodsecurity.

Countrywide assessments of small pelagicfisheries of the Philippines are given, among others,in the works of Munro (1986); Calvelo and Dalzell(1987); Dalzell and Ganaden (1987); Dalzell et al. (1987);

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ZARAGOZA, E.C., C.R. PAGDILAO and E.P. MORENO. 2004. Overview of the smallpelagic fisheries, p. 32-37. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Inturbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

Dalzell and Corpuz (1990); Pagdilao et al. (1993); andTrinidad et al. (1993). More recent site-specificassessments of small pelagic fishes and fisheries aregiven, among others, in the works of De la Peña (1997),Lazola and Samson (1997), and Aripin and Showers(2002) for Sulu Sea; Portugal (1998) for Moro Gulf;and Armada (1998) for Visayan Sea. These studiesprovide detailed assessments of the status of smallpelagic resources and fisheries in the country and themore important fishing grounds. This contributionattempts to provide only a brief update about the smallpelagic fisheries and readers are referred to thesereferences for more comprehensive and detailedtreatments.

Production Trends

Dalzell et al. (1987) and Trinidad et al. (1993)documented the historical production trends in smallpelagic fisheries since the early 1950s. From productionlevels of about 100,000 t in the early 1950s, productionreached 300,000 t levels during the 1960s and 550,000t during the mid-1970 to mid-1980 period. Fishingeffort from early 1950s to mid-1980s has been notedto have effectively increased almost sixfold.

Table 1 gives the countrywide production (total,commercial and municipal) of small pelagic fishes from1991 to 2001. The same information is illustrated inFigure 1 to show recent production trends. Total annualproduction of small pelagics varied between about695,000 t (1996) and 1,216,000 t (1998) during theperiod. The peak in production in 1998 is due to peakcatches of the municipal fisheries sector of about639,000 t. Mean annual production of small pelagicsduring this 11-year period was about 849,000 t, about

Small pelagic fisheries 33

63% coming from the commercial fisheries sector andthe rest from municipal fisheries. The increase in catchesindicated that fishing effort has further increasedduring the 1991-2001 period compared to the mid-1980s.

The contribution of various species/groups to totalsmall pelagic fisheries production during 1991-2001 isgiven in Table 2. The bulk of production is accountedfor by sardines (30.6%), roundscads (29.1%), mackerels(17.4%) and anchovies (9.4%). There are differencesin the composition of the catches of the commercialand municipal fisheries due to differences in fishinggears used and the ability of the commercial sector tooperate further offshore. Commercial productionconsists principally of roundscads (41.3%) and sardines(34.6%) (Table 3) while municipal production consistsof mackerels (32.4%), sardines (23.9%) and anchovies(14.8%) (Table 4).

Major Fishing Gears and Fishing Grounds

A variety of fishing gears are used by commercialand municipal fisheries to exploit the small pelagicresources of the country. The commercial sector usesa smaller variety of fishing gears with productiondominantly coming from purse seine (61.6%), ring net(15.7%) and bag net (12.4%) operations (Table 5). Thesmall pelagic catch of the municipal fisheries sector isdistributed across a wider variety of fishing gears:gill net (45.5%), hook and line (15.3%), ring net (11.5%),beach seine (8.3%), purse seine (3.7%), fish corral (2.9%)and bag net (2.9%) (Table 6).

The more recent BAS statistical information doesnot readily allow for disaggregation of productionstatistics by fishing ground. To provide someinformation about major fishing grounds for smallpelagic fishes, BFAR statistics for 1982-1987 were used.Based on these statistics, the major fishing groundsfor small pelagics are Sulu Sea, Visayan Sea, Moro Gulf,Lamon Bay, Cuyo Pass, Guimaras Strait, WesternPalawan waters and Manila Bay. The relativecontribution of these fishing grounds to small pelagicfisheries production is given in Table 7.

Exports and Imports

Prior to 1986, small pelagics production was mainlyused for local consumption. A promising exportindustry for these fishes commenced when in 1986alone, a total of 520 t of small pelagics valued at P23million was exported. From 1987 to 1991, small pelagics

Table 1. Small pelagic fisheries production (t) (BASstatistics for various years).

Year19911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Municipal292,664302,369250,170235,113245,044229,384268,832638,642263,492272,450501,828

Commercial442,324473,043498,316555,540503,332465,426570,215577,331571,778577,827604,178

Total734,988775,412498,316790,653748,376694,810839,047

1,215,973835,270850,277

1,106,006

Figure 1. Small pelagic fisheries production (BAS statistics for various years).

Prod

uctio

n (X

10 t)5

Year

Municipal Commercial Total

019961991 2001

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Tabl

e 2.

Tot

al p

rodu

ctio

n of

sm

all p

elag

ics

(t)

by s

peci

es/g

roup

(BA

S st

atis

tics

for va

rious

yea

rs).

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

pFu

silie

rsBi

geye

sca

dsR

ound

scad

sFl

ying

fish

Roun

dher

rings

Sard

ines

Anch

ovie

sM

acke

rels

Tota

l

1991

11,4

4736

,264

277,

330

19,7

9622

,871

158,

619

100,

882

107,

779

734,

988

1992

13,5

0437

,766

268,

466

54,1

1222

,519

195,

879

84,6

5298

,514

775,

412

1993

15,4

7933

,438

236,

849

13,8

439,

415

256,

744

81,4

3710

1,28

174

8,48

6

1994

18,3

2250

,288

258,

714

14,0

1921

,079

259,

848

67,5

0710

0,87

679

0,65

3

1995

13,9

1443

,592

224,

373

16,8

2619

,255

265,

254

71,5

1693

,646

748,

376

1996

13,7

9843

,660

187,

267

17,3

0019

,441

257,

744

71,4

5684

,144

694,

810

1997

16,7

5470

,594

228,

878

27,8

0115

,216

306,

640

78,6

7894

,486

839,

047

1998

15,9

2861

,998

245,

143

36,1

3520

,639

297,

080

77,0

4946

2,00

11,2

15,97

3

1999

14,9

5265

,776

248,

462

43,4

6124

,080

273,

882

78,0

8786

,570

835,

270

2000

13,5

1671

,365

255,

976

36,0

5012

,993

293,

370

79,6

3087

,377

850,

277

2001

14,0

8679

,307

282,

787

37,4

9813

,374

288,

928

82,1

1230

7,91

41,

106,

006

Tota

l16

1,70

059

4,04

82,

714,

245

316,

841

200,

882

2,85

3,98

887

3,00

61,

624,

588

9,33

9,29

8

Dis

trib

utio

n (%

)1.

736.

3629

.06

3.39

2.15

30.5

69.

3517

.40

100.

00

Tabl

e 3.

Com

mer

cial

pro

duct

ion

of s

mal

l pel

agic

s (t

) by

spe

cies

/gro

up (

BAS

stat

istic

s fo

r va

rious

yea

rs).

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

pFu

silie

rsBi

geye

sca

dsR

ound

scad

sFl

ying

fish

Roun

dher

rings

Sard

ines

Anch

ovie

sM

acke

rels

Tota

l

1991 5,48

514

,351

246,

960

1,79

22,

602

95,3

7524

,297

51,4

6244

2,32

4

1992 7,88

015

,915

245,

504

2,99

011

,451

125,

009

23,2

4641

,048

473,

043

1993 6,82

714

,736

210,

304

1,95

38,

225

181,

427

28,1

8546

,659

498,

316

1994

8,45

720

,653

235,

813

1,38

218

,626

193,

113

28,3

4649

,150

555,

540

1995 6,71

819

,589

200,

418

2,77

118

,282

187,

199

29,6

0838

,747

503,

332

1996 6,98

221

,140

163,

761

3,52

718

,525

184,

106

32,2

2035

,165

465,

426

1997 7,93

741

,829

196,

588

7,80

613

,788

219,

334

35,5

1847

,415

570,

215

1998 8,43

427

,731

216,

821

11,12

817

,589

216,

767

36,5

5042

,311

577,

331

1999 7,37

029

,082

219,

519

14,3

2421

,254

197,

787

38,0

3944

,403

571,

778

2000 5,75

331

,760

225,

861

6,94

910

,437

212,

539

38,3

4846

,180

577,

827

2001 6,04

736

,596

250,

679

7,06

010

,785

204,

676

39,1

9149

,144

604,

178

Tota

l77

,890

273,

382

2,41

2,22

861

,682

151,

564

2,01

7,33

235

3,54

849

1,68

45,

839,

310

Dis

trib

utio

n (%

)1.

334.

6841

.31

1.06

2.60

34.5

56.

058.

4210

0.00

Tabl

e 4.

Mun

icip

al p

rodu

ctio

n of

sm

all p

elag

ics

(t) by

spe

cies

/gro

up (BA

S st

atis

tics

for v

ario

us y

ears

).

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

pFu

silie

rsBi

geye

sca

dsR

ound

scad

sFl

ying

fish

Roun

dher

rings

Sard

ines

Anch

ovie

sM

acke

rels

Tota

l

1991 5,96

221

,913

30,3

7018

,004

20,2

6963

,244

76,5

8556

,317

292,

664

1992 5,62

421

,851

22,9

6251

,122

11,0

6870

,870

61,4

0657

,466

302,

369

1993 8,65

218

,702

26,5

4511

,890

1,19

075

,317

53,2

5254

,622

250,

170

1994

9,86

529

,635

22,9

0112

,637

2,45

366

,735

39,1

6151

,726

235,

113

1995 7,19

624

,003

23,9

5514

,055 97

378

,055

41,9

0854

,899

245,

044

1996 6,81

622

,520

23,5

0613

,773 916

73,6

3839

,236

48,9

7922

9,38

4

1997 8,81

728

,765

32,2

9019

,995

1,42

887

,306

43,1

6047

,071

268,

832

1998 7,49

434

,267

28,3

2225

,007

3,05

080

,313

40,4

9941

9,69

063

8,64

2

1999 7,58

236

,694

28,9

4329

,137

2,82

676

,095

40,0

4842

,167

263,

492

2000 7,76

339

,605

30,1

1529

,101

2,55

680

,831

41,2

8241

,197

272,

450

2001 8,03

942

,711

32,1

0830

,438

2,58

984

,252

42,9

2125

8,77

050

1,82

8

Tota

l83

,810

320,

666

302,

017

255,

159

49,3

1883

6,65

651

9,45

81,

132,

904

3,49

9,98

8

Dis

trib

utio

n (%

)2.

399.

168.

637.

291.

4123

.90

14.8

432

.37

100.

00


were exported in the form of canned (64%) and dried(36%) products. Total export from 1987 to 1991 was4,422 t valued at about P206.2 million. Of the cannedproducts, sardines contributed 92% while mackerelsand anchovies contributed 7% and 1%, respectively.Saudi Arabia was the biggest importer (39%) of cannedproducts, particularly sardines. Canned products werealso exported to Malaysia (18%), United Arab Emirates(6%) and the USA (2%). During the same period, thecountry also imported 47,415 t of mackerels andsardines valued at P655.4 million. These were in theform of raw materials for existing canneries.

Key Research and Management Issues

Numerous issues, which impact the utilization andmanagement of small pelagic fisheries resources of thecountry, are briefly discussed below.

Inadequate statistical and biological information

The statistical information base requiressubstantive improvement to support site-specificassessment and management of the country’s smallpelagic fisheries. Data on catch and effort and theirspatial distribution need improvement. Overall, thebiological information on the country’s small pelagicresources is rather scant and fragmentary. Informationabout the population dynamics of key species/groupsrequires attention. Ecosystem-based assessments areclearly in order. There is also a need to updatecountrywide and site-specific assessments (particularlyfor major fishing grounds) in order to formulate soundmanagement options and sustain the benefits derivedfrom the country’s small pelagic fisheries.

Overfishing

Overfishing is, by far, the primary problem facingPhilippine small pelagic fisheries. In a biological andeconomic sense, current fishing pressure has exceededlevels that the resources can sustain. Many fisherstargeting small pelagics are hard-pressed in recoveringoperational costs of fishing as well as vessel and geardepreciation.

Dalzell and Ganaden (1987) provided a maximumsustainable yield estimate of 550,000 t for the smallpelagic resources exploited during the mid-1980s.Subsequent refinements of this assessment essentiallyyielded the same results (Trinidad et al. 1993). TheMSY figure of 550,000 t, when combined with MSYestimates of about 250,000 t for lightly fished smallpelagic resources in the late 1980s (i.e., southern parts

of Mindanao, western Palawan waters, parts of thecountry’s Pacific coast), equals a countrywide MSY ofabout 800,000 t (Munro 1986). Comparison with recentproduction indicates the occurrence of biological andeconomic overfishing, particularly in nearshore andtraditional fishing grounds. Historical data also showa substantive sixfold reduction in catch rates from theearly 1950s to the mid-1980s. Moreover, species-specificassessments of small pelagic fishes in various fishinggrounds (Ingles and Pauly 1984; Corpuz et al. 1985;Lavapie-Gonzales et al. 1997) yielded very highexploitation ratios indicative of overfishing.Collectively, these indicate that exploitation has reachedlevels which threaten the viability of small pelagicstocks. Assessments indicate the need to decreasefishing pressure by about 50-65% (Dalzell et al. 1987;Dalzell and Ganaden 1990; Trinidad et al. 1993).

Conflicts between and among commercialand municipal fishers

Given the high fishing pressure evident in smallpelagic fisheries, competition and conflict between andamong municipal and commercial fishers has increased.Stricter enforcement of exclusive use of municipalfishing grounds by municipal fishers requires attention.Catching of undersized small pelagic fishes (particularlymackerels and bigeye scads) and the use of explosiveswith fish aggregating devices need to be checkedeffectively. Regulation of fishing access, effortreduction, wider use of MPAs and effectiveenforcement are key elements to resolving theseconflicts.

Impact of imports

Major industries associated with small pelagicfisheries include fish canning and making of fish sauce(patis and bagoong). In 1987, the estimated capacity oflocal canneries was 60,000-70,000 t annually. The bulkof cannery raw materials is currently imported (mostlyfrom Japan). Prior to import liberalization in 1986, 85-90% of local cannery requirements were supplied bydomestic small pelagics production. In 1987, only 10%were taken from local production. A continuing debatepersists between fish import liberalization in favor oflocal canneries (which require a regular supply of goodquality raw materials) versus limiting imports insupport of domestic fish producers. The recentappearance of imported small pelagic fishes in somelocal market outlets has also caused concern amongfishers.


Tabl

e 6.

Mun

icip

al p

rodu

ctio

n (t

) of

sm

all p

elag

ics

by g

ear an

d by

spe

cies

/gro

up, 1

995

(BAS

sta

tistic

s).

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

p

Fusi

liers

Bige

ye s

cads

Rou

ndsc

ads

Flyi

ng fi

shRo

undh

errin

gsSa

rdin

esAn

chov

ies

Mac

kere

lsTo

tal

Bag

Net 0 22 36

722

4 111,

670

4,78

2 277,

103

Fis

h C

orr

al 109

397 83 6 3

2,49

93,

858

251

7,20

6

Bab

y T

raw

l 1 11,

559 13 15 78 21 18

1,70

6Bea

ch S

ein

e 15 286

980

338

232

4,21

713

,437 732

20,2

37

Pu

rse

Sei

ne 0

1,53

950

21,

530 0

551

1,71

33,

218

9,05

3

Rin

g N

et 532,

154

6,21

91,

424 3

12,7

432,

576

3,10

228

,274

Gill

Net

3,23

54,

614

6,90

18,

437

395

50,2

177,

072

30,5

2811

1,399

Ro

un

d H

aul S

ein

e 243

913

241

2 0 491,1

18 172,

169

Dan

ish

Sei

ne 0 87 64 0 0

269

164

565

1,14

9

Ho

ok-

and

-Lin

e

2,32

817

,300

4,62

027

514

94,

099

265

8,49

337

,529

Dri

ve-in

Net

1 10 194

710

2 53 21 951,

230

Lo

ng

line

100

468

458 9 19 195 36 712

1,99

7

Tro

ll L

ine 10 110

384

440 8 1 0

159

1,112

Po

le a

nd

Lin

e 2 22 9 0 0 0 0 1 34

Jig

ger 0

149 1 0 0 3 0

240

393

Lif

t Net 0 0 16 0 2 98

1,33

5 51,

456

Cra

b L

ift N

et 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 1 23

Cas

t N

et 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 7 16

Pu

sh N

et 0 016

8 0 8 43 253

199

671

Filt

er N

et 7 23 0 0 0 88 522,1

112,

281

Dri

ft F

ilter

Net 16 1

1,32

2 023

0 10 0 01,

579

Fis

h P

ot

376

197 77 0 0 16 112 34 812

Sp

ear

931 80 13 0 0 0 6

101

1,13

1

Oth

ers 10 481 79 10 0

358

5,07

948

86,

505

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

p

Fusi

liers

Bige

ye s

cads

Rou

ndsc

ads

Flyi

ng fi

shRo

undh

errin

gsSa

rdin

esAn

chov

ies

Mac

kere

lsTo

tal

Sp

ecie

s/G

rou

p

Fusil

iers

Bige

ye s

cads

Roun

dsca

dsFl

ying

fish

Roun

dher

rings

Sard

ines

Anch

ovie

sM

acke

rels

Tota

l

Bag

Net 7 79

127

,505 80 99

521

,442

14,1

142,

790

67,7

24

Pu

rse

Sei

ne

6,00

58,

918

165,

820

211

11,9

2712

1,24

21,

283

20,7

3233

6,13

8

Rin

gn

et 295,

367

31,6

221,

391

3,46

731

,854

6,87

54,

979

85,5

84

Rou

nd H

aul

Sei

ne

0 4 5 0 0 281,

206

100

1,34

3

Dan

ish

Sei

ne 94

1,45

16,

108 1

289

2,65

342

47,

271

18,2

91

Bea

chS

ein

e 0 0 11 0 110

428

0 039

6

Tra

wl 75 571

5138 0

1,63

911

,386

3,39

33,

096

25,2

98

Gill

net 83 25

317

71,

083 2

740

991

299

3,62

8

Ho

ok-

and

-lin

e

425

2,61

9 21 18 5 12 16 176

3,29

2

Lo

ng

line 0 2

584 6 0

1,96

1 022

02,

773

Tro

ll L

ine 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7

Pu

sh N

et 0 1 0 0 321

51,

026 10

1,25

5

Dri

ve-in

Net

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dri

ft F

ilter

Net

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Tabl

e 5.

Com

mer

cial

pro

duct

ion

(t)

of s

mal

l pel

agic

s by

gea

r an

d by

spe

cies

/gro

up, 1

995

(BAS

sta

tistic

s).


Post-harvest losses

Current post-harvest practices result in high ratesof spoilage, especially during peak season of production.It is estimated that as much as 50,000 t of potential rawmaterials for canning are lost to spoilage during thepeak fishing season. Results of a study conducted inthe fish landings in Navotas, Zambales, Bicol, Caviteand Quezon show that as much as 40% of commerciallandings are in various stages of spoilage. If a similarrate occurs in all landing sites across the country, thepotential amount lost to the supply of fresh small pelagicfish may be as much as 200,000 t annually. While betterpost-harvest handling is warranted, many commercialand municipal fishers are wary of the additional costs.Taking more ice entails higher costs and reduces fishstorage capacity. Lower-quality fish are sold to fish saucemakers and still allow fishers to make profits withoutthe additional costs of improved post-harvest handling.Innovative measures are needed to reduce spoilage andvalue losses, increase fresh fish supply to consumersand maximize the use of catches extracted from ourdwindling small pelagic fish stocks.

References

Aripin, I.E. and P.A.T. Showers. 2002. Population parameters ofsmall pelagic fishes caught off Tawi-Tawi, Philippines. Naga 23(4):21-25.

Armada, N.B. 1998. Assessment and management of small pelagicfisheries in Visayan Sea. Annual Project Report (August 1996-July 1997). College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Universityof the Philippines in the Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines. 28 p.

Calvelo, R. and P. Dalzell. 1987. A review of the recent status ofexploited stocks of roundscads in the Philippines. Symposium onthe Exploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resourcesin Southeast Asia, Darwin, Australia, 16-19 February 1987.Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission and Regional Office for Asiaand the Pacific, FAO, Bangkok. Inf. Pap. 9, 27 p.

Corpuz, A., J. Saeger and V. Sambilay, Jr. 1985. Population parametersof commercially-important fishes in Philippine waters. College ofFisheries, University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.Tech. Rep. Dept. Mar. Fish. No. 6, 99 p.

Dalzell, P. and P. Corpuz, 1990. The present status of small pelagicfisheries in the Philippines, p. 25-51. In C.R. Pagdilao and C.D.Garcia (eds.) Philippine tuna and small pelagic fisheries: Statusand prospects for development. PCAMRD Book Ser. No. 7, 160p. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research andDevelopment, Laguna, Philippines.

Dalzell, P. and R. Ganaden. 1987. A review of the fisheries for smallpelagic fisheries in Philippine waters. BFAR Tech. Pap. Ser. X (1),58 p. International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement, Manila, and Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, Quezon City, Philippines.

Dalzell, P., P. Corpuz, R. Ganaden and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimation ofmaximum sustainable yield and maximum economic rent fromthe Philippine small pelagic fisheries. BFAR Tech. Pap. Ser. X (3),23 p. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City,Philippines.

De la Peña, H.P. 1997. Assessment and management of small pelagicfisheries in (West) Sulu Sea. Project Report. Philippine Councilfor Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Laguna,Philippines. 50 p.

Ingles, J. and D. Pauly. 1984. An atlas of the growth, mortality andrecruitment of Philippine fishes. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 13, 127 p.

Lavapie-Gonzales, F. S., R. Ganaden and F.C. Gayanilo, Jr. 1997.Some population parameters of commercially-important fishes inthe Philippines. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,Quezon City, Philippines. 114 p.

Lazola, N.T. and R. Samson. 1997. Assessment of small pelagic fisheriesin (East) Sulu Sea. Project Report. Philippine Council for Aquaticand Marine Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines. 55p.

Munro, J. 1986. Marine fishery resources in the Philippines: Catchesand potential, p. 19-45. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre(eds.) Resources, management and socio-economics of Philippinemarine fisheries. College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Quezon City, Philippines. Dept. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep.10, 217 p.

Pagdilao, C.R., A.C. Corpuz and E. Moreno. 1993. Status of the smallpelagic fisheries industry. Philippine Council for Aquatic and MarineResearch and Development, Laguna, Philippines. PCAMRD-DOSTPrimer No. 21, 36 p.

Portugal, C.N. 1998. Assessment of small pelagic fisheries in MoroGulf. Project Terminal Report. Philippine Council for Aquatic andMarine Research and Development, Laguna, Philippines. 80 p.

Trinidad, A.C., R.S. Pomeroy, P.V. Corpuz and M. Aguero. 1993.Bioeconomics of the Philippine small pelagic fishery. ICLARMTech. Rep. 38, 74 p.

Fishing Area

West Sulu SeaVisayan SeaEast Sulu SeaSouth Sulu SeaMoro GulfLamon BayCuyo PassGuimaras StraitWest Palawan WatersManila BayTotal

Table 7. Top 10 fishing grounds for small pelagics by gear, 1982-1987 (BFAR statistics for various years).

Mean Production (1982-1987)

44,90041,79329,24027,06820,93315,10613,12710,2618,3927,068

217,888

Contribution (%)

20.6119.1813.4212.42

9.616.936.024.713.853.24

100.00

27 In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries38

Introduction

Large pelagic fishes consist of tunas and tuna-likespecies, such as billfish, swordfish and marlin. Thesecomprise a special group of highly migratory fishescapable of attaining large sizes (adult bluefin tunausually weigh about 500 kg) and spends their entirelife in marine waters (from coastal areas to high seas).The tuna fisheries became the largest and most valuablefisheries in the Philippines during the mid-1970s whenbamboo rafts (or payao, a fish aggregating device), wereintroduced. In 2001, tuna fisheries production wasabout 352,500 t or 19.7% of total Philippine fisheriesproduction.

The country became the number one producer oftunas in Southeast Asia in the 1980s. When the catchrate of tunas in Philippine waters started declining inthe late 1980s, Filipino fishing companies started tofish in international waters. This made the Philippinesone of the distant-water fishing nations in the Pacific,in addition to the US, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China.

Twenty-one species of tuna have been recordedin Philippine waters but only six are caught incommercial quantity and form the basis of the tunafishing industry. Of the six species, only four form thebulk of catches and are listed in Philippine fisheriescatch statistics, namely: yellowfin (Thunnus albacares),skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis), eastern little tuna or kawa-kawa (Euthynnus affinis) and frigate tuna (Auxis thazard).Tuna-like fishes recorded in Philippine waters includethe swordfish, Xiphias gladius, and a number ofistiophorid fishes. Their catch is relatively lowcompared to the tuna catch.

Fisheries for Tuna and Other Large Pelagic Fishes1

Production Trends

Annual tuna production increased from less than10,000 t in 1970 to about 200,000 t in the late 1980s(Aprieto 1995a, 1995b). By the 1990s, annual productionhas increased substantially to the 300,000 t level andcomprised on average about 20% of the total annualmarine fisheries production. During 1991 to 2001, tunaproduction varied between about 243,300 t (1993) and352,500 t (2001) (Figure 1). The commercial fisheriessector consistently produced a greater proportion ofthe catch. It accounted for 61.7% of the mean annualtuna production of about 313,600 t during the period,with the municipal sector accounting for 38.3%.

The annual production of tuna by species/group during the period 1991-2001 is given in Table1. Cumulative catches during the period wasdominated by frigate and yellowfin tuna, whichcontributed 35.4% and 31.5%, respectively. Skipjackand eastern little tuna contributed 22.6% and 10.5%,respectively, of cumulative catches during theperiod. Yellowfin and skipjack are mainly exportedwhile the rest of the tuna species are consumedlocally. These two species accounted for about 50%of the annual tuna catch. The catch of yellowfinvaried between 68,000 t and 116,000 t during theperiod. The skipjack catch reached a peak of about95,600 t in 1991 and declined to about 38,200 t by1993. It has recovered since, reaching a high ofabout 96,500 t by 2001. Frigate tuna catch reacheda peak of about 158,500 t in 1997, and was at 115,900t in 2001. Eastern little tuna catch peaked at about54,500 t in 1995, and has varied between 24,400 tand 28,000 t in subsequent years indicating asubstantial decline in production.

ESTER C. ZARAGOZACESARIO R. PAGDILAOERIBERTO P. MORENO

Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and DevelopmentDepartment of Science and Technology

Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ZARAGOZA, E.C., C.R. PAGDILAO and E.P. MORENO. 2004. Fisheries for tuna andother large pelagic fishes, p. 38-41. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

Fisheries for tuna and other large pelagic fishes 39

There are differences in the species compositionof commercial and municipal tuna catches. Cumulativecatches during 1991-2001 indicate that commercialfisheries tuna catch consisted of: yellowfin, 38.7%;frigate tuna, 31.4%; skipjack, 18.0%; and eastern littletuna, 11.9%. The municipal fisheries tuna catch duringthe same period was: frigate tuna, 41.8%; skipjack,30.0%; yellowfin, 19.8%; and eastern little tuna, 8.4%.

Catches of other large pelagic fishes such as marlin,swordfish and sailfish are lower compared to tunacatches. From landings of about 17,000-25,000 t in the1970s, these have declined to about 9,000-15,000 t inthe 1980s. In 1995, production was down to about 5,500t. Little is known locally about the billfish andswordfish resources due to incomplete statistics andinadequate information on their biology.

Major Fishing Grounds and Gears

Tunas are caught throughout Philippine watersbut the most productive fishing grounds are the SuluSea, Moro Gulf and waters extending to the northCelebes Sea. Over 55% of the total skipjack andyellowfin catch, however, is taken from waters aroundMindanao. Viable tuna fisheries also exist in watersoff Western Negros, as well as Northwestern andSouthern Luzon. Specific locations of tuna fishinggrounds are highly guarded trade secrets by fishers.However, the advent and wide use of payao (fishaggregating devices) has largely eliminated suchsecrecy. The location of payao areas is a good indicationof productive tuna fishing grounds.

Fisheries for tuna and other large pelagic fishes

Table 1. Annual production (t) of tuna by species/group, 1991-2001 (BAS 1991-2001).

FrigateYellowfinSkipjackEastern little tunaTotal

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

1998 1999 2000 2001 Total % contributionSpecies/Group

Species/Group

93,236102,394

95,59447,850

339,074

125,65583,17945,02631,943

285,803

110,35768,08138,19826,670

243,306

109,88784,56064,08046,221

304,748

88,426109,473

61,17154,486

313,556

88,969110,04163,41524,472

286,897

FrigateYellowfinSkipjackEastern little tunaTotal

106,433116,67379,21524,424

326,745

111,301108,778

90,35325,406

335,838

112,227113,01190,32827,963

343,529

115,905112,23896,45027,890

352,483

1,220,8901,085,525

778,977363,988

3,449,380

158,49477,09755,14726,663

317,401

35.431.522.610.5

100.0

Figure 1. Annual production (t) of tuna (total, commercial and municipal), 1991-2001 (BAS 1991-2001).


A variety of fishing gears are used to catch tuna.The use of purse seines, ringnets and handlines usuallyaccount for over 80% of the annual tuna catch. Forinstance, the commercial fisheries catch in 1995 wascaught by: purse seine, 47.6%; ringnet, 40.2%; line gears(hook and line, longline and troll line), 8.8%; gillnet,1.6%; bagnet, 1.4%; and other gears, 0.4%. The use ofpurse seine alone makes up nearly half of the commercialcatch of tuna. The municipal fisheries employ a widervariety (over 21 different types) of fishing gears to catchtunas. In 1995, the tuna catch of municipal fisheries wascaught by: hook and line, 56.3%; gillnet, 13.1%; ringnet,9.3%; troll line, 6.9%; purse seine, 5.3%; longline, 2.7%;beach seine, 2.7%; fish corral, 1.5%; and other gears,2.2%. The line gears alone account for over 60% of themunicipal harvest.

Except for the large commercial purse seine andringnet boats (250-490 GT) that are capable of offshoreand deep-sea fishing, most of the tuna fishing fleetsoperate in nearshore waters. Most of these boatsoperating nearshore catch young, juvenile tuna, as wellas small pelagic fishes (particularly roundscads, sardines,bigeye scads and moonfishes) which are harvested inthe same surface fishing operations using nets (Pagdilaoet al. 1993; Barut 1999).

The payao has been singled out as the most importantfactor that triggered the phenomenal development ofthe tuna fishing industry. The effectiveness and efficiencyof payao in attracting tuna (especially yellowfin andskipjack) greatly reduced the time spent in searchingand fishing for commercial volumes. Both commercial

and municipal fishers use payao in attracting tunas andoftentimes share the same payaos deployed in the fishinggrounds. The commercial fishing boat operators catchthe surface aggregating juveniles, while the municipalfishers, with the use of handlines, catch adult yellowfin(110–150 cm) occupying the deeper water column(Aprieto 1995b).

The extensive use of payao, however, may berapidly removing undersized juveniles from the stocksand altering migration and feeding patterns of tunas inPhilippine waters. Moreover, many coastal countrieshave adopted the payao in tuna fishing. Tuna studies inMindanao waters show that more than 90% of yellowfinand skipjack tuna landed by purse seine, bagnet andringnet are less than 12 months old (Aprieto 1995a,1995b).

Tuna Trade

The Philippine international trade in tuna andtuna products involves the export of about 30-40%of tuna production. Tuna is exported fresh/chilled,frozen or canned. In 2001, the total export of fishand fisheries products was valued at PhP22.7 billion.Of these, tuna and tuna products accounted forabout 27% or PhP5.87 billion (BAS 2001). Theseexport data, however, may not be very accuratesince spot buying in fishing grounds by foreigncompanies is very common. Japan, US, Thailand andTaiwan are the major market destinations of fresh/chilled and frozen tuna products. Canned tunaproduction grew considerably in the 1980s and early1990s. Up to 22% of canned tuna exports are sent toUS, 17% to Germany, 15% to Canada and the restto 21 other countries in Europe, the Middle East,Africa and Asia.

Philippine frozen tuna imports increased frombasically zero in the early 1980s to a peak of 53,400t valued at US$34.5 million in 1992 (BAS 1992). In2001, large quantities (19,300 t valued at PhP442.3million) of frozen tuna were imported from PapuaNew Guinea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Singapore and theUS Trust Territories (BAS 2001).

Main Research and Management Issues

A host of issues have impact on the sustainable useand management of large pelagic fisheries in thePhilippines. Following are the main issues:

• Inadequate statistical baselines - Catch and effortdata are inadequate for purposes of effectivefisheries management. There are no reliable dataon the number of licensed and unlicensedcommercial purse seiners, ringnetters and

Tuna catch in General Santos City fish landing site.

Fisheries for tuna and other large pelagic fishes 41

longliners. Information on the number of small andlarge-scale fishing boats using tuna handline is alsoinadequate.

• Inadequate biological information - There is still adearth of information on tuna biology, despite thethree major tuna research programs – Food andAgriculture Organization-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources Tuna Research Program,Regional Tuna Tagging Program and PhilippineTuna Research Project - conducted in the Philippines.Sustained efforts to gather information on thereproductive biology, migration, growth,abundance, and distribution of tuna in traditionaland nontraditional fishing grounds are needed.

• Exploitation of undersized tunas - A substantialportion of tuna catches consists of undersized fishesthat are immature and have yet to grow and addmore weight. Despite inadequacies in the statisticalbaselines and biological information, availablestudies document this issue, leading to concernsabout growth and recruitment overfishing.

• Poor post-harvest handling - Substantial losses invalue of harvested fish and reduction of incomesoften result from poor post-harvest handlingmethods and facilities. Improvement of ruraltransportation infrastructure, as well as strategiclocation of ice plant and cold storage facilities,requires concerted action. Extension activities toimprove handling methods and marketing ofcatches, particularly in the municipal sector, needgovernment attention.

• Excess tuna canning capacity - There is evidentunderutilization of production capabilities ofexisting local tuna canneries. Assessment ofmeasures to effectively address this issue requiresattention. Allowing importation of raw materialsunder the government’s trade liberalization policiesshould consider the wider interests of the wholefishing industry.

• Boundary disputes - Uncertainties and disputesregarding marine boundaries with adjacent coastalstates (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, China andVietnam) pose much difficulties to fishers exploitingtuna and other large pelagic fishes. Settlement ofthese uncertainties deserves increased attention.

• Lack of joint management arrangements - As largepelagic fishes are highly migratory, bilateral andregional fishing and management arrangementswith neighboring countries should be pursued. Jointventure fishing arrangements by the private sectorwith companies in neighboring countries have beenin existence for some time. These can be built uponto promote collaborative management and

sustainable use of shared resources at official levelsfor the benefit of countries in the region.

References

Aprieto, V.L. 1995a. Assessment of the tuna industry, p.209-236.In DOST (Department of Science and Technology)-UNDP(United Nations Development Programme). Project forAchieving International Competitiveness through TechnologyDevelopment and Transfer Assessment. Reports. Module 1:Export winners. DOST, Manila, Philippines.

Aprieto, V.L. 1995b. Philippine tuna fisheries - yellowfin tuna andskipjack. University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City,Philippines.

Barut, N.C. 1999. The effects of the El Niño on tuna stocks in thePhilippines, p. 32-43. In H.R. Rabanal (ed.) 1999. Impacts ofEl Niño on Philippine fisheries. Proceedings of the NationalWorkshop on the Assessment of the Impacts of El Niño onPhilippine Fisheries, 20-21 August 1998, Laguna, Philippines.PCAMRD Book Ser. No. 27/1999, 228 p.

BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 1991-2001. Fisheriesstatistics of the Philippines. BAS, Quezon City, Philippines.Var. p.

Pagdilao, C.R., A.C. Corpuz and E. Moreno. 1993. Status of smallpelagic fisheries industry. PCAMRD-DOST Primer No. 21, 36p.


State of the Demersal Fisheries1

NYGIEL B. ARMADAInstitute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanology

College of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of the Philippines in the Visayas

Miagao, Iloilo 5023Philippines

Introduction

Bottom trawl used to be the major fishing gearemployed to catch demersal fishes in the country fromthe late 1940s until the mid-1980s. There wastremendous improvement in the trawl design fromthe simple beam trawl used after World War II tohigh-opening, modified Hermann Engel trawl in thelate 1970s. Such gear, together with improved vesseldesign and increased engine horsepower, lead toincreased catching efficiency and capacity. However,due to increases in fuel prices and depletion of demersalresources, trawl operations eventually dwindled andwere practically replaced by more fuel-efficient Danishseines.

Major trawlable fishing grounds in the countryare found in the soft bottom areas of Lingayen Gulf,Manila Bay, Tayabas Bay, Ragay Gulf, Samar Sea,Carigara Bay, Visayan Sea, Guimaras Strait andSibuguey Bay. However, narrow strips of trawlablegrounds are likewise found in various inland watersof the archipelago.

Decline of Demersal Trawlable Biomass:The Obvious Consequence

The state of demersal stocks in the Philippines isclearly shown by the decline in trawlable biomass duringthe past five decades. The decline can be observed fromthe results of over 40 demersal trawl surveys conductedin the country from 1947 to 1995. The densities of thedemersal stocks were estimated using the “swept area”method. The trawl is known to sweep a definite pathwhich area is the product of the distance of the trawlrun and the effective width of the trawl.

The first of these surveys was conducted by Warfeland Manacop (1950) from 1947 to 1949 for the entirePhilippine archipelagic waters to explore the potentialtrawlable areas of the country. Other trawl surveysconducted after this were confined to very specificareas like bays, gulfs or particular trawl fishinggrounds. Generally, the purpose was to determinethe demersal resource potential of each specific areaor fishing ground. Survey vessels and trawl gear sizesand designs vary from one survey to the other. Trawlfishing was conducted either on board researchvessels, commercial trawlers or small-scale trawlers.Trawl gears used vary from beam trawls to two-seamed trawl nets to four-seamed high opening nets.

The survey conducted by Warfel and Manacop(1950) was exploratory in nature. Sampling stationswere not pre-established and no standard fishing timewas used. The drag lasted between 50 and 180 minutes,depending upon the nature of the seabed. In many ofthe area-specific trawl surveys, sampling stations werepre-established and in most cases sampling wasreplicated monthly for a period of one year. Forrelatively shallow fishing grounds, the survey areaswere stratified into 10-m depth intervals while deeperfishing grounds were stratified into 50-m depthintervals. Trawl stations were distributedproportionate to the size of each stratum. The standardduration of a trawl dragging operation is one hour.However, for small survey areas and fishing groundswith plenty of seabed obstruction, only 30-minutedragging on each station was undertaken. When thenet had to be hauled before the designated fishingduration, e.g., during snags or when avoidingobstructions, the catches were raised to the standardtime.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ARMADA, N.B. 2004. State of the demersal fisheries, p. 42-46. In DA-BFAR (Departmentof Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

State of the demersal fisheries 43

Figure 1 shows the overall trend of trawlabledemersal biomass decline in the Philippines. Demersalbiomass through time was estimated using data fromdifferent trawl surveys conducted from 1947 to 1995.Silvestre et al. (1986) provided the estimates using trawlsurveys conducted from 1947 to 1980, while the restwere consolidated from recent trawl surveys inLingayen Gulf (Silvestre et al. 1991), Ragay Gulf andBurias Pass (Federizon 1993), Manila Bay (Armada1994), San Miguel Bay (Cinco et al. 1995), San PedroBay (Armada 1996) and Tayabas Bay (ResourcesCombines 1997). For comparison through time, thecatch rates and biomass estimates were corrected for“learning effects” by incorporating correction factorsgiven by Silvestre et al. (1986). The consolidated timeseries of information on demersal biomass clearlyindicate a trend of decreasing demersal stock in alldepth strata during the past 50 years. Grouped intogeographic sectors belonging to Western, Central andEastern Philippines, the same set of informationindicates the same pattern of decline (Figure 2). Higherbiomass estimates were recorded in a number oftrawlable areas in Western and Eastern Philippinesbefore the 1970s, especially in deeper areas. Althoughbiomass decline was also observed in CentralPhilippines, no such extreme values were recorded.

Change in Composition of Demersal Stocks:The Less Obvious Consequence

Decline in demersal biomass is not the only effectof excessive fishing of demersal resources by trawlsand other gears. A less obvious effect is manifested inthe species composition of the catch. Increases in fishingeffort may not necessarily lead to declines in catch butinstead result in changes in species composition. Themost noticeable is the increase in squid abundance inrelation to fish biomass, as shown by Pauly (1979) inthe Gulf of Thailand and Silvestre et al. (1991) inLingayen Gulf. In Manila Bay, an increase in shrimpand squid in the catch and a decrease of large-size fishspecies was already noted in the early 1980s (Silvestreet al. 1987). Back in 1947, invertebrates were not partof the catch during the trawl survey conducted byWarfel and Manacop (1950). But results of a 1993 trawlsurvey show that they contributed 25% of the catchby that time.

Classified into families, a significant change in catchcomposition was observed from the 1947 and 1993trawl surveys in Manila Bay (Figure 3). Recognized asecosystem overfishing (Pauly et al. 1989), the majorchanges in catch composition include an increase inabundance of squids, shrimps and small pelagic specieslike herrings and anchovies; disappearance of turbots

and lactarids; and substantial declines in the abundanceof large, commercially valuable species like snappers,sea catfish and Spanish mackerels. The same trendshave been noted in the Gulf of Thailand (Pauly 1979),San Miguel Bay (Pauly 1982) and Lingayen Gulf(Silvestre et al. 1991).

The Need for Improved Management:Have We Missed the Boat?

The decline in demersal biomass and compositionof trawlable fish stocks was already noticed as thecountry’s trawl fishing fleet was expanding. In ManilaBay, declining catch rates of the trawlers were alreadyobserved in the second half of the 1950s due to therapid expansion of the fleet (Ronquillo et al. 1960).Several studies were also able to document high trawlextraction rates (yield to biomass ratio) of demersalstocks in traditional fishing grounds. In San MiguelBay and Lingayen Gulf, extraction rates of 3.6 and2.8, respectively, were estimated in the 1980s (Vakily1982; Silvestre et al. 1991). These and other similarinformation should have been heeded as warning –and the country’s fishery biologists never fell short ofit.

Ronquillo et al. (1960) noted that the trawl fisheryin Manila Bay in the second half of the 1950s hasprobably reached its maximum sustainable yield, suchthat an increase in the number of fishing vesselsresulted in a decrease in their annual average landings.Silvestre et al. (1987) showed the need to reduce thefishing effort on the demersal stock in Manila Bay toone-third of the 1983-1984 level to be able to attain aneconomic rent of US$1.5–4.8 million. Furthermore,Armada (1994) showed that the demersal trawlablebiomass of Manila Bay went down from 4.61 t/km2 in1947 to 0.47 t/km2 in 1992. As early as 1988, Silvestreet al. (1991) advocated for a reduction of trawlers andDanish seiners and non-issuance of licenses for newfishing vessels in Lingayen Gulf to reduce fishingeffort.

To sum up, the need to manage exploitation ofthe demersal fishery resources has already beenrecognized as early as the 1960s and echoed for severaldecades afterwards. Since the major cause ofoverextraction is the high fishing effort, its reductionwould have been the logical course of action. In fact,Saeger (1981) showed that banning of commercial trawlfishing alone could cause the doubling of demersalbiomass in just one year. The benefit from mesh sizeregulation has also been shown. Silvestre and Soriano(1986) showed that the mesh size of 2 cm used bytrawlers in Samar Sea is counterproductive for thespecies mix being exploited and increases in yield can


Figure 1. Overall trend of decline of trawlable demersal resources in the Philippines.

Figure 2. Trend of demersal stock decline in Western, Central and Eastern Philippines.

State of the demersal fisheries 45

be attained at various fishing pressure if the legal meshsize of 3 cm is adhered to. Armada (1996) estimatedthat an increase in annual harvest of 14% can still beattained and likewise sustained if only the fishersadhered to the legal mesh size of 3 cm in San PedroBay.

In its current state, it will take time for demersalresources to recover. Drastic actions like banning oftrawls and Danish seines may cause the biomass toincrease rapidly for shorter periods of time. However,this increase may not mean improvement of the catchin general. It will take much longer to regain the stockof large demersal species which have been practicallyeliminated due to uncontrolled fishing.

References

Armada, N.B. 1994. Capture fisheries of Manila Bay. Final reporton capture fisheries component of the resource and ecologicalassessment of Manila Bay. Fisheries Sector Program,Department of Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.

Armada, N.B. 1996. Trawl survey of San Pedro Bay, Philippines.Vol. 5: The fisheries of San Pedro Bay, Philippines. IMFOTech. Rep. No. 16: 41-55. Institute of Marine Fisheries andOceanology, College of Fisheries, University of the Philippinesin the Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

Cinco, E., J. Diaz, R. Gatchalian and G. Silvestre. 1995. Results ofthe San Miguel Bay trawl survey. In G. Silvestre, C. Luna andJ. Padilla (eds.) Multidisciplinary assessment of the fisheriesin San Miguel Bay, Philippines (1992-1993). ICLARM Tech.Rep. 47 (CD-ROM). ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.

Federizon, R. 1993. Using vital statistics and survey catchcomposition data for tropical multispecies fish stockassessment: Application to the demersal resources of theCentral Philippines. University of Bremen, Germany. 201 p.Ph.D. dissertation.

Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management of tropical multispeciesstocks: A review, with emphasis on the Southeast Asiandemersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 1, 35 p.

Pauly, D. 1982. History and present status of the fisheries, p. 95-124. In D. Pauly and A. Mines (eds.) Small-scale fisheries ofSan Miguel Bay Philippines: Biology and stock assessment.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 7, 124 p.

Pauly, D., G. Silvestre and I. Smith. 1989. On development, fisheriesand dynamite: A brief review of tropical fisheries management.Nat. Resour. Modeling 3(3): 307-329.

Resources Combines. 1997. Introduction and assessment of fisheryresources. Vol. 1. Resource and ecological assessment ofTayabas Bay. Fisheries Sector Program, Department ofAgriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.

Rel

ativ

e ab

unda

nce

(%)

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

19931947

Legend:

# Family # Family # Family # Family1 Leiognathidae 7 Sciaenidae 13 Serranidae 19 Shrimps2 Trichiuridae 8 Ariidae 14 Carangidae 20 Clupeidae3 Lutjanidae 9 Mullidae 15 Gerreidae 21 Theraponidae4 Synodontidae 10 Scombridae 16 Psettodidae 22 Engraulidae5 Nemipteridae 11 Sphyraenidae 17 Lactaridae 23 Squids6 Pomadasyidae 12 Dorosomidae 18 Meneidae 24 Miscellaneous

Figure 3. Catch composition (grouped into families) obtained from trawl surveys conducted in Manila Bay in 1947and 1993, illustrating changes in demersal stock composition.


Ronquillo, I.A., P. Caces Borja and A.N. Mines. 1960. Preliminaryobservations on the otter trawl fishery of Manila Bay. Philipp.J. Fish. 8(1): 47-57.

Saeger, J. 1981. Do trawling bans work in tropical waters? ICLARMNewsl. 3(4): 3-4.

Silvestre, G.and M. Soriano. 1986. Effects of incorporating sigmoidselection on optimum mesh size estimation for the Samar Seamultispecies trawl fishery, p. 482-492. In S.C. Venema, J.M.Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Contributions to tropicalfisheries biology: Papers from the FAO/DANIDA Follow-upTraining Courses on Fish Stock Assessment in the Tropics, 5-30 May 1986, Hirtshals, Denmark, and 12 January - 6February 1987, Manila, Philippines. FAO Fish. Rep. (389),519 p.

Silvestre, G., N. Armada and E. Cinco. 1991. Assessment of thecapture fisheries of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 25-36. InL.M. Chou, T.-E. Chua, H.W. Khoo, P.E. Lim, J.N. Paw, G.T.Silvestre, M.J. Valencia, A.T. White and P.K. Wong (eds.)Towards an integrated management of tropical coastalresources. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 22, 455 p.

Silvestre, G., R. Regalado and D. Pauly. 1986. Status of Philippinedemersal stocks – inferences from underutilized catch ratedata, p. 47-96. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.)Resources, management and socio-economics of Philippinemarine fisheries. Dept. Mar. Fish. Tech. Rep. 10, 217 p.

Silvestre, G., R. Federizon, J. Muñoz and D. Pauly. 1987. Over-exploitation of the demersal resources of Manila Bay andadjacent areas. Paper presented at the Symposium on theExploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources inSoutheast Asia, 16-19 February 1987, Darwin, Australia.

Vakily J.M. 1982. Catch and effort in the trawl fishery, p. 65-94. InD. Pauly and A.N. Mines (eds.) Small-scale fisheries of SanMiguel Bay, Philippines: Biology and stock assessment. ICLARMTech. Rep. 7, 124 p.

Warfel, H. and P. Manacop. 1950. Otter trawl explorations inPhilippine waters. Res. Rep. 25, 49 p. US Department of theInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service, USA.

Status of the blue crab fisheries 47

Introduction

Crabs are one of the most important invertebrateresources taken from our seas and contributesignificantly to global food supply. According to 2002FAO statistics, Portunus pelagicus, also known as theblue swimming crab or manna crab, contributed 0.19%of world production from capture fisheries.

In the Philippines, blue crabs, locally known asalimasag or kasag, make up an important part of fisheriesproduction. In 2001, catches of crabs amounted to36,973 t or 1.89% of the country’s total marineproduction. The economic benefits from the blue crabresource are significant. In 2001, crabs ranked fifth interms of export volume at 5,650 t and fourth in termsof value at PhP1.52 billion in export receipts. Crabsare processed and exported as fresh frozen, crab meat,soft shell crabs and, in the past three years, as livecrabs. Most of the crab exports (over 80%) go to theUS market while live crabs are exported mainly toTaiwan.

Exploited Crab Species

There are 51 species of swimming crabs reportedin the country, but only about 7 are consideredmarketable. The blue crab, Portunus pelagicus, is themain species exploited, comprising over 90% of crablandings. The biology of the blue crab has beenintensively studied (see Ingles 1988, 1992; Ingles andBraum 1989) due to its commercial importance in thePhilippines. Other crab species landed and marketedinclude Portunus sanguinolentus, Charybdis fereiata, C.natator, Scylla oceanica, S. serrata and Podopthalmus vigil.Of recent development, small crabs belonging to the

Status of the Blue Crab Fisheries in the Philippines1

genera Charybdis and Portunus representing by-catchof small trawlers and Danish seines are sold in specialtyrestaurants. Other crab species are collected andconsumed but do not go through normal marketchannels. These are species of the genus Thalamita.Gleaners collect these crabs in mangrove areas duringlow tide.

History of Landings

The blue crab fishery has been in existence sinceearly times. Crabs were collected during low tide inthe wide tidal flats fronting villages using simple gearssuch as spears or scoop nets. In shallow water areas,simple gears such as baited pots and crab liftnets werethe only gears used.

Over the last 40 years, the trend in crab productionfollowed the general pattern for many importanttarget species in the Philippines. This was characterizedby three phases (Figure 1): (1) a developing phaseduring 1961-1974 characterized by a gradual rise inproduction up to a level of 10,000 t; (2) a plateau during1975-1991 when landings fluctuated between 10,000and 20,000 t; and (3) a higher plateau during 1992 tothe present when landings fluctuated between 25,000and 40,000 t.

The type of fishing gears popular during a givenphase influenced the catch levels. Thus, prior to the1970s, only traditional (artisanal) gears exploited thecrab resources. With the introduction and increasedpopularity of bottom trawls between the mid-1970sand mid-1980s, the crab resources were subjected tomoderate to very severe exploitation by the commercialsector. This resulted in the doubling of catch thateventually led to decimation of crab resources in many

JOSE A. INGLESSulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Program

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) - PhilippinesLBI Bldg., 57 Kalayaan Ave., Diliman, Quezon City

Philippines

1 This paper can be cited as follows: INGLES, J.A. 2004. Status of the blue crab fisheries in the Philippines, p. 47-52. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


Figure 1. Historical production of blue crabs, Portunus pelagicus (BFAR 1961-1981 and BAS 1987-2001).

trawlable areas of the country. The trawl ban in 1982gave the blue crab resources a temporary reprievefrom high-level exploitation. This reprieve was short-lived as there was a sudden demand for blue crabsstarting in 1990 resulting from the collapse of the bluecrab (Callinectes sapidus) fishery in Chesapeake Bay,USA. Production during the third phase wasgenerated mainly by the artisanal fleet of crab gillnetsand crab pots, fueled by the high export demand.Exports have increased five-fold in the last 10 years,

with export value increasing rapidly in the last fiveyears (Figure 2).

Major Fishing Grounds and Gears

The blue crab, Portunus pelagicus, is cosmopolitanin the country. This species prefer shallow water areas(up to 70 m depth) with sandy to muddy substrate(Ingles 1988). Areas with soft substrate and gentleslope are popular crabbing grounds. Over half (51.5%)

Figure 2. Quantity and value of crab exports of the Philippines (BAS 1987-2001).


Figure 3. Major crab fishing grounds (shaded areas) in the Philippines.


of the blue crab production currently comes fromWestern Visayas (Visayan Sea and Guimaras Strait).The rest are from other parts of the country, specificallyAsid Gulf, Bohol Sea, Samar Sea, Carigara Bay,Sorsogon Bay, northern part of Ragay Gulf, TayabasBay, Malampaya Sound and Panguil Bay. In Mindanao,crab fisheries exist in Panguil Bay and waters off Tawi-Tawi. Figure 3 shows the major crabbing grounds ofthe country.

Crabbing is a multigear fishery, i.e., crabs arecaught and landed by different types of fishing gear.However, the major crab fishing gears are theentangling nets (popularly called crab gillnet) and thecrab pot. The contribution of various fishing gears tocrab production varies among fishing grounds. Forinstance, in the Visayan Sea and Guimaras Strait, thecontributions of various gears are as follows: gillnets,54.8%; crab pots, 22.2%; trawls and seines, 2.5%; andpush nets, 20.5%. In Malampaya Sound where fishingis done solely by the artisanal sector, shares are asfollows: gillnets, 95.0%; fish corrals, 2.5%; and pushnets, 2.5%.

Exploitation Trends

The production of crabs over the last ten yearsfluctuates around 33,000 t. About 77% of the total

production is exported. Crab fisheries in thePhilippines show a boom and bust history. The hugedemand for export triggers massive development ofartisanal crab fisheries. In areas where crab meatprocessing plants are established, fishers are luredinto crabbing because of high prices. The fisheriesdevelop fully without any management interventionand would last until crab fishing becomesunprofitable. Then the processing plant or majorbuyers transfer operations to new areas to sourceraw materials. The whole process is repeated indifferent areas, such as in Malampaya Sound,Palawan, Visayan Sea and Guimaras Strait.

The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for theWestern Visayas crab fishery was estimated by Ingles(1996) to be about 1,300 t at a sustainable effort level(fMSY) of about 13,150 gillnet panels (Figure 4). MSYwas attained in 1993, just three years after the startof the full-blown fishery in 1990. Because of theabsence of any regulatory policy to protect theresource, catch leveled off at around 1,000 t but effortcontinued to increase and in 1999 quadrupled to about22,000 gillnet panels. This resulted in significantreduction in catch rates (Table 1). In MalampayaSound, the same scenario was documented wherecatch rates declined to unprofitable levels (Ingles etal. 2002).

Table 1. Catch rates of blue crabs (kg/gillnet/day) over three different years in theWestern Visayas crab fishery (Visayan Sea and Guimaras Strait). Values are notstandardized for length of gillnets used (Ingles and Flores 2000).

Year/Month199219981999

August12.437.734.97

September8.787.124.28

October7.617.432.91

Mean9.617.434.05

Figure 4. Estimates of MSY and fMSY for the Western Visayas crab fishery (Ingles 1996).


Factors that Endanger the Resource Base

High by-catch

In a study by Ingles and Flores (2000), the by-catch of crab gillnets used in the Visayan Sea andGuimaras Strait reportedly accounted for 45% of thetotal catch. The by-catch consisted of brachyurans,univalve mollusks and fishes. Eighteen species ofbrachyurans were caught, of which 6 were marketableand 12 were simply killed and discarded, contributingimmensely to biodiversity loss and possibly toecosystem changes. For push nets which targetshrimps, immature crabs with an average carapacewidth of 2.7 cm were caught and sold as “crablets”for specialized markets in Western Visayas.

Irresponsible fishing practices

Irresponsible fishing refers to fishing practices thatare considered harmful to the ecosystem. Catches ofcrab gillnets and crab pots are significantlycontaminated with immature individuals contributingto growth overfishing. About 28-34% of crab gillnetcatches and 8-27% of crab pot catches consist ofimmature individuals. Similarly, berried (egg-bearing)females are landed by gillnets (21.8% of the catch)and crab pots (8.1%) contributing to recruitmentoverfishing.

The practice of killing and discarding the crab by-catch by gillnets and push nets results in a great lossto biodiversity. Another irresponsible practice isleaving crab gillnets soaked for three days. Verycommon in Malampaya Sound in Palawan and in highlydepleted areas in the Visayan Sea, the gillnets areresponsible for deaths of endangered dolphins inMalampaya Sound and wastage of other fish by-catch.

Lack of regulations

The high fishing pressure, reduced catch rates anddeclining production over the last five years in majorfishing grounds such as Guimaras Strait, Visayan Seaand Malampaya Sound are ominous signs ofoverfishing. Lack of specific regulations to controleffort increase and prevent growth and recruitmentoverfishing is a serious issue. Although previousattempts have been made, it was only lately (Jayme etal. 2003) that efforts to address the issue of sustainabilityof the crab resources have been pursued throughinitiatives by the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF)-Philippines. Similar efforts are underway inMalampaya Sound to conserve the Irrawaddy

dolphins through the reduction of crab gillnet-relatedmortality (Ingles et al. 2002).

Ghost fishing

The popularity of monofilament entangling gillnetshas raised the issue of ghost fishing in Guimaras Straitand Visayan Sea. Estimates by Ingles and Flores (2000)showed that loss of gillnets due to incursions oftrawlers in coastal fishing grounds amounted to 3,328gillnet panels per year or about 166 gillnet units. Thisis equivalent to 24% of the total number of gillnetsbeing used at the time of the study. The estimatedloss of catch due to ghost fishing was placed at 311 tfor blue crab resources alone.

Conclusion

Factors that endanger the resource base are closelyinterlinked and the main cause is the lack of specificmanagement measures or regulations to protect the crabresources. To stop further deterioration, regulationsare urgently needed to stop further increases in fishingeffort and curb growth and recruitment overfishing.Initiatives toward this goal have been initiated by WWF-Philippines in key sites in Western Negros. Regulationsto impose minimum capture size for crabs and a ban onsale and catching of immature crabs have considerablyprogressed at the local levels. Public hearings to makeordinances at the provincial level are underway. Eventhen, the scope of regulations should be expanded toeffectively cover the geographic range of the resources.

The WWF-Philippines has likewise looked at thepossibility of subjecting the blue crab resource to a marinestewardship certification process, which is a form ofecolabeling aimed at protecting the resource at all levels(catching, processing and to trade). Applying theconcept but using a community-based approach wasattempted, but deferred because of the rather stringentrequirements (Romero et al. 2001; Jayme et al. 2003).

Given the boom and bust histories of crab fisheries,depletion of the resource determines the life span ofthe fishery. In all instances, resource demand drovethe fishery to collapse. Market demand pushed priceshigher allowing rent from fishing to be maintained atthe cost of loss (or collapse) of the resource base. Overall,regulations must be put in place in order to protect thecrab resources from overcapacity. A proactive stanceand a long-term benefit perspective should be theguiding principles in instituting policies and regulationsfor the country’s crab fisheries (and any other fisheriesfor that matter).


References

BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 1987-2001. Fisheriesstatistics of the Philippines. BAS, Quezon City, Philippines.Var. p.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1961-1981.Fisheries statistics of the Philippines. BFAR, Quezon City,Philippines. Var. p.

Ingles, J. 1988. Zur biologie und fischerei von Portunus pelagicusim Ragay Golf, Philippinen. University of Hamburg, Germany.311 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Ingles, J. 1992. Natural diet of the commercial blue swimmingcrab, Portunus pelagicus, in Ragay Gulf, Philippines, p. 69-83. In Proceedings of the First National Symposium in MarineScience, May 1990, Bolinao, Pangasinan. University of thePhilippines-Marine Science Institute, Quezon City, Philippines.

Ingles, J. 1996. The crab fishery off Bantayan, Cebu, Philippines.Report submitted to the Philippine Council for Marine andAquatic Resources Research and Development. Institute ofMarine Fisheries and Oceanology, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines. 34 p.

Ingles, J. and E. Braum. 1989. Reproduction and larval ecology ofthe blue swimming crab Portunus pelagicus in Ragay Gulf,Philippines. Int. Rev. Gesamt. Hydrobiol. 74: 471-490.

Ingles, J. and J. Flores. 2000. Addressing ecological impacts offishing gears: A case study of the blue crab fishery of GuimarasStrait and Visayan Sea, Philippines, p. 382-387. In T. Arimoto(ed.) Proceedings of the Third Japan Society for the Promotionof Science-DGHE International Symposium on Fisheries Sciencein Tropical Areas, Bogor, Indonesia.

Ingles, J., G. Gacoba and L. del Valle. 2002. Aligning conservationwith fisheries: A case study of the Irrawaddy dolphins inMalampaya Sound, Palawan, Philippines. Paper presented atthe First National Capture Fisheries Symposium, 2-4 December2002, Iloilo, Philippines.

Jayme, K., M. Romero and J. Ingles. 2003. Community-basedcertification of the blue crab fishery of Northeastern GuimarasStrait, Negros Occidental, Philippines: Lessons learned,prospects and directions. Paper presented at the SecondInternational Tropical Marine Ecosystems ManagementSymposium, 24-27 March 2003, Manila, Philippines.

Romero, F., J. Ingles, K. Jayme, R. Apostol and J. Novy Hildesley.2001. Prospects of community-based certification of the bluecrab fishery in Negros Occidental, Philippines. World WildlifeFund, Quezon City, Philippines. 15 p.

Live reef food fish trade 53

The Live Reef Food Fish Trade in the Philippines

1 This paper can be cited as follows: MAMAUAG, S. 2004. The live reef food fish trade in the Philippines, p. 53-59. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Introduction

The establishment of the live reef food fish trade(LRFFT) in the Philippines was brought about by thedemand for live food fish initially from Hong Kongand Taiwan, and later on from mainland China (Barberand Pratt 1997). It is customary among Chineseconsumers that fish should be kept live just before it iscooked, a belief said to ensure long-life among people.Barber and Pratt (1997) and Bentley (1999) reportedthat Hong Kong-based fishing vessels were observedoperating near Philippine waters as early as the 1970s.Owing to their high economic value (see Sadovy andVincent 2002), catches of live fish and other marinespecies have increased remarkably since the start ofthe LRFFT (FQS 1999). However, as in any harvestedfishery resource, continuous increases in catches maylead to overexploitation, depletion of stocks, fisherycollapse and serious ecological consequences (Russ1991; Roberts 1995).

Fishing has several effects on fish populations andcommunities. Direct effects include decrease inabundance, density and biomass, and indirect effectsinclude habitat modifications (Russ 1991). Reductionof abundance leads to biological complications, suchas increased mortality rates, reduced body size andsize/age at sexual maturity, and weak recruitment (Russ1991).

Live food fish is conventionally caught using hook-and-line fishing gear. However, LRFFT has beenclosely associated with the problem of cyanide fishing,which was first detected in the aquarium trade (Barberand Pratt 1997). Robinson (1986) and Bentley (1999)

revealed that some live fish collectors in the Philippinesuse varied amounts of sodium cyanide, a broad-spectrum poison used to temporarily stun fish duringcollection. Cyanide causes habitat degradation in coralreefs (Barber and Pratt 1997; Jones and Hoegh-Guldberg 1999; Burke et al. 2002) and even directlyaffects reef fishes (Rubec and Pratt 1984; Rubec 1988;Hall and Bellwood 1995). Degraded reefs take sometime to recover (Aliño et al. 1985) and eventually resultin habitat loss or alterations in reef communities like,for example, algal dominance (Hughes 1994).Furthermore, cyanide fishing is believed to be moreefficient in catching live fish than the traditional hookand line (Robinson 1986), which renders the targetspecies more susceptible to overexploitation.

State of LRFFT

LRFFT fishing sites

The LRFFT in the Philippines is widespread. Livefood fish has been reported to come from at least 36areas (Figure 1). At present, it is not known if most ofthese areas continue to generate landed catches of livefish. Few areas, however, remain well established inLRFFT. These areas include Coron, Guiuan, Surigao,Catanduanes, Camarines, Polillo Islands and Balabac(Figure 1). It is not very clear in which area LRFFTstarted in the Philippines. In the years of its monitoringand assessment, however, the International MarinelifeAlliance (IMA) has gathered substantial amounts ofinformation on the trade from two areas, Coron andGuiuan (Barber and Pratt 1997; Pratt et al. 2000). Coron

SAMUEL MAMAUAGInternational Marinelife Alliance-Philippines

PSSC Center, Commonwealth Ave.Quezon City 1101

andMarine Science Institute-University of the Philippines

Diliman, Quezon City 1101Philippines


Figure 1. Major and minor LRFFT fishing areas in the Philippines.


or the Calamianes Group of Islands and Guiuan havemore than 1,000 fishers each involved in the trade(Padilla et al., in prep.; Bentley 1999). Other players inLRFFT include traders and exporters, which in Coroncomprised about 10% of the total number of peopleinvolved in the trade (Padilla et al. in prep.).

Fishing gears

The most commonly used gear to collect live foodfish is hook and line (Barber and Pratt 1997; Sadovyand Vincent 2002). Hook and line is used to harvestmost large-sized grouper species. Traps are also usedto collect adult as well as juvenile fish. Nets, which aregenerally used in the collection of aquarium fish, arealso used particularly to capture Napoleon wrasse,Cheilinus undulatus (Sadovy and Vincent 2002).

Catch and export data

The LRFFT is a relatively new fishery in thePhilippines. Data on total catch indicate a four-foldincrease from about 200,000 kg in 1994 to 800,000 kgin 1997 (Figure 2). These data represent catches fromall LRFFT fishing areas or sites (Figure 1). However,most data are fragmented and out-of-date; only thosefrom Coron and Guiuan are relatively adequate andgenerally show recent declines (Figure 3).

Almost all live food fish harvested in thePhilippines are exported, with only about 5%consumed locally (Pratt et al. 2000). Data on export ofall live food fish species similarly declined from 1994to 1999 (FQS 1999) (Figure 4).

Exploited species

In 1999, there were at least 24 species of marinevertebrates and invertebrates being harvested forLRFFT in the Philippines (Table 1) (Pratt et al. 2000).The leopard coralgrouper, Plectropomus leopardus(Figure 5), was the most dominant in the catch (Prattet al. 2000). Like most groupers, P. leopardus is highlyvulnerable to overexploitation due to its long life span,slow growth and low natural mortality rate (Ralston1987), sequential hermaphroditism (Shapiro 1987),moderate-scale migration (Zellar 1998) and spawningbehavior (Ferreira 1995; Samoilys 1997).

Ecological Impacts of the Trade

Effects on fish size and age structure

Mean body size (total length) of P. leopardus inCoron decreased from about 31.5 cm in 1998 to about

30.1 cm in 2000. The reduction in fish body size isprobably due to high fishing pressure in the area. Basedon counts of annual rings in otoliths, the age range ofP. leopardus catches in Coron was 2-8 years old, with acorresponding size range of 24-47 cm total length(Mamauag et al. 2002). Analyses of size frequencydistributions of catches reveal that LRFFT in Coronand Guiuan has been targeting young, small andsexually immature and maturing individuals(Mamauag 1997). This poses threats of “recruitmentoverfishing”, a phenomenon which results if fishingpressure is so high that it greatly affects recruitment(i.e., population replenishment) due to depletion ofspawning adults (Russ 1991).

High exploitation levels on live fish, which aremostly composed of species of groupers, pose seriousbiological implications. Groupers, for whichinformation is available, periodically aggregate tospawn en masse (Shapiro 1987; Samoilys 1997; Sadovyand Vincent 2002). Spawning aggregation is a form ofbehavior in fish reproduction (Warner 1984). Someaggregation sites in the Caribbean region have been

Table 1. List of species collected for LRFFT in the Philippines.

Family SerranidaePlectropomus leopardusPlectropomus areolatusPlectropomus maculatesPlectropomus laevisPlectropomus oligacanthusEpinephelus bleekeriEpinephelus coioidesEpinephelus malabaricusEpinephelus fuscoguttatusEpinephelus polyphekadionEpinephelus fasciatusEpinephelus lanceolatusEpinephelus ongusEpinephelus cyanopodusCromileptes altivelisCephalopholis miniataAnyperodon leucogrammicus

Family LabridaeCheilinus undulates

Family SiganidaeSiganus guttatus

Family ScaridaeScarus sp.

Family LutjanidaeLutjanus sebae

Family ScorpaenidaeSynanceia sp.

Family PanuliridaePanulirus sp.Parribacus sp.

Leopard coralgrouperSquaretail coralgrouperSpotted coralgrouperBlacksaddled coralgrouperHighfin coralgrouperDuskytail grouperOrange-spotted grouperMalabar grouperBrown-marbled grouperCamouflage grouperBlacktip grouperGiant grouperWhite-streaked grouperSpeckled blue grouperHumpback grouperCoral hindSlender grouper

Napoleon humphead wrasse

Spotted rabbitfish

Parrotfish

Red emperor

Stonefish

LobsterFlat lobster

Species Common Name


Figure 2. Estimated catch of live food fish species from LRFFT fishing areas in the Philippines,1994-1997 (IMA-Philippines).

Figure 3. Total catch of live food fish from 1994 to 2001 in Coron and Guiuan.


decimated largely due to high exploitation levels(Beets and Friedlander 1998). Sadovy and Vincent(2002) reported that some sites of spawningaggregation of groupers in Southeast Asia and thePacific have been targeted by LRFFT.

Mortality and exploitation rate

Mortality rates based on aging of fish are key todetermination of exploitation rates (Pauly 1984).Although preliminary, estimates of mortality andexploitation rate for P. leopardus exploited by LRFFTin Coron are available (see Mamauag et al. 2002). Thetotal and fishing mortality estimates are 0.93 and 0.73,respectively, and imply a high exploitation rate of 0.78.These indicate that the stock of P. leopardus in Coron isoverexploited.

Habitat effects

Following Mous et al. (2000), analysis of reefdegradation presumably due to cyanide fishing hasbeen made in Coron (see Padilla et al., in prep.). Theresults indicate that even if cyanide was used for everyfish caught, only a small portion of the total reef areain Coron would be degraded. Despite this finding,however, cyanide fishing remains a serious threat tothe health of coral reefs. A comparison of percentagelive and dead coral cover in cyanide-impacted andnonimpacted reefs in Coron supports this conclusion(Padilla et al., in prep.). Live coral cover in nonimpactedsites was over 50%, compared to 5-40% in cyanide-impacted sites. This may imply that cyanide use leadsto destruction of coral colonies (e.g., bleaching) mostprobably due to expulsion of symbiotic zooxanthellae(see Jones and Steven 1997; Jones and Hoegh-

Guldberg 1999). Other factors, however, like increasedsea surface temperature due to climate change (Arceoet al. 2001), blast fishing (Burke et al. 2002) and Crown-of-thorns infestation (Wilkinson 2000) may come intoplay and mask the effect of cyanide. Nevertheless,monitoring and enforcement of anti-cyanideordinances should be strengthened in LRFFT fishingareas to reduce potential ecological impacts.

Improved Management of LRFFT

In 1994, IMA spearheaded the Destructive FishingReform Program that specifies a series of importantreforms for LRFFT as well as the marine aquariumfish trade in the Philippines (Barber and Pratt 1997).These reforms include: (1) monitoring of the amountof live fish collected and exported from collectionareas; (2) establishment of cyanide detection testlaboratories to provide evidence of cyanide use; (3)provision of education and training for fishers andsuspected cyanide users (so that they revert tocyanide-free and nondestructive methods of fishcollection) while enhancing value-added sustainableproduction activities and local resource stewardship;(4) strengthening of the legal basis for regulating livefish trade by using cyanide detection test results as

Figure 5. The leopard coralgrouper, Plectropomus leopardus, themost abundant species in LRFFT catch in the Philippines.

Figure 4. Export of live food fish and marine invertebrates, 1994-1999 (FQS 1999).


basis for regulation;(5) increasing enforcement levelsand prosecution of cyanide users; (6) promoting reformof the live fish import policy; and (7) promoting publicand official awareness about the far-reaching impactsof destructive fishing and fundamental solutions tothis problem.

Despite these efforts, no management plans havebeen put in place for any LRFFT fishing area in thePhilippines. The only reform implemented to reducethe impacts of the trade pertains to enforcement of anti-cyanide monitoring in selected fishing grounds likeCoron. Although this is positive, the more pressing issueof overfishing has not been addressed. IMA is presentlycollaborating with the World Wildlife Fund-Philippinesto carry out the latter’s Sustainability AssessmentProject. Ecological as well as economic and socialassessments of LRFFT in Coron are being carried outfor sustainability of the trade. Recommendations forimproved management of LRFFT include reduction offishing effort, catch control, size restriction, open/closefishery season vis-à-vis information on spawning seasonof P. leopardus in Coron and adjacent areas, andmariculture, among others. These are drawn up as partof advocacy work for the establishment of managementplans for LRFFT in Coron. IMA is currently workingon the assessment and creation of management plansfor other LRFFT areas (e.g., Guiuan and Surigao), amove that is very timely in arresting the threats offishery collapse, habitat degradation and hugeeconomic losses in the other LRFFT areas in the country.

References

Aliño, P.M., P. Banzon, H. Yap, E. Gomez, J. Morales and R.Bayoneto. 1985. Recovery and recolonization on a damagedbackreef area at Cangaluyan Island. Proc. Fifth Int. CoralReef Symp.: 279-284.

Arceo, H., M. Quibilan, P. Aliño, G. Lim and W. Licuanan. 2001.Coral bleaching in Philippine reefs: Coincident evidences withmesoscale thermal anomalies. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2): 579-593.

Barber, C. and V. Pratt. 1997. Sullied seas: Strategies for combatingcyanide fishing in Southeast Asia and beyond. WorldResources Institute Report, 64 p. Washington, DC, USA.

Beets, J. and A. Friedlander. 1998. Stock analysis and managementstrategies for red hind Epinephelus guttatus, in the US VirginIslands. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 42: 66-79.

Bentley, N. 1999. Fishing for solutions: Can the live trade in wildgroupers and wrasses from Southeast Asia be managed?TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in SoutheastAsia. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Ferreira, B.1995. Reproduction of the common coral troutPlectropomus leopardus (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) from thecentral and northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Bull. Mar.Sci. 56(2): 653-669.

FQS (Fisheries Quarantine Service). 1999. Data on live fish tradeexport from shipment records. FQS, Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources, Department of Agriculture, Pasay City,Philippines.

Hall, K. and D. Bellwood. 1995. Histological effects of cyanide,stress and starvation on the intestinal mucosa of Pomacentruscoelestis, a marine aquarium fish species. J. Fish Biol. 47:438-454.

Hughes, T. 1994. Catastrophies, phase shifts and large scaledegradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265:1547-1551.

Jones, R. and A. Steven. 1997. Effects of cyanide on corals inrelation to cyanide fishing on reefs. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 48:517-522.

Jones, R. and O. Hoegh-Guldberg. 1999. Effects of cyanide oncoral photosynthesis: Implications for identifying the causeof coral bleaching and for assessing the environmental effectsof cyanide fishing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 177: 83-91.

Mamauag, S. 1997. Age, growth and reproduction of Plectropomusspp. (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) in Northern Palawan,Philippines. Department of Marine Biology, James CookUniversity, Queensland, Australia. M.S. thesis.

Mamauag, S., T. Donaldson, V. Pratt and B. McCullough. 2002.Age and size structure of the leopard coralgrouper,Plectropomus leopardus (Serranidae: Epinephelinae) in thelive reef fish trade of the Philippines. Proc. Ninth Int. CoralReef Symp. 2: 649-655.

Mous, P., L. Pet-Soede, M. Erdmann, H. Cesar, Y. Sadovy and J.Pet. 2000. Cyanide fishing on Indonesian coral reefs for thelive food fish market – what is the problem? In H. Cesar (ed.)Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs. CORDIO,Kalmar University, Sweden. 244 p.

Padilla, J., S. Mamauag, G. Braganza, D. Yu and N. Brucal. (Inprep.). Sustainability assessment of the live reef food fishtrade in the Philippines. Draft report of the Southeast AsiaPolicy Project of the World Wildlife Fund.

Pauly, D. 1984. Fish population dynamics in tropical waters: Amanual for use with programmable calculators. ICLARM Stud.Rev. 8, 325 p.

Pratt, V., S. Mamauag, J. Alban, E. Parfan and T. Donaldson.2000. Status report on the Philippine live reef fish trade andstrategies to combat its destructive fishing practices. MarineScience Institute-University of the Philippines, Quezon City,Philippines.

Ralston, S. 1987. Mortality rates of snappers and groupers. InJ.J. Polovina and S. Ralston (eds.) Tropical snappers andgroupers: Biology and fisheries management. Westview Press,Colorado, USA. 659 p.

Roberts, C. 1995. Effects of fishing on the ecosystem structure ofcoral reefs. Conserv. Biol. 9(5): 988-995.

Robinson, S. 1986. Palawan’s live lapu-lapu/mameng trade: Raisingthe stakes in the cyanide controversy. Report submitted tothe Task Force on Illegal Fishing, Ministry of Agriculture,Manila, Philippines.

Rubec, P. 1988. The need for conservation and management ofPhilippine coral reefs. Environ. Biol. Fish. 23(1-2): 141-154.

Rubec, P. and V. Pratt. 1984. Scientific data concerning the effectsof cyanide on marine fish. Freshwat. Mar. Aquar. 7(5): 4-6,78-80, 82-86, 90-91.

Russ, G.R. 1991. Coral reef fisheries: Effects and yields, p. 601-635. In P.F. Sale (ed.) The ecology of fishes on coral reefs.Academic Press, New York, USA. 754 p.

Sadovy, Y. and A. Vincent. 2002. Ecological issues and the tradesin live reef fishes. In P.F. Sale (ed.) Coral reef fishes: Dynamicsand diversity in a complex ecosystem. Academic Press,California, USA. 549 p.


Samoilys, M. 1997. Periodicity of spawning aggregations of coraltrout Plectropomus leopardus (Pisces: Serranidae) on thenorthern Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 160: 149-159.

Shapiro, D. 1987. Reproduction in groupers. In J.J. Polovina andS. Ralston (eds.) Tropical snappers and groupers: Biologyand fisheries management. Westview Press, Colorado, USA.659 p.

Warner, R. 1984. The adaptive significance of sequentialhermaphroditism in animals. Am. Nat. 109: 61-82.

Wilkinson, C. 2000. Status of coral reefs of the world: 2000.Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia. 127 p.

Zellar, D. 1998. Spawning aggregations: Patterns of movement ofthe coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Serranidae) asdetermined by ultrasonic telemetry. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 162:253-263.


Status of the Philippine Marine Aquarium Fish Trade1

DOMINGO OCHAVILLOGREGOR HODGSON

CRAIG SHUMANRENANTE RUZ

Reef Check, Institute of the Environment, 1652 Hershey HallUniversity of California in Los AngelesLos Angeles, California, 90095-1496

USA

Background

The marine aquarium or ornamental fish trade isa relatively recent development (most fisheriesstarting just after World War II). It is highly selectiveand involves harvesting many targeted coral reef fishand invertebrate species. Moreover, it is a high value-to-volume industry involving resources that are valuedfor their aesthetic appeal rather than nutritionalimportance. Virtually all marine ornamental fishes arecollected from the wild, with only a very smallproportion from hatcheries (Warmolts 2000; Wood2001). Capture methods include a combination ofbarrier and scoop nets alone or with hookah (surface-supplied compressed air) and presumably chemicalssuch as cyanide and native plant products. About 386fish species from 79 families are currently traded fromthe Philippines (Vallejo 1997) (Table 1). Most tradedfishes come from only a few families (Conroy 1975;Randall 1987; Sadovy 1992; Pyle 1993; Rajasuriya et al.1995; Wood 2001). The global marine aquariumindustry trades an estimated 15 to 36 million marinefishes annually with a value between $90 and $3002

million (Wheeler 1996; Biffar 1997; Warmolts 2000).This is separate from the aquarium products industrywhich alone is valued at $300 million annually (Baquero1999). The marine aquarium fish exports of thePhilippines were about P300 million in 2001 (Table 2).

The Philippines and Indonesia are the majorsources of marine ornamentals. The Philippines startedits own ornamental trade in the 1950s (McAllister etal. 1999). The major source areas of ornamentals in thePhilippines are Cebu, Bohol, Bataan, Batangas, Davao,Zambales and Palawan (Albaladejo and Corpuz 1981).

The major destinations of the trade are Europe andUSA (Sadovy and Vincent 2002), although the Asianmarket is also rapidly expanding. The hobby tradeaccounts for 99% of the imported marine fishes andinvertebrates, while public aquaria take up the rest.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: OCHAVILLO, D., G. HODGSON, C. SHUMAN and R. RUZ. 2004. Status of thePhilippine marine aquarium fish trade, p. 60-64. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 All $ amounts are US$.

Three-striped humbugReticulated damselfishDomino damselfishBlacktail damselfishBlue-green chromisYellowtail blue damselfishBlackmouth damselfishBlue-finned damselfishBlack peacockMoorish idolHarlequin sweetlipsSailfin tangCleaner wrasseHalf-black angelfishRegal angelfishEmperor angelfishSix-banded angelfishBlue koranVermiculated angelfishChelmon butterflyfishPunctato butterflyfishEight-banded butterflyfishTomato clownfishFalse percula clownfishAfrican clownfishPink skunk anemonefishOrange skunk anemonefishMaroon clownfish

Table 1. Species comprising the bulk of catches for the marineaquarium fish trade in the Philippines.

Species Common Name

Dascyllus aruanusDascyllus reticulatusDascyllus trimaculatusDascyllus melanurusChromis viridisChrysiptera parasemaNeoglyphidodon nigrorisNeoglyphidodon melasPterois volitansZanclus cornutusPlectorhinchus chaetodonoidesZebrasoma veliferumLabroides dimidiatusCentropyge vrolikiPygoplites diacanthusPomacanthus imperatorPomacanthus sextriatusPomacanthus semicirculatusChaetodontoplus mesoleucusChelmon rostratusChaetodon punctatofasciatusChaetodon octofasciatusAmphiprion frenatusAmphiprion ocellarisAmphiprion clarkiiAmphiprion perideraionAmphiprion sandaracinosPremnas biaculeatus

Marine aquarium fish trade 61

The aquarium trade involves extremely selectivecoral reef fisheries (Figure 1). There is a high premiumfor rare species, very specific size ranges anduncommon color forms of target species. Hobbyistsprefer fish sizes from 2 to 10 cm, since smaller andlarger individuals are difficult to maintain in homeaquaria (Chan and Sadovy 1998; Wood 2001). Smallerindividuals are also preferred by traders because largerindividuals are more expensive to transport (in termsof number of fish shipped per unit transport volume).Attractive and unusual coloration is a major valuefactor. There is a preference for juveniles, certain sexesof fish species, uncommon color forms and unusualhybrids (Sadovy et al. 2001; Wood 2001; Sadovy andVincent 2002).

Socioeconomic and Ecological Issues

Levels of collection and trade data are generallypoor, especially from countries of origin. If the qualityof data of Philippine marine fisheries is generally bad,the aquarium trade’s is even worse (see Table 2). Exportdata are basically inaccessible because of taxationimplications. This is exacerbated by the high rates ofmortality during capture, holding and transport, priorto export (Johannes and Lam 1999). Therefore, anyestimate of extraction rate at this point is a grossunderestimate.

An estimated 70% of ornamental fishes from thePhilippines are caught with cyanide that is used tostun target species before capture (Hingco and Rivera1991; Barber and Pratt 1997; Bentley 1999). Thischemical, however, degrades rapidly so that currenttechnology used in testing its presence in capturedfishes is unreliable (Barber and Pratt 1997; McAllisteret al. 1999). Despite its notoriety, there is little researchon the long-term effects of cyanide on coral reefs

(Mous et al. 2000). Short-term effects,however, include inhibiting coral growth(Jones and Hoegh-Guldberg 1999) that hasimplications on reef habitat preservation.

Post-capture mortality of ornamentalfishes can range from a few percent to a highof 80% (Hall and Bellwood 1995; Hanawaet al. 1998). For instance, collected fish maybe held in plastic bags with infrequent waterchanges and/or changes with pollutedwater. In some cases, their transport isdelayed due to poor collector-exportercoordination. These translate into increasedfishing pressure due to replacementpurchases by hobbyists.

There is almost no research on theimpacts of the ornamental trade on coral reef

ecosystems despite the attendant socioeconomicconditions that are the ingredients for overexploitation.The populations of resource users are rapidlyexpanding in a fishery that has low investment andopportunity costs. The present trade structure (e.g.,numerous middlepersons) can directly (via supply ofcyanide) or indirectly promote destructive fishingpractices (Perino 1990). High hidden and unrecordedmortalities coupled with inaccessible and unreliabletrade figures underestimate exploitation rates.

Because it is a highly selective fishery, there ispotential for “growth” and “ecosystem” overfishing.Immature fishes are often targeted and can be morevaluable than larger fishes. This can lead to decreasednumber of older fish individuals. It has also often beensuggested that coral reef fishes may be morevulnerable to overexploitation compared to manyother fishes (Russ 1991). They are usually restricted tothe reef environment and have small home ranges andlimited habitat and depth preferences (Munro andWilliams 1985).

There has been no concrete documentation on themagnitude of impact of the ornamental trade onpopulations of target species. Only the studies madeby Tissot and Hallacher (1999) established moreconcretely the negative impact of collection on targetpopulations. All of the 10 species they examinedshowed significant decline in densities presumably dueto aquarium fish collection.

Selective removal of target species is expected tocause changes in the community structure of reef fishes(Pauly 1979; Hay 1984; Pauly 1988; Koslow et al. 1988;Russ and Alcala 1989; Russ 1991). Indeed, there maybe some indications that growth and ecosystemoverfishing is happening in some reefs in thePhilippines with a long history of ornamental speciescollection. In a recent investigation of the impacts of

Figure 1. Fishers catching aquarium fish.


aquarium trade on some Philippine reefs, Ochavillo etal. (in prep.) found that some targeted species havelower abundance in collection sites in the Palawan andCebu-Bohol areas. There is an indication of growthoverfishing of the heavily exploited Dascyllus aruanusin these sites. Exploitation rate is beyond sustainablelevels, with low investment costs and the pricepremium for rarity threatening to further aggravatethe situation. Results of this study also indicate changesin the community structure of fishes in the Cebu-Boholand Coron areas.

Management Needs

The ecological integrity of the coral reef ecosystemand socioeconomic integrity of the collectors’community should be the goal of management.Management initiatives to sustain the ornamentaltrade, therefore, should be comprehensive, integrativeand adaptive taking into account both the resourcesand the users. Populations of target species need to bemaintained at sustainable levels both to ensure a

healthy coral reef ecosystem and provide a source ofincome for fishing communities.

Ecological research and monitoring

There is obviously a need to understand thepopulation biology of target species in collection andnoncollection sites, and to determine their rates ofharvest from coral reefs. Information that needs to becollected includes species’ biology aspects, such asreproduction, recruitment and mortality rates, as wellas their interconnectedness with other populations.Data on these are critical in understanding how targetpopulations behave with varying exploitation levels.

Information on fishing effort, trade data andmortalities (from point of harvest to retail store) fortarget species is also helpful in formulatingmanagement measures. At present, these areunrecorded and/or inaccessible. On a smaller scale,there might be a need to rotate collection pressureamong sites within areas known to engage inornamental collection. However, the recovery periodshould be adequately worked out. On a larger scale,data on area catch rates per species can be used todivert trade demands to areas with relatively highercatch rates.

Local communities should also be trained tosurvey or monitor their resources. In this way, theycan have a sense of stewardship for them.

Catch limits and closed seasons

There might be a need to impose size and catchlimits on juveniles to avoid growth overfishing.Outright bans might be imposed on the collection andtrade of shark eggs and juveniles since these fisheshave very low fecundity. Species that are hard tomaintain even with the best collection and maintenancepractices and/or those with densities much lower thanpristine levels might also be banned from the trade.Closed seasons might be imposed during reproductiveperiods of target populations.

Improving capture, handling, transportand maintenance practices

There is a need to increase collectors’ awarenesson the potential, long-term negative effects of cyanide.Improvements need to be made in these areas: capturemethods and the quality of holding facilities andpractices (Johannes and Riepen 1995; Bentley 1999);trade operations (from collection to export), to avoidlengthy holding periods that can result in massivemortalities; and the structure of the trade (e.g.

197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987199319941995199619971998199920002001

1,000,2631,693,3663,289,2625,738,0626,304,677

10,504,62014,417,63615,980,60717,330,28520,367,96922,703,51123,502,55823,774,19636,128,83050,615,96777,924,43884,225,757

107,206,408199,917,000213,328,000226,996,000200,257,000214,261,000248,041,000260,919,000271,580,000320,500,000

---------

2.62.41.92.12.32.32.21.71.71.41.41.41.31.31.21.31.31.4

% of PhilippineFisheriesExports

Value (P)Year

Table. 2. Value of marine aquarium fish exports ofthe Philippines, 1970-2001 (BFAR 1979-1987; 1993-2001). Data prior to 1993 may include combinedaquarium and live reef food fish trade figures.

Marine aquarium fish trade 63

empowering local collectors’ cooperatives), to reducethe number of middlepersons. Investments should alsobe increased in research and mariculture of targetspecies to reduce pressure on wild populations.

Establishment of marine protected areas

There is a need to establish marine protected areas(MPAs) that include “no-take” zones (Salm et al. 2000)to act as shelters of breeding stocks and larval sources.Establishing these is a simpler management initiativebut involves complex issues (Salm et al. 2000) thatinclude site selection, optimal size and design, andother larger issues of management, enforcement andmonitoring. Collectors should be engaged in all aspectsof MPA design. Economic valuation that incorporatesprices and biological parameters of target species (suchas recruitment, growth and mortality) can be used toshow the long-term benefits of MPAs.

Active intervention for stock recovery

There might be a need for active intervention tospeed up recovery of populations to their natural levelsthrough restocking of MPAs and collection sites. Fishesthat have lost some scales or have sustained otherforms of injury are usually rejected because they havelow aesthetic value. These rejects can be reseeded incollection sites and MPAs. Precluding mortality dueto injury, these fishes have potential as additionalbreeding stocks. However, there is a need to collectdata on the survival and growth rates of thesereseeded fishes.

The Marine Aquarium Council

An outright ban on the aquarium trade iscounterproductive at this point. It is an economicallyimportant industry. The prospects of better resourcemanagement are also considerably brighter than thoseof many other fisheries. There is a relatively higherlevel of environmental awareness in the ornamentaltrade market. Hobbyists prefer getting fishes fromareas where animals are collected, handled andmanaged well. This is a positive aspect of the tradethat promotes better practices. This implies that tradelegislation controlling transport and avoidingdestructive practices may be relatively easier to impose.The Marine Aquarium Council is currently promotingthe certification of collection areas and all levels of thetrade based on numerous criteria of best practices.This includes the formulation of collectors’ areamanagement plans and emphasizing the traceability

of organisms caught from reef to retail. This isexpected to improve fishing effort, mortality and tradedata from collectors, middlepersons, exporters andimporters. There might also be a need to licensecollectors to discourage poaching in other areas.Hopefully, these initiatives can lead to sustainabilityof an important biological and economic resource ofmany fishing communities.

References

Albaladejo, V.D. and V.T. Corpuz. 1981. A market study of theaquarium fish industry of the Philippines: An assessment ofthe growth and the mechanics of the trade. Proc. Fourth Int.Coral Reef Symp. 1: 75-81.

Baquero, J. 1999. Marine ornamentals trade: Quality andsustainability for the Pacific region report. South Pacific ForumSecretariat, Suva, Fiji.

Barber, C.Y. and V.R. Pratt. 1997. Sullied seas: Strategies forcombating cyanide fishing in Southeast Asia and beyond.World Resources Institute and International MarinelifeAlliance, Manila, Philippines/Washington, DC, USA.

Bentley, N. 1999. Fishing for solutions: Can the live trade in wildgroupers and wrasses from Southeast Asia be managed?TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1979-1987.Fisheries statistics of the Philippines. Vols. 29-37. BFAR,Quezon City, Philippines. Var. pages.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1993-2001.Philippine fisheries profile. BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines.Var. pages.

Biffar, M. 1997. The worldwide trade in ornamental fish: Currentstatus, trends and problems. Bull. Eur. Assoc. Fish Pathol.17: 201-204.

Chan, T.T.C. and Y. Sadovy. 1998. Profile of the marine aquariumfish trade in Hong Kong. Aquar. Sci. Conserv. 2: 1-17.

Conroy, D.A. 1975. An evaluation of the present state of worldtrade in ornamental fish. Food and Agriculture Organization,Rome, Italy, and Inland Water Fishery DevelopmentProgramme, Bogota, Colombia.

Hall, K.C. and D.R. Bellwood. 1995. Histological effects of cyanide,stress and starvation on the intestinal mucosa of Pomacentruscoelestis, a marine aquarium fish species. J. Fish. Biol. 47:438-454.

Hanawa, M., L. Harris, M. Graham, A.P. Farrell and L.I. Bendell-Young. 1998. Effects of cyanide exposure on Dascyllusaruanus, a tropical marine fish species: Lethality, anaesthesiaand physiological effects. Aquar. Sci. Conserv. 2: 21-34.

Hay, M.E. 1984. Patterns of fish and urchin grazing on Caribbeancoral reefs: Are previous results typical? Ecology 65: 446-454.

Hingco, T.G. and R. Rivera. 1991. Aquarium fish industry in thePhilippines: Towards development or destruction?, p. 249-253. In L.M. Chou, T.E. Chua, H.W. Khoo, P.E. Lim, J.N. Paw,G.T. Silvestre, M.J. Valencia, A.T. White and P.K. Wong (eds.)Towards an integrated management of tropical coastalresources. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 22, 455 p.


Johannes, R.E. and M. Lam. 1999. The live reef food fish trade inthe Solomon Islands. Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityLive Reef Fish Inf. Bull. 5: 8-15.

Johannes, R.E. and M. Reipen. 1995. Environmental, economic,and social implications of the live reef fish trade in Asia andWestern Pacific. Report to The Nature Conservancy and theForum Fisheries Agency.

Jones, R.J. and O. Hoegh-Gulberg. 1999. Effects of cyanide oncoral photosynthesis: Implications for identifying the causeof coral bleaching and for assessing the environmental effectsof cyanide fishing. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 177: 83-91.

Koslow, J.A., F. Hanley and R. Wicklund. 1988. Effects of fishingon reef fish communities at Pedro Bank and Port Royal Cays,Jamaica. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 43: 201-221.

McAllister, D.E., E. Caho and C.T. Shih. 1999. Cyanide fisheries:Where did they start? Secretariat of the Pacific CommunityLive Reef Fish Inf. Bull. 5: 18-21.

Mous, P.J., L. Pet-Soede, M. Erdmann, H. Cesar, Y. Sadovy andJ.S. Pet. 2000. Cyanide fishing on Indonesian coral reefs forlive food fish market: What is the problem? Secretariat of thePacific Community Live Reef Fish Inf. Bull. 7:20-26.

Munro, J.L. and D.M. Williams. 1985. Assessment and managementof coral reef fisheries: Biological, environmental andsocioeconomic aspects. Proc. Fifth Int. Coral Reef Cong. 4:545-581.

Ochavillo, D.G., G. Hodgson, C. Shuman and R. Ruz. Fish densitydecline and community changes in ornamental collection reefsites in the Philippines. (In prep.).

Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management of tropical multispeciesstocks: A review with emphasis on the Southeast Asiandemersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 1, 35 p.

Pauly, D. 1988. Some definitions of overfishing relevant to coastalmanagement in Southeast Asia. Trop. Coast. Area Manage.3: 14-15.

Perino, L. 1990. Assessment of the feasibility of establishing anaquarium fish industry in Papua New Guinea. South PacificForum Fisheries Agency. FFA Rep. 90/30.

Pyle, R.L. 1993. Marine aquarium fish, p. 135-176. In A. Wrightand L. Hill (eds.) Nearshore marine resources of the SouthPacific. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands.

Rajasuriya, A., R.M. De Silva and M.C. Ohman. 1995. Coral reefsof Sri Lanka: Human disturbance and management issues.Ambio 24: 428-437.

Randall, J.E. 1987. Collecting reef fishes for aquaria, p.29-38. InB. Salvat (ed.) Human impacts on coral reefs: Facts andrecommendations. Antenne Museum, EPHE, French Polynesia.

Russ, G.R. 1991. Coral reef fisheries: Effects and yields, p. 601-634. In P.F. Sale (ed.) The ecology of fishes on coral reefs.Academic Press, San Diego, California. 754 p.

Russ, G.R. and A. Alcala. 1989. Effects of intense fishing pressureon an assemblage of coral reef fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.56: 13-27.

Sadovy, Y. 1992. A preliminary assessment of the marine aquariumexport trade in Puerto Rico. Proc. Seventh Int. Coral ReefSymp.: 1014-1022.

Sadovy, Y.J. and A.C.J. Vincent. 2002. Ecological issues and thetrades in live reef fishes, p. 391-420. In P.F. Sale (ed.) Coralreef fishes: Dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem.Academic Press, California, USA.

Sadovy, Y., G. Mitcheson and M.B. Rasotto. 2001. Earlydevelopment of the mandarinfish, Synchiropus splendidus(Callionymidae) with notes on its fishery and potential forculture. Aquar. Sci. Conserv. 3: 253-263.

Salm, R.V., J. Clark and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastal protectedareas: A guide for planners and managers. WorldConservation Union (IUCN), Washington, DC, USA. 371 p.

Tissot, B.N. and L.E. Hallacher. 1999. Impacts of aquariumcollectors on coral reef fishes in Kona, Hawaii. Tech. Rep.Division of Aquatic Resources, Department of Land and NaturalResources, Hawaii, USA.

Vallejo, B.V. 1997. Survey and review of the Philippine marineaquarium fish industry. Sea Wind 11: 2-16.

Warmolts, D.I. 2000. Marine medicinals in the aquarium trade, p.107-109. In M.A. Moreau, M.J. Hall and A.C.J. Vincent (eds.)Workshop on the Management and Culture of Marine SpeciesUsed in Traditional Medicines, Project Seahorse, Montreal,Canada.

Wheeler, J.A. 1996. The marine aquarium trade: A tool for coralreef conservation. Sustainable Development and ConservationBiology Program, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA.

Wood, E.M. 2001. Collection of coral reef fish for aquaria: Globaltrade, conservation issues and management strategies.Marine Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye, UK.

Coral reef fisheries: Diversity in adversity 65

Philippine Coral Reef Fisheries: Diversity in Adversity1

PORFIRIO M. ALIÑO2

CLETO NAÑOLA2

WILFREDO CAMPOS3

VINCENT HILOMEN4

ANDRE UYCHIAOCO2

SAMUEL MAMAUAG2

2Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, Quezon City 3College of Arts and Sciences, UP in the Visayas, Miag-ao, Iloilo

4Institute of Biological Sciences, UP Los Baños, LagunaPhilippines

Introduction

The Philippines is blessed with having one of themost extensive coral reef areas (second only toIndonesia) found in the heart of the highest marinebiodiversity region in the world. Reef fisheries havebeen estimated to directly contribute to around 15–30% of the total national municipal fisheries production(Carpenter and Alcala 1977; Murdy and Ferraris 1980).Total reef area in the Philippines covers around 27,000–44,000 km2 (Carpenter and Alcala 1977; Gomez 1980;White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998; Burke et al. 2002).

It is no surprise that it is in the Philippines thatreefs are at highest risk from overexploitation (Figure1), destructive fishing and other human-related impacts

such as coastal development and sedimentation (Burkeet al. 2002). To date, over 70% of coral reefs in thecountry are in a poor state, and less than 5% are inexcellent condition (Licuanan and Gomez 2002).

In addition, there is increasing evidence thatsusceptibility of reefs to El Niño-associated bleachingevents and their rate of recovery is related to the well-being of their diverse assemblage of species and itsfunctional integrity (e.g., trophic diversity) (Arceo etal. 2001; Cesar et al. 2001; Nañola et al. 2002). Thissuggests that it is difficult to tease out the effects ofnaturally induced stresses vis-à-vis human-inducedones. Jackson et al. (2001) showed that various fisheriesin the world have undergone different phases ofdecline due to overexploitation, and that reefs are

Figure 1. Mean catch rate (kg/day) of fishers in coral reef areas in the Philippines during different timeperiods (1950s-1990s) (adapted from Dalzell 1996; Uychiaoco and Torres 2002; Uy et al. 2002; Uy et al.2003).

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ALIÑO, P.M., C. NAÑOLA, W. CAMPOS, V. HILOMEN, A. UYCHIAOCO and S.MAMAUAG. 2004. Philippine coral reef fisheries: diversity in adversity, p. 65-69. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


stark examples of phase shifts (i.e., coral to algaldomination) in the habitat’s benthic communitystructure.

Nowhere is the understanding of reefs and theirmanagement as challenging and frustrating as in areasof highest diversity and complex human development(Roberts et al. 2002). Learning from the Philippineexperience is important to improve our understandingof reef ecosystems and effective management of reeffisheries. The complexity of the coral reef ecosystemis manifested in the country’s varied fishing systemsand gears in its highly diverse multispecies reeffisheries. Dalzell’s (1996) review of catch rates in coralreef fisheries and data compiled by White et al. (2000)(Table 1) seem to suggest that Philippine catch ratesare among the lowest in the world. The diminishedcatch rates (Figure 1 and Table 1), however, seem tobe the result of the problem of overexploitation anddestruction of reef habitats. Aliño and Dantis (1999)reviewed the application of an ecosystem model(Ecopath) (Walters et al. 1997) on a reef system in thePhilippines, and their results suggest the vulnerabilityof reef fisheries to intense multispecies exploitation ashas been previously suggested by Grigg et al. (1984).It is hypothesized that the high diversity of Philippinereefs has helped in its resilience to fishing pressure.The reported phase shifts in Caribbean reefs (Hughes1994), which may have had a decade of lag-time in theface of extremely high fishing pressure, should serveas a warning to the Philippines.

The Case of Bolinao: No Sharks,No Sea Urchins and a Few Rabbitfish

The study by McManus et al. (1997) of the Bolinaoreef fisheries shows that there might be a cascadingeffect in the change in species composition of its fishassemblages. Recently, it has been suggested that fishstanding stocks in Bolinao have decreased to half itsvalue two decades ago (Deocadez et al., in press).

The case of Bolinao and Lingayen Gulf is a familiarone in many developing countries. Many of the fisheriesmanagement measures have been based on “demand-side” approaches (e.g., allowable catch for single speciesstocks). In addition, the development concerns ofstakeholders have not been appropriately considered.For example, the scale of the stock boundaries (e.g.,area of management vis-à-vis stakeholder and userdomains and fisheries resources interaction) still needsto be effectively addressed.

In Bolinao, the declines in fishery resources havebeen perceived since the late 1980s but solutions tothe situation have not been agreed upon bystakeholders in the area. Most fishers contend thatthere has not really been a considerable decline instocks, but rather just an increase in the number offishers. Initial interventions to regulate the harvest ofmajor stocks (by banning commercial harvest of seaurchins, Tripneustes gratilla, and closed seasons forrabbitfish, Siganus fuscescens) have been too late andinadequate (Juinio-Meñez et al. 1998). The sea urchinstock has collapsed and smaller rabbitfish are nowbeing harvested. A 150-ha sanctuary area was initially

Table 1. Estimates of yield from various reef fisheries in the Philippines (compilations by Dalzell 1996 and White etal. 2000 based on independent studies).

Location Area of reef (km2) Depth fished (m) Yield (t km-2year-1) Year of data collection

Sumilon Island 0.5 40 9.7 1976Sumilon Island 0.5 40 14 1977Sumilon Island 0.5 40 15 1978Sumilon Island 0.5 40 23.7 1979Sumilon Island 0.5 40 19.9 1980Sumilon Island 0.5 40 36.9 1983Sumilon Island 0.5 40 19.9 1985Apo Island 1.5 60 11.4 1980Apo Island 0.7 20 31.8 1985Apo Island 1.06 60 24.9 1987Selinog Island 1.26 30 6 1982Hulao-hulao 0.5 15 5.2 1985Pamilacan Island 1.8 20 10.7 1985Bolinao Reef 42 reef slope 2.7 1990Bolinao Reef - reef flat 12 1990San Salvador 3.4 40 7 1989San Salvador 3.4 40 14 1990


proposed based on the migratory spawning route ofrabbitfish. After negotiating for over six years forestablishment of the fish sanctuary, its size wasconsiderably reduced to around 20 ha without anyeffective implementation. The primary resistance toestablishment of a no-take fish sanctuary was that itwould threaten the livelihood of over a thousandsubsistence fishers in the area. Innovative ways hadto be pursued to improve management, includingfacilitation for setting up de facto reproductive reserves(Arceo et al. 2002). Eventually, other village fisherswere also motivated to establish growout areas forsea urchins and rabbitfish (Pastor et al. 2000; Juinio-Meñez et al. 2001).

The Bolinao experience shows that establishing no-take areas is important. However, with the complexmultispecies fishery and diverse user groups, multi-pronged approaches are necessary to make anyheadway (Uychiaoco et al. 2003). In the case of initiativesin Palawan, as in Bolinao fisheries, managementmeasures had to be pursued in the context of integratedcoastal management (Arceo et al. 2002).

The importance of a “large picture” perspective isseen in the evolution of the commercial reef fisheryusing muro-ami. Banned in 1986, the clamor to lift theban was seen more as a need to modify a fishing gearto be less destructive, rather than regulating a veryeffective and destructive gear (Miclat et al. 1991). Thus,the bubble-fishing scareline technique called pa-aling wasdeveloped to replace muro-ami. The development andeventual operations of pa-aling required that mechanismsfor monitoring and evaluation of the fishery be put inplace. Aside from addressing the child labor concernsassociated with the gear, the area of operation wasalso restricted to Sulu Sea and South China Sea (Figure2). Abesamis et al. (2000) showed the difficulties ofimplementing compliance to regulations in the fishing

areas, further illustrating the complex challenges anddiverse social issues associated with reef fisheriesmanagement.

Hope Springs Forth in Adversity

Despite the numerous frustrations experienced inmanaging reef fisheries (e.g., muro-ami and pa-alingcommercial reef fisheries) (Miclat et al. 1991; Abesamiset al. 2000), coral reefs in the country have been theobject for development of models for best practices incoastal resources management. The exemplary worksof Alcala and co-workers (Alcala 2001) have shownpromising results in the enhancement of adjacentartisanal fisheries (see also papers on marine protectedareas in this volume – Hermes, White et al., Aliño et al.).Juinio-Meñez et al. (2000) illustrated the potentials forstock enhancement through marine reproductivereserves as another avenue of opportunity. The potentialof “shifter investments” such as ecotourism (White andVogt 2000) and the linkage of livelihood options toeffective coastal management are imperatives toaddress excess fishing effort.

A range of actions has been suggested to addressthe issues impacting reef fisheries in the Philippines.Discussed below are some of the importantmanagement directions.

Enhancing capabilities of local communitiesand promoting good local governance

Many fishing communities in the Philippines areoverpopulated, diverse, with diffused artisanaltechnologies and in dire economic conditions. Thereis a need to address the disparity in incomedistributions, population growth and exacerbatedconflicts of interest in fisheries. These issues require

Figure 2. Mean catch-per-unit effort (t/drive/year) of pa-aling operations by 1o grid squares from1996 to 1998 (Abesamis et al. 2000).


more equitable distribution of access and benefitsderived from fisheries management. An importantrequisite is that the capabilities of communities aredeveloped sufficiently so that they are sociallyprepared to undertake management at various levels(e.g., individuals, households and local governments).In many areas, good governance practices in fisheriesmanagement are lacking or corrupted. Transparencyin giving fishing license concessions, fisheries registriesand reliable reef fisheries statistics are wanting in mostcoastal municipalities. Nonaccountability of localgovernment officials (e.g., coddling blast fishing andother illegal activities like poison fishing and the useof fine mesh nets) and nonimplementation/nonenforcement of laws are widespread (and oftenreferred to as lack of political will). Participatorydecisionmaking is only starting to be appreciated inmany municipalities (e.g., through Fisheries andAquatic Resources Management Councils, if presentand active).

Institutionalizing adaptive managementand effective monitoring, controland surveillance system

Capabilities of communities and institutions at alllevels need to be sustained through an adaptivemanagement cycle. This cycle suggests thatinstitutional arrangements and management measuresshould not be delayed due to insufficient knowledge.Through a precautionary approach based on bestavailable knowledge, timely action should incorporatea way to gauge the effectiveness of managementactions (e.g., monitoring the effectiveness of controllingillegal fishing). In areas where management controlsare effective, there should be a feedback of informationfor further improvement of management (e.g.,information, education and communication to reducecosts through improved coordination or to increaserevenues due to better management). Earlier it wasmentioned that available fisheries information (e.g.,statistics) is insufficient to be effectively utilized forproactive management.

Innovative livelihood opportunities andsustained financing of resources management

Since reef fisheries are mostly artisanal,investments to motivate reduced fisheries extraction(e.g., ecotourism cases in the Visayas, White et al. 2000)or engender fisheries management stewardship arenecessary (e.g., marine reproductive reserves and seaurchin growout such as in Bolinao). Broadening theincome base and providing credit for the

entrepreneurial poor would be important and wouldalso require capability-building for the targetbeneficiaries. Linking fisheries management to theoverall coastal management process would indicatemany areas of opportunities in their financial planningand programming (e.g., increasing internal revenueallotments to fund management and appropriateprioritization and balancing of cost and revenue centersin local coastal management areas).

References

Abesamis, R., D. Jocson and P. Aliño. 2000. Commercial-scalefishing on Philippine coral reefs. (Abstract). Paper presentedduring the Ninth International Coral Reef Symposium, 22October 2000, Bali, Indonesia.

Alcala, A.C. 2001. Marine reserves in the Philippines: Historicaldevelopment, effects and influence on marine conservationpolicy. Bookmark, Makati City, Philippines. 115 p.

Aliño, P.M. and A. Dantis. 1999. Lessons from the biodiversitystudies of reefs: Going beyond quantities and qualities ofmarine life, p. 78-85. In Proceedings of the Symposium onMarine Biodiversity in the Visayas and Mindanao, Universityof the Philippines in the Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

Arceo, H.O., M.M.S. Aguinaldo and P.M. Aliño. 2002. An orientationon marine protected areas: Coastal resources managementtools. In Enhancing community participation in fisheryresources management. Marine Science Institute, Universityof the Philippines, the Royal Netherlands Embassy andInternational Development Research Center, Canada. 45 p.

Arceo, H., M. Quibilan, P. Aliño, G. Lim and W. Licuanan. 2001.Coral bleaching in Philippine reefs: Coincident evidences withmesoscale thermal anomalies. Bull. Mar. Sci. 69(2): 579-593.

Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in SoutheastAsia. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. 72 p.

Carpenter , K.E. and A.C. Alcala. 1977. Philippine coral reeffisheries resources. Part II. Muro-ami and kayakas reeffisheries, benefit or bane? Philipp. J. Fish. 15: 217-235.

Cesar, H., L. Pet-Soede, M.C. Quibilan, P.M. Aliño, H. Arceo, I.Bacudo and H. Francisco. 2001. First evaluation of the impactsof the 1998 coral bleaching event to fisheries and tourism inthe Philippines. In H. Schuttenberg (ed.) Coral bleaching:causes, consequences and response. Coastal ResourcesCenter, University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island, USA.

Dalzell, P. 1996. Catch rates, selectivity and yields of reef fishing,p. 161-192. In N.V.C. Polunin and C.M. Roberts (eds.) Reeffisheries. Chapman and Hall, Florida, USA.

Deocadez, M., P. Aliño, A. Bautista, P. Gaite, B. Ronquillo and V.Prado. In press. Reef fish community dynamics indicators:Deriving lessons from Lingayen Gulf. Philipp. Sci.

Gomez, E. 1980. Status report on research and degradationproblems of the coral reefs of the East Asian Seas. In Meetingof Experts to Review the Draft Action Plan for the East AsianSeas, 17-21 June 1980, Baguio City. UNEP/WG41/INF, SouthChina Sea Fisheries Development Coordinating Program,Manila. 68 p.

Grigg, R.W., J.J. Polovina and M.J. Atkinson. 1984. Model of acoral reef ecosystem. III. Resource limitation, communityregulation, fisheries yield and resource management. CoralReefs 3: 23-27.


Hughes, T. 1994. Catastrophies, phase shifts and large scaledegradation of a Caribbean coral reef. Science 265: 1547-1551.

Jackson, J.B.C., M.X. Kriby, W.H. Berger, K.A. Bjorndal, L.W.Botsford, B.J. Bourque, R.H. Bradbury, R. Cooke, J.Erlandson, J.A. Estes, T.P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C.B. Lange,H.S. Lenihan, J.M. Pandolfi, C.H. Peterson, R.S. Steneck,M.J. Tegner and R.R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishingand the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629-638.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A.R, M. Malay and H. Bangi. 2001. Sea-urchingrow-out culture. Coastal resources management tools.Marine Environment Resources Foundation, Inc., MarineScience Institute, University of the Philippines, Quezon City,Philippines. 34 p.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A.R., N. Macawaris and H. Bangi. 1998.Community-based sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) grow-outculture as a resource management tool. In G.S. Jamiesonand A. Campbell (eds.) Proceedings of the North PacificSymposium on Invertebrate Stock Assessment andManagement. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125: 393-399.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A., S.G. Salmo III, E. Tamayo, N.G. Estepa, H.G.Bangi and P. Aliño. 2000. “Bugsay”. Community environmentaleducation: Experiences from Bolinao, northern Philippines.Community-based Coastal Resources Management Program,Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, QuezonCity, Philippines. 126 p.

Licuanan, W.Y. and E.D. Gomez. 2002. Philippine coral reefs: Statusand the role of the academe to improve their management.Proc. 9th Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2: 835-840.

McManus, J., R.B. Reyes and C.L. Nañola, Jr. 1997. Effects ofsome destructive fishing methods on coral cover and potentialrates of recovery. Environ. Manage. 21(1): 69-78.

Miclat, R.I., P.M. Aliño, N. Aragones, C.L. Nañola Jr. and E. Aguilar.1991. Pa-aling: An alternative to muro-ami? Philipp. J. Fish.22: 29-38.

Murdy, E. and C. Ferraris. 1980. The contribution of coral reeffisheries to Philippine fisheries production. ICLARM Newsl. 3:21-22.

Nañola, C.L. Jr., P.M. Aliño, A.L. Dantis, M.C. Rañola, V. Hilomenand J. Cabansag. 2002. Understanding Philippine reef fishes:A key to fisheries management and marine biodiversityconservation, p. 22-26. In P.M. Aliño, E.F.B. Miclat, C.L.Nañola, Jr., H.A. Roa-Quiaoit and R.T. Campos (eds.) Atlasof Philippine coral reefs. Goodwill Trading Co., Quezon City,Philippines.

Pastor, D., F. Castrence, P. Aliño and M.A. Juinio-Meñez. 2000.Challenges and frustrations in an over-fished multi-speciesreef fisheries. (Abstract). Paper presented during the NinthInternational Coral Reef Symposium, 22 October 2000, Bali,Indonesia.

Roberts, C., C. McClean, J. Veron, J. Hawkins, G. Allen, D.McAllister, C. Mittermeier, F. Schueler, M. Spalding, F. Wells,C. Vynne and T. Werner. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspotsand conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science295(5558):1280-1284.

Uy, W., A. de Guzman, M. Quiñones and H. Dejarme. 2002.Participatory coastal resource assessment of the municipalityof Tabina, Zamboanga del Sur, p. 49-78. Report to PhilippineEnvironmental Governance Program (EcoGov-Mindanao),Quezon City, Philippines.

Uy, W., H. Dejarme, R. Abrea and M. Salarda. 2003. Participatorycoastal resource assessment of the municipality of Tukuran,Zamboanga del Sur, p. 61-96. Report to Philippine

Environmental Governance Program (EcoGov-Mindanao),Quezon City, Philippines.

Uychiaoco, A. and F. Torres, Jr. 2002. The fisheries of selectedvillages of Northern Palawan. Resource and ecological habitatassessment of the island-ecosystems in Northern Palawanand training on participatory coastal resource assessment,p. 89-99. Final Report. Path Foundation Philippines, Inc.

Uychiaoco, A., F. Castrence, Jr. and P.M. Aliño. 2003. A decade ofBolinao reef fish and fisheries: Part I. Fisheries, p. 18-23. InP.M. Aliño (ed.) Philippine coral reefs through time. Coral ReefInformation Network of the Philippines (PhilReefs) and MarineScience Institute, University of the Philippines, Quezon City,Philippines.

Walters, C.J., V. Christensen and D. Pauly. 1997. Structuringdynamic models of exploited ecosystems from trophic mass-balance assessments. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 7: 1-34.

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management arecritical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines. 96 p.

White, A.T. and H. Vogt. 2000. Philippine coral reefs under threat:Lessons after 25 years of community-based reefconservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40(6): 537-550.

White, A.T., H. Vogt and T. Arin. 2000. Philippine coral reefs underthreat: The economic losses caused by reef destruction. Mar.Pollut. Bull. 40(7): 598-605.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: HERMES, R. 2004. Capture fisheries for larval and juvenile fish, p. 70-71. In DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Capture Fisheries for Larval and Juvenile Fish1

RUDOLF HERMESVisayan Sea Coastal Resources and Fisheries Management Project

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources-Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)

Iloilo City 5000Philippines

Preventing the continued and massive capture offish that have not yet reproduced should be a majorgoal of fisheries management. This is to counter thedownward production trend experienced in anincreasing number of fishing grounds around theworld (Des Clers and Nauen 2002). However, thereare some specialized fisheries in the Philippinestargeting postlarvae or early juveniles of certain fishspecies which are very marketable since they areconsidered delicacies. Others are targeted as seedstock for aquaculture production while the by-catchof these fry collection activities are usually left lyingon the shore.

In many “wet” markets or fish markets aroundthe country (from Southern Leyte to Batangas,Zambales and Iloilo) one can observe the sale of thegrayish-white dulong. A variety of larval, postlarvaland early juvenile fish species may be sold under thisname. Often, these may consist of goby fry (some evenclaim that dulong is the dwarf pygmy goby Pandakapygmaea Herre 1927, a threatened species on the IUCNRed List). Dulong are sometimes postlarvae or earlyjuveniles of anchovies of the genus Stolephorus(Engraulidae), a fish taxon of great importance as foodcommodity, and perhaps even more so, as part of themarine food web. They are even considered an exportcommodity, marketed frozen as lobo-lobo (anchovies)to Taiwan or Japan. Locally, dulong is traded eitherfresh or dried. Only slightly older but still immature,dried anchovies are very popular fingerfood (spicydilis).

Goby fry fisheries are taking place in many partsof the tropical Indo-Pacific Ocean as well as in theCaribbean, but the most important one in terms ofproduction is reported from the Philippines (Bell 1999and references therein). The bulk of these fisheriesare highly seasonal and carried out in estuaries during

certain moon phases; its targets are the postlarvae orfry of goby species of the genus Sicyopterus in IlocosNorte (Ungson and Hermes 1985). Similar fisheriesexist in parts of Northern Mindanao. Goby fry, locallycalled ipon, are usually preserved through a traditionalfermentation process and marketed as bagoong (fishsauce).

A similar processing method is applied in the caseof padas, the early juveniles of rabbitfish (Siganidae);most commonly S. canaliculatus (Park, 1797), but alsolarger growing siganid species of considerableeconomic importance as adults. The capture of padas iswidespread in the Philippines, particularly in someparts of Pangasinan, northern Mindanao (Danao Bay,Lopez Jaena), Palawan and Cebu. In addition tofermentation, padas are also marketed dried. Anothervery popular food item are the juvenile stages ofcertain flatfishes (Bothidae), marketed also in driedform (palad) and consumed as snack food.

Best known among the fisheries for early life stagesof fish is probably the collection of bangus fry, Chanoschanos (Forsskal , 1775). This activity is considered ofgreat importance to the aquaculture industry and hasbeen studied intensively over the years (e.g., Smith1981; Ahmed et al. 2001 and references therein). Thisfishery of course differs from the above examples, asthe target is not the immediate consumption, but therearing and growout. Fry collection is seasonal withpeak months from April to June and concentrated ingeneral on the western provinces of the country.Utilizing traditional nonselective stationary gears andpushnets, the fry gatherers also collect large numbersof postlarvae and juveniles of other marine species. Itcan be assumed that most of these are discarded asunwanted and are destroyed on the beach. There isan urgent need for studies on the quantification of theby-catch problem which up to now is still hampered

Capture fisheries for larval and juvenile fish 71

by the dearth of expertise on ichthyoplanktontaxonomy. It should be considered good news in thiscontext that an increasing supply of bangus fry is nowavailable from hatcheries.

There are, however, as yet no commercial hatcheryfacilities to supply the demand for early juvenile stagesof certain species of groupers, lapu-lapu (Serranidae,Epinephelinae) which have become very popular inthe local aquaculture and live fish trade. Juveniles andfingerlings – slightly larger though than in the aboveexamples - for stocking fish cages are still collectedfrom the wild which could lead to local overfishing ofthese predatory fish. The situation is aggravated bythe still widespread use of cyanide in gatheringactivities, leading to great losses not only of theresource but also to the destruction of habitats.

Early life history stages of marine fish experiencea relatively high natural mortality. Adding fisheriesmortality as a consequence of these becoming the targetof capture fisheries could easily lead to more severeoverfishing. Local declines are already experienced insome bangus fry and lobo-lobo fisheries. Therefore, itnot only makes good environmental, but also economicsense to protect and conserve enough young fish toallow these to reach maturity and reproduce. Mattersare made more complicated and even worse throughthe fact that the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998(Section 89) can be interpreted as expressly allowingthe use of very fine mesh net (which is bannedotherwise) to capture early life stages of fish and smallshrimps (alamang), contrary to the much neededprotection and conservation measures for early lifestages of fish.

Fisheries, for which overfishing is not only a threat,but already a common experience in many parts ofthe country, cannot afford to reduce recruitmentthrough the systematic capture of postlarval, juvenileand immature fish. A considerable reduction orphaseout of these activities should therefore bepursued.

References

Ahmed, M., G.A. Magnayon-Umali, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, J.Toledo, N. Lopez and F. Torres, Jr. 2001. Bangus fry resourceassessment in the Philippines. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 58, 38 p.

Bell, K.N.I. 1999. An overview of goby-fry fisheries. Naga 22 (4):30-36.

Des Clers, S. and C.E. Nauen. 2002. New concepts and indicatorsin fisheries and aquaculture. ACP-EU Fish. Res. Rep. (13): 72p.

Smith, I.R. 1981. The economics of milkfish fry and fingerlingindustry in the Philippines. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 1, 148 p.

Ungson, J.R. and R. Hermes. 1985. Species composition andrelative abundance of goby fry and by-catch at Santa, IlocosSur in 1982/83. Fish. Res. J. Philipp. 10 (1/2): 1-8.


Fisheries in Deep-water Areas of the Philippines1

JIMELY O. FLORESTetra Tech EM, Inc.



1 This paper can be cited as follows: FLORES, J.O. 2004. Fisheries in deep-water areas of the Philippines, p. 72-78. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Introduction

Deep-water areas as defined in this contributioninclude marine waters with depths exceeding 200 m. Ofthe Philippine territorial waters, about 88% (or 288,000km2) are deep-waters (Munro 1986) (Figure 1). Theseareas are truly extensive yet our knowledge about themis extremely meager. The deep-waters are fragileecosystems. High pressure, low temperature, lowdissolved oxygen and scarcity of food supply arecharacteristic environmental factors of deep-water areas,which affect the life history and distribution of organisms.

The ecology and biology of most deep-waterorganisms are less understood compared to theircoastal, shallow-water counterparts. In deep-waterecosystems, species diversity is relatively higher andfood-web structure is more complex compared tocoastal, shallow-water environments. Most deep-water organisms have fragile life historiescharacterized by long life spans, slow growth rates,late ages at maturity and limited reproductivepotentials. These make most deep-water organismshighly susceptible to collapse in the face of high fishingpressure.

Studies of Deep-water Areas

Despite the extensive area of our deep-waters,knowledge about their ecology, biology andproductivity is relatively low. Past studies (Table 1)consist mostly of exploratory studies and surveys, withthe biological component focused mainly on systematicsor taxonomy. Pauly (1986) provided a concise reviewof these studies. Highlights of the more recent worksare briefly discussed below.

There are at least 104 species recorded from deep-water studies in Panay Gulf, off Mindoro and offMarinduque. The species belong to various groups, viz.bonyfishes, cartilaginous fishes, jawless fishes, eels,shrimps, crabs and lobsters (Flores 1997, 2000; Ingles1998; Ingles and Flores 2002). Figure 2 (a-c) illustratesvariations in catch composition using Z-traps at differentdepth levels in Panay Gulf (off Guimaras Island). Atshallower depths of about 200 m, eels and crabsdominate the catches. Eels are mostly composed of thegenus Conger and Ophicthus; crabs, Charybdis andPortunus; shrimps, mostly Plesionika; and fishes consistof commonly marketed species caught in deeper shelfwaters (i.e., threadfin breams, scorpion fishes, pufferfishes).

At over 200-400 m depth range, eels (mostlyOphicthus spp.) constitute a dominant portion (over 85%)of the catch. Shrimps, mostly Heterocarpus spp.; fishes,composed of ratfishes (Macrouridae and Moridae); andjawless hagfishes (Eptatretus spp.) become a significantpart of the catch. At depths of more than 400 m, eels,jawless hagfishes and bonyfishes (ratfishes) more orless equally dominate the catch. Eels are ofSynaphobranchus genus; shrimps are mostly ofHeterocarpus spp.; and crabs are mostly spider crabs(family Majidae).

The composition of the catch of Z-traps set in deepwaters off Marinduque and Mindoro shows similardominance of eels. The various groups comprising thecatch off Marinduque are shown in Figure 3 and offMindoro, in Figure 4. The catch composition snapshotsgiven in Figures 2 - 4 are reflective of species catchabilityto the particular fishing gear (Z-traps) used in thestudies. Hence, these may not reflect actual relativeabundance of various groups of living marine resources

Fisheries in deep-water areas 73

Figure 1. Map showing the deep-water areas (over 200 m depth) around the Philippines.


in deep-water areas but at least illustrate a little onthe ecology of deep-water areas in the Philippines.

Deep-water Fisheries in the Philippines

The deep-sea fisheries resources in the countryare in many cases uncharted and unknown, and arebelieved to be relatively underexploited (Ingles andBabaran 1998). Fisheries activities in deep-sea areasare limited to surface waters of the pelagic region (seeZaragosa et al., this vol., about fisheries for large andsmall pelagic species). The only deep-water fisheriesresource that has a documented history of wide-scaleexploitation is the dogfish shark. In most cases, anumber of enterprising fishers undertake sporadicexploitation of deep-water resources, but these effortsare too few and scattered and thus remain largelyundocumented.

Boom and bust storyof the dogfish shark fishery

The dogfish shark (family Squalidae) fishing in thePhilippines started in 1967 in San Joaquin, Iloilo, andsubsequently expanded and developed into nationwidefisheries (Encina 1973). The main landing sites fordogfish shark fishers are shown in Figure 5. The speciescaught mostly belong to the genus Centrophorus (Table2). The shark liver oil, from which the chemical substancecalled squalene is extracted, is exported to Japan, HongKong, USA and China. Squalene is used as additive to

various health supplements and forms the base of manycosmetic products.

Dogfish sharks are mainly caught using bottom-set multiple hook-and-line. There are many variationsof the gear, and differences lie mainly in the numberand size of hooks and the rope materials used. Thegear is baited either with salted or chopped fresh fish.Fishing techniques likewise vary among areas. In someareas, fishers prefer to set their gear at dusk and haul itat dawn, while in others, the gear is set at dawn andretrieved at noontime or late afternoon. However, mostdogfish shark fishers prefer to fish at night.

In many places (like Batangas Bay, waters offMarinduque and as far south as Sarangani Bay), thefishery always starts as a highly profitable venture. Thefishery, lacking effective management and based on aresource that is highly fragile to exploitation, usuallycollapses after about 10 years. When this happens,buyers pull out of the area and return only after about6-10 years to resume buying operations. For example,the current dogfish shark fisheries off Marinduque,Bondoc Peninsula and Batangas restarted only threeyears ago after they ceased fishing operations in 1985.In the Mindanao area, dogfish shark fishing sufferedthe same boom and bust cycle over the years.

Evolving demersal and pelagic fisheries

The situation of capture fisheries throughout thecountry is fast changing. Because of unregulated fishingand overharvesting in coastal, shallow waters (near the

Year Deep-sea Exploration/Survey

1799-18171839-18431857-18581873-18761907-19101907-19121927192919301940s19481950s195119921996-1997199820002001

H Samarang explorationHMS Erebus and Terror explorationNavarra expeditionChallenger expeditionSiboga and Albatross expeditionPlanet expeditionEmden expeditionRSS Dana II expeditionHMS Villebrord Snellius expeditionCape Johnson explorationExploratory surveys for deepwater sharksExploratory surveys for a living fossil crustacean in Verde PassageGalathea expeditionResource and ecological assessment of Ormoc BaySurvey of nontraditional invertebrate stocks in Panay GulfDeepwater survey off MarinduqueDeepwater survey off MindoroDeepwater survey in Davao Gulf

Table 1. Deep-water explorations and surveys in Philippine waters (Estampador 1937;Chace 1983; Pauly 1986; Estrellada 1991; Ingles 1992, 1998; Flores 1997, 2000; andIngles and Flores 2002).


Figure 2. Composition of the catch of Z-traps in Panay Gulf set in: (a) about 200 m; (b) over 200-400 m; and (c) over 400 m (Flores 1997).


Figure 3. Composition of the catch of Z-traps set in deep waters offMarinduque (Ingles 1998).

Table 2. Species of dogfish shark exploitedfor liver oil.

Centrophorus lusitanicusCentrophorus isodonSqualus blainvilleiCentrophorus cf mollucensisCentrophorus cf rostrataCentrophorus uyatoCentrophorus granulosusCymnorhinus licha

shoreline to 100 m depth where fishing activities haveconcentrated in the past), fishing grounds of both pelagicand demersal fisheries are advancing into deeperwaters. Typical examples are the trap and hook-and-line fisheries in many areas.

The traditional hook-and-line fisheries haveevolved in some areas as a consequence of the fastdeclining catch of most traditional fishing gears. Fishingoperations have been modified to exploit deep-waterresources. In Davao Gulf, the multiple hook-and-line(panonton/palangre) fisheries have evolved to operate inthe deep-waters. Most of the deep-water fishers arefrom the southern part of Davao City. The fishingdepths are between 150-400 m. Preliminary analysis ofcatch composition (Figure 6) shows that there are atleast 7 kinds of fishes caught. The most common ofthese are Trichiurius spp. and what is locally calledbakalaw (species identification still under verification).Preliminary analysis indicates an average catch rate of5.3 kg/day. The catches have a high market potential.Even the bakalaw, which is not a familiar food fish toFilipinos, finds a ready market among Chinese residentsof Davao City.

Figure 4. Composition of the catch of Z-traps set in deep waters offMindoro Oriental (Flores 2000).

The conger eel, Ophicthus urolophos, is one of themajor catches of deep-water traps in Panay Gulf, offMindoro and off Marinduque. It is at present not arecognized food fish in the country. However, inKorea, this species is highly sought and is consideredone of the most expensive processed food fishes.

The deep-water shrimps (pasayang pula) caught bytraps in Davao Gulf at water depths of 200-600 m aremostly of the species Plesionika spp., Heterocarpus sibogaeand H. gibbosus. In Davao City, where exploitation ofthese species started, most of the buyers areTaiwanese. A fisher usually uses only two traps perfishing operation baited with raw skewered duckmeat.

Moreover, hagfishes (Eptatretus spp.) can also be apotential resource, maybe not as food fish but forindustrial uses. Given the right technology andprocessing techniques, these species could becomehighly profitable fisheries in the Philippines.

Preparing for the Future

The pressure to exploit deep-water fisheriesresources is growing given the highly depletedresources and increasing regulations in shallow watermarine areas of the country. Deep-water areas are fastbeing considered as alternative fishing grounds.However, deep-water resources are already knownas highly fragile to large-scale exploitation. The boomand bust story of the dogfish shark fisheries is a primeexample.

It is therefore necessary that a national policy onthe management of deep-water fisheries resources beenacted urgently. This is in order to prevent a fatesimilar to what many of our coastal fisheries resourceshave suffered. The government should take a proactivestand by installing a sound management plan that


Figure 5. Main landing sites for dogfish sharks in the Philippines.


Figure 6. Composition of the catch of multiple hooks and line used in deepwaters in Davao Gulf. (*Species still in National Museum awaiting identification.)

Precaution!

The deep-water resources may have a high potential. However,deep-water ecosystems and fishes are quite fragile compared totheir coastal, shallow water counterparts. Irresponsible fishingpractices will lead to their rapid collapse. Well-defined andappropriate management schemes, supported by sound scientificstudies, must first be put in place before any fishery on theseresources is even considered.

would regulate deep-water fisheries development inthe country. Priority must also be given to collectionof scientific information on, and sound assessment of,deep-water resources. Moreover, internationalexperiences on the impacts of fishing on deep-waterresources and ecosystems should be documented andlessons should be drawn for the country’s benefit. Themotto of “no science, no exploitation” should beheeded. After all, the deep-water resources are thecountry’s very last frontier.

References

Chace, F.A., Jr. 1983. The caridean shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda)of the Albatross Philippine Expedition, 1907-1910, Part I:Family Stylodactylidae. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. No. 381.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Encina, V.B. 1973. The discovery and distribution of the spinydogfish shark resource in the Philippines. Philipp. J. Fish.11(1/2): 127-141.

Estampador, E. 1937. Checklist of Philippine crustacean decapods.Philipp. J. Sci. 62(4): 465-559.

Estrellada, R. 1991. A contribution to the biology of the deep seaprawn, (Heterocarpus gibbosus Bate, 1888, family Pandalidae)caught by trap in inner Davao Gulf. University of the Philippinesin the Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines. 83 p. M.S. thesis.

Flores, J.O. 1997. Assessment of the fisheries potential of deep-sea resources in Panay Gulf, Philippines. College of Fisheries,University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.92 p. M.S. thesis.

Flores, J.O. 2000. An evaluation of the fisheries resources offPinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Woodward-Clyde Philippines,Inc. and URS International, Mandaluyong City, Philippines.21 p. (Unpublished).

Ingles, J.A. 1992. Resource and ecological assessment of OrmocBay. Vol. 3. The fisheries of Ormoc Bay, Philippines. FisheriesSector Program, Department of Agriculture, Quezon City,Philippines. 90 p.

Ingles, J.A. 1998. A survey of the deep water fisheries resourcesoff Western Marinduque Island, Philippines. Woodward-ClydePhilippines, Inc. and URS International, Mandaluyong City,Philippines. 28 p. (Unpublished).

Ingles, J.A. and J.O. Flores. 2002. A resource survey of offshoreand non-traditional invertebrates in Panay Gulf, Philippines.Bureau of Agricultural Research, Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines.

Ingles, J.A. and R. Babaran. 1998. Managing the fisheries ofGuimaras Island. Final report. SMISLE-Zone 1. 240 p.

Pauly, D. 1986. A brief historical review of living marine resourcesresearch in the Philippines, p. 3-18. In D. Pauly, J. Saegerand G. Silvestre (eds.) Resources, management and socio-economics of the Philippine marine fisheries. Dept. Mar. Fish.Tech. Rep. 10, 217 p.

Coastal ecosystem stewardship 79

Introduction

Production associated with coastal ecosystemscontributes around 65% (i.e., municipal capture fisheriesand aquaculture fisheries yields) of the total fisheriesproduction of the Philippines. Marine capture fisheriesconsistently remain to be the most important sector ofthe country’s fisheries. Aquaculture is expected toaccount for over 35% of the total harvests, and hence,complements overall fisheries production (Aguilar 2001).It remains to be seen, however, if it is realistic to expectan increase in commercial capture fisheries productionconsidering the status of the various multispeciesfisheries.

One of the great challenges of the fisheries sector ishow it will be able to compensate for the projecteddeficits in fish supply given the increasing demand dueto population growth. By the year 2010, if the annualpopulation growth of the Philippines continues at 2.4%,then a considerable deficit in fisheries yield relative toper capita consumption is expected (Bernascek 1996).Silvestre (1989) cited initial delphi analyses of the variousfishing areas in the Philippines and showed that mostof these areas are already fully to overexploited (seealso Fox’s map in White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998). Asidefrom overfishing, habitat degradation and pollution aresome of the other main concerns. Philippine fisheriesare particularly vulnerable to perceptions of hazards tofood safety and health, especially in the highlycompetitive and global economy.

The Significance of Coastal Ecosystem Stewardshipto Fisheries Productivity1

PORFIRIO M. ALIÑO2

MICHAEL P. ATRIGENIO3

MILEDEL CHRISTINE C. QUIBILAN2

MA. GREGORIA JOANNE P. TIQUIO2

2University of the Philippines-Marine Science Institute Diliman, Quezon City 1101

Philippines3Conservation International

Philamlife Homes, Quezon CityPhilippines

An important factor that undoubtedly influencedthe rate of utilization of coastal resources is thePhilippine government’s economic policies thatinadvertently enhanced pressure on the marineenvironment. Padilla and Angeles (1992) attributedthe accelerated rate of degradation of coastal resourcesto economic policies, such as subsidies, incentives, taxexemptions and lower tariff rates that resulted inincreased fishing intensity, encouraged coastal habitatconversion and reduced wild stock resources. Theseimpact on the economic viability of coastal industries(mariculture, tourism, fishing, fish processing andother related industrial/agricultural ventures) and theimportance of the marine environment and its coastalhabitats. The case study in Bacuit Bay, Palawan(Hodgson and Dixon 1988, 2000), is the only examplein the country that examined the economic benefits oflogging versus tourism and marine fisheries. The studyshowed a reduction in gross revenue of over US$40million over a 10-year period with continued loggingcompared to the revenue generated if a logging ban isimplemented.

Biodiversity of Coral Reefs: At Their ZenithBut at Greatest Risk

Estimates of the extent of coral reef areas rangefrom 25,000 km2 (Gomez et al. 1994) to 33,500 km2

(Carpenter 1977), depending on the varyingassumptions of the maximum depth limits of where

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ALIÑO, P.M., M.P. ATRIGENIO, M.C.C. QUIBILAN and M.G.J.P. TIQUIO. 2004. Thesignificance of coastal ecosystem stewardship to fisheries productivity, p. 79-83. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


corals can be found. White and Cruz-Trinidad (1998)suggested that coral reefs could be one of the mostimportant ecosystems in the Philippines due to theirextensive area and the diversity and value ofecosystem goods and services they provide (Table 1).Licuanan and Gomez (2002) suggested that most ofthe coral reefs have declined based on the conditionof the coral benthos. Fish biomass standing stockestimates, based on fish visual census, suggest thatperhaps over 70% are in the low categories (i.e., lessthan 10 t km-2 year –1 ; see also Hilomen et al. 2000 andNañola et al. 2002). If a production to biomass ratio(P/B) of 1.5 is assumed for reef fish (Polovina 1984),and around 20% of the fish seen in the underwaterfish visual census are target species, then the potentialannual fisheries production would be only around 3 tkm-2 year-1. This suggests that there is considerablereduction of potential annual yields due to degradationof coral reef habitats (i.e., based on a conservativemaximum sustainable yield for good reefs of about 12t km-2 year-1). Thus, at present poor reefs lose at least60% of their productive potential.

Thus it comes as no surprise that recent updates(utilizing data from over 50 areas revisited in at leasttwo succeeding years) confirm the intuitive perceptionsthat reefs in the Philippines have experiencedsubstantial declines (PhilReefs 2003). One of the mostpopular initiatives that have been undertaken to reducethe impacts on coral reefs is the establishment of marineprotected areas (MPAs). Many of the effective MPAshave been seen in the Visayas region (Alcala 2001;White and Vogt 2001; Aliño et al. 2002). These effortsneed to be integrated into a more comprehensivecoastal management framework and strategy (DENR-DA-BFAR-DILG 2001; Aliño et al. 2002).

Sustaining Seagrass and MangroveConservation: An Imperative

to Maintain Aquaculture Productivity

The productivity of mangrove forests has beenwell recognized (Zamora 1995; Fortes 1991) and mayeven exceed that of coral reef areas. The diversity ofmangrove species in the Philippines is among thehighest globally. However, the significance of thefunctional diversity of mangroves (e.g., complex foodweb and connectivity to adjacent coastal systems) hasnot been fully appreciated in the country. The strategicposition of mangroves between land and sea makes itan important buffer area (providing protection fromstorm, erosion and siltation). It also functions asspawning, nursery and feeding ground for a varietyof organisms. Recent reviews by Primavera (1995, 2000)highlight the competing interests of aquaculture(fishpond conversion) and mangrove conservation,particularly during the 1970s. Mangrove degradationand conversion to fishpond has been implicated in thedecline of the country’s natural fish stocks (Primavera1995) (Figure 1).

No comprehensive evaluation of the seagrasscover in the country has been undertaken (see Fortesand Santos, this vol.). This is probably due to theextensive geographic distribution and depth range(intertidal and subtidal at around 1-30 m) of theseagrass communities and the limited resourcesdevoted to their study. Seagrasses are functionallylinked to coral reefs and mangroves (Fortes 1988, 1991,1995), and the degradation and loss of seagrass bedsaffect these adjacent systems. The interconnectivity ofcoral reefs to mangroves through seagrass beds makesthe latter more sensitive to changes in the environment.

Ecosystem/Resource Area/Yield Value (in US$)

Table 1. Total annual national economic benefits derived from coral reefs, fisheries andmangroves in the Philippines, 1996 (White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998).

aWood is not included because legally, there is little mangrove wood harvesting allowed.

Coral reefsFisheriesTourismCoastal protection

MangrovesFisheriesWooda

Other contributionsFisheries

Municipal (less reef fish)Commercial

Aquaculture

Total (1998: $1 = P40)

27,000 km2

140,000 ha

Open marine water909,000 t879,000 t

Brackish and marine981,000 t

(P140.56 billion)

1.35 billion

84 million

1.25 billion0.64 billion0.61 billion0.83 billion

3.5 billion


Seagrass communities can be good indicators of thehealth or condition of the entire coastal ecosystem(Fortes 1995).

Yield from seagrass beds can be over 10 t km-2

year-1 of fish alone, with a production potential of 20 tkm-2 year-1 of fish, invertebrates and seaweeds combined(McManus et al. 1992). Siganids (rabbitfish, danggit) arethe most abundant fish and occur in seagrass beds asadults and juveniles. The country’s extensive coastlinehas extensive seagrass habitats that also serve as feedingground of the highly endangered Dugong (Dugongdugon) and marine turtles (Chelonia mydas andEretmochelys imbricata). To a lesser extent, sightings havebeen recorded of the Olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea),

Leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and the more rareLoggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in seagrass beds.Recommendations for management, conservation andsustainable use of seagrasses in the country have beenmade by Fortes (1995). An integrated approach towardsseagrass and mangrove ecosystems managementconsidering habitat interconnections has also beenproposed (Fortes 1988, 1991).

Meeting the Ecosystem Challengesof Our Fisheries

One may note that the Philippines is found in themost diverse marine region in the world. Its

Figure 1. Relative decline in municipal fisheries production due partly to the conversion of mangroves to fishponds(Primavera 1995).


multispecies and multigear fisheries manifest thevaried range of problems in the use of such diversemarine resources in a developing country context. Thecountry’s fisheries experience indicates shifts in speciescomposition together with substantive declines infisheries yield (see Dalzell et al. 1987). In many fishingareas, coping with varying degrees of environmentalstress induced by human impacts interacts withfisheries overexploitation (Pauly and Chua 1988; Padillaand Morales 1997) (Figure 2).

The destruction of coastal habitats will likewisecause a decline of marine resources dependent on thesehabitats, thus exacerbating the high poverty rate incoastal communities. Malthusian overfishing (relatedto increasing fisher populations and the open-accessnature of the marine environment) has led to furtherheavy exploitation and abuse of resources (Pauly et al.1989). Burke et al. (2002) showed that destructivefishing, together with overfishing, is the mostprevalent problem in the coral reefs of the Philippines.Roberts et al. (2002) indicated that the country is the“hottest of the hotspots” in the world.

Given the multiplicity of proposed interventions,the convergence of various initiatives towardecosystem approaches makes for more effective andsustainable fisheries management. The inroads intomarine sanctuaries and MPAs have already shownpromising results (Alcala 2001). Juinio-Menez et al.’s(1998) works utilizing co-stewardship by fishers andmarine reproductive reserves have shown goodpromise in areas where fisheries stocks have beendepleted.

The management of aquaculture and capturefisheries has not only become a sectoral concern buthighlights the need for integrated coastal zonemanagement. In a developing country like thePhilippines, sustainable utilization can only be achievedif sufficient participation in decisionmaking becomespart of management. There is greater need to enhanceadaptive management where fisheries monitoring andecosystem management are linked to proactiveresponses and effective feedback mechanisms. Incentiveand disincentive systems that facilitate public-privatepartnerships need to be pursued. Learning from theapplication of management tools and good practices,as well as education and empowerment of communitiesin co-management with local governments, are alsocritical keys to sustaining our municipal and commercialfisheries. Sustainable fisheries require effectivestewardship by stakeholders, and it is good businesssense to care for the ecosystems that sustain fisheriesproductivity.

References

Aguilar, G.D. 2001. The national integrated research developmentextension agenda and program for capture fisheries. (Abstract)International Seminar on Responsible Capture Fisheries inCoastal Waters of Asia: Case Studies and Researches forSustainable Development and Management of Tropical Fisheries,24-27 September 2001, Iloilo, Philippines. Japan Society forthe Promotion of Science and College of Fisheries and OceanSciences, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo.3 p.

Figure 2. Proliferation of fishpens in Lingayen Gulf.


Alcala, A.C. 2001. Marine reserves in the Philippines: Historicaldevelopment, effects and influence on marine conservationpolicy. Bookmark , Makati City, Philippines. 115 p.

Aliño, P.M., H.O. Arceo, N.E. Palomar and A.T. Uychiaoco. 2002.Challenges and opportunities for marine protected area (MPA)management in the Philippines. Proc. Ninth Int. Coral ReefSymp. 2: 635-640.

Bernascek, G. 1996. The role of fisheries in food security in thePhilippines: A perspective study for the fisheries sector to theyear 2010. Paper presented during the Second National FisheriesPolicy Planning Conference, Puerto Azul, Cavite, Philippines.

Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in SoutheastAsia. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. 72 p.

Carpenter, K.D. 1977. Philippine coral reef fisheries resources. Philipp.J. Fish. 17: 95-125.

Dalzell P., P. Corpuz, R. Ganaden and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimation ofmaximum sustainable yield and maximum economic rent fromthe Philippine small pelagic fisheries. BFAR Tech. Pap. Ser. 10(3):23 p.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources) and DILG (Department of the Interior andLocal Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook no. 5: Managing coastal habitats and marineprotected areas. Coastal Resource Management Project ofDENR, Cebu City, Philippines. 106 p.

Fortes, M.D. 1988. Mangroves and seagrass beds of East Asia:Habitats under stress. Ambio 17 (3): 207-213.

Fortes, M.D. 1991. Seagrass-mangrove ecosystems management:A key to marine coastal conservation in the ASEAN region.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 23: 113-116.

Fortes, M.D. 1995. Seagrasses of East Asia: Environmental andmanagement perspectives. RCU/EAS Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 6:75 p. UNEP, Bangkok.

Gomez, E.D., P.M. Aliño, H.T. Yap and W.Y. Licuanan. 1994. A reviewof the status of Philippine reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 29: 62-68.

Hilomen, V.V., C.L. Nañola and A.L. Dantis. 2000. Status of Philippinereef fish communities, p. 14. (Abstract). In Proceedings of theWorkshop on the Status of Philippine Reefs. University of thePhilippines-Marine Science Institute, Quezon City, Philippines.

Hodgson, G. and J.A. Dixon. 1988. Logging versus fisheries andtourism in Palawan. Occas. Pap. No. 7. East-West Environmentand Policy Institute, Hawaii, USA.

Hodgson, G. and J.A. Dixon. 2000. El Nido revisited: Ecotourism,logging and fisheries, p. 55-68. In H.S.J. Cesar (ed.) Collectedessays on the economics of coral reefs. CORDIO, Departmentfor Biology and Environmental Sciences, Kalmar University,Kalmar, Sweden.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A.R, N.D. Macawaris and H.G.P. Bangi. 1998.Community-based sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) grow-outculture as a resource management tool. In G.S. Jamieson andA. Campbell (eds.) Proceedings of the North Pacific Symposiumon Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Management. Can.Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125: 393-399.

Licuanan, W.Y. and E.D. Gomez. 2002. Philippine coral reefs: Statusand the role of the academe to improve their management.Proc. Ninth Int. Coral Reef Symp. 2: 835-840.

McManus, J., C.L. Nañola, R.B. Reyes Jr. and K.N. Kesner. 1992.Resource ecology of the Bolinao coral reef system. ICLARMStud. Rev. 22, 117 p.

Nañola C.L. Jr., P.M. Aliño, A.L. Dantis, M.C. Rañola, V. Hilomen andJ. Cabansag. 2002. Understanding Philippine reef fishes: Akey to fisheries management and marine biodiversityconservation, p. 22-26. In P.M. Aliño, E.F.B. Miclat, C.L. Nañola,Jr., H.A. Roa-Quiaoit and R.T. Campos (eds.) Atlas of thePhilippine coral reefs. Philippine Coral Reef Information(PhilReefs) and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc., Quezon City,Philippines.

Padilla, J.E. and A.C. Morales. 1997. Evaluation of fisheriesmanagement alternatives for Lingayen Gulf: An options paper.In Studies on Lingayen Gulf. Final Report of the PhilippineEnvironmental and Natural Resources Accounting Project(ENRAP-Phase IV). 32 p.

Padilla, J.E. and M. Angeles. 1992. Economic policies and thesustainable development of coastal resources in the Philippines.Naga 15(3): 36-40.

Pauly, D. and T.E. Chua. 1988. The overfishing of marine resources:Socioeconomic background in Southeast Asia. Ambio 17(3):200-206.

Pauly, D., G. Silvestre and I.R. Smith. 1989. On development, fisheriesand dynamite: A brief review of tropical fisheries management.Nat. Resour. Modelling 3: 307-329.

Philreefs (Coral Reef Information Network of the Philippines). 2003.Philippine coral reefs through time: workshop proceedings.University of the Philippines-Marine Science Institute, QuezonCity, Philippines, and Marine Parks Center, Tokyo, Japan. 197p.

Polovina, J.J. 1984. Model of a coral reef ecosystem. Part I. TheECOPATH model and its application to French Frigate Shoals.Coral Reefs 3: 1-11.

Primavera, J.H. 1995. Mangroves and brackish water pond culturein the Philippines. Hydrobiologia 295: 303-309.

Primavera, J.H. 2000. Development and conservation of Philippinemangroves: Institutional issues. Ecol. Econ. 35(1): 91-106.

Roberts, C.M., C.J. McClean, J.E.N. Veron, J.P. Hawkins, G.R. Allen,D.E. McAllister, C.G. Mittermeier, F.W. Schueler, M. Spalding, F.Wells, C. Vynne and T.B. Werner. 2002. Marine biodiversityhotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science295: 1280-1284.

Silvestre, G.T. 1989. Philippine marine capture fisheries: Exploitation,potential and options for sustainable development. Work. Pap.No. 48. Stock Assessment Collaborative Research SupportProgram, College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Quezon City, Philippines.

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management are critical.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.96 p.

White, A.T. and H.P. Vogt. 2001. Philippine coral reefs under threat:Lessons after 25 years of community-based reef conservation.Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40(6): 537-550.

Zamora, P.M. 1995. Diversity of flora in the Philippine mangroveecosystem. Biodivers. Conserv. Rep. 1, 92 p. University of thePhilippines-Center for Integrative and Development Studies,Quezon City, Philippines.


Mangrove Resource Decline in the Philippines:Government and Community Look for New Solutions1



North Reclamation AreaCebu City 6000

Philippines

ROY OLSEN D. DE LEONSilliman University Marine LaboratoryDumaguete City, 6200 Negros Oriental

Philippines

1 This paper is an updated version of an article which originally appeared as: WHITE, A.T. and R.O.D. DE LEON. 1996. Mangroveresource decline in the Philippines: Government and community look for new solutions. Tambuli (1): 6-11. This paper can be cited as follows: WHITE, A.T. and R.O.D. DE LEON. 2004. Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines:Government and community look for new solutions, p. 84-89. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Introduction

Mangrove forest cover in the Philippines hasdeclined substantially during the last century. Froman estimated 450,000 ha of mangroves in 1918, lessthan 140,000 ha exist (Figure 1). At present, 95% ofthe remaining mangroves are secondary growth andonly 5% are old or primary mangroves that are mostlyfound in Palawan (Brown and Fischer 1918; DENR1988). Thus, mangrove forests remaining alongPhilippine coasts today are of much lower quality than50 years ago and cover less than one-third of theiroriginal area. This has occurred because of the lack ofawareness on the substantial economic and ecologicalcontribution of this ecosystem to society.

The most rapid decrease occurred during the 1960sand 1970s when government policies encouraged theexpansion of aquaculture. Today, fishponds coverabout 289,000 ha, 80 to 90% of which are in areas oncecovered with mangroves (DENR 1989; ADB 1993).This expansion occurred largely during a period whenreal prices for fish and shrimp were steadily rising.From 1918 to 1970, an average of 3,100 ha of mangroveswere lost yearly. Then from 1980 through 1988, despitea 1980 government ban on further conversion ofmangroves to fishponds, the rate of reductionincreased to about 8,200 ha annually (DENR 1988).

However, conversion of mangrove areas to fishpondshas sometimes been the final step in a process ofdestruction that began with overharvesting ofmangroves for fuelwood, frequently by persons otherthan those who ultimately built the fishponds (WorldBank 1989).

Cutting of mangroves for fuelwood, charcoalmaking and construction is probably the second mostpervasive intrusion on the resource. The demand forthese products leads to illegal cutting, overharvesting,and subsequent degradation of the habitat andecosystem. This, in turn, contributes to the decline ofnearshore fisheries. Degraded areas are more easilyreclassified as disposable lands, making conversionmore likely to other uses.

The deterioration of mangrove resources hasstimulated various responses to slow and reverse theprocess. Laws have been passed protectingmangroves. Policies have been suggested to provideeconomic disincentives to the conversion of mangroveforests for fishpond use. Since 1990, variouscommunity-based projects have engaged coastalresidents in reforestation, rehabilitation andmanagement efforts. This paper describes the newpolicy directions of the government and summarizesmanagement efforts to reverse the decline ofmangroves.

Mangrove resource decline 85

National Policies to EncourageMangrove Conservation

The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(BFAR) is responsible for licensing the developmentof fishponds on government land. About 95,000 hahas been allocated for the development of fishpondsof which about 63,000 ha is under 25-year fisherieslease agreements (FLA). Another 16,000 ha is undershort-term leases and about 8,000 ha has been turnedover to private ownership. Some are illegallyoccupied, and about 17,000 ha was undeveloped in1990 (Schatz 1991). Presently, the Fisheries Code of1998 (Section 49) authorizes the reversion of allabandoned, undeveloped or underutilized fishpondsto mangrove habitat.

One problem with FLAs is that the fees and yearlyrental are extremely low (about $2/year/ha). Thismeans that conversion to fishponds carries no penaltyfor low production and pays little back to the

government or local community for losses associatedwith conversion of mangrove systems. In fact, manyof the fishpond areas under lease are underused ornot used at all for aquaculture while the naturalfisheries and wood resource values of the mangrovesystem have already been lost.

A large Fishery Sector Program (FSP) for thePhilippines started in 1991 by immediately supportingseveral economic and policy studies concerningmangroves. The economic analysis showed that thefishpond lease fee was way too low to: (1) encourageefficiency in the use of land for fishponds; and (2)discourage the conversion of mangrove swamp areafor aquaculture.

The opportunity cost for the replacement ofmangrove systems was determined to be quite highand was consistent with studies in other countries.Dixon (1989) had reported that estimates ofopportunity cost of 1 ha of complete mangroveecosystem to be $500-$1,550 annually. The FSP study

Level of Management

Mangrove plantationManaged, naturally regeneratedUnmanaged, understocked stranges

Wood Products(Value/ha)

$1569042

Fish Products(Value/ha)

538538538

Total

694628580

Table 1. Estimated net annual economic value ($) of Philippine mangrove areas for differentlevels of management (Schatz 1991).

Note: Wood harvest value was based on average price of about $12/m3 of wood; fish products were basedon average annual weight of fish and shrimp/ha associated with mangrove areas and an average price of$.80/kg; values were based on Philippine peso (P) amounts in 1991 and converted at P25/$1 (Schatz 1991).

Figure 1. Mangrove resource decline in the Philippines (DENR 1988; World Bank 1989).


summarized various researches made on the minimumeconomic rent for 1 ha of intertidal land in thePhilippines into $550 annually (Table 1). The amountdetermined by White and Cruz-Trinidad (1998) to bean acceptable economic equivalent for what is lost ifmangroves are converted to other uses is $600/ha/year2.

The FSP study recommended that FLA lease feesbe raised to $360 to 800/ha/year (Schatz 1991). Thestudy also recognized that the value attributed tomarine fishery products dependent on mangrovesystem health was underestimated and that moreresearch was needed. It was thus suggested that thebasic wood value of mangrove stands be used as theinitial economic rent level, which was about $156/year/ha. This would mean that at a very minimum,the fishpond leases should provide this amount peryear to the Philippine government. Although aschedule was recommended to implement an increaseof lease fees over several years, this was notaccomplished because of resistance from leaseholdersand political intervention. In spite of reluctanceamong leaseholders to the increased fees, it is ironicthat the Philippine rental market for privately heldfish and shrimp ponds flourishes and derives annualrents from about $120 to 600/ha/year.

National laws (Presidential Proclamation 2146,1982; Republic Act 7161, 1991) prohibit the cutting ofany mangroves in the country. Most importantmangrove forests are legally protected in forestreserves. But these laws have not prevented themangrove forest decline. This situation has promptedthe government to attempt mangrove reforestationin abandoned fishponds and other areas previouslyoccupied by mangroves, with the assistance of projectsand new policies.

The mangrove decline has stimulated experimentsin reforestation using contracts with local communitiesthrough community-based forest managementagreements (CBFMAs) and encouraged communitiesto protect and manage the resource in their own ways.The first national policy on mangrove managementthat encouraged community-level stewardship,Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesAdministrative Order (DAO) 15, was issued in 1990.This provided long-term security of tenure throughthe issuance of Mangrove Stewardship Agreements.In 1994, the nongovernment organization (NGO)-assisted community-based mangrove forestmanagement approach was endorsed by DENR (DAO30, S and Executive Order [EO] 263). Twelve DAOs

of DENR from 1996 through 1998 specify the rulesand regulations for the implementation of CBFMAsthrough the assistance of NGOs or people’sorganizations (POs) together with the localgovernment unit (LGU) concerned (Melana et al.2000).

The CBFMA is a production sharing agreemententered into between a community and thegovernment to develop, utilize, manage and conservea specific portion of forestland consistent with theprinciples of sustainable development and pursuantto an approved Community Resource ManagementFramework Plan (CRMF) (DAO 96-29). CBFMAs areused by DENR to award tenure rights over forestlandsto organized communities. It virtually integrates allof the old tenure instruments on forestlands prior to1996 (Melana et al. 2000).

The legal conflict between proposals to totallyban mangrove cutting versus the need to allow limiteduse by community groups arranged for CBFMAsimpedes the successful outcome of these agreements.In most cases, the development of the CRMF Plan formangrove management highlights the need for limitedharvesting of mangroves as an incentive for communitylong-term management of a given area.

Reforestation through theFishery Sector Program

Between 1991 and 1994, the Department ofAgriculture and DENR collaborated on the FSPinitiative on mangroves. Initially, replanting wasaccomplished by contracting local communities to plantseedlings and young trees. This system had manyproblems. In 1991, only 6,900 ha was reforested, wellbelow the target of 30,000 ha. It was replaced by amore community-based management system withNGO assistance. Although targets were not achieved,FSP recognized that the latter system of involving thecommunity directly is a more sustainable approach toreforestation and maintenance of existing resources(FSP 1996).

Local Government andCommunity Involvement in Management

In the Philippines, some, but not all, coastalcommunities near mangrove areas are aware of theirresource value. They associate the health of fisherieswith the health of mangrove ecosystems and realizedthat fishpond development has taken its toll on natural

2 This is equivalent to P32,400/ha/year at the exchange rate of $1 = P54, as of July 2003.


productive benefits of fish, shrimp, wood and otherproducts.

As early as 1964, some mangrove rehabilitationefforts were initiated in Bohol Island, Visayas. Onecommunity in Getafe reforested 100 ha. Anotherreforestation project by students and school officialsin Calape, Bohol, in 1968 planted a 20-m band alongthe 4.8 km coast for protection against wind and stormwaves (Yao 1986). Also, controlled harvesting ofmangroves for firewood and poles has long been apractice by people who purposely thin the mangrovesto make them grow more efficiently. This type ofharvesting is seen as an incentive for community groupsto enter into agreements for management.

Learning from earlier community projects, theCentral Visayas Regional Project (1984-1992)experimented with the provision of secure tenure toone individual or family in return for maintaining anarea as a healthy forest. This arrangement was calleda stewardship agreement. It was initially used topromote reforestation in open areas because thenational policy at that time would not allow small holdmanagement of existing mangroves. Althoughmangrove planting progressed rapidly, long-termsuccess rates were less than 50% because informationon methods and sites was lacking. Also, plantingoutside of natural mangrove habitat predisposedefforts to failure. Another limitation was the lack ofsuitable planting material, which consequently led tosingle species dominance in newly planted areas(Vande Vusse, pers. comm.).

The initial experiments in stewardship agreementswere followed by the contracting of individuals andgroups to plant mangroves. When communities weredirectly responsible with stewardship agreements, thecost/ha was about $80. Contracting individualswithout any community organization or volunteer

labor increased the cost to more than $400/ha. Inaddition, the communities participated in the exerciseprimarily to make money more than to enhance theenvironment. The success rate was much less than 50%.

In 1991, the management of existing, but degradedmangrove forest, began using a mangrovestewardship agreement at Cogtong Bay, Bohol Island.Designated seed trees were allowed to grow whileothers were harvested for fuelwood and poles. Forestquality and the abundance of naturally occurringseedlings increased. The need to stop fishponddevelopment was highlighted through communityopinion and resistance to fishpond development inthe area. This success has encouraged DENR toincrease its focus on the rehabilitation and managementof existing forest in its programs through communityinvolvement (Janiola 1996; Vande Vusse, pers. comm.).

The Buswang Mangrove Reforestation Project inKalibo, Panay Island, has been particularly successful.Here, the government contracted the Kalibo Save theMangrove Association, an organization with 26 familybeneficiaries, to replant 50 ha. Four years after theproject started in 1990, the organization was able toharvest and earn from the Nipa leaves on 5 ha of thearea. DENR awarded the organization with a 25-yearForest Land Management Agreement in 1995(Primavera and Agbayani 1996).

Finally, the Coastal Resource Management Project(CRMP) of DENR assisted LGUs in their mangrovemanagement efforts from 1997 through 2001. Theimportant outcome of this project, that builds on thecommunity focus of DENR, is that CBFMAs wereawarded to 9 POs with 620 members. These 9CBFMAs cover 3,414 ha of mangrove habitat in Bohol(CRMP 2003). A guide for monitoring and evaluatingCBFMAs was also developed and tested and is beingused by DENR as its primary means of evaluatingCBFMA performance (Melana et al. 2000; CRMP 2003).

New Policies Support Sustainable Useand Management

In view of all that has been learned from the pastexperiences, the following policy directions aresuggested:

• Priority must be given to saving and managingexisting forest and habitat. The basic biophysicaland environmental factors that support mangroveecosystem growth and sustenance must beconsidered in all project areas.

• Individuals and groups at community level muststrengthen their will and capacity to protect anduse the resource wisely. This requires a lengthyprocess of community organization and training

Endangered Chinese egrets (Egretta eulophotes) roosting on amangrove (Rhizophora) in Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary, Cebu,Philippines.


with support from government, NGO and otherassisting organizations using integratedapproaches. The assisting organizations shouldhave a full-time, live-in presence in the coastal area.They should take responsibility for communityorganization, training and facilitation ofcommunity roles in management activities.

• CBFMAs shall be used to promote localresponsibility in maintaining permanent mangroveforested areas. These should allow limited butsustainable use in some cases to promote forestsuccession and provide economic incentives tolocal community managers. The DENR willmonitor each CBFMA area for compliance withthe management plan.

• Areas released for fishpond purposes but are notused for that purpose and do not meet certaincriteria should be reverted to DENR for mangroverehabilitation.

• An area management approach requires that allmangrove resources be included in themanagement plans for any given area regardlessof the previous classifications.

• Sanctuaries may be established over mangroveareas as determined by local communities withguidance from DENR or BFAR and the legalsupport of local government.

• The DENR and other government personnelshould provide technical assistance but not takefull responsibility for field achievements.

• Accurate mapping of mangrove resources and theimmediate uses of land such as for fishpondsshould be the responsibility of DENR and BFARworking with LGU.

• LGUs will lead or participate in communityplanning and assist to coordinate with othergovernment services.

Conclusion

The Philippines has lost much of its mangroveresources to other uses. The downward trend hasprompted many experiments in community-based andcooperative management guided by local and nationalgovernment agencies. The CBFMA system isbecoming effective in stabilizing mangrove resourcesin some areas in the country. Successful tests havebeen implemented on the islands of Bohol and Panayand in selected other communities. These successesemphasize the need to minimize discrepancies betweennational law and the practice of sustainable use toencourage community participation and stewardship.

While the government ceased approvingmangrove conversion to fishpond and is consideringincreasing economic rent for leases, illegal conversionstill occurs in some areas. But, where communitieshave been organized and given responsibility formanagement, degradation has slowed or stopped.Consequently, the promotion of CBFMAs is a primarytool in protecting mangrove resources. It is alsointended that as integrated coastal resourcemanagement plans are developed for particular areas,all mangrove resources and habitat areas will beincluded and targeted for sustainable use in theiroriginal state.

It is also important that national economic policiesbe improved to encourage enhanced management ofmangroves. The total gain to the Philippines forprotecting its remaining mangrove ecosystem issubstantial. Using the conservative estimate of valuefrom direct benefits of $600/ha/year, the countrygains at least $83 million/year in fish production andpotential sustainable wood harvest from the existing138,000 ha. If we could increase the area of healthymangrove forest to 200,000 ha, the annual naturalbenefits would potentially increase to $120 million fora gain of about $37 million/year (White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998). This is indeed a good investment!

Acknowledgments

The contributions and assistance from Dr. FredVande Vusse, Ms. Betty Dar (DENR) and Mr. SonnyGendrano (DENR) are acknowledged. Thereferences of Dr. J.H. Primavera and D.M. Melanawere very helpful.

Bibliography

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 1993. Fisheries sector profile ofthe Philippines. ADB, Manila, Philippines.

Brown, W.H. and A.F. Fischer. 1918. Philippine mangrove swamps.Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Bur. Fish.Bull. No. 7.

CRMP (Coastal Resource Management Project). 2003. 2002 annualreport. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1988.Mapping of the natural conditions of the Philippines, finalreport. Swedish Space Corporation, Solna, Sweden.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1989.Philippine strategy for sustainable development. DENR,Quezon City, Philippines.

Dixon, J.A. 1989. Valuation of mangroves. Trop. Coast. AreaManage. 4 (3): 1-6.


FSP (Fishery Sector Program). 1996. Executive summary: FisheriesSector Program review. PRIMEX, Inc., Pasig City, Philippines.

Janiola Jr., E.S. 1996. Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resourcemanagement in Cogtong Bay: Addressing mangrovemanagement issues through community participation, p. 49-65. In E.M. Ferrer, L. Polotan-de la Cruz and M. Agoncillo-Domingo (eds.) Seeds of hope: A collection of case studies oncommunity-based coastal resource management in thePhilippines. University of the Philippines-College of Social Workand Community Development, Quezon City, Philippines.

Melana, D.M., J. Atchue III, C.E. Yao, R. Edwards, E.E. Melanaand H.I. Gonales. 2000. Mangrove management handbook.Department of Environment and Natural Resources, QuezonCity, Philippines, through the Coastal Resource ManagementProject, Cebu City, Philippines.

NMRC (Natural Resources Management Center). 1978. Mangrovesforests: Problems and management strategies. Likas-Yaman,J. Nat. Resour. Manage. For., 48 p. Ministry of NaturalResources, Manila, Philippines.

Primavera, J.H. and R.F. Agbayani. 1996. Cooperative strategiesin community-based mangrove rehabilitation programs in thePhilippines. Paper presented at the Ecotone V: CommunityParticipation in Conservation, Sustainable Use andRehabilitation of Mangroves in Southeast Asia, 8-12 January1996,Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

Schatz, R.E. 1991. Economic rent study for the Philippines FisheriesSector Program. Asian Development Bank. TA 1208-PHI,Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 42 p.

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management arecritical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines, 96 p.

World Bank. 1989. Philippines: Environment and natural resourcesmanagement study. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Yao, C.E. 1986. Mangrove reforestation in Central Visayas. CanopyInt. 12: 6-9.


Introduction

Seagrass beds are a discrete community dominatedby flowering plants with roots and rhizomes, thrivingin shallow coastal waters. They slightly reducesediments and normally exhibit maximum biomassunder conditions of complete submergence (Fortes1995). Seagrass meadows support a rich diversity ofspecies from adjacent systems and provide primaryrefuge for both economically and ecologicallyimportant organisms. Seagrasses are sensitive toenvironmental fluctuations. Species coming fromneighboring systems encounter “marginal conditions”and are at the extremes of their tolerance levels toenvironmental alterations in seagrass habitats. Thissensitivity makes seagrasses useful indicators ofchanges not easily observable in either coral reefs ormangrove forests. Fortes (1995, 1990) has reviewedthe seagrass resources of East Asia, discussing theirstatus and potential as a resource, as well as theirenvironmental roles and prospects for management.

Public and scientific attention has focused onseagrasses due to the documentation of humaninfluence on the worldwide decline of this vegetationand the increased awareness of the importance ofseagrasses as coastal habitat (Phillips 1960; Orth andMoore 1983). Monitoring seagrass is rapidly becomingone of the foremost methods to determine the overallhealth and condition of the aquatic environments.Issues affecting their distribution and health need tobe identified and addressed. This is because of theirextreme importance as coastal ecosystems that continueto be impacted by issues related to burgeoning humanpopulations (Avery 2000; Bortone and Turpin 2000).

Seagrass Ecosystem of the Philippines:Status, Problems and Management Directions1

Seagrass Resources

The Philippines, with its 18,000 km coastline, hassizable seagrass areas spread discontinuously alongthe shallow portions of its coastlines. Sixteen speciesthat have been identified (Fortes 1986) are variablydistributed in all parts of the country. The number ofspecies present appears to be largely a function of theextent of studies made and the length of the coastline.From surveys in 96 sites, a total of 978 km2 of seagrassbeds have been identified in the country, mostly innorthwestern, western and southern portions, withoutlying islands having sizable beds. A significantportion of the coastal habitats is at high risk of beinglost in the next decade. About half have either beenlost or severely degraded during the past 56 years(Chou 1994; Fortes 1994), and the rate of degradationis increasing.

MIGUEL D. FORTES2

KRISTINE F. SANTOS3

2Marine Science Institute; 3Institute of Environmental Science and MeteorologyCollege of Science, University of the Philippines

Diliman, Quezon City 1101Philippines

Fisher conducting participatory coastal resource assessmentof seagrass beds, using a quadrat to sample the quality ofseagrasses.

M. G

asal

atan

1 This paper can be cited as follows: FORTES, M.D. and K.F. SANTOS. 2004. Seagrass ecosystem of the Philippines: Status,problems and management directions, p. 90-95. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, CebuCity, Philippines. 378 p.

Seagrass ecosystem 91

Location Area (km2)

Table 2. Additional areas where gross estimates were madefrom satellite images only.

Northern PalawanSpratlysSulu ArchipelagoHundred IslandsPanay IslandSouthwestern PalawanPacific coast of Sorsogon ProvinceMalangas BaySarangani IslandsBatanes IslandsCalatagan PeninsulaRest of Batangas ProvinceRest of MarinduqueSouthern ZamboangaSiquijorLingayen Gulf (southern and eastern)Total

8922

16731424741171921112233252114

635

Table 1. Initial estimates of the area (km2) of seagrass beds in the Philippines (combined satellite images and ground truth surveys).

Area (km2)

2593579

11122143119

1314179

197

1197

169

171712

343

Longitude (oE)

119.88122.28121.33122.42121.92120.95119.50117.40119.40118.93118.77122.17121.80122.70123.25123.15124.43123.32127.95124.78122.63123.77124.38125.78126.28125.68

Latitude (oN)

16.4018.4518.8317.2813.5513.4510.72

8.2311.179.85

10.1014.0215.0313.2312.7710.5710.15

9.0211.739.088.708.638.626.886.839.87

Region

II II II IIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVIVVVIVIIVIIVIIIXXXXXIXIXIIITotal

Province

PangasinanCagayanCagayanIsabelaMarinduqueOriental MindoroPalawanPalawanPalawanPalawanPalawanQuezonQuezonQuezonSorsogonNegros OccidentalBoholNegros OrientalSamarCamiguinMisamis OccidentalMisamis OccidentalMisamis OrientalDavaoDavao OrientalSurigao del Norte

Location

Cape BolinaoCape Engaño/Escarpada Pt.FugaDivilacan Bay/Palanan BayCalancan BayPuerto GaleraBacuit BayBugsuk IslandMalampaya SoundPuerto Princesa/Honda BayUlugan BayCalauag BayPolillo IslandRagay GulfSorsogon BayBais BayNorthern BoholApo IslandCatbalogan areaMantigueBaliangaoLopez JaenaNaawanSamal IslandMatiDinagat Sound

Of the total area identified thus far, 343 km2 havebeen estimated using combined satellite images andground truth surveys. On the other hand, 635 km2 aregross estimates from satellite images only (involvingno ground truth surveys) as the places are clusters orparts of big islands, and they cannot be delimited bysingle grids (Tables 1 and 2).

Seagrass Decline

Studies on seagrasses by institutions contractedunder the Fisheries Sector Program (viz., Calauag Bay,Carigara Bay, Lagonoy Gulf, Manila Bay, Ormoc Bay,Panguil Bay, Ragay Gulf, San Miguel Bay, San PedroBay, Sogod Bay, Sorsogon Bay and Tayabas Bay) andthe Fisheries Resource Management Project (viz.,Lingayen Gulf, Puerto Princesa Bay, Honda Bay, SapianBay, Gingoog Bay, Davao Gulf and Butuan Bay) ofDA-BFAR showed that aside from natural causes,anthropogenic impacts are the primary cause for mostof these losses and these are increasing as humanpopulation increases. In the Philippines, a substantialnumber of people dwell close to shallow bays, lagoonsand islands fringed by seagrass beds. There is rapideconomic and human population growth, the latter

projected to double in the next 25-35 years (WRI 1990).The total population of the Philippines as of May 2000was 76.5 million, an increase of 7.9 million (11.5%) overthe 1995 figure of 68.6 million. Total fish required forfood in 2005 at current per capita consumption would


be 3.5 million t per year. The Philippines will have oneof the highest rates of consumption (Silvestre and Pauly1997). These figures imply that tremendous pressureon the coastal habitats and resources will be appliedto meet the projected demand.

Coastal eutrophication (Figure 1) is the major long-term threat to seagrass ecosystems around the world.A particular problem in embayments with reducedtidal flushing, nutrient loading or eutrophicationresults from wastewaters which reach the coasts fromindustrial, commercial and domestic facilities,inadequate septic systems, boat discharge of humanand fish wastes, and storm drain runoff carryingorganic waste and fertilizers. The direct impact is theenhancement of growth in many plant forms resultingin reduction of light. Ultimately, the cause of nutrientloading along the coasts is increasing populationdensity. Environmental effects of land-based activitiesin the Philippines are only moderately studied. Thesame is true for studies on the status and use ofseagrass beds and quantification of the pollutants thataffect them. Nevertheless, most of the environmentalproblems associated with the beds and measures tomitigate them are known. Despite such knowledge,however, these problems remain insufficientlyaddressed. It is interesting to note that in the past 10years, the environmental conditions remain basicallythe same, although awareness on the importance ofseagrasses has substantially increased.

Table 3 gives a summary of current knowledgeabout seagrass habitats (and associated environmentalproblems) in the Philippines compared to selectedcoastal states in East Asia.

Coastal environmental problems exerting the mostsevere impact in Southeast Asia (including thePhilippines) during the past decade are given in Table4. They are ranked in order of priority (1 to 12) and

classified according to urgency, i.e., immediate, short-term (within the next five years) and long-term (withinthe next 10 years or more).

Interestingly, the current priority coastalenvironmental problems in the region remain basicallythe same and are projected to remain so until the year2020. Such scenario is reflected in the results of a recentconsultation with Southeast Asian experts held inHanoi on 1-4 March 2002 under the Global InternationalWaters Assessment Project. The results of theconsultation focused on five most importantenvironmental concerns (Table 5). Infrastructuredevelopment is doubling at almost decadal rates. Thesechanges are resulting in greater demands for coastalzone resources.

Management Directions

Impediments to addressing the threats

A host of factors impede the mitigation orresolution of threats to seagrass habitats. These include:lack of trained seagrass researchers; limited scope andlargely descriptive nature of existing work; gaps inbasic knowledge; lack of appreciation of the resources;limited and uncoordinated work among researchinstitutions; misguided management efforts; lack oflaw enforcement; lack of effective management andresearch linkages; and nonconsideration of the socialand cultural dimensions relevant to seagrass use andmanagement.

The Philippines in particular is confronted by thelack of effective linkages between science institutions(scientific production) and productive sector (industryapplication). Other obstacles which are projected topersist include: shortage of research funds; low staffsalaries; lack of access to needed technologies; weak

Figure 1. Overfeeding in fish cages leads to eutrophication.

M.D

. For

tes


Table 4. Coastal environmental problems in Southeast Asia (UNEP 1990).

Severity of impact on seagrass beds: *** - severe impact; ** - moderate impact; * - slight or no impact.

Immediate

123456789

101112

Short-term

123456789

101211

Long-term

13264875

1110129

Problem

Habitat destruction***Sewage pollution***Industrial pollution***Fisheries overexploitation***Siltation/sedimentation***Oil pollution**Hazardous waste*Agricultural pollution**Red tides*Coastal erosion**Natural hazards*Sea level rise*

Severity: *** - severe impact; ** - moderate impact; * - slight or no impact. Importance rank: 1 - highest, 5 - lowest.

Table 5. Priority coastal environmental problems in Southeast Asia, 2001-2020.

Problem2001

Severity Rank2020

Severity Rank

Habitat and community modifications***Unsustainable exploitation of fisheries and other living resources***Pollution***Freshwater shortage*Global change*

33221

11345

33331

12245

Table 3. Status of information about seagrass habitats in the Philippines and other Asian countries.

Legend:A: extent of the major beds that may be affected.B: status and uses of the beds.C: quantification of the loads of sediments, nutrients, organic materials and toxic chemicalsaffecting the beds.D: identification of other related environmental problems.E: whether there is a cure of the problems in place.The state of knowledge on the parameters are described arbitrarily according to the following scale:xxx: well-studied. xx: moderately studied. x: not studied/implemented; plans exist.

Species

301615131212763

A

XXXXXXXXXXXX

B

XXXXXX

XXXXXXX

C

XXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX

D

XXXXXXX

XXXXXX

XXXXXX

E

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

XXXX

XX

Country

AustraliaPhilippinesVietnamIndonesiaMalaysiaThailandSingaporeCambodiaChina


technical support infrastructure; poor publicappreciation of coastal resources and the environment;and relatively small number of human resource trainedin promoting integrated management approaches. Thelack of national commitment to support and encouragethe development of marine science remains as a majorimpediment.

Ways forward

Key directions in seagrass research, developmentand management, given the trend of coastal habitatdestruction in the Philippines, include the following:

• Focus research on priority management issues.Understand seagrasses and impacts on themutilizing scientific information; use suchknowledge to bring about positive changes inmanagement approaches and solutions to reverseseagrass degradation and loss.

• Undertake more studies on priority issue-orientedparameters. There is a dearth of data on the currentstatus of seagrasses in the Southeast Asian regionin general. Meager data exist on siltation, pollutionand chemical runoff into rivers and water bodiesthat drain into seagrass beds. Data on keybiological and human environment indicators needto be collected to guide policy and set parametersfor sustainable resource use.

• Develop an integrated framework for action: putting ouracts together. The International Seagrass BiologyWorkshop series has identified the essentialelements to conserve and sustainably utilize theseagrass resources of the world. These elementsconsist of: (1) needed linkages among seagrassscientists and practitioners from all parts of theworld; (2) mechanisms to ensure access andtransmission of data and information; (3)

sustained research activities on the dynamics ofthe ecosystem; and (4) modest support fromacademic and funding institutions. The SeagrassMonitoring Project (SeagrassMon) and SeagrassNetwork (SeagrassNet) were operationalized toimplement the plan of action for seagrass researchand monitoring. Approved at the ThirdInternational Seagrass Biology Workshop in thePhilippines (1998), the Charter for Seagrasses hasbeen adopted, laying the principles that guideresearch and development of seagrasses in theworld.

• Undertake economic valuation of resources and relevantpolicy changes. Market-based approaches toenvironmental regulation will only be successfulif they reflect the users’ preferences as individuals,both nationally and internationally (Garrod andWillis 1999). Valuation of resources and of benefitsof policy change relative to these resources is thusextremely important.

• Use available scientific knowledge and forge public-privatepartnerships. It is necessary to use relevant scientificinformation that is currently available in order tomanage seagrass resources sustainably. Suchknowledge should inform of conservationstrategies at the local, national and regional levels.Partnerships among and between governmentorganizations at international, regional, nationaland local levels, and the private sector should beestablished.

• Ensure functional coordination among concernedagencies. At present, the Philippines and countriesin the region are not gaining the full value oflessons learned from policy successes and failures.Concerted actions among mandated agencies areneeded to protect the coasts, and to: (1) eliminateduplication of effort, and save and invest fundsmore wisely; (2) illuminate areas of researchcooperation between agencies and academia; (3)facilitate the development of information systemsthat would serve not only management agenciesbut also the public; and (4) provide forums fordiscussion, which are open to all.

• Increase the amount of information about seagrass inexisting databases. There is much informationavailable in scientific literature that is not part ofany database and thus not readily accessible. Suchinformation could be useful in the generation ofhabitat conservation plans and other ecosystemmanagement strategies. The information contentof the data repositories should be increased, andthis can be done by allocating certain portions ofresearch funding for long-term management ofinformation generated.

Researchers conducting assessment of seagrasses and theorganisms living within the seagrass bed at low tide.

M. G

asal

atan


• Adopt the integrated coastal area management (ICM)philosophy. The overall goal of ICM is to improvethe quality of life of human communities whodepend on coastal resources while maintainingbiological diversity and productivity of coastalecosystems. Adoption of the ICM philosophy (andits corresponding planning and managementframework) is essential to long-term sustainableuse and conservation of the seagrass resources ofthe country.

References

Avery, W.M. 2000. Monitoring submerged aquatic vegetation inHillsborough Bay, Florida, p. 137-145. In S.A. Bortone (ed.)Seagrasses: monitoring, ecology, physiology andmanagement. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

Bortone, S.A. and R.K. Turpin. 2000. Tape grass history metricsassociated with environmental variables in a controlled estuary,p. 65-79. In S.A. Bortone (ed.) Seagrasses: monitoring,ecology, physiology and management. CRC Press, BocaRaton, Florida.

Chou, L.M., Editor. 1994. Implications of expected climate changesin the East Asian Seas region: an overview. RCU/EAS Tech.Rep. Ser. No. 2. UNEP, Bangkok.

Fortes, M.D. 1986. Taxonomy and ecology of Philippine seagrasses.University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines. 245 p.Ph.D. dissertation.

Fortes, M.D. 1990. Seagrass resources in East Asia: Researchstatus, environmental issues and management perspectives,p. 135 144. In ASEAMS/UNEP Proceedings of the First ASEAMSSymposium on Southeast Asian Marine and EnvironmentalProtection. UNEP, Bangkok. UNEP Reg. Seas Rep. Stud. No.116, 93 p.

Fortes, M.D. 1994. Status of seagrass beds in ASEAN, p. 106-109. In C.R. Wilkinson (ed.) ASEAN-Australia Symposium onLiving Coastal Resources, 3 October 1994, Bangkok, Thailand.Consultative Forum. Living coastal resources of SoutheastAsia: Status and management report. AIMS, Australia.

Fortes, M.D. 1995. Seagrasses of East Asia: Environmental andmanagement perspectives. RCU/EAS Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 6:75 p. UNEP, Bangkok.

Garrod, G. and K.G. Willis. 1999. Economic valuation of theenvironment: Methods and case studies. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, UK. 384 p.

Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: Anunprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation.Science 222: 51-53.

Phillips, R.C. 1960. Observations on the ecology and distributionof the Florida seagrasses. Prof. Pap. Ser. 2. Florida StateBoard of Conservation Marine Laboratory, St. Petersburg,Florida, USA.

Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly. 1997. Management of tropical coastalfisheries in Asia: An overview of key challenges andopportunities, p. 8-26. In G. Silvestre and D. Pauly (eds.)Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia.ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p.

UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 1990. Report ofthe Fourth Meeting of Experts on the East Asian Seas ActionPlan, 3-6 December 1990, Quezon City, Philippines. UNEP(OCA)/EAS WG 4/6. UNEP OCA/PAC, Nairobi.

WRI (World Resources Institute). 1990. World resources 1990-91. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.


Status of Water Quality in Philippine Coastaland Marine Waters1

MARIA LOURDES SAN DIEGO McGLONEGIL JACINTO

IMELDA VELASQUEZDAISY PADAYAO

Marine Science Institute, University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City

Philippines

Introduction

Coastal marine waters support dynamicecosystems, contain valuable natural resources andhave environmental values important to the coastalcommunity. In the Philippines, the inseparablerelationships between land use and water quality aremajor issues in the coastal zone. Marine water quality,or the observed intrinsic characteristics of marinewaters affecting their ability to support life or facilitatebiological processes, has been linked to problems suchas eutrophication, contaminants and harmful algalblooms. This review is an initial attempt to assess thecountry’s water quality status using data from 12 bays,all known fishing grounds, in the Philippines. The dataused are part of the resource and ecological assessmentof 12 priority areas in the country (1992-1996), aninitiative of the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP) of theBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR1992a-d, 1993, 1994a-b, 1995a-d, 1996). To provide aperspective on the historical changes in water qualityconditions, two case studies are presented: Manila Bay,a system affected by increasing human population andLingayen Gulf, specifically Cape Bolinao, a coastal areainfluenced by the proliferation of finfish maricultureactivities. Emergent issues and key managementdirections are likewise explored.

Important Water Quality Parameters

The key indicators commonly used to describewater quality characteristics can be classified into twobroad groups. The first includes those linked to high

organic load, namely: nutrients, dissolved oxygen(DO), chlorophyll-a and total suspended solids (TSS).Nutrients in excess can lead to increased algal growthresulting in eutrophic water conditions. The die-off ofalgal blooms translates to increased organic material,which requires more DO for decomposition. Low DOlevels may serve as an indicator of eutrophicconditions. One adverse consequence of very low DOexperienced in coastal waters is fish kill. Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algal biomass. Besides eutrophication,increased algal growth can reduce water clarity andcause shading of bottom plants, thus reducing normalphotosynthetic activity in the benthic community.Moreover, algae can cause health concerns specificallyfor those associated with the release of toxins. HighTSS may be a result of algal growth, or increased siltand clay. Increased TSS can limit the penetration oflight, again reducing photosynthesis in the benthiccommunity. Furthermore, particulate material cansmother sessile benthic organisms and provide habitatsfor harmful bacteria and viruses.

The second group of indicators includes those thatcould have a more direct effect on humans; these areheavy metals, pesticides and fecal coliform. Heavymetals affect the biota through their ability tobioaccumulate, move up the food chain and ultimatelyare consumed by humans. The persistence ofpesticides, an important factor to determine theirimpact on nontarget species, is oftentimes closelyassociated with food chain magnification. Both heavymetals and pesticides are of concern due to toxicityissues and potential carcinogenic effects. The level offecal coliform, or pathogens from fecal material, is

1 This paper can be cited as follows: MCGLONE, M.L.S.D., G. JACINTO, I. VELASQUEZ and D. PADAYAO. 2004. Status ofwater quality in Philippine coastal and marine waters, p. 96-108. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Water quality in coastal and marine waters 97

Gulf, Sorsogon Bay), 4 in the Visayas (Carigara Bay,San Pedro Bay, Ormoc Bay, Sogod Bay) and 1 inMindanao (Panguil Bay) (Figure 1). Water quality inLingayen Gulf, Pacific Seaboard and South China Seawas included in the assessment (Figure 1). Since mostof the study sites reported levels during the differentmonsoons, except for Panguil Bay, which had annualaverages, water quality was evaluated per monsoonperiod. Although available, data for Tayabas Bay werenot included in the assessment due to an unresolvedquestion on the units of concentration reported.Majority of the sites was surveyed during thesouthwest (SW) monsoon and summer months, withfewer observations during the northeast (NE)monsoon.

Table 2 shows the range of values of water qualityindicators for the different study sites. Nonuniformityin how data were reported resulted in largediscrepancy in number of observations among sites.Data were presented as number of single observation(n1), monthly mean of all stations (n2), annual meanper station (n3) or monthly depth-average per station(n4). Data from the upper 10% of the water columndepth, or the entire water column for shallow depths,were utilized in the assessment. This upper layer isthe most affected by inputs from land, and where mostbiological life is sustained.

In general, the upper layers were within theallowable limit (not exceeding the criteria values).However, significant variation in concentration of someparameters was observed for some bays duringdifferent periods of the year. Table 3 presents anassessment of values relative to the criteria, given aspercent of data within the allowable limit, and percentthat exceeded the limit. The DO concentrations duringthe NE monsoon were above the 5.0 mg/l criteriaexcept for Ormoc Bay where about 80% of themeasured concentrations were below the allowablelimit. During the SW monsoon, 100% of DO in OrmocBay, and 40 to 50% in Ragay Gulf, San Miguel Bay andLingayen Gulf were less than 5.0 mg/l. In summer,about 80% of DO values in Ragay Gulf were below5.0 mg/l.

Among the nutrients, phosphate was noticeablyhigh at the study sites. In Manila Bay and Ragay Gulf,about 80% of the phosphate concentrations exceededthe allowable limit during summer. The values in ManilaBay may have reflected domestic and agriculturalwastes in the river since majority of the sampling siteswas near major tributaries. In San Pedro Bay, 100% ofthe values exceeded the allowable limit throughoutthe year. This was also true for 80% to 100% ofammonia values during the NE monsoon and summer.

critical in areas used for primary (swimming) andsecondary (fishing) contact activities. Another waterquality parameter, pH, may not be entirely useful formarine waters due to the ability of seawater to bufferpH changes. Nonetheless, either very acidic or verybasic conditions will not support life.

Status

The quality of marine coastal waters in the 12 FSPbays was assessed relative to allowable indicator levelsset as regulations. In the Philippines, the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)Administrative Order (DAO) No. 34 (Series of 1990)(DENR 1995) has provided a basis for appraising waterquality using some physico-chemical indicators (DO,fecal coliform, some heavy metals and pesticides, pH).For the other indicators, the proposed marineenvironmental quality criteria of the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (McPherson et al.1999) were used for nutrients and chlorophyll-a, andthe Malaysian standard (PEMSEA 2001) for TSS. Table1 presents the criteria for indicators used in assessingwater quality conditions.

The status of water quality in the 12 FSP bays wasevaluated based on “exceedance” of reportedconcentrations from the criteria value. Seven of the 12study sites are in Luzon (Manila Bay, Calauag Bay,Tayabas Bay, San Miguel Bay, Ragay Gulf, Lagonoy

Table 1. Criteria value of water quality indicators.

Dissolved oxygen 5 mg/L S C DAO-34

Nitrite 3.95 µM * ASEAN-CanadaNitrate 4.29 µM * ASEAN-CanadaAmmonia 5 µM * ASEAN-CanadaPhosphate 0.48 µM ** ASEAN-CanadaChlorophyll-a 10 µg/L * ASEAN-CanadaTotal suspended solids 50 mg/L Malaysian standardpH 6-8.5 S C DAO-34Heavy metals

Copper 2.9 µg/L * ASEAN-CanadaCadmium 0.01 mg/L S C DAO-34Lead 0.05 mg/L S C DAO-34Zinc 50 µg/L * ASEAN-CanadaChromium 0.1 mg/L S C DAO-34

Fecal coliform 200 MPN/100 ml SB DAO-34

Class SB - for primary contact recreation.Class SC - for propagation and growth of fish and other aquatic resources.* - for protection of aquatic life.** - for protection of coastal aquatic life.

Parameter Criteria Value UseClassification

Source


Figure 1. Map of the Philippines showing the study sites for water quality.

The high levels in San Pedro Bay were observed inareas near human settlements where waste dischargesare carried by surface runoffs through the numerousriver systems along the western and northern sectionsof the bay. For nitrate, 80% of the concentrations inSorsogon Bay exceeded the criteria during the NEmonsoon, and over 90% during summer in Ragay Gulf.For nitrite, the study areas were generally within theallowable limit except in Sorsogon Bay during the NEmonsoon and in Lingayen Gulf and Manila Bay duringthe SW monsoon, where 40%, 5% and 10% ofconcentrations exceeded the criteria, respectively. Basedon annual mean values, phosphate and ammoniaconcentrations in Panguil Bay exceeded the allowablelimit. There may have been a bias in the assessment

since data used were presented as annual averages foreach sampling station.

For chlorophyll-a, 10%, 25% and 27% ofconcentrations in Lingayen Gulf exceeded the criteriaduring the NE monsoon, summer and SW monsoon,respectively. The data from Lingayen Gulf includedthose from Bolinao and Dagupan with their attendantenvironmental concerns related to mariculture plus theinfluence of river runoff. About 11-13% of chlorophyll-a values in Manila Bay were beyond the allowable limit.

In Lingayen Gulf, 10% of TSS values during theNE monsoon, and 15% during the SW monsoonexceeded the allowable limit. In Lagonoy Gulf, 30%and 10% of TSS concentrations were beyond theallowable limit during the NE monsoon and summer,


Tabl

e 2.

Ran

ge o

f val

ues

of w

ater

qua

lity

indi

cato

rs.a

TSS

(mg/

L) 148

0.5

651.

5 29 236

0.6 35 2.2

31.9

227

12.5

5

Bays

Ling

ayen

Gul

fn1 m

inm

axM

anila

Bay

n1 min

max

Cal

auag

Bay

n1 min

max

San

Mig

uel B

ayn1 m

inm

axR

agay

Gul

fn1 m

inm

axLa

gono

y G

ulf

n1 min

max

Sors

ogon

Bay

n1 min

max

Car

igar

a Ba

yn1 m

inm

ax

Dep

thas

sess

ed

5 m

5 m

10 m

2 m

50 m

2 m

1 m

1 m

DO

(mg/

L) 76 2.1

8.5 51 4.8

18.7 29

3.38

7.23 53 3.

86.

1

141

5.36

12.2

8

60 5 7.4

Nitr

ite(µ

M) 14

5 06.

07 222 0

5.46

6 570.

106

0.57

6 660.

16 0.7 40 0.1

1.10

5 14 028

5.71

4

104 0

19.7

4

188 0

10.4

32 57 03.

442 65

0.01

5.34 53 0

24.1 40 0

10.9

925 46

0.71

464

2.85

7 60 0.1

10.5

6

150 0

42.8

4

209

0.14

437

.815 19

0.22

53.

789 56

0.04

6.49 40

0.02

13.

714 44

0.07

171

.429 60

0.07

15.4

150 0

6.53 21

80.

029

5.86

7 570.

117

0.35

8 660.

071.

54 53 0 3 400.

050.

58 580.

01 2.2

Chl

(µg/

L) 148 0

164.

75 55 032

.368 62

0.02

0.33

17 2016

,000 40 20

51,5

00 18 3035

e5

Zinc

(ppm

) 100.

034

0.11

5 220.

010.

44

Mer

cury

(ppm

) 100.

0000

40.

0014

18 nd 0.1 66 nd

0.11 35 nd

0.13

18 nd0.

07 65 nd 0.1 35

0.01

0.06

Cad

miu

m(p

pm)

Cop

per

(ppm

)F

colif

orm

(MPN

/100

ml)

Phos

phat

e(µ

M)

Am

mon

ia(µ

M)

Nitr

ate

(µM

)

18 nd 0.9 36

0.05

0.46

Chr

omiu

m(p

pm)

pH

31 7.2

8.5 26 6

7.8 53

7.16 8.2

146 6

11.2

6 607.

258.

75

Lead

(ppm

)

Not

es: m

in -

min

imum

; max

- m

axim

um; n

1 = n

o. o

f sin

gle

obse

rvat

ion;

n2 =

mon

thly

mea

n of

all

stat

ions

; n3 =

ann

ual m

ean

per s

tatio

n; n

4 = m

onth

ly d

epth

ave

rage

per

sta

tion.


TSS

(mg/

L)Ba

ys

San

Pedr

o Ba

yn2 m

inm

axO

rmoc

Bay

n4 min

max

Sogo

d Ba

yn1 m

inm

axPa

ngui

l Bay

n3 min

max

Paci

fic S

eabo

ard

n1 min

max

Sout

h C

hina

Sea

n1 min

max

Dep

thas

sess

ed

1 m

10 m

10 m

1-60

m

12 m

5 m

DO

(mg/

L) 164.

35 5.1

262

3.42

8.94 6

5.55

5.74 35

4.56

27.

149 17 6.2

6.9

Nitr

ite(µ

M) 11

0.05

80.

243 14

0.02

0.12 11

0.07

90.

485 42 0

0.46

2 70.

080.

43

110.

642

1.13

6 14 00.

96 262

0.2

78.2

1 110.

134

1.57

2 42 06.

353 14 0

1.23

111.

525

17.5

25 260

0.17 74 11

34.6

3647

.37 14 0

0.54

110.

505

1.68

4 130.

010.

45 262

0.01

8.09 11

1.19

64.

332 43 0

1.43

9 150.

762.

56

Chl

(µg/

L) 80.

031

0.36

3 100.

040.

075 66

0.07

0.91 42

1.02

3 17 00.

33

n1 =

50

Zinc

(ppm

)M

ercu

ry(p

pm)

Chr

omiu

m(p

pm)

pH 262

7.36

8.53 11

7.54

7.74 13 6.4

8.29

Lead

(ppm

)C

adm

ium

(ppm

)C

oppe

r(p

pm)

F co

lifor

m(M

PN/1

00 m

l)Ph

osph

ate

(µM

)A

mm

onia

(µM

)N

itrat

e(µ

M)

0 47

n1 =

70nd 0.76

4

Tabl

e 2

(con

t.)

Not

es: m

in -

min

imum

; max

- m

axim

um; n

1 = n

o. o

f sin

gle

obse

rvat

ion;

n2 =

mon

thly

mea

n of

all

stat

ions

; n3 =

ann

ual m

ean

per s

tatio

n; n

4 = m

onth

ly d

epth

ave

rage

per

sta

tion.


Bays Assessment DO NH3 NO2 NO3 PO 4 Chl-a TSS F coliform pH

NortheastLingayen Gulf % within limit 100 98 100 100 63 90 90

% beyond limit 0 2 0 0 37 10 10n 14 41 36 23 41 39 41

Manila Bay % within limit 98 100 100 71 88% beyond limit 2 0 0 29 13n 64 77 77 77 8

Calauag Bay % within limit 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 0 0 0 0n 18 18 18

San Miguel Bay % within limit 60 100 100 90 65 80 29 100% beyond limit 40 0 0 10 35 20 71 0n 15 20 20 20 20 15 14 13

Lagonoy Gulf % within limit 100 100 100 100 100 70 100% beyond limit 0 0 0 0 0 30 0n 41 15 15 15 15 40 45

Sorsogon Bay % within limit 45 57 14 11% beyond limit 55 43 86 89n 20 14 22 9

San Pedro Bay % within limit 25 100 100 0 100% beyond limit 75 0 0 100 0n 4 4 4 4 3

Ormoc Bay % within limit 17 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 83 0 0 0 0n 6 4 4 3 4

Sogod Bay % within limit 97 100 83 74 100% beyond limit 3 0 17 26 0n 69 69 69 69 69

Panguil Bay % within limit 100% beyond limit none none none none none none none 0 nonen 18

SouthwestLingayen Gulf % within limit 59 54 89 69 55 73 86 0 100

% beyond limit 41 46 11 31 45 27 14 100 0n 29 56 56 29 56 56 56 10 18


Calauag Bay % within limit 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 0 0 0 0n 18 18 18

San Miguel Bay % within limit 36 96 100 100 83 93 32 100% beyond limit 64 4 0 0 17 7 68 0n 14 26 30 30 30 14 22 13

Ragay Gulf % within limit 61 57 89 100 100 100% beyond limit 39 43 11 0 0 0n 28 28 28 62 28 28


Sorsogon Bay % within limit 83 63 0% beyond limit 17 38 100n 24 24 9

Carigara Bay % within limit 98 85 90 92 23% beyond limit 3 15 10 8 78n 42 42 42 41 42

Table 3. Assessment of water quality data relative to criteria value, given as % within allowable limit and % beyond allowable limit.


Table 3. (cont.)

Bays Assessment DO NH3 NO2 NO3 PO 4 Chl-a TSS F coliform pH

SouthwestSan Pedro Bay % within limit 100 100 100 0 100

% beyond limit 0 0 0 100 0n 5 5 5 5 5

Ormoc Bay % within limit 100 0 0 0 0% beyond limit 0 100 100 100 100n 10 10 10 10 6

Sogod Bay % within limit 99 100 96 78 100% beyond limit 1 0 4 22 0n 69 69 69 69 69


Pacific Seaboard % within limit 86 100 86 86% beyond limit 14 0 14 14n 7 7 7 7

South China Sea % within limit 100 75 100 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 0 25 0 0 0 0 0n 3 4 3 3 2 4 3

SummerLingayen Gulf % within limit 91 94 100 100 72 75 100 43 100

% beyond limit 9 6 0 0 28 25 0 57 0n 33 53 53 52 53 53 51 7 13


Calauag Bay % within limit 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 0 0 0 0n 17 18 18 18

San Miguel Bay % within limit 94 100 100 81 25% beyond limit 6 0 0 19 75n 16 16 16 16 4

Ragay Gulf % within limit 28 4 8 100 100% beyond limit 72 96 92 0 0n 25 25 25 7 25


Carigara Bay % within limit 100 100 100 80 57% beyond limit 0 0 0 20 43n 21 21 21 20 21

San Pedro Bay % within limit 0 100 100 0% beyond limit 100 0 0 100n 2 2 2 2

Sogod Bay % within limit 97 84 85 84 100 97% beyond limit 3 16 15 16 0 3n 124 124 124 124 66 124


Pacific Seaboard % within limit 97 100 100 94 100% beyond limit 3 0 0 6 0n 28 35 35 36 35

South China Sea % within limit 100 100 100 100 100 100 100% beyond limit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0n 14 11 4 11 11 14 14


respectively. Seven percent of TSS values in San MiguelBay during the SW monsoon exceeded the criteria.High TSS values may be attributed to proximity tolarge river systems such as in San Miguel Bay andLingayen Gulf.

The metals zinc, mercury and arsenic were ingeneral below detection limit in the study sites, exceptfor Manila Bay where mercury and zinc concentrationswere above the permissible level. Reported levels ofcopper, cadmium and lead for San Miguel Bay,Sorsogon Bay and Lagonoy Gulf were slightly abovethe criteria of DENR. Chromium in Panguil Bay wasalso above the allowable limit. Pesticide residues weredetermined only in San Miguel Bay, Sorsogon Bayand Manila Bay, with all three reporting nondetectablevalues.

The bacteriological pollution surveys that wereconducted during the SW monsoon in Sorsogon Bayand Lingayen Gulf showed 100% of the countsexceeding the allowable count of 200 MPN/100 ml. Anumber of areas showed high fecal coliform counts inSan Miguel Bay, Sorsogon Bay and Lingayen Gulf withmaximum values reaching as much as 51,500; 780,000;and 16,000 MPN/100 ml, respectively.

The pH readings in all the study sites in summerand NE monsoon were normally within the allowablepH range of 6-8.5. However, during the SW monsoon,73% of the pH readings in Carigara Bay were beyondthe maximum limit of 8.5 pH units.

To sum up, among the water quality parametersassessed, 80-100% “exceedance” beyond the allowablelimit was seen for DO and nutrients, and much less(10-30%) for other parameters.

Historical Perspective

Case study: Manila Bay vis-à-visinfluence of population

Manila Bay is a shallow estuary receiving drainagefrom immediate watersheds through tributaries andmajor river systems. The population covering thewhole drainage area is estimated to be 16 million (NSO1996). Large amounts of waste drain into the bay fromdomestic discharges since only 15% of the populationis connected to the Metro Manila sewerage system(IMO 1994). The rest of the population discharges theirwaste to septic tanks or directly to rivers that end upin the bay.

Since the early 1980s, with rapid increase inpopulation and industrialization within the Manila Bayregion, water quality was expected to deteriorate. Thescatter plot distribution of water quality indicators

monitored at different areas within the bay, from mid-1990s to present, shows a very variable concentrationrange (Figure 2). The widest range was observed inyears with the most intensive surveys. Typically, highnutrient concentrations were observed near rivers andtowards sediments. Similar observations werereported by Acorda (1985). Based on the proposedASEAN criteria for nutrients (McPherson et al. 1999),the average concentrations of ammonia, nitrite andnitrate from 1995 to present were all within theallowable level. However, phosphate levels from 1985to present were close to or beyond the criteria value(Acorda 1985). No specific trends could be observedon the average concentrations of different waterquality parameters, but the scatter plot distributionshowed that average nitrite, nitrate, phosphate andchlorophyll-a values were relatively high in 2002(Figure 2). Phosphates in Manila Bay are sourced fromagricultural inputs discharged into it throughPampanga River and in the Bulacan area aside fromthe discharge from the population centers of phosphate-associated detergents. A number of chlorophyll-avalues exceeded the criteria especially in 1995 duringthe peak of Pyrodinium bloom. The mean DO valuesin the bay were within the 5 mg/l limit. Surfaceconcentrations were typically high but near bottomvalues from 1998 to 2002 were very low andapproached anoxic condition. The bottom waterquality based on oxygen availability has clearly shownrapid deterioration.

Using a hypothetical model to estimate theduration of oxygen depletion in the water column, thefollowing assumptions were considered: (1) oxygenfrom air-sea interaction and replenishment due towater mixing is negligible and (2) the major source ofO2 in the water is photosynthesis. Using the populationin the Manila Bay region, an effluent load factor of 20kg person-1 year-1 biological oxygen demand (BOD)was assumed (Economopoulos 1993). The average DOconcentrations at the surface, mid–depth and nearbottom from 1995 to 1998 were used as ambientconcentration for the estimate. The duration of oxygendepletion was estimated using the equation:

=

VNpopL

DOT

*

where: T is the duration in hours; L is the BOD in kgperson-1 year-1; Npop is the population in the area; Vis the volume of the bay (m3); and DO is measuredoxygen concentration in mg/m3.


The model estimates indicate rapid depletion ofoxygen in the water as organic load in water continuesto increase. In 1975, with an estimated 8 millionpopulation in the area, the oxygen was depleted to 0mg/l after 300, 250 and 80 days when the ambientconcentration was 8, 6 and 1.8 mg/l, respectively. Withthe present population and an oxygen concentrationof <1.8 mg/l for water near the bottom, thewater could become anoxic in less than 40 days (Figure3). If this scenario happens in Manila Bay and with thecontinued increase in population, the condition willpose a serious impact on the fisheries resources of thearea.

Case study: Cape Bolinao vis-à-visinfluence of mariculture activities

One of the emerging issues in the coastal watersof the country is increased finfish mariculture activitypursued at the expense of the environment. LingayenGulf, specifically in Bolinao, Pangasinan, illustrates thisissue. In February 2002, a major fish kill occurredwhere thousands of kilos of milkfish in fish cages andpens died, and many reef fishes too, with lossesestimated to be in the order of P500 million. Lookingback, this event was expected. Mariculture started in1995 with over 200 structures and expanded to morethan 1,000 in 2001, more than double the number of

Figure 3. Oxygen depletion in the waters of Manila Bay based onassumed DO levels at the: (a) bottom, (b) mid-depth and (c)surface waters, and increasing population levels around ManilaBay.

Figure 2. Time series profiles of different water quality parameters in Manila Bay.

Legend: + Mean


units set by the Bolinao Municipal Fisheries Ordinance.This trend is reflected in changes in water quality overthe years (Figure 4). Within a six-year period, therehave been increases in: ammonia, 110%; nitrite, 30%;nitrate, 25%; phosphate, 400%; TSS, 222%; andchlorophyll-a, 140%. The fish kill coincided with abloom of a dinoflagellate identified as Prorocentrumminimum (the first reported bloom occurrence in thePhilippines), an organism associated with eutrophied(nutrient-rich) waters. Die-off of the bloom and largeamounts of unconsumed fish feed material havecontributed to high organic load, which whendecomposed exhausted the oxygen in the water. LowDO (<2mg/l) can cause suffocation of gill-breathingaquatic organisms, and is one of the common causesof fish kill.

Fortunately, there have been positivedevelopments, both local and national, to address theissue, in terms of response mechanism, regulation,research and management. In Bolinao, there has beena substantial reduction in the number of aquaculturestructures. A National Forum on Fish Kill Events washeld, an output of which is a contingency plan for anational strategy to monitor, manage and cope withfish kill events in aquaculture sites. An ongoinginitiative, spearheaded by the Philippine Council forAquatic and Marine Resources Research andDevelopment, is the formulation of guidelines on theestablishment of fish cages in lakes and coastal waters.The DENR is reviving discussions on theEnvironmental Impact Statement ProgrammaticCompliance Policy, while BFAR is reviewing the Codeof Conduct for Aquaculture. The Bureau ofAgricultural Research (BAR) is providing funds toconduct research on the development of environmentalcriteria and polyculture systems to mitigate waste andincrease production, among others.

Fish pen and cage mariculture is emerging as thenext frontier for fish production. Considering thistrend of expansion, the fish kill in Bolinao can becomebut a common occurrence. Environmental issues willthen have to be addressed to make this activity asustainable one.

Key Issues and Management Directions

Contamination of the country’s coastal and marinewaters will continue and increase with the inevitablepopulation and economic growth. The sources ofcontamination that eventually lead to marine pollutionare well known and have been identified in the studysites, namely: domestic and industrial wastes,agrochemical loading, siltation/sedimentation, toxic

and hazardous wastes (including heavy metals andmine tailings), and oil pollution (Table 4).

The assessments of marine water quality for the12 FSP bays focused on relatively easy parameters tomeasure, and these efforts were not necessarily linkedto sources and kinds of pollutants that affect(ed) thestudy site. What became apparent was that even withthe most basic water quality parameters measured, nostandard protocols for sampling and analyses wereadopted. For instance, “surface” samples wereobtained from “skin” of the water column, at somedepth just below the surface, or were a composite ofgrab samples from the same site. Seawater sampleswere filtered or not. If filtration was done, variousgroups used a variety of filter sizes and materials. Asa result, the quality of data generated among thegroups that did assessments for the 12 bays were notnecessarily comparable. Thus, it was difficult andsometimes impossible to compare water qualitybetween and among bays, and to make validstatements about spatial and temporal characteristicsand changes.

The determination of heavy metals in seawater inwater quality monitoring programs might bedownsized to focus instead on sediments and sentinelorganisms such as bivalves. While there are continuingattempts to improve capabilities of laboratories tomeasure heavy metals in seawater, very few groupsare able to demonstrate the ability to consistentlyproduce reliable data at very low environmentalconcentrations. This became clear when the values onheavy metals in seawater for the various bays wereassessed and were found to be, at best, suspect.

There are obvious limitations to only using waterquality physico-chemical parameters so that othermeasures of ecosystem health, particularly of fishinggrounds, will also have to be utilized (e.g., biologicalparameters) to complement water quality monitoringprograms. A network of “reference laboratories” inthe country should be established for the determinationof specific contaminants. These can provide trainingfor field and laboratory methods for marine pollutionmonitoring. If active linkages are developed amongthese laboratories and others striving to improve theircapabilities, it is conceivable that the network willexpand and fill the growing need to conduct relevantand reliable marine pollution monitoring programs inthe country.

While a common pollution database has yet toemerge for the country, a more effective mechanismwill have to be found to promote the sharing ofinformation so that periodic assessments of the stateof the marine environment can be facilitated.


Figu

re 4

. His

toric

al tr

end

in w

ater

qua

lity

for B

olin

ao (Se

ctor

I), 1

995-

2000

(EC

-CER

DS

1995

-199

6; L

GCA

MC

1997

-199

8; F

RM

P 20

00).


Issues Interventions

Metal pollution (Cu, Zn, Pb and Hg, based on 10 rivers)

Eutrophication due to industrial and agricultural wastes

Occurrence of red tide

A comprehensive and implementable environmental management for Metro Manila

Manila Bay

Study Site

Siltation

Intensification of agri-aquaculture activitiesMining (copper, iron and manganese) and other industriesQuarryingEffluents from commercial operationsDomestic sewageSiltationHigh suspended solids on riverine stationsLow DO levels and transparency valuesIncrease in population and human activities, which will eventually create waste disposal problemsSiltationIncrease in water temperature possibly due to thermal discharges from Tiwi Geothermal PlantIncrease in TSS due to domestic discharges and erosionSiltation in river/river mouths due to logging and kaingin

Lack of sanitation facilities such as sewerage systems and toiletsUnregulated use of chemicals (i.e., fertilizers and pesticides) in agricultural and aquaculture farms

Accumulation of nonbiodegradable waste in inland waters due to improper garbage disposal

Siltation (from Naugisan and Carigara Bay)

Bacteriological pollution (localized fecal coliform contamination)Bloom of dinoflagellates (Pyrodinium bahamense)

Domestic sewage particularly near urban areasIntensive agriculture activities

A comprehensive and implementable environmental management for Metro Manila

Research on the symbiotic relationships of dinoflagellates with the organisms they are affecting

General suggestions:Implement environmental enhancement projectsDevelop upland and inland erosion prevention measuresEnhance private sector cooperationConduct environmental awareness programMangrove rehabilitation/reforestation (EnvironmentManagement Bureau-DENR)Monitoring of upland and lowland resource users and conduct information/education campaign to create awareness of the problem

Reforestation of denuded upland areas

Proper waste management

Proper watershed managementCoastal resource management (CRM) and establishment of environmental monitoring systemMangrove and watershed reforestationMangrove reforestation; study on alternative source of fuel aside from mangroves; prevention of further logging activities in the areaReforestation in the uplandsSanitation program that will include education and proper siting and installation of sanitary facilitiesContinuous monitoring of levels; education and information campaign regarding effects of unregulated or excessive pesticide and fertilizer usesWaste segregation and recycling; waste management at home and in industries (piggeries, bakeries, etc.) should be taught to constituents in regular barangay sessionsProhibit cutting of mangroves and start replanting them (DENR)Management and zoning of mangrove areasShoreline land use should also be zoned (Department of Agriculture and DENR)

Early warning scheme to prevent paralytic shellfish poisoningZonation of San Pedro BayDevelopment of alternative livelihood programMitigation of human impacts to coastal zone

CRMEstablishment of sanitary landfillsMonitoring of various water quality parameters

San Miguel Bay

Ragay Gulf

Lagonoy Gulf

Sorsogon Bay

Carigara Bay

San Pedro Bay

Calauag Bay

Table 4. Water quality issues and interventions.

Sogod BayPanguil Bay


Models of viable and practical multisectoralpollution monitoring programs need to be developedand replicated. National government institutions areunable to effectively implement pollution monitoringprograms because of various constraints, not the leastof which is inadequate financial resources. To sustainsuch programs, activities could be done at specific sites(e.g., bay areas) linked with local government, privatesector and possibly nongovernment organizations.

Finally, better packaging and utilization ofpollution monitoring data will be imperative.Otherwise, the undertaking becomes an expensive,monitoring-for-monitoring’s sake exercise with no realvalue to policymakers, and habitats, organisms andpeople who are to be protected.

References

Acorda, L. 1985. Manila Bay study. Quezon City, Philippines.BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1992a. Resource

and ecological assessment studies: Manila Bay. Terminal Report.Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation and NationalMuseum, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1992b. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Panguil Bay. Terminal Report.Mindanao State University at Naawan, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1992c. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: San Pedro Bay. TerminalReport. University of the Philippines in the Visayas FoundationInc., Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1992d. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Tayabas Bay. TerminalReport. Manuel S. Enverga University Foundation Inc.,Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1993. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Calauag Bay. Terminal Report.Environmental Primemovers of Asia Inc., Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1994a. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Carigara Bay. TerminalReport. Silliman University, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1994b. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Sogod Bay. Terminal Report.Silliman University, Negros Oriental, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1995a. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Lagonoy Gulf. TerminalReport. ICLARM and Bicol University, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1995b. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Ormoc Bay. Terminal Report.University of the Philippines in the Visayas Foundation Inc.,Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1995c. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: San Miguel Bay. TerminalReport. ICLARM and Bicol University, Philppines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1995d. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Sorsogon Bay. TerminalReport. UB Tech Inc., Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1996. Resourceand ecological assessment studies: Ragay Gulf. Terminal Report.University of the Philippines at Los Baños Foundation, Philippines.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1995.Administrative Order No. 34, Series of 1990. Philippineenvironmental impact statement programmatic complianceguidebook. DENR, Philippines.

EC-CERDS (European Commission-Coastal Ecosystem Responses toDeforestation - Derived Siltation in Southeast Asia). 1995-1998. Effects of deforestation-derived siltation on nutrientcycling and loading. Terminal Report 1998.

Economopoulos, A.P. 1993. Assessment of sources of air, water andland pollution: A guide to rapid source inventory techniques andtheir use in formulating environmental control strategies. WorldHealth Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

FRMP (Fisheries Resource Management Project). 2002. Resourceand social assessment of Lingayen Gulf. Draft Terminal Report.Fisheries Resource Management Project, Manila, Philippines.

IMO (International Maritime Organization). 1994. Global survey casestudy on the development of waste management options tophase-out ocean dumping of industrial wastes in the Philippines.IMO Tech. Rep.

LGCAMC (Lingayen Gulf Coastal Area Management Commission).1997-1998. Development of criteria for coastal zoning in LingayenGulf: A case study for the aquaculture and fishpen industries.LGCAMC, Philippines.

McPherson, C.A., P.M. Chapman, G.A. Vigers and K.S. Ong. 1999.ASEAN marine water quality criteria: Contextual framework,principles, methodology and criteria for 18 parameters. ASEANMarine Environmental Quality Criteria–Working Group (AMEQC-WG), ASEAN-Canada Cooperative Programme on Marine Science- Phase II (CPMS-II). EVS Environment Consultants, NorthVancouver, Canada, and Department of Fisheries, Malaysia.568 p.

NSO (National Statistics Office). 1996. 1995 census of population.National Statistics Office, Manila, Philippines.

PEMSEA (GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme on Partnerships inEnvironmental Management for the Seas of East Asia). 2001.Manila Bay initial risk assessment. PEMSEA, Quezon City,Philippines.

Marine protected species 109

Marine Protected Species in the Philippines1

MOONYEEN NIDA R. ALAVA2

JOSE ALFRED B. CANTOSWorld Wide Fund for Nature - Philippines

LBI Bldg., 57 Kalayaan Ave., Diliman, Quezon CityPhilippines

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ALAVA, M.N.R. AND J.A.B. CANTOS. 2004. Marine protected species in the Philippines,p. 109-117. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: Thestatus of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 Current address is: WorldFish Center - Philippine Office, Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.3 Founded in 1948, IUCN is an alliance of states, government agencies and NGOs. It has 980 members, spread across some140 countries, which seeks to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrityand diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.

“wild flora and fauna constitute a natural heritage ofaesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational, economic andintrinsic value that needs to be preserved and handed onto future generations”- Preamble to the BernConvention

Introduction

The Philippines is located in the most biologicallydiverse marine area in the world in terms of coral andtropical reef fish diversity (Briggs 1999). It is globallyimportant for its marine ecosystems that supportpopulations of highly varied marine organisms, andwhich contribute much to the country’s economy(BFAR 2001). However, unsustainable uses of theseresources have led to declining populations of marinespecies causing the removal of some species fromspecified geographic areas and overall ecosystemdegradation. The Philippines has enacted protectivelegislation and regulations for a few marine species asconcern over threats to these species increased. Suchspecies with local and national protection are referredherein as legally protected marine species in Philippinewaters.

This paper focuses on “species of concern”, suchas sea turtles, dugong, cetaceans, whale sharks andmantas, all large marine vertebrates. Information onthe conservation status of species is provided by theWorld Conservation Union (IUCN)3 through itsSpecies Survival Commission that regularly publishes“Red Lists” of species with varying levels of threat.The conservation status of each of the species of concern

based on the IUCN Red List (Hilton-Taylor 2000) isshown in Table 1. The Philippines through theProtected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources(DENR) is a national agency member since 1968together with several nongovernment organization(NGO) members.

Species of Concern

Sea turtles. This group of reptiles together withsea snakes have successfully thrived in the marineenvironment. Five species have been recorded in thePhilippines, namely: Green turtle (Chelonia mydas),Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), Olive ridleyturtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), Loggerhead turtle (Carettacaretta) and Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)(De Veyra and Ramirez 1994; Cruz 1999; PCP 1999).The most abundant species are the Green turtle,occurring throughout Philippine waters (withimportant nesting concentrations in the Turtle Islandsand Bancauan Island, Tawi-Tawi) and the Hawksbillturtle, occurring widely with low nesting densities onnumerous islands.

Dugong. The Dugong (Dugong dugon) is the onlysurvivor of the family Dugongidae and the onlyrepresentative of the order Sirenia. Dugong is the onlyherbivorous marine mammal that maintains a relativelysmall home range as compared to the migratory greenturtle. Its population is believed to be fragmented andits numbers low and declining (Marsh et al. 2002).Historical records indicate that Dugong were common,


Table 1. List of marine protected vertebrate species in the Philippines with protection and conservation status based on CITES Appendixlisting and IUCN Red List criteria and categories. (Legend: A = CITES Appendix Listing I or II; CR = critically endangered; DD = data-deficient; EN = endangered; LR/cd = lower risk, conservation dependent; VU = vulnerable.)

Class ReptiliaOrder TestudinaFamily Chelonia (sea turtles)

Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758)Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758)Eretmochelys imbricata (Linnaeus, 1766)Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, 1829)

Family DermochelyidaeDermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761)

Class MammaliaOrder SireniaFamily Dugongidae (sea cow)

Dugong dugon (P.L.S. Müller, 1776)Order CetaceaFamily Balaenopteridae

Balaenoptera physalus (Linnaeus, 1758)Balaenoptera edeni Anderson, 1878Megaptera novaeangliae(Borowski, 1781)

Family DelphinidaeFeresa attenuata Gray, 1875Globicephala macrorhynchus Gray, 1846Grampus griseus (G. Cuvier, 1812)Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser, 1956Orcaella brevirostris (Gray, 1866)Orcinus orca (Linnaeus, 1758)Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765)Peponocephala electra (Gray, 1846)Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846)Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846)Stenella longirostris (Gray, 1828)Steno bredanensis (Lesson, 1828)Stenella coeruleoalba (Meyen, 1833)Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821)

Family KogiidaeKogia simus

Family PhyseteridaePhyseter catodon Linnaeus, 1766

Family ZiphiidaeMesoplodon densirostris (de Blainville, 1817)Ziphius cavirostris G. Cuvier, 1823

Class ElasmobranchiiOrder OrectolobiformesFamily Rhincodontidae

Rhincodon typus Smith, 1828Order RajiformesFamily Mobulidae

Manta birostris (Walbaum, 1792)

Class ActinopterygiiOrder SyngnathiformesFamily Syngnathidae

Hippocampus barbouri Jordan and Richardson, 1908Hippocampus bargibanti Whitley, 1970Hippocampus comes Cantor, 1850Hippocampus kelloggi Jordan and Snyder, 1902Hippocampus kuda Bleeker, 1852Hippocampus spinosissimus Weber, 1913Hippocampus trimaculatus Leach, 1814

Green turtleLoggerhead turtleHawksbill turtleOlive ridley turtle

Leatherback turtle

Dugong

Fin whaleBryde’s whaleHumpback whale

Pygmy killer whaleShort-finned pilot whaleRisso’s dolphinFraser’s dolphinIrrawaddy dolphinKiller whaleIndo-Pacific humpback dolphinMelon-headed whaleFalse killer whalePantropical spotted dolphinSpinner dolphinRough-toothed dolphinStriped dolphinBottlenose dolphin

Dwarf sperm whale

Sperm whale

Blainville’s beaked whaleCuvier’s beaked whale

Whale shark

Manta ray

Barbour’s seahorsePygmy seahorseTiger tail seahorseGreat seahorseCommon seahorseHedgehog seahorseFlat-faced seahorse

A-IA-IA-IA-I

A-I

A-I (except Australianpopulation)

A-IA-IA-I

A-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-IIA-II

A-II

A-I

A-IIA-II

A-II

-

A- II for all Hippocampusspp. (Enters into effect on

15 May 2004)

EN A1bdEN A1abdCR A1bdEN A1bd

CR A1abd

VU A1cd(IUCN 2002)

EN – A1abdDDVU A1ad

DDLR/cdDDDDDDLR/cdDDLR/lcLR/lcLR/cdLR/cdDDLR/cdDD

LR/lc

VU A1bd

DDDD

VU A1bd+2d

DD

VU A4cdDDVU A2cdDDVU A2cdVU A2cdVU A1cd+2cd

Taxa Common Name CITES Red List 2000


although not abundant, around the Philippines,particularly in the Eastern Philippine coasts (De Elera,1915; PCP 1999). In these places, their distribution isnow greatly reduced. Small numbers occur in Palawan,Sulu Archipelago, southern Mindanao, Guimaras Straitand Panay Gulf, northeastern Luzon, and northeasternMindanao (Torres 2002; Perrin et al. 2002).

Dolphins and whales. These belong to the orderCetacea which is divided into two suborders, thebaleen whales (Mysticeti) and toothed whales(Odontoceti). These are represented in the Philippinesby at least 21 species belonging to 5 families (Heaneyet al.1998; Bautista 2002; Perrin et al. 2002;). The morecommon and abundant species based on sightings andline transect surveys are: Spinner dolphin (Stenellalongirostris), Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenellaattenuata), Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus),Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) and Short-finnedpilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus) (Dolar andWood 1992; Alava et al. 1993; Leatherwood et al. 1993;Dolar and Perrin 1996; Dolar 1999). Large cetaceans,such as the Sperm whales (Physeter catodon) and thebaleen whales (Fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus andBryde’s whale, B. edeni) are few and rare. Historicalrecords show Humpback whales (Megapteranovaeangliae) were sighted off southwestern Palawanand in southern Sulu Sea (Slipjer et al. 1964), but currentrecords show the species to be sighted only offBabuyan Island, northern Luzon (Yaptinchay 1999;Acebes 2001). The Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaellabrevirostris) have a restricted distribution and are foundonly in the southern part of the Malampaya Sound,northwestern Palawan (Del Valle and Aquino 2002;Dolar et al.2002; Smith et al. 2002).

Whale sharks and mantas. These are 2 out ofover 160 species of cartilaginous fishes (classChondrichthyes) confirmed present in Philippinewaters (Compagno et al., in prep.). The Whale shark(Rhincodon typus) is the only representative of thefamily Rhincodontidae while the manta (Mantabirostris) is the only representative of its generaunder the family Mobulidae (devilrays) both ofwhich are under the order Elasmobranchii. Twoof the largest living fishes in the world, bothspecies feed on small planktonic organisms in seawaters. Being highly migratory, they are observedin many areas of the Philippines, occurring singlyor in groups, nearshore and offshore. Fisheryrecords show they are abundant particularlyaround the Bohol and Sulu Seas and southeasternMindanao (Alava et al. 1997a, 1997b). Recently,seasonal aggregations of Whale shark has beenfound to occur in Donsol, Sorsogon (Alava and

Yaptinchay 2000), Honda Bay, Palawan (Torres etal. 2000) and Zambales coasts.

Seahorses. Along with pipefishes, pipehorsesand seadragons, all seahorses (Hippocampus species)are members of the family Syngnathidae. Of the32 known species of seahorses in the world, 8 havebeen found to occur in the Philippines. They arefound generally in shallow waters includingseagrasses, mangrove roots, corals, open sand,muddy bottom estuaries and lagoons. They arebony fishes with curved trunk, head that resemblesa horse and a fully prehensile tail. Historicalrecords indicate that seahorse distribution isabundant particularly in Bohol, Cebu, Zamboangaand Palawan.

History of Utilization

Most of these species have a long history oftraditional, cultural and commercial utilization invarious parts of the world. In the Philippines, theexploitation of these species is also not of recent origin.Exploitation of some turtle species predates theSpanish period (1521-1899) and has continued to thepresent (Eckert 1993). Dugong have been utilized asfood as early as 9th century AD (Bautista 1990), andalso in ritual offerings in the Early Metal Age from500 to 200 BC (Fox 1970) and came into commercialimportance in the Spanish period (De Elera 1915; Seale1915).

The very early reports of cetacean harvests wereon Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) between 1761and 1935 by American whalerships (Townsend 1935).Traditional hunters from Pamilacan and CamiguinIslands used harpoons and gaff hooks around BoholSea since World War II (Dolar et al. 1994). The samehunting implements were used in Whale shark andmanta fishery at about the same time (Alava et al.1997a). Initially, the techniques were localized in thesetraditional fishing villages and then slowly expandedto neighboring ones (e.g., Talisayan, MisamisOriental), and escalated full force by mid-1990s withnew whale shark fishery sites sprouting all over tomeet increasing local and international demand forits meat (Alava et al. 1997b).

Most species are slaughtered primarily for theirhigh quality but inexpensive meat (Dugong, cetaceans,whale sharks, manta), while others are exploited fortheir body parts (e.g., eggs, leather, oil, shell, skin, fat,bones, blubber, gastrointestinal tract, sex organs, fins,teeth) which have many uses to humans, as food, baitto catch sharks and chambered nautilus, Nautiluspompilius (Dolar et al. 1994; Dolar et al. 1997),


Dugong (Dugong dugon)

Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)

Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris)

Whale shark (Rhincodon typus)

Marine Protected Species Found in the Philippines

aphrodisiacs or various medicinal properties, both forlocal and/or international markets (Eckert and Eckert1989; PCP 1999). With the lifting of trade barriers andincreased prices brought about by fast growth in theEast Asian market, import of these animals and theirby-products has increased in the past 30 years (Millikenand Tokunaga 1987; Alava and Yaptinchay 2000).

Threats and Biological Constraints

Threats are basically posed on the species itself(direct impact) by natural (e.g., death by predation ordiseases) and anthropogenic sources. Being largemarine vertebrates, sea turtles, Dugong and cetaceans(marine mammals), Whale shark and mantas(elasmobranches) generally have very few naturalpredators and have adapted accordingly to be long-living, with slow growth, late sexual maturity, lowfecundity and lower rates of recovery due to theirlower reproduction potential. The impact of humansis very influential to their survival. Primary threatsfrom humans are through overexploitation and

unsustainable harvests or on their habitats throughdegradation or loss (Sala et al. 2000). Critical habitatsinclude nesting sites (e.g., beach slopes for sea turtles),feeding or grazing areas (e.g., seagrass ecosystemsfor turtles and dugongs; coral reefs and coastal areasfor some species of dolphins; mangroves, estuariesand embayments as source of food for filter-feedingspecies, such as Whale shark and manta), and matingor breeding areas (e.g., offshore island waters forHumpbacks and other cetaceans).

Since most of the critical habitats overlap with areasof increasing fishing operations, species are also highlysusceptible to by-catch in both commercial and artisanalfisheries. By-catch has a drastic impact on the species,often leading to irrevocable loss (Perrin 2002). Driftnet fisheries could be the top killer of many marinewildlife species, particularly small cetaceans and seaturtles. Often referred to as the “walls of death”,driftnets usually have a length of as long as 60 km andindiscriminately snare not only target species (such assalmon, tuna, squid, etc.) but also a variety of marinemammals, such as young whales, dolphins, porpoises,

M. Al

ava


4 The 1973 CITES is an international agreement among governments which aims to ensure that international trade inspecimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. CITES is legally binding among the parties (i.e.,states that have agreed to be bound by the convention) and provides a framework to be respected by each party, whichhas to adopt its own domestic legislation to make sure that CITES is implemented at the national level. The Philippineshas ratified the convention in 1981 and has co-proposed for the Appendix II listing of whale shark in the 12th Conferenceof Parties in Santiago, Chile, in November 2002.

fur seals and sea animals such as sea turtle, sea birds,sharks and other fish species (Paul 1994; Takashi 1997).Modified drift gill nets are operational within Philippinewaters. Other gears that also by-catch dolphins are babyringnet, bagnet, beach seine, set gillnet, bottom longline,castnet, crab trap, drift longline, drivenet, fish corral,flying fish net, stationary liftnet, two-boat lift net, purseseine, shark net and troll line (Alava and Dolar 1995;Dolar 1999; Perrin et al. 2002). Dugongs are by-caughtin fish corrals (PCP 1999; Alava 2002).

Regulations and Management

Species protection

Initial regulations and management policies havelargely been concerned with commercial (i.e.,abundance and size available for harvesting) rather thanecological value of species. Sea turtle capture is regulatedby over 20 laws promulgated dating back to 1932 (Cola1998). The laws were generally oriented to fisheriesmanagement, such as requiring licenses for marine turtleand egg collection and submission to customs forexportation, seasonal closure of the fishery, creation ofa Task Force Pawikan (the government arm to managemarine turtles in Turtle Islands including regulation oftheir exploitation), and output control in terms of quota,size, species and reproductive state. The PhilippineFisheries Commission (presently the Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources [BFAR] of the Department ofAgriculture [DA]) lost control of marine turtles in 1972to the Parks and Wildlife Bureau (presently theProtected Area and Wildlife Bureau [PAWB]) of DENRby virtue of Administrative Order (AO) 68. Legislationassociated with this change includes selective and totalban of the fishery, establishment of marine turtlesanctuaries, law enforcement and capacity-building oflocal executives (Cola 1998).

The regulation and management of marinemammals began with the creation of an interagencytask force under DENR Special Order (SO) 590 forDugong in 1991, and DENR SO 1636 for marinemammals. Dugong was declared by DENR as aprotected marine mammal under AO 55 in 1991. Thefollowing year, reports of exploitation of dolphins ledto the issuance of DA’s Fisheries Administrative Order(FAO) 185 in 1992, known as the Dolphin Ban. This

ban, however, was limited to members of the familyDelphinidae only. This was later amended in 1998under FAO 185-1 to include all other families underclass Cetacea. Prior to its amendment, DENR createdthe Inter-agency Task Force on Marine MammalConservation (IATFMMC) through SO 1636 toundertake survey and assessment of marine mammalresources in the Philippines. IATFMMC, composed ofDENR, BFAR, Department of Tourism, University ofthe Philippines-Marine Science Institute, SillimanUniversity Marine Laboratory, World Wildlife Fund-Philippines and Bookmark, Inc., became therecommendatory body which identified marinemammal research, conservation and managementneeds and programs in the country.

In 1998, Republic Act (RA) 8550 (Philippine FisheriesCode) was enacted to update fishery management anddevelopment in the country. The mandate of DA-BFARon cetacean conservation and management was explicitlydefined with the issuance of FAO 208, listing rare,threatened and endangered fishery species. This list,however, inadvertently excluded the Irrawaddydolphin, the most critically endangered species amongall the cetaceans in the Philippines.

The need for Whale shark and manta ray conservationwas initially identified by IATFMMC during its FirstNational Marine Mammal Workshop conducted in 1995.The species, however, were only afforded protection inMarch 1998 through FAO 193, the first protection givenfor any shark species in the Philippines.

As a corollary to the Fisheries Code of 1998, theWildlife Conservation Policy was updated through theWildlife Act of 2001. Consistent with the Fisheries Code,the Wildlife Act specifically stipulates that marinemammal species except Dugong shall be under thejurisdiction of DA-BFAR. The management of Dugongand sea turtles remained with DENR-PAWB. Anotherfeature of this policy is the acknowledgement of theStrategic Environmental Plan for Palawan, wherebyresponsibility for wildlife resources in Palawan, whetheraquatic or terrestrial, was devolved to the PalawanCouncil for Sustainable Development (Palma 2002).

All of the species of concern are nonendemic andmigratory, thus protection may entail more than locallegislation and management. International protection,particularly from trade, is provided by the Conventionon International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild


Fauna and Flora (CITES)4. CITES (2002) provides threelevels of protection through their appendice listings:Appendix I lists species threatened with extinction andgenerally prohibits species from commercial trade.Appendix II regulates international trade in speciesthat may be threatened with extinction without tradecontrols. Appendix III lists species that are protectedin at least one country that has asked for assistance incontrolling the trade. Except for manta rays, all speciesabove are listed under Appendix I or II of CITES andthus are also afforded full protection under theFisheries Code.

For by-catch, there has been no national law thatregulates and manages its impact. At the internationallevel, a global moratorium on large-scale high-seasdriftnet fishing (UN Resolution 46/215) was put intoeffect by the United Nations General Assembly on 31December 1992 (Paul 1994; Takashi 1997), to which manycountries purportedly complied with.

Habitat protection

Sea turtles are the first species to have their habitatsprotected. In 1982, the government established sevenmarine turtle sanctuaries in three provinces: Antique,Palawan and Tawi-tawi (AO No. 8). As sanctuaries,these areas cannot be alienated, disposed of andexploited. Extractive activities within 250 m from theshore at lowest tidal line of the sanctuaries are alsoprohibited. This move introduced habitat protectionas a government strategy after relying heavily onregulation of species exploitation (Cola 1998).

In June 1992, the Philippine Congress passed RA7586 providing for the establishment and managementof a National Integrated Protected Areas System(NIPAS) to: “encompass outstandingly remarkableareas and biologically important public lands that arehabitats of rare and endangered species of plants andanimals, biogeographic zones and related ecosystems,whether terrestrial, wetland or marine, all of whichshall be designated as ‘protected areas’”. The DENRlater issued NIPAS Implementing Rules and Regulation(AO No. 25) which sets the steps for the establishmentof NIPAS areas.

By virtue of the NIPAS law, a number of protectedareas were established. Worth mentioning are some ofthe critical sites for species of concern, namely: the TurtleIslands Heritage Protected Area, breeding or restingareas for endangered turtles such as the hawksbill andgreen sea turtles (PCP 1999); Batanes Islands ProtectedLandscapes and Seascapes, possibly the southernmostbreeding area of humpback whales in the western NorthPacific and records 11 cetacean species including thehumpback and sperm whales, and thus the most

cetacean-diverse area surveyed to date (Yaptinchay1999; Acebes et al. 2000; Acebes 2001); and theMalampaya Sound, the only known habitat of theIrrawaddy dolphin. Historically, Malampaya Sound isone of the most productive fishing grounds in thePhilippines and hosts Green sea turtles and Sea cows.The declaration of protected areas accorded some formof protection for marine wildlife through its respectiveProtected Areas Management Board (PAMB).

Tañon Strait is declared a Protected Seascape underPresidential Proclamation No. 1234. A critical habitatfor at least nine species of dolphins and whales, it wasproposed as a marine mammal sanctuary prior to itsproclamation as a protected seascape (Alava et al. 1993).

With the devolution of governance to LGUs underthe Local Government Code of 1991, management ofmunicipal waters within 15 km from the shore wasturned over to them. Such autonomy encouragesmunicipalities to implement conservation-linkeddevelopment activities such as ecotourism (e.g., BaisCity for dolphin and whale watching, Donsol for Whaleshark interaction tours) (Palma 2002). The coastal watersof Donsol, Sorsogon, have been a Whale shark sanctuaryby a municipal ordinance in March 1998. Green Islandand Taytay Bays in Palawan have been proposed to beestablished as Dugong sanctuaries (PCP 1999) but arestill awaiting endorsements from their respective LGUs.

Transfrontier management areas

In May 1996, a Memorandum of Agreement wassigned by the governments of the Philippines andMalaysia establishing the Turtle Islands HeritageProtected Area as the world’s first ever transfrontiermanagement area for sea turtles. This was recognizedby conservationists as a landmark agreement as wellas a novel and pragmatic approach to conserving seaturtle populations straddling the borders of two or moresites (Trono 2000).

Conservation Status and Challenges

Based on the IUCN Red List, only sea turtle speciesare either endangered or critically endangered whilethe Whale shark and three marine mammals aredeclared vulnerable. The rest of the species listed hereare either data-deficient or at low risk globally (Hilton-Taylor 2000) (refer to Table 1). A recent review on theIrrawaddy dolphin population in Malampaya Soundusing the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteriarevealed that the species is critically endangered and iscurrently being recommended for inclusion in FAO 208and the Philippine Red List (WWF-Philippines 2003).


5 The Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known asAgenda 21 states: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by Statesaccording to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certaintyshall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. Theapproach includes taking action in the face of uncertainty, shifting burdens of proof to those who create risks, analysisof alternatives to potentially harmful activities and participatory decisionmaking methods.

Scanning through environmental policies ratifiedin years past, it is apparent that the Philippines hasenough laws to ensure the survival of the species inquestion. Yet, despite decades of protection of thesespecies, legal and illegal takes (e.g., continuous harvestof turtle eggs), poaching and covert trade (e.g.,cetaceans, manta, Whale shark) and by-catch (e.g.,cetaceans, Dugong) still persist. The laws are rarelyenforced or evaluated. The need for protection of thesespecies is ever present. The conservation challenge iswhether protection of the species resulted in actualconservation of their biological and ecological viability.If considered from the fishery perspective, hasprotection ensured sustainability and productivity ofstocks?

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Philippines is one of the world’s megadiversitycountries, with more than 52,177 described species (Onget al. 2002), of which more than half are found nowhereelse in the world. The magnitude of the critical threatsto its outstanding biodiversity requires immediateattention if their effects on marine ecosystems areexpected to be slowed and/or neutralized. Theunsustainable pattern of resource use is aggravated bynatural threats, which greatly contribute to biodiversityloss. The threats include competition with other species,diseases and predation exacerbated by swelling globalhuman population that exerts additional pressuresthrough unregulated collection, pollution and habitatdegradation or loss.

Protection of the species is one of the mostimmediate and logical responses to its danger ofbecoming extinct. However, species of concern focuson more charismatic ones that are receiving the benefitsof protection. Many other species, including sharks,skates and rays, are in great, or greater, need ofconservation action and legal protection. The limitreference points, where there is serious stock collapse,are often unknown for a number of these species,particularly in the Philippines. Yet the precautionaryreference points, such as increased fishing effort anddecreased yields, have warned us that action is needed.Unless addressed, the socioeconomic repercussion ofcollapses to dependent communities will be large lossesof employment and revenues. The government must

be called upon to protect these species under the“precautionary approach” to management of theseresources under Agenda 21.5

Habitat protection is also critical to conserve thespecies. The establishment and management ofprotected areas should, as far as possible, be designedto include areas important for all species of concernfound in Philippine waters. Marine protected areasmaintain the ecosystems’ biodiversity by allowingspecies to evolve and function undisturbed whileproviding a safety margin against human-induced andnatural disasters and offer a solid ecological base fromwhich threatened species can recover. MPAs areconduit to the protection of marine corridorsstrategically situated in Philippine waters. Theymaintain ecosystem and evolutionary processes andguarantee the existence of species unique to our watersthrough the completion of their life stages. Protectionof critical nesting sites has been done for sea turtles.Other areas need to be studied and highlighted fortheir ecological importance to the species, as breedingsites (e.g., Batanes Islands for Humpbacks) and criticalhabitats (e.g., Malampaya Sound for Irrawaddydolphins; Green Island and Taytay Bays for Dugong).

More transfrontier management agreementsamong neighboring countries of the Philippines areneeded to promote conservation and managementinitiatives of straddling stocks. A regional agreementis currently being drafted for the Whale sharks, in thewake of its CITES success.

However, while declarations of protected statusof both species and their habitats are reassuring toconservationists, governments and environmentalNGOs alike, without implementation of enforceableregulations, including appropriate institutionalmechanisms and budgets to strengthen and sustainimplementation of local and national laws relevant tospecies and habitat protection, these result in littleeffective protection. It is thus recommended thatappropriate institutional mechanisms should beestablished to strengthen implementation of local andnational laws relevant to species protection, includinghigher budgets to sustain enforcement, capacity-building and the conduct of research and monitoringnecessary to increase the knowledge base on theresource being protected, without which theconservation challenge cannot be answered.


The uncertainties associated with decentralizationof the government have also exacerbatedenvironmental degradation. The shift ofresponsibilities to local agencies, with little experienceand capacity to handle authority, creates a window ofgreat pressure to successfully enforce nationalenvironmental laws and policies. The changing politicalleadership in the country also represents a constantshift of priorities and orientation on the implementationof resource use policies, laws and plans that shouldincorporate biodiversity conservation objectives. Theabsence of integrated policies among developmentsectors (e.g., DA, DENR and the Department of theInterior and Local Government) and an unclearcoordination mechanism among national, provincialand local governments often create contradictory andsometimes overlapping policies.

Efforts must be exerted for a more integratedapproach to conservation and management involvingnot only relevant government agencies and LGUs butalso other stakeholders including NGOs, academe,people’s organizations and most especially the localcommunity that would advocate and influence theconservation and development planning processes.Concurrently, appropriate local and nationalinformation awareness programs on conservation ofspecies and protection of their habitats must also bedeveloped and implemented.

References

Acebes, J.V. 2001. Photographic identification of humpback whales(Megaptera novaeanglia) in the Babuyan islands, NorthernLuzon, Philippines. Abstract. In Proceedings of the FourteenthBiennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28November-3 December 2001, Vancouver, Canada.

Acebes, J.V., C.A. Coronado, J.H. Sumangil, A.S. Silayan, E.Z.Dolumbal, G.M. Sano, R.C. Baltazar and J.G. Davies. 2000.Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) survey in theBabuyan Islands, Cagayan province, Philippines. A reportsubmitted to the Cetacean Research and Conservation Project,Phase Two, World Wildlife Fund-Philippines. (Unpublished).

Alava, M.N.R. 2002. WWF cetacean-fisheries interaction andconservation management in the Philippines. Work. Doc. forthe Second Workshop on the Biology and Conservation ofSmall Cetaceans and Dugongs of South-east Asia, 24-26 July2002. Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines. CMS/SEAMAMII/Doc. 29. (Unpublished).

Alava, M.N.R. and A.A. Yaptinchay. 2000. Whale sharks in thePhilippines. Shark Conference 2000, 21-24 February 2000,Hawaii, USA..

Alava, M.N.R. and M.L.L. Dolar. 1995. Resource utilization on marinemammals in Visayas and Mindanao, Philippines. Abstracts. InProceedings of the Eleventh Biennial Conference on the Biologyof Marine Mammals, 14-18 December 1995, Florida, USA.

Alava, M.N.R., A.A. Yaptinchay, R.B. Trono and E.R.Z. Dolumbal.1997a. Fishery and trade of whale sharks and manta rays inthe Bohol Sea, Philippines. In Proceedings of the InternationalSeminar and Workshop on Sharks and Ray Biodiversity,Conservation and Management, 7-10 July 1997, Sabah,Malaysia. Department of Fisheries-Sabah, IUCN SpeciesSurvival Commission’s Shark Specialist Group.

Alava, M.N.R., A.A.Yaptinchay, G. Acogido, M.L.L. Dolar, C.J. Woodand S. Leatherwood. 1997b. Fishery and trade of whale shark(Rhincodon typus) in the Philippines. Abstract. In Proceedingsof the Thirteenth American Elasmobranch Society AnnualMeeting, Washington, USA.

Alava, M.N.R., M.L.L. Dolar, S. Leatherwood and C.J. Wood. 1993.Marine mammals of the Philippines. Asia Life Sci. 2: 227-234.

Bautista, A.P. 1990. A zooarchaeological perspective on theAmbangan site, a prehistoric settlement in Butuan, Agusan delNorte, southern Philippines. Indo-Pac. Prehist. Assoc. Bull.1(10): 161-170.

Bautista, A.L. 2002. Cetaceans in the Philippines: An update for2002. Work. Doc. for the Second Workshop on the Biology andConservation of Small Cetaceans and Dugongs of South-eastAsia, 24-26 July 2002. Silliman University, Dumaguete City,Philippines. CMS/SEAMAMII/Doc. 25. (Unpublished).

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 2001. Philippinefisheries profile. BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines.

Briggs, J.C. 1999. Coincident biogeographic patterns: Indo-WestPacific Ocean. Evolution 53(2): 326-335.

CITES (Convention of International Trade of Endangered Flora andFauna). 2002. http://www/cites.org.

Cola, R.M. 1998. Social and institutional assessment for Turtle IslandsIntegrated Conservation and Development Project. Reportsubmitted to World Wildlife Fund-Philippines Turtle IslandHeritage Park Area Project . 95 p. (Unpublished).

Compagno, L.J.V., P. Last, J. Stevens, M.N.R. Alava, J.P.A.Gaudiano, M.M.L. Maypa, B. Samaniego and A. Oliver.Checklist of Philippine Chondrichthyes. 88 p. (In prep.)

Cruz, R.D. 1999. Research, conservation and management of marineturtle in the Philippines. In M.T.M. Nasir, A.K.A. Karin and M.M.Ramli. Report of the SEAFDEC-ASEAN Regional Workshop onSea Turtle Conservation and Management, 26-28 July 1999,Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. Marine Fishery ResourcesDevelopment and Management Department, Southeast AsianFisheries Development Center, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.

De Elera, C. 1915. Contribution a la Fauna Filipina. Colegio de Sto.Tomas, Manila, Philippines.

De Veyra, R. and T.D. Ramirez. 1994. Status of marine turtles in thePhilippines. In K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson andP.J. Elizar, Compilers. Proceedings of the Fourteenth AnnualSymposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-351, 323 p.

Del Valle, L. and M.T. Aquino. 2002. Status and incidence of Irrawaddyby-catch in Malampaya Sound. Abstract. Second InternationalConference on the Marine Mammals of Southeast Asia, 22-23,2002, Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines.

Dolar, M.L.L. 1999. A survey of cetaceans and fishery interaction inthe Northwestern Sulu Sea and Malampaya Sound, Philippines.World Wide Fund for Nature - U.S. and Silliman University,Dumaguete City, Philippines.

Dolar, M.L.L and C.J. Wood. 1992. Survey of marine mammals in theCentral Visayas and Northern Mindanao. Enviroscope 7(8): 1-8.

Dolar, M.L.L. and W.F. Perrin. 1996. Preliminary results on thedistribution and abundance of cetaceans in the Philippines.Int. Mar. Biol. Res. Inst. Rep. No. 6: 9-23. Kamogawa, Japan.


Dolar, M.L.L., W.F. Perrin, J.P. Gaudiano, A.A.S.P. Yaptinchay andJ.M.L. Tan. 2002. Preliminary report on a small estuarinepopulation of Irrawaddy dolphins Orcaella brevirostris in thePhilippines. Raffles Bull. Zool. 10: 155-160.

Dolar, M.L.L., S. Leatherwood, C. Wood, M.N.R. Alava, C. Hill andL.V. Aragones. 1994. Directed fisheries for cetaceans in thePhilippines. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 44:439-449.

Dolar, M.L.L., W.F. Perrin, A.A.S.P. Yaptinchay, S.A.B.J.H. Jaaman,M. Santos, M.N.R. Alava and S.B. Suliansa. 1997. Preliminaryinvestigation of marine mammal distribution, abundance, andinteractions with humans in the Southern Sulu Sea. Asian Mar.Biol. 14: 61-81.

Domantay, J.S. 1953. The turtle fisheries of the Turtle Islands. Bull.Fish. Soc. Philipp. 1952-3 (3-4): 3-27.

Eckert, K.L. 1993. The biology and population status of marineturtles in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-186, 156 p.

Eckert, K.L. and S.A. Eckert. 1989. The leathery turtle. Underwat.Nat. 18(1): 18-24.

Fox, R.B. 1970. The Tabon Caves: Archaelogical expeditions andexcavations on Palawan Island, Philippines. Monogr. Nat. Mus.No. 1.

Heaney, L.R., D.S Balete., M.L.L. Dolar, A.C. Alcala, A.T.L. Dans,P.C. Gonzales, N.R. Ingle, M.V. Lepiten, W.L.R. Oliver, P.S.Ong, E.A. Rickart, B.R. Tabaranza Jr., and R.C.B. Utzurrum.1998. A synopsis of the mammalian fauna of the Philippineislands. Fieldiana (Zool.) 88: 61 p.

Hilton-Taylor, C. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of threatened species.World Conservation Union. http://www/redlist.org

Leatherwood, S., M.L.L. Dolar, C.J. Wood, L. Aragones and C.L.Hill. 1993. Marine mammal species confirmed from Philippinewaters. Silliman J. 36(1): 65-86.

Marsh, H., H. Penrose, C. Eros and J. Hughes. 2002. Dugong statusreport and action plan for countries and territories. Early Warn.Assess. Rep. Ser. UNEP/DEWA/RS.02-1.

Milliken, T. and H. Tokunaga. 1987. The Japanese sea turtle trade,1970-1986. TRAFFIC (Japan) and Center for EnvironmentalEducation, Washington D C, USA. 171 p.

Ong, P.S., L.E. Afuang and R.G. Rosell-Ambal, Editors. 2002.Philippine biodiversity conservation priorities: A second iterationof the national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources-Protected Areas andWildlife Bureau, Conservation International Philippines,Biodiversity Conservation Program-University of the PhilippinesCenter for Integrative and Development Studies and Foundationfor the Philippine Environment, Quezon City, Philippines. 113p.

Palma, J.A. 2002. Policies and updates on the management andconservation of marine mammals in the Philippines. Work. Doc.for the Second Workshop on the Biology and Conservation ofSmall Cetaceans and Dugongs of Southeast Asia, 24-26 July2002, Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines. CMS/SEAMAMII/Doc. 26. (Unpublished).

Paul, L. 1994. High seas driftnetting: The plunder of the globalcommons. http://www.earthtrust.org/dnpaper/contents.html

PCP (Pawikan Conservation Project). 1999. A manual on marineturtle and dugong conservation in the Philippines. 8th ed.Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.

Perrin, W.F. 2002. Can developing countries do anything aboutbycatch? Terragreen: News to Save the Earth(25): centerpiece.

Perrin, W.F., R.R. Reeves, M.L.L. Dolar, T.A. Jefferson, H. Marsh,J.Y. Wang and J. Estacion, Editors. 2002. Report of the SecondWorkshop on the Biology and Conservation of Small Cetaceans

and Dugongs of Southeast Asia, 24-26 July 2002, SillimanUniversity, Dumaguete City, Philippines. 90 p.

Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, R. Berlow, J. Bloomfield,R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A.Kinzig, S. Leemans, D. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M. Oesterheld,N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker and D.H. Wall.2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science287: 1770-1774.

Seale, A. 1915. Note regarding the dugong in the Philippine Islands.Philipp. J. Sci. X(D.3): 215-218.

Slipjer, E.J., W.L. van Utrecht and C. Naaktgeboren. 1964. Remarkson the distribution and migration of whales based onobservations from Netherland ships. Bijdr. Kierdk. 34: 3-93.

Smith, B.D., I. Beasley, M. Buccat, V. Calderon, R. Evina, J. L. delValle, A. Cadigal, E. Tura and Z. Visitacion. 2002. Status, ecologyand conservation of Irrawaddy dolphins, Orcaella brevirostris,in Malampaya Sound, Palawan, Philippines. Work. Doc. for theSecond Workshop on the Biology and Conservation of SmallCetaceans and Dugongs of Southeast Asia, 24-26 July 2002.Silliman University, Dumaguete City, Philippines. CMS/SEAMAMII/Doc. 14. (Unpublished).

Takashi, M. 1997. TED case studies: Japan driftnet fishing. TradeEnviron. Stud. Case Stud. Vol. 5(1): 251 p. and http://www.american.edu/TED/DRIFTJAP.HTM.

Torres, D.S. 2002. Dugong conservation activities conducted bythe Department of Environment and Natural Resources (of thePhilippines) from 1991-2002. Work. Doc. for the SecondWorkshop on the Biology and Conservation of Small Cetaceansand Dugongs of South-east Asia, 24-26 July 2002. SillimanUniversity, Dumaguete City, Philippines. CMS/SEAMAMII/Doc.22. (Unpublished).

Torres, D.S., I.A. Lim, C.T. Reyes and E. Narida. 2000. Notes on thecharacteristics of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in HondaBay (Palawan, Philippines). Papers in American ElasmobranchSociety (AES) Symposium on Natural History during theSixteenth Annual Meeting of AES, 14-20 June 2000, UniversityAutonoma de Baja California Sur, La Paz, B.C.S., Mexico.

Townsend, C.H. 1935. The distribution of certain whales as shownby logbook records of American whaleships. Zoologica 19(1):1-50.

Trono, R.B. 2000. Operationalizing a transfrontier management areafor sea turtles: The case of Turtle Islands Heritage ProtectedArea, p. 55-56. In H. Kalb and T. Wibbels, Compilers.Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea TurtleConservation and Biology, 2-6 March 1999. NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-SEFSC-443.

WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature)-Philippines. 2003. Proceedingsof the Workshop for the Inclusion of Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaellabrevisrotris) Owen in Gray (1866) in the Philippine Red DataList. WWF-Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Yaptinchay, A.A. 1999. New humpback whale wintering ground inthe Philippines. Abstracts. In Proceedings of the ThirteenthBiennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, 28November-3 December 1999, Hawaii, USA.


Philippine Fishing Boats1

GLENN D. AGUILARInstitute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanology


Miagao, Iloilo 5023Philippines

Background

As you travel the length and breadth of thePhilippine archipelago, its coastline has an almostubiquitous feature - indigenous seacrafts which aremostly small and operated just off the shore. Philippinefishing boats are classified into municipal (3 GT orless) and commercial (greater than 3 GT). Municipalfishing boats may further be classified intononmotorized and motorized types (Table 1).Commercial fishing boats have three categories: small(over 3-20 GT), medium (over 20-150 GT) and large(more than 150 GT).

A majority of boats are the double-outrigger typeof a craft, consisting of a narrow main hull with twoattached bamboo outriggers. Commonly called banca,this craft may range in capacity from a single personusing a paddle or sail for propulsion, to vessels crewedby 30-40 people powered by 250 HP diesel engines.Some medium and most large commercial boats aremonohulls, built of steel and usually acquired second-hand (directly from abroad or converted from other

craft types). Most improvements of the banca have beenin the utilization of available materials and technologiesfor its construction and power requirements. Originallyconstructed from solid logs where the hull was carvedand the interior dug out, the side hulls were replacedthrough time by plywood when they became abundant(Figure 1). Inboard engines replaced sails as majormeans of propulsion. Local boat-builders design andbuild these boats - with designs common to certaingeographic areas and made of locally availablematerials. The main hull consists of a carved log dugoutto which marine plywood is attached to form the sideplanking, and bamboo floats are attached by two or

Table 1. Classifications and principal dimensions of boats commonlyused for fishing operations in the Philippines.

Category/Type

Municipal fishing boatsNonmotorizedMotorized

Commercial fishing boatsHandlinerHulbotan (Danish seiner)Basnigan (bagnetter)TrawlerRingnetterPurse seinerCarrier

Length Overall (m)

3-75-18

3-1510-2515-2711-2212-2520-5012-50

GT

0.1-0.20.5 -2.9

3.0-104-305-206-20

15-5040-30010-250

A maritime tradition

Excavations in Butuan City, Mindanao, unearthed 12vessel artifacts capable of ocean voyages dating back to the8th century AD. These contribute to evidence that theMicronesian Islands were inhabited by ancestors of the Filipinoswith such similarities as rice culture, betel nut chewing andtuba or coconut wine.

The Spaniards noted the navigational skill of Filipinos,particularly the Bisaya who used a compass found among theMalays and Chinese. Legaspi, who captured a “Moro” inButuan, noted that he was “...a most experienced man whohad much knowledge, not only of matters concerning theseFilipinas Islands, but those of Maluco, Borney, Malaca, Jaba,India, and China, where he had had much experience innavigation and trade” (Blair and Robertson 1973, Vol. II, p.116).

Such navigational skills would have been developedthrough a tradition of constant voyaging and exploration whereseasonal winds were favorable and literally blew people fromone area to another. Historical accounts of early Malaysettlement of the islands consistently included ships calledbalanghais that transported datus or chiefs from the southernMalay islands.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: AGUILAR, G.D. 2004. Philippine fishing boats, p. 118-121. In DA-BFAR (Departmentof Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Fishing boats 119

three transverse booms to the main hull for purposesof stability. Native craft design is so prevalent; craftseven up to 30 m in length overall have doubleoutriggers with semi-dugout hulls. Naturally, dugoutsof this size are carved from big tree trunks (Aguilar1997a, 1997b, 1999a, 1999b).

Indigenous crafts are the most popular fishingplatforms mainly because of their affordability. The costof a boat constructed by local boat-builders is withinthe means of most fishers. Availability of suitable logsfor the dugout hull, bamboo for outriggers and otherrequired materials are further reasons. With doubleoutriggers, the craft tends to provide a stable workingplatform; the highly buoyant hull materials tend to makethe fishers feel safe and comfortable.

Observed disadvantages of such indigenous craftsinclude a narrow working space, improperly matchedpropulsion system and a reliance on outriggers forstability. There are other weaknesses in an evolutionarytype of design development in which lack of engineeringcomputations is the norm. This is a challenge fordesigners to determine such deficiencies and worktowards improving the safety, durability and efficiencyof existing hull forms. Designs exhibit distinct variationthroughout the archipelago. Some craft designs couldnot be found anywhere else except within a certain area.Comparisons show distinct variations betweenindigenous and modern fishing boats.

The decrease of catches in coastal areas has alsoresulted in scaled-up versions or bigger vessels of doubleoutrigger types to be able to fish further offshore. Mostof these boats, like the small crafts from which theyoriginated, are constructed by traditional boat-builderswithout the benefit of any engineering or navalarchitecture design. They are built from experience orskill that has been handed down the generations. Thelast formal data on municipal fishing boats available werein 1985 with a total of 464,395, up from the last 1980census of 367,838. If projected to the current year using agrowth rate of the five-year period, there would bearound 812,000 municipal crafts in 2003. The highestnumber of motorized and nonmotorized boats is foundin Regions IV, V, VII, VIII and IX. For commercial boats,there were 3,211 reported in 1997, increasing to 3,601 in1999. The most number of boats is found in the NationalCapital Region followed by Regions XI and VI.

Municipal Fishing Boats

Nonmotorized type

Using either paddle or sail as means of propulsion,nonmotorized boats carry from one to several people

depending on the fishing gear used. Paddled boats havethe fishers facing the front without any oarlocks. Thereare some boats (for example, the beach seine boats ofMiagao, Iloilo) where rowers face the stern or aft, butin general they face forward and paddle rather thanrow the boat. For sail-powered boats, fishing is not theonly use for them. Regattas or sailing races have latelybecome popular as tourist attractions. During favorablemonsoon weather, popular fishing gears used by sail-powered craft include trolling, handlines and gill nets.Since many payaos already exist, it is usual for fishers tosail to payaos, tie their boats to these and fish usinghandlines. When payaos are fished by a commercial boat(ringnetter or purse seiner), the fishers using small boatsare usually given a few kilos from the large catch of thecommercial boat.

Motorized type

Boats with 3-16 HP gasoline or diesel engine arethe most common motorized fishing crafts (Figure 2).Usually a Briggs and Stratton or Kohler engine isdirectly coupled to the shaft to which a two-bladedstainless steel propeller is attached. The rudder iscontrolled by means of a long pole attached to therudder arm. Gill nets, handlines, traps, small ringnetsand other small gears are usually operated from theseboats. Recent innovations include the use of fiberglassto sheath areas of the hull most prone to damage suchas exposed decks and side hulls. Some governmentprojects and private individuals have built purefiberglass hulls using molds. The high price offiberglass, however, is a major constraint to itswidespread adoption.

Commercial Fishing Boats

Small-scale type

Fishing gears, such as trawls, skim nets, ringnets,liftnets and Danish seines, are operated using bigoutrigger boats of more than 3 GT (Figure 3). Presently,most still operate within municipal waters, dependingon the municipality. The control of municipal watersis with the municipality and each has its own systemand limitations in implementing regulations. This hasresulted in some municipalities being strict and othersbeing not so strict. The areas of jurisdiction of the lattermunicipalities are now the more popular fishinggrounds.

Motors are generally second-hand diesel enginesimported from Japan and converted into marine use.Most boats are locally built and with the growing


Figure 1. Evolution in construction of small boats in the Philippines.

Figure 3. Typical small-scale commercial fishing boat.Figure 2. Typical motorized banca used in many coastal fishinggrounds of the country.

Figure 4. Typical medium-scale commercial fishing boat. Figure 5. Typical large-scale commercial fishing boats.

Fishing boats 121

expense of logs used for dugout portion, alternativematerials such as fiberglass are being investigated. Anumber of crafts of this size category also serve asfish carriers - bringing catch from “catcher” boats tothe market each morning. Some are also used as “light”boats used for fish attraction and payao fishing.

Medium-scale type

There are still outrigger boats in this category(Figure 4), including the basnig or liftnet boats, thelarge Danish seiners or super hulbot, medium trawlersand old monohulls fitted with outriggers. Monohullsalso exist (both wooden and steel) and most areengaged in ringnet or baby purse seine operations.The operations of fishing crafts in this category aremost affected by the 15-km ban on commercial fishing(in terms of number affected and increased cost ofoperations). A growing number of medium-scalecommercial boats are equipped with moderncommunications and fish finding equipment. It is notuncommon to find global positioning system-equippedfish finders and sonars on board ringnetters. Somesuper-hulbot operations also belong to this category(Aguilar 2000; Shigehiro et al. 2001).

Large-Scale Commercial Fishing Boats

Large boats (Figure 5) are mainly engaged in purseseining, with most catchers going for tuna or seasonalsmall pelagic fishes such as mackerels and roundscads.Most are made of steel and bought second-hand fromother countries (Japan, US and Taiwan), although afew are constructed locally. Some are not originallyfishing boats and only converted for use in fishing bycompanies that purchased them. Aside from their oldage, such converted boats have altered stability andpose great danger during operations (Sigua andAguilar 1999).

The mode of operation is mostly fleet-type wherea carrier boat is dispatched to several catcher boatslocated in fishing grounds. The carrier boat loads fishfrom catchers and brings the catch to ports orprocessing facilities. In some instances, carrier boatsare owned by other companies and the fish arepurchased from catchers at fishing ground. There istherefore some difference between fishing groundprice and landed price. Large commercial vessels travelall over the archipelago to fish. Landings in Navotasmay come from Celebes Sea, Sulu Sea or other areasbut are (statistically) recorded as production in theNational Capital Region.

Conclusion

The country’s boat-building industry remains abackyard (or beachfront) one. There is potential inthe development of mass-produced boats that arecheap, safe, efficient, ecologically friendly andacceptable to fishers. When Japan converted tofiberglass-reinforced plastic boats from their traditionalboats in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a lot ofresistance from fishers. Government workers had togo to the extent of demonstrating the strength offiberglass-reinforced plastic versus wood byhammering the two hulls and comparing their relativestrength. But the main factor that really forcedJapanese fishers to change was the increasing costs ofwood. Perhaps within the next 10 years, with thecountry’s wood resources running out, the economicsof fishing boat construction will force a similarconversion. The opportunity for establishing such anindustry is hence quite attractive.

References

Aguilar, G.D. 1997a. Comparative survey of hull forms of indigenousfishing crafts. UPV J. Nat. Sci. 2(1): 20-58.

Aguilar, G.D. 1997b. Computer modelling of indigenous fishingcrafts. UPV J. Nat. Sci. 2(1): 59-80.

Aguilar, G.D. 1999a. Current status of research and educationand the technological components of the Philippine marineindustries. Paper presented at the Roundtable on MarineTransportation. University of the Philippines, Diliman, QuezonCity.

Aguilar, G.D. 1999b. Philippine fishing vessels and the FisheriesCode of 1998: Issues and challenges. Proceedings of theThird Japan Society for the Promotion of Science InternationalConference on Fisheries Science for Tropical Areas:Sustainable Fishing Technology, 19-22 August 1999, Bali,Indonesia.

Aguilar, G.D. 2000. Some marine transport concerns. Public Policy4(1): 93-119.

Aguilar, G.D., R. Shigehiro and T. Kuroda. 2001. Resistancecharacteristics of Philippine outrigger fishing craft. UPV J.Nat. Sci. 6: 46-54.

Blair, E.H. and J.A. Robertson. 1973. The Philippine Islands 1493-1895. Vols. 1-55. Manila, Philippines.

Shigehiro, R., G.D. Aguilar and T. Kuroda. 2001. Turningperformance of outrigger craft in the Philippines. UPV J. Nat.Sci. 6:55-68.

Sigua, R. and G.D. Aguilar. 1999. Marine transportation and safety,p. 71-86. In J. Batongbacal (ed.) Archipelagic studies chartingnew waters. University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City,Philippines.


Trends and Status of Fish Processing Technology1

JASMIN ESPEJO-HERMESTechnology and Livelihood Resource Center

709 City State Centre BuildingShaw Blvd., Pasig City

Philippines

Introduction

Rice and fish are the staple foods in thePhilippines contributing 35.1% and 12.3%,respectively, of the total food intake. Fishcontributes around 22.4% of the total protein intakeof the average Filipino. It is the main source ofanimal protein in the diet, contributing 56% to thetotal animal protein intake (FNRI/DOST 1993). ThePhilippine per capita fish consumption was 26.8 kg/year in 2001 (BAS 2002). There was only a slightfluctuation in average fish consumption during theperiod 1997-2001 (Table 1). Fish is consumed asfresh, fermented, dried, smoked and canned in thecountry.

Fish Trade

The Philippines is an exporter as well asimporter of fish and fishery products. The balanceof trade is negative in terms of quantity, butpositive in terms of value. Both exports andimports were lower in 2001 compared to those in2000.

High-quality and high-valued fishery productsare exported to developed countries to earn foreigncurrency and this reduces the availability andaffordability of products such as shrimps andprawns for domestic sale. In 2001, the total exportof fish and fishery products was 159,069 t valuedat P22.72 billion. The products consisted mainly of

Table 1. Fish supply and use in the Philippines, 1997-2001 (BAS 2002).

Item

Total fish supply (t)Total fish use (t)Apparent food use (t)PopulationPer capita (kg)

1997

2,254,3332,254,3331,894,210

71,145,55626.62

1998

2,196,0772,196,0771,837,612

72,581,22325.32

1999

2,348,2462,348,2461,984,944

74,045,63726.81

2000

2,406,4732,406,4732,034,235

76,498,73526.59

2001

2,449,1232,449,1232,088,499

77,925,89426.80

Year

Data on the disposition of catch in thePhilippines are inadequate. Around 70% of the totalcatch is consumed fresh or chilled while 30% isprocessed into cured, canned, frozen products ordisposed of live (Abella and Baltazar 1995). Thebulk of cured fish and fishery products areconsumed locally while only a small quantity isexported as ethnic products. Canned products,particularly tuna, are consumed locally in smallerquantities compared with export volume, and mostof the frozen products are for export.

fresh and processed fish, crustaceans and mollusks(Table 2). Leading fishery exports were shrimpsand prawns, tuna and seaweeds. The major exportdestinations of shrimps and prawns and tuna wereJapan and the USA.

For the past several years, the Philippines hasbeen importing large quantities of pelagic speciessuch as tuna, sardines and mackerel so that variousfish processing plants can meet local demand forraw materials (Table 3). The major sources ofimported tuna are Papua New Guinea, other Pacific

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ESPEJO-HERMES, J. 2004. Trends and status of fish processing technology, p. 122-126.In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Fish processing technology 123

Islands, Taiwan and Indonesia. Mackerel mostlycome from Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In addition,large quantities of fishmeal are imported for feedpreparations and the aquaculture industry.

Fish Processing Industry

There is a growing trend towards increasedmechanization in operations in the fish processingindustry brought about by the need to reduce costand to manufacture products of consistent quality.There were 488 registered processing plants in thePhilippines as of 1999. Majority of these plantsmanufacture traditional products, such as dried (207plants) and smoked fish (177 plants) for both foreignand domestic markets. Several plants are engaged

in processing of frozen (15 plants) and cannedproducts (14 plants), mainly tuna for export purposes.Around 75 plants manufacture miscellaneous fisheryitems such as value-added products.

Fresh fish

Old practices of handling the catch are still inplace in many fishing communities in the country.However, in areas where the demand for goodquality fresh fish, particularly for export, is high,improved methods of handling (proper icing anduse of insulated containers) are widely practiced.In all three sectors of fish production - municipal,commercial and aquaculture - the degree of carepracticed in handling depends on the market value

Item

FishmealTuna

Fresh/chilled/frozenSalted/smokedPrepared/preserved

MackerelFresh/chilled/frozenSalted/smokedPrepared/preserved

SardinesFresh/chilled/frozenPrepared/preserved

Squid and cuttlefishFresh/chilled/frozenSalted/smokedPrepared/preserved

Total major importsTotal imports

1997

120,05653,86553,816

- 49

94,42294,418

1 3

9,4579,138

3199,382

-8,3301,052

287,182 295,016

1998

42,98969,40269,343

1841

41,15041,148

-2

3,4403,373

673,358

163,315

27 160,339 165,989

1999

73,17857,28757,261

-26

61,07460,980

8212

38,96538,547

41811,606

-11,389

217 242,110 255,066

2000

81,23734,54734,482

2144

44,49944,420

2455

47,80447,546

25817,827

-17,617

210 225,914 242,464

2001

84,54619,34019,125

19196

23,12323,122

-1

24,29224,012

280 12,760

-12,580

180 164,061 179,994

Year

Table 3. Major fishery product import by kind and quantity (t), 1997-2001 (BAS 2002).

Table 2. Export of fish and fishery products by kind, quantity and value, 2001(BAS 2002).

Commodity/Kind

Fish and fish preparations· fish - fresh (live or dead), chilled or frozen· fish - dried, salted or in brine, smoked (whether or not cooked

before or during smoking)· crustaceans, mollusks - whether in shell or not, fresh (live or

dead), chilled, frozen, salted in brine or dried; crustaceans inshells - simply boiled in water

· fish and other aquatic invertebrate – prepared, preservedShells and by-productsMiscellaneous and other fishery productsTotal

Quantity (t) Value (000 P)

114,79141,397

1,534

34,042

37,818 2,23342,045

159,069

18.484.300.23

9.66

4.290.653.59

22.72


of the species involved. Species of highcommercial value are better taken care of thanlow value ones. In general, aquacultureproducts are better handled than those caughtin municipal fisheries.

Freezing

There is a growing demand for modernfreezing equipment in processing plants thatcater to the export market. Contact platefreezers are commonly used for processingshrimps and prawns while air blast and brinefreezers are usually employed for tuna. Themain frozen products for export are tuna loins(Figure 1), cephalopods, shrimps and prawns.

Canning

The industry has been making extensive effortsto increase yield and efficiency and to improveproduct quality, styles of pack and packaging.Majority of the canneries in the country are up tointernational standards. New equipment is beingused in the production line to improve efficiency.In addition to conventional packing media, severalnew ones have been developed to improve cannedproducts. Variances for canned fish, particularlytuna, that suit the local taste have been made toattract local consumers and to maximize use(Espejo-Hermes 2001). By-products from canningindustry find their way into flavoring andfermenting pet food and the fishmeal industry.

Value-added products

A “world on the run” wants food that can beprepared easily or with minimum efforts (Pigott1994). Value-added products in the form of fillet,comminuted and surimi-based products andready-to-heat main fish dishes are growing indemand. Locally, comminuted or mincedproducts, such as fish balls, fish sausages, squidballs and fish nuggets are becoming common farein many supermarkets. The industry absorbs by-catch and market surpluses including farmedspecies. To date, a shift to the use of farmed species,such as milkfish and tilapia, is gaining ground due

to scarcity of raw materials from capture fisheries.A number of processors of deboned milkfish arealso converting their by-products to value-addedproducts, such as fish rolls and dumplings tominimize waste. In general, the value-addedproduct industry needs to upgrade its technologyand quality standards including hygiene andsanitation in the plants.

Traditional products

Processing of traditional products, such assalted, dried, smoked and fermented fish, is stillwidely practiced (Figure 2). These products aremainly manufactured by entrepreneurs operatingin strategic places in the country where there is aguaranteed supply of raw materials (Espejo-Hermes 1998). The processors are generally small-scale family establishments that have limitedcapital and do not receive assistance fromgovernment agencies and financing institutions.The processing methods they employ varyconsiderably, thus, resulting in inconsistent qualityand limited shelf-life of the finished products. Thereare very few local processing plants which makeuse of modern technology (mechanizedsmokehouses and dryers) and have made progressin upgrading quality standards. Only those whichexport their products have improved processingpractices, equipment, hygiene and sanitation in theplants.

Figure 1. Loining of tuna for freezing.

Fish processing technology 125

Fish Quality and Safety Aspects

Significant changes in the international tradepolicy, quality and safety criteria have pressuredthe fish processing industry to improve the productsthat are being manufactured. Many countries,including the Philippines, have adopted the HazardAnalysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) systemfor food safety management. Locally, the JointManagement Committee (JMC) has been formedto harmonize accreditation and certificationprograms of the government on HACCP and theSanitation and Standard Operating Procedure(SSOP) (Baltazar 2001). The JMC is composed ofthe Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,Bureau of Food and Drugs, Food DevelopmentCenter and Department of Trade and Industry.Currently, there are 56 plants that are accreditedby the European Union (EU) HACCP. These plantsexport frozen products, such as tuna, shrimps/prawns and cephalopods, and canned tuna tomember-countries of the EU.

Issues and Problems in the Industry

The major and most common problem in theindustry is shortage of raw materials. Due toscarcity of raw materials, species such as flatfishes,siganids and mullets which are not traditionallyused for processing, are at present not uncommonin the markets. Moreover (and what is evendisturbing) is the use of toxic species such as pufferfish for processing. Even juveniles of flatfishes andhairtail are now being processed and evenexported. Other problems of the fish processingindustry include poor quality raw materials;inconsistent quality of products; lack of appropriate

safety standards for traditional products (e.g.,unsafe products in relation to use of additives);insufficient capital to improve the enterprise; andlack of appropriate infrastructure (e.g., chilling,cold storage facilities) for the products.

Post-harvest Losses

The extent of losses in post-harvest fisheries isdifficult to quantify. Locally, an estimated loss ofabout 25-30% of the total catch is incurred due toimproper handling (Camu 1991). Based onobservation, Kamari and Sayers (1979) estimatedthat up to 30% of some fish species landed atNavotas had suffered some physical damage priorto auctioning. On a global scale, several reviewshave included estimates of total losses, and typicalfigures are shown in Table 4.

At first glance, post-harvest losses seem simple.A quantity of fish is harvested but a smaller amountreaches the consumer. However, the actualsituation is far from simple. Losses are not only amatter of quantity of material. Losses in terms ofeconomic value must be considered, which meansthe monetary worth of fish through handling,processing, distribution and marketing cycle (Ames

Table 4. Underutilization of conventional fish stocks (Ameset al. 1991).

Type of Fish Form of Loss Million t/Year

Wet Post-harvest 2Cured Post-harvest 3By-catch Discarded at sea 5-20Pelagic Used for fishmeal 20

Underexploited 20

Figure 2. Traditional smoking (Eastern Samar).


1992). Post-harvest losses of fish can be of varioustypes: material or physical, economic andnutritional.

Physical losses

Physical losses of fish after catching can beviewed in two distinct ways. First, there is whatmight be termed complete loss. Quantities of fishmay spoil completely, thus becoming entirelyinedible. By-catches from shrimp and tuna fishingare thrown overboard. Related to these losses isthe underutilization of resources where small fishare converted into fishmeal instead of being usedfor human food. Furthermore, there are less popularfish that are rarely used for human consumption.Second is what can be considered as loss of materialwhich results from poor handling and processingof both fresh and processed fish.

Economic losses

The economics of post-harvest losses is acomplex topic (Anderson 1988). Unlike physicallosses, value or economic losses are difficult tomeasure. These are gradual, progressive andsubjective; different groups of people may holddifferent views of the “worth” or value of aparticular product. The losses of material willcertainly involve a loss in value, as the fisher,processor or distributor has less weight of materialto sell. Spoilage of wet fish is accompanied by lossin value. Dried fish, which has been attacked andpartly eaten by insects, will be less attractive tobuyers than undamaged fish and its price willusually be lower. Economic losses could occurduring trading in the international market due torejection.

Nutritional losses

Fish is perishable and as it spoils, its nutritionalvalue decreases. Nutritional losses also occurduring processing particularly in traditionalmethods, such as smoking, salting and drying.Traditional processing methods can cause loss ofnutrients, when fish muscle constituents, althoughstill physically present, are not utilized by thehuman body.

Reducing losses

Much can be achieved by simple improvementsin handling and processing methods. The basic

requisite is to take better care of harvested fish byusing sufficient ice and appropriate containers forchilling and of processed fishery products throughimproved processing, packaging and storagemethods as well as efficient marketing practices.

References

Abella, F. and C. Baltazar. 1995. Status of fisheries trade andpost-harvest activities in the Philippines. Paper presented atthe Second National Fisheries Workshop on Policy Planningand Development, 22-23 November 1995, Quezon City,Philippines.

Ames, G. 1992. The kinds and levels of post-harvest losses inAfrican inland fisheries. In F. Teutscher (ed.) Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Post-harvest Fish Technology, 21-22October 1990, Cairo, Egypt. CIFA Tech. Pap. 19, 117 p.

Ames, G., I. Clucas and S.S. Paul. 1991. Post-harvest losses inthe tropics. Natural Resources Institute, University ofGreenwich, Kent, United Kingdom. 23 p.

Anderson, J.L. 1988. Economics and seafood quality. In M.Morrissey (ed.) Post-harvest fishery losses. InternationalCenter for Marine Resource Development, Rhode Island, USA.

Baltazar, C.C. 2001. Fish quality, safety and management system.In ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference on Sustainable Fisheries forFood Security in the New Millennium: Fish for the People, 19-24 November 2001, Bangkok, Thailand.

BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 2002. Fisheries statisticsof the Philippines 1997-2001. BAS, Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines. 81 p.

Camu, C. 1991. Status of Philippine fish processing industry, p.103-113. In K. Hoo, K. Miwa and M.B. Salim (eds.) Proceedingsof the Seminar on Advances in Fishery Post-harvestTechnology in Southeast Asia, 6-11 May 1991, Singapore.Marine Fisheries Research Department, Southeast AsianFisheries Development Center, Singapore.

Espejo-Hermes, J. 1998. Fish processing technology in the tropics.Tawid Publications, Quezon City, Philippines. 336 p.

Espejo-Hermes, J. 2001. An overview on fish post-harvest industryin the Philippines. In FAO Training on Fish Processing andQuality and Safety of Fishery Products, April-June 2001,Institute of Fish Processing Technology, College of Fisheriesand Ocean Sciences, University of the Philippines in theVisayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

FNRI/DOST (Food and Nutrition Research Institute/Departmentof Science and Technology). 1993. Fourth National NutritionSurvey. FNRI/DOST, Bicutan, Philippines.

Kamari, A. and J.C. Sayers. 1979. The use of standard returnablefish containers in ASEAN countries. ASEAN-Australia EconomicCooperation Food Handling Project, Sydney, Australia. 171p.

Pigott, G. 1994. Who is the 21st century consumer? INFOFISH Int.1(94): 12-30.

Economics of fisheries management 127

Economics of Fisheries Managementin the Philippines1

RALPH TOWNSEND2

University of MaineOrono, ME 04473

USA

Effective fisheries management in the Philippinesmust address the underlying economic incentives tooverexploit fisheries resources. Because a fishery is anopen access resource, too many fishers are attracted toit. These additional fishers cause the stock of fish to bereduced; the reduction in the stock leads to lower yieldsin the long run. This is a classic case of Hardin’s (1968)“tragedy of the commons”. The only way to reversethis situation is to reduce the number of fishers.

Habitat improvement alone cannot restore fishstocks and increase average fisher incomes. If habitatswere restored and the number of fishers remained thesame, then fishers could benefit from the improvedenvironment. But with open access, improved fisheries

attract more fishers. Given a large underemployedpopulation and rapid population growth, there will beno shortage of new fishers in the Philippines as stocksimprove. The stocks will revert quickly to theiroverfished status.

A model that incorporates both biology andeconomics, the Schaefer (1957)-Gordon (1954) model,explains how economic incentives interact withrenewable fishery systems. The inevitable result isoverexploitation of open access resources. Schaefer’s(1954) yield-effort curve is presented in Figure 1. Thiscurve represents the long run equilibrium between thelevel of fishing effort and the catch that can besustainably removed each year. This curve has an

Figure 1. Schaefer yield-effort curve.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: TOWNSEND, R. 2004. Economics of fisheries management in the Philippines, p. 127-130. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 The author was a Visiting Professor in 2002 at the Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanology, College of Fisheries andOcean Sciences, University of the Philippines in the Visayas.


inverted U-shape because effort has two effects. Moreeffort increases the percent of the stock that is caught,so more effort always increases total catch in the shortrun. But the increases in catch reduce the stock of fishand therefore its ability to grow and reproduce. Ateffort level EMSY, the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)can be harvested each year in perpetuity, and this isthe highest production that can be sustained from thefishery. Beyond the MSY level of effort, extra effortreduces the stock enough to lower the total sustainableyield even with more fishing effort.

In Figure 2, the yield-effort curve has beenmultiplied by a fixed price per kilogram to yield a totalrevenue curve. The U-shape is unchanged whenmultiplying by a constant price. The total cost line isthe cost per unit of effort times the amount of fishingeffort. A constant multiplied by the variable on the x-axis yields a straight line through the origin. Thesustainable revenue and total cost curves explain theeconomic incentives that attract too many fishers. Moreeffort is attracted to an open access fishery as long asrevenues earned by fishers exceed their costs. The extraincome that attracts more fishers only disappears whentotal revenues fall enough to equal total costs, at effortlevel EOA, the open access equilibrium.

Open access fisheries attract too much fishing effort,so optimal regulation must reduce fishing effort.Economists have proposed two managementapproaches: limited entry (Sinclair 1961) and individualtransferable quotas or ITQs (Christy 1973; Maloneyand Pearse 1979). Under limited entry, the number offishing permits or licenses is restricted to the numberconsistent with optimal stock productivity. Under ITQs,the government establishes an overall quota that

protects the stocks. Each permit holder gets apredetermined share of this quota. The quota holderis then free to fish that quota, lease the quota tosomeone else, lease additional quota from other quotaholders, and buy or sell the permanent right for futurequota shares. Limited entry and ITQ systems have beenimplemented throughout the developed world. Theprices of limited entry licenses and the lease value ofITQs show that fish stocks are extremely valuable.These values, converted to the Philippine context formunicipal fishers, suggest that restricting effort couldraise fisher incomes by something in the range of 100-400%.

In many fisheries, limited entry presents somedifficult administrative problems because each permithas an incentive to expand its own fishing capacity(Townsend 1990). While there are ways to managethis expansion of fishing capital per license, theproblems can be administratively difficult. Because ofthese problems, fishery economists have tended tofavor ITQs. But ITQs require aggressive enforcementof fishing quotas, which may be difficult forgovernments with weak law enforcement and judicialinstitutions.

Restricting one part of the fishing fleet does notconstrain the overall level of fishing effort. Other sectorsof the fleet will have economic incentives to expand,which will bring the industry back to the open accessequilibrium. The commercial fleet in the Philippineshas faced increasing restrictions; this may in part reflecta tendency to blame the commercial fleet for overfishedstocks. But evidence from around the world clearlyindicates that many small boats with passive gear canreduce stock levels just as much as large vessels. The

Figure 2. Schaefer-Gordon revenue-cost model.

Economics of fisheries management 129

degree of overfishing under open access is limited onlyby the cost of fishing, which includes the value of thefisher’s time. In the municipal fisheries of thePhilippines, the value of time for new entrants is verylow, perhaps in the order of P100-200 per day. Evencatch rates as low as 1 or 2 kg per day are sufficient toattract more fishers. A large and growing populationwith low income opportunities is sufficient to insureseriously overfished stocks.

Much of fisheries management in the Philippineshas been devolved to local communities. In somefisheries around the world, small groups of fishersadopt local forms of limited access. If local communitiescan restrict fishing effort effectively, then fisher incomeswill increase. But restricting effort is probably not anyeasier for local politicians than for national ones. Evenif communities are allowed to deny access tononresidents (the easy political choice), it will bepolitically much more difficult to restrict entry fromwithin the community. Population growth rates of 2.5-3.5% per year provide more than enough new fishersto deplete resources. (At 2.5% annual growth, acommunity doubles every 30 years. At 3.5%, it doublesin only 20 years.) Allowing and encouraging localgovernment units to restrict access is highly desirable.But simply moving management to the local levelprobably does not make the solution easier to achieve.

The Schaefer-Gordon model explains why habitatimprovements (including any beneficial stock effectsof marine protected areas) alone will not result insustainable income increases. A restored habitat willhave the capacity to produce more fish at any givenlevel of effort. In Figure 3, the sustainable total revenuecurve shifted from curve TR1 to curve TR2 as habitat

improved. If the number of fishers stayed at effort levelE1, then the fishers would see their revenues increasedramatically. But under open access, more fishers willenter to share in these profits. This new entry willcontinue until total revenue again equals total cost, ateffort level E2. Total revenues will have increasedmoderately, but no single fisher is better off. Thereare just more fishers earning the barest of incomes.The opportunity to combine habitat improvement witha ban on new entry would require less (or perhapseven no) reduction in the current level of fishing effort.With better habitat, something like the current numberof fishers might be supported at much better incomelevels. This is politically much more attractive thanhaving to make large reductions in the number offishers. So the time to restrict effort is before, not after,investments are made in habitat restoration and before,not after, stock improvements are offset by more entry.

The Philippines has both a great economicopportunity and a very difficult political challenge. Ifthe fishing effort is reduced to optimal levels, fisheriesresources are capable of producing fish at a very lowcost. This could generate significant increases in theincomes of some - but not all - fishers. But it is politicallyvery difficult to tell some fishers that they must leavethe fishery so other fishers can gain the benefits. Thecurrent initiatives in Philippine fisheries management,which include devolution of authority to localgovernments, restricting commercial vessels (only) andhabitat improvement/marine protected areas, all failto address the underlying incentives for fishers to enteruntil the stock is depleted. Only if these policies arecombined with programs to restrict entry can thepotential wealth of Philippine fisheries be released to

Figure 3. Habitat restoration under open access.


Open access

Economics

Lower incomesMore fishersLower total income

Stocks

Smaller stocksMostly small fishStocks vulnerable to external shocks

Limited fishing effort

Economics

Higher average incomesFewer fishersHigher total income

Stocks

Larger stocksMore diversity in size of fishMore resilient stocks

versus

Figure 4. Choices facing fisheries management in the Philippines.

improve the economic welfare of its fishingcommunities. Figure 4 summarizes the difficult choicefacing fisheries management in the Philippines. Thehighly desirable features of the limited entry regimecan be achieved only by limiting fishing effort.Unfortunately, restrictions on who can fish requiredifficult political and social choices. Absent this choice,the Philippines will continue to suffer the negativeimpacts of open access (Figure 4).

References

Christy, F., Jr. 1973. Fisherman quotas: A tentative suggestion fordomestic management. Occas. Pap. 19, 7 p. Law of the SeaInstitute, University of Rhode Island, Rhode Island, USA.

Gordon, H.S. 1954. The economic theory of a common-propertyresource. J. Polit. Econ. 62: 124-142.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.

Maloney, D.G. and P.H. Pearse. 1979. Quantitative rights as aninstrument for regulating commercial fisheries. J. Fish. Res.Board Can. 36: 859-866.

Schaefer, M.B. 1954. Some aspects of the dynamics of populationsimportant to the management of the commercial marinefisheries. Bull. I-ATTC 1: 25-56.

Schaefer, M.B. 1957. Some considerations of population dynamicsand economics in relation to the management of thecommercial marine fisheries. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 14:669-681.

Sinclair, S. 1961. License limitation: A method of economic fisheriesmanagement. Department of Fisheries, Ottawa, Canada.

Townsend, R.E. 1990. Entry restrictions in the fishery: A surveyof the evidence. Land Econ. 66: 359-378.

Economics and environment in the fisheries sector 131

Economics and Environment in the Fisheries Sector1

DANILO C. ISRAELPhilippine Institute for Development Studies

NEDA sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo St.Legaspi Village, Makati City 1229

Philippines

Introduction

This paper provides a broad description of theeconomic and social characteristics of the Philippinefisheries sector. The sector contributes to production,income generation and international trade. Twoeconomic facets are portrayed here: the private sector,which generates positive profits, and the municipalfisherfolk, who remain poor despite manyinterventions in the sector. One of the reasons for thecontinuing drop in income is declining catch. The finalsection of this paper explains the overfishingphenomenon and relates it to habitat destruction. Someestimates of losses and potential earnings from criticalcoastal habitats are also provided.

Economic Importance of the Fisheries Sector

The fisheries sector, on average annually, had atotal value of production of P77.39 billion for the period1990-2000, accounting for an average of 4% of grossdomestic product (GDP) for the same period (Table1). However, percentage fisheries production inrelation to GDP has been generally declining over timeand reached about 3% in the year 2000. For the period1990-2000, annual fisheries production growth rateswere low and erratic, especially in terms of volume(Table 2). Furthermore, the average annual growthrates for the sector were generally higher in the earlieryears than in the latter years of the period, indicatingthe fall in relative productivity over time. For bothvolume and value, growth rates were positive butgenerally declining for the entire period and werenegative for a few years, particularly 1996 and 1997.

Of the three fisheries subsectors, municipalfisheries performed the worst in recent years. In 2000,the municipal fisheries subsector was the leastproducing in terms of volume (BFAR 2001). For its

part, the aquaculture sector has been the mostencouraging in terms of production performance. Frombeing the lowest producer in 1990 in terms of volume,it became the highest producer in 2000.

Regionally, total fisheries production variedsignificantly. In 2000, the largest regional producerwas the Southern Tagalog Region (Region IV) whilethe least was the landlocked Cordillera AutonomousRegion. In terms of species, fisheries production alsovaried significantly. In 2000, the most importantcommercial fisheries species volume-wise wasroundscad, the most significant municipal species wasfrigate tuna and the largest aquaculture product wasseaweed.

The most significant fisheries export in 2000 wastuna, in volume terms, and shrimp and prawn, in valueterms. Seaweed was another important traded fisheriescommodity. Except for a few products like cannedtuna, most of the exported fisheries commodities werein fresh and frozen form and have undergone littleproduct transformation and processing. Also in 2000,the most important imported fisheries products were

Table 1. Fisheries production and GDP of the Philippines, 1990-2000 (P million, current prices) (NSCB 2002).

% FisheriesProduction to GDP

Year FisheriesProduction

GDP

19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Average

52,177.260,033.365,443.570,215.880,192.183,187.383,275.280,617.185,133.192,322.398,657.677,386.8

1,077,2371,248,0111,351,5591,474,4571,692,9321,905,9512,171,9222,426,7432,665,0602,976,9053,308,3182,027,190

4.844.814.844.764.744.363.833.323.193.102.984.07

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ISRAEL, D.C. 2004. Economics and environment in the fisheries sector, p. 131-137. InDA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


chilled frozen fish, particularly tuna, sardines andmackerel. Most of the imported tuna were utilized asraw materials in the processing plants in Mindanaowhile the other species were consumed directly asfood. The other products imported were generallyused as raw materials in the production of fish feed.In general, both fisheries exports and imports grewduring the 1990-2000 period with the average annualgrowth rate higher in the earlier part of the decadethan in the latter part.

The Philippines ranked third in capture fisheriesproduction, fourth in aquaculture production and thirdin total fisheries production among the countries inthe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),in terms of volume (ADB 2001; FAO 2002). Theproduction levels of the country were also higher thanthe ASEAN average for the entire fisheries sector andits subsectors. Indonesia and Thailand ranked firstand second in fisheries production, respectively, forfisheries in totality and for capture fisheries andaquaculture.

The Role of the Private Sector

The most recent national survey data on industrialand business establishments in the fisheries sector werethose coming from the annual survey of establishmentsfor 1997 (BFAR 1997). The total number of firms inthe sector was more than 800 including those withmore than 10 and less than 10 workers (Table 3). Thistotal includes only firms and did not cover themunicipal and sole-operating fishers and otheroperators. The firms in the fisheries sector with morethan 10 workers had total revenues of about P5.6billion, total costs of P3.7 billion and net revenues ofP1.9 billion while the firms with less than 10 workershad total revenues of approximately P231 million, totalcosts of P168 million and net revenues of P62 million.

Total employment of the firms in the fisheriessector was at 25,762 persons for those with more than10 workers, composed of 23,859 males (93%) and 1,903females (7%). For firms with less than 10 workers,total employment was 1,936 persons, made up of 1,677

Table 2. Fisheries production in the Philippines, total volume and value, 1990-2000(BFAR 1999, 2001).

Annual GrowthRate (%)

Year Volume (t) Annual GrowthRate (%)

Value(P Million)

19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Annual averages1990-20001990-19951996-2000

2,503,5462,598,9812,625,6072,631,9452,720,9892,785,0852,769,1502,766,5072,786,3352,918,7792,983,058

2,735,4532,644,3592,844,766

-3.811.020.243.382.36

-0.57-0.100.724.752.20

1.782.161.40

52,17760,03465,44370,21580,19283,08483,13480,71184,86491,19098,195

77,20468,52487,619

-15.069.017.29

14.213.610.06

-2.915.157.457.68

6.669.843.49

Table 3. Important economic parameters for fisheries firms, 1997 (BFAR 1997).

Less than 10Economic Parameter Unit of

MeasurementFirms with Workers

10 or More

Number of establishmentsTotal revenuesTotal costsTotal net revenuesTotal employmentTotal male employmentTotal female employment

FirmsP1,000P1,000P1,000

PersonsPersonsPersons

5015,558,0793,652,7171,905,362

25,76223,8591,903

347230,708168,63062,078

1,9361,677

259


males (87%) and 259 females (13%). Females thereforemade up only about 10% of the total workforce offirms in the fisheries sector. However, while so, itshould be noted that if households and individualsand not just firms were included in this survey, a muchhigher percentage of women were involved infisheries, due to their higher participation in theprocessing and marketing portions of the industry.

For the entire fisheries industry, data on privatesector employment that included individual fishersand similar operators did not exist. Nevertheless, it iscertain that the sector has been a major source ofemployment and livelihood for a large section of thepopulation, especially those residing in the rural coastalareas. As of 1996, it was estimated that the countryhad about a million fishers and fishfarmers (Israel andRoque 1999). Of this number, 68.19% were in municipalfisheries, 26.09% were in aquaculture and 5.72% werein commercial fisheries. In addition, approximately12% of the general population derived their livelihoodfrom fisheries-related activities (Trinidad et al. 1993).This large and diverse constituency makes fisheriesan economically, socially and politically importantsector of the entire economy.

In 1999, there were 3,601 units of commercialfishing vessels in the country with a total tonnage ofabout 270,282 GT (Table 4). Most of the vessels werebased in the National Capital Region (NCR) and inRegions XI, VI and IX. The vessels did not fish onlywhere they were based but went to other regions as

well. Commercial fishing used more complicatedfishing gears compared to municipal fishing. Amongthe most important of these were the aggregatingdevices for pelagic fish species known as the payao,purse seines, longlines, trawl nets, fish traps and similardevices employed for large-scale fishing operations(CMC 2003).

In addition to production, processing is an activityin the fisheries industry where the private sector ishighly active. For instance, entrepreneurs havepracticed simple forms of primary fish processing. Inparticular, some fish are first filleted, chilled and thensold in markets. Others are simply cleaned and thensold fresh either head-on or headless and in full or inparts. More sophisticated processing has been practicedby the private sector as well, particularly in cases wherefish products require time to sell and must bepreserved. A popular form of processing is salting thatproduces fish paste (bagoong). This product is eitherproduced by big companies in the cities and sold inbottled form in supermarkets or by small-timeentrepreneurs in the provinces and sold openly andby weight in town markets. Other forms of processingthat are also done by small-scale entrepreneurs in thecoastal countryside are fish drying and fish smoking.

On a large-scale, tuna and sardine canning ispracticed by the private sector in the country,particularly in General Santos City in SouthernMindanao and a few other areas. The seaweedprocessing industry is also an important private sectoractivity, where seaweeds produced by growers areusually dried and sold to industries which in turnexport the processed products to other countries.

Socioeconomic Conditions of Fisherfolk

A comparison of income and social standing offisherfolk households indicates that the povertysituation remains unchanged from the time Smith(1979) and Librero et al. (1985) conducted studies ofmunicipal fishers. After the first major fishery sectorproject (Fishery Sector Project [FSP], 1990-1994),PRIMEX (1996) noted that 80% of fisherfolk householdswere still below the poverty threshold despite majorinterventions ranging from full investment packagesfor fishing boats and equipment to community-basedcoastal resource management.

The latest family income and expenditure survey(NSO 2001) indicated that economic and socialparameters for fisherfolk households2 reinforce this

Region Number Gross Tonnage

N C RIIII I IIVVVIVI IVIIIIXXXIXIIXIIIARMMa

Total

1,3511136440

221160404

94124392

43555

7267

3,601

158,5101,833

7181,0813,8574,386

25,6742,0541,740

22,7591,215

45,89485

294182

270,282

Table 4. Number of commercial fishing vesselsby region, 1999 (BFAR 2001).

aARMM - Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

2 It is assumed that fisherfolk households include both commercial and municipal fishers.


observation. The data showed that in 2000,households whose heads were fishers hadsignificantly higher poverty incidence than householdsin general (Table 5). Furthermore, the average annualincome of fishers’ households and those who workin the fishing industry was about P70,000, half of theaverage annual income of households in general atapproximately P144,000. This translates to an averagedaily income of around P192 or roughly, the retailvalue of 2 kg of fish. Low incomes can be attributedto declining fish catch, estimated to be about 2 kgper day, down from 20 kg per day, which was theaverage catch during the 1970s (CRMP 1998; Katon

et al. 1998). The data further showed that the differencein poverty incidence and annual income betweenfamilies whose heads were fishers and those whoseheads worked in the fishing industry (for example, asboat hand, engineer, cook, accountant) was small,manifesting the deprived conditions which householdsin the fishing industry were generally in compared toall households in the country.

Because of low-income levels, a greater portionof the incomes of fishers’ households was spent onfood expenditures and a much lesser share was usedfor other items, compared to the incomes of householdsin general. It is interesting to note that fishers’

Poverty incidencea

Distribution of households by educationalattainment of the head

No grade completedElementary undergraduateElementary graduate1st-3rd year high schoolHigh school graduateCollege undergraduateAt least college graduate

Access to safe waterAccess to sanitary toilet facilityAccess to electricityProportion living in makeshift housesProportion who are squattingMean family size (number)Mean incomeMean expenditureExpenditure pattern

Total household expenditureFoodAlcoholic beveragesTobaccoFuel, light and waterTransportation and communicationHousehold operationsPersonal care and effectsClothing, footwear and other wearEducationRecreationMedical careNondurable furnishingsDurable furniture and equipmentTaxesHouse rentHouse maintenance and minor repairsSpecial family occasionsGifts and contributions to othersOther expenditures

Table 5. Socioeconomic characteristics of households in the Philippines, 2000 (NSO 2001).

61.9

6.576.412.33.40.30.20.9

61.851.551.22.85.95.6

70,24462,445

100.059.31.22.45.93.2

18.43.52.42.30.21.20.31.40.47.90.91.70.92.9

59.9

4.377.912.73.60.30.11.2

65.854.255.52.76.15.6

72,95964,297

100.058.51.32.46.03.4

18.43.52.42.30.31.30.31.50.47.80.92.00.82.9

33.7

4.153.320.310.61.20.79.8

78.582.575.42.03.15.1

144,039118,002

100.043.60.71.16.36.8

23.23.62.74.20.51.90.22.52.1

14.20.92.40.92.9

% Households whose Heads areHousehold Characteristic All Households (%)Fishers In Fishing Industry

aProportion of families whose per capita income cannot meet the minimum food and nonfood requirements.


households had a relatively higher rate of spendingon vices, like alcohol and tobacco, and less on taxesthan households in the country in general.

Households of fishers and those in the fishingindustry also had heads with relatively lower educationlevels compared to households in general. More thantwo-thirds of fishing households had heads that wereelementary undergraduates. In contrast, only abouthalf of households in the country in general had headsthat were similarly educated. Fishers’ households hadlower access rates to basic necessities like safe water,sanitary toilets and electricity than other householdsand were more likely to live in makeshift houses orwere squatting. Also, the size of households of fishersand of those in the fishing industry was greater thanthe national average.

Associated Environmental Problems

Arguably the most important management issuein the fisheries sector is overfishing. Fishing levels havealready exceeded what ensured maximumproductivity of fish stocks. The main causes ofdepletion were effort overfishing or the increase inthe number of fishers exploiting the seas, particularlyin coastal waters, and destructive fishing or the use ofillegal fishing gears and methods. The economic costof overfishing or the so-called net rent has beenestimated in the literature (NSCB 1998). Rentdissipation started to occur in 1986 at a mere P4.5million (Table 6). By 1993, this ballooned to about P1billion which is certainly a big loss to the fishery sector.Studies have likewise estimated sustainable yield levelsand dissipated rents for the small pelagics and demersalfishery (Dalzell et al. 1987; Silvestre and Pauly 1989;Trinidad et. al 1993; Padilla and de Guzman 1994).

Declines in fish catch can also be attributed todestruction of critical coastal habitats, such asmangroves and coral reefs. In 1918, mangroves coveredabout 500,000 ha (Melana and Courtney 2000) but this

went down to 288,000 ha in 1970 and to 175,000 ha in1980. The rapid decline of mangrove forests has beenattributed to the significant conversion of mangroveareas to fishpond and other aquaculture activities, landreclamation, construction of dikes and other coastalstructures, wood extraction and uncontrolleddevelopment of tourism.

White and Cruz-Trinidad (1998) conducted someeconomic analysis to measure the benefits that can bederived from the management of mangrove areas.Three management scenarios were compared:mangrove plantation, managed naturally regeneratedmangroves and unmanaged understocked stands(Table 7). They computed that the net annual economicvalue that can be derived from Philippine mangroveareas per hectare would be highest with mangroveplantation ($694) compared to the managed naturallyregenerated mangroves ($628) and unmanagedunderstocked stands ($580). In all three managementschemes, fish products significantly contributed moreto the economic value generated from the mangroveareas than the wood products. Based on theircomputations, White and Cruz-Trinidad (1998)asserted that the total gains from protecting theremaining mangrove ecosystem of the country wouldbe substantial. They estimated that using theconservative figure of direct benefits from mangrovesof $600 per hectare per year, the country wouldgenerate at least $83 million per year in fish productionand potential sustainable wood harvest from theexisting 138,000 ha or so.

The destruction of coral reefs is another majorproblem. The national coral reef area was estimated atabout 27,000 km2 and contributed at least 10-15% of thetotal marine production (NEDA 1998). Out of 742 coralreef sites once surveyed in 1991, only 5.3% or 39 siteswere in excellent condition while 30.5% or 226 were inpoor condition (EMB 1996). The destruction of the coralreefs was attributed to many factors including siltation,mine tailings, pollution, coastal development,

Year

198519861987198819891990199119921993

Fishing Effort(HP)

649,477650,655653,145611,119561,349548,115455,734380,379405,231

SustainableCatch (t)

1,622,9761,622,3181,620,9111,641,4751,655,8901,657,6391,640,0491,577,5011,603,754

Actual Catch(t)

1,556,5421,624,2061,688,9261,726,0331,823,4091,914,7252,008,0071,991,4631,978,350

Depletiona

(t)

01,888

68,01584,558

167,518257,086367,957413,963374,596

Net Price(P/t)

02,3912,1592,2232,1832,2302,5432,6712,866

Net Rent(P ‘000)

04,513

146,845187,939365,741573,224935,700

1,105,7721,073,460

Table 6. Estimated value of marine fishery resource depletion, 1985-1993 (NSCB 1998).

aActual catch less sustainable catch.


Level of Management

Mangrove plantationManaged, naturally regeneratedUnmanaged, understocked stands

Wood Fish

538538538

Total(value/ha)

694628580

Products (value/ha)

1569042

Table 7. Estimated net annual economic value (in $/ha) of mangrove areas fordifferent levels of management, Philippines (White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998).

overfishing and destructive fishing practices like the useof cyanide, dynamite and muro-ami.

Coral reefs are important because of their variouseconomic and other contributions, particularly in termsof productivity of fish and other sea products, tourismand recreation, natural protection to shoreline structuresfrom waves and storms, and biodiversity. White andCruz-Trinidad (1998) cited that the contribution of reeffish to total fisheries of the country ranged from 8-20%and can sometimes go as high as 70% in some smallisland fisheries. They further estimated that the totalquantifiable net losses due to overfishing 1 km2 of coralreef over a 25-year period and discounted at 10% wereabout $108,900; those due to poison fishing were between$42,800 and $475,000; those due to blast fishing werebetween $98,000 and $761,200; those due to coral miningwere between $175,500 and $902,500 and those due tologging sediment were $273,000. In contrast, theestimated sustainable annual coral reef direct andindirect economic benefits per 1 km2 of typical healthycoral reef with tourism potential were between $31,900and $113,000 (Table 8). These per unit area losses andgains were large and would certainly become even muchmore significant when the overall area of destroyedcoral reefs in the country was considered in thecomputations.

Conclusion

Economics and environment are closelyintertwined in the fishery sector. From the economicstandpoint, the fishery sector boasts of huge potentials.Unfortunately, these potentials have been dissipated

by years of mismanagement. Managing theenvironment is one way to recover potential losses inthe fishery sector. It translates to better catches forpoor fisherfolk and ultimately, greater contributionsto the total economy.

References

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2001. Key indicators 2001 ofdeveloping Asian and Pacific countries. Oxford UniversityPress, UK. 498 p.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1997. 1997annual survey of establishments: fishing. BFAR, Quezon City,Philippines.



CMC (Coastal Management Center). 2003. Philippine fisheryindustry sectors study. Draft final report. Technical Educationand Skills Development Authority, Philippines.

CRMP (Coastal Resource Management Project). 1998. Results ofthe participatory coastal assessment in Olango Island, Cebu.CRMP, Cebu City, Philippines.

Dalzell, P., P. Corpuz, R. Ganaden and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimationof maximum sustainable yield and maximum economic rentfrom the Philippine small pelagic fisheries. BFAR Tech. Pap.Ser. 10(3), 23 p.

EMB (Environmental Management Bureau). 1996. Philippineenvironmental quality report. EMB, Quezon City, Philippines.379 p.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2002. Fishery statistics2000. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Table 8. Sustainable annual economic benefits (direct and indirect) per 1 km2 of typical healthy coral reef with tourismpotential, Philippines (White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998).

Sustainable fisheries (local consumption)Sustainable fisheries (live fish export)Tourism (onsite residence)Tourism (offsite residence)Coastal protection (prevention of erosion)Aesthetic/biodiversity value (willingness to pay)Total

10 - 30 t0.5 - 1 t

100 - 1,000 persons500 - 1,000 persons

600 - 2,000 persons

15,000 - 45,0005,000 - 10,0002,000 - 20,0002,500 - 5,0005,000 - 25,0002,400 - 8,00031,900 -113,000

Resource Use Production Range Potential Annual RevenueRange ($)


Israel, D.C. and R.R. Roque. 1999. Toward the sustainabledevelopment of the fisheries sector: An analysis of thePhilippine Fisheries Code and Agriculture and FisheriesModernization Act. Discus. Pap. Ser. No. 99.01. PhilippineInstitute for Development Studies, Makati City, Philippines.

Katon, B.M., R.S. Pomeroy, M. Ring and L.R. Garces. 1998.Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource management:A case study of Cogtong Bay, Philippines. Naga 21(1): 46-52.

Librero, A.R., R.F. Catalla and R.M. Fabro. 1985. Socioeconomicconditions of small-scale fisheries and fish farmers in thePhilippines, p. 36-45. In T. Panayotou (ed.) Small-scalefisheries in Asia: Socio-economic analysis and policy.International Development Research Centre, Ottawa,Canada.

Melana, D.M. and C.A. Courtney. 2000. Mangrove conservationand rehabilitation in the Philippines. Paper presented duringthe Second Session of the Japan International CooperationAgency Third Country Training Programme on ResponsibleAquaculture, 5 September-3 December 2000, AquacultureDepartment, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center,Iloilo, Philippines.

NEDA (National Economic and Development Authority). 1998. ThePhilippine national development plan directions for the 21st

century. NEDA, Makati City, Philippines.NSCB (National Statistical Coordination Board). 1998. Philippine

asset accounts: Forest, land/soil, fishery, mineral, and waterresources. NSCB, Philippines. 228 p.

NSCB (National Statistical Coordination Board). 2002. Philippinestatistical yearbook. NSCB, Philippines.

NSO (National Statistics Office). 2001. Family income andexpenditure survey 2000. NSO, Philippines.

Padilla, J.E. and F. de Guzman. 1994. Fishery resources accountingin the Philippines: Applications to small pelagic fisheries. InPhilippine Environmental and Natural Resources AccountingProject, Phase II. Quezon City, Philippines. 26 p.

PRIMEX. 1996. Fisheries sector development project, Philippines(ADB TA No. 2236-PHI). Phase I report. Vol. II. FisheriesSector Program review. (Unpublished).

Silvestre, G.T. and D. Pauly. 1989. Estimates of yield and economicrent from Philippine demersal stocks (1946-1984) using vesselhorsepower as an index of fishing effort. Univ. Philipp. Vis.Fish. J. 1(2): 2(1/2); 3(1/2): 11-24.

Smith, I.R. 1979. A research framework for traditional fisheries.ICLARM Stud. Rev. 2, 45 p.

Trinidad, A.C., R.S. Pomeroy, P.V. Cruz and M. Aguero. 1993.Bioeconomics of the Philippine small pelagics fishery. ICLARMTech. Rep. No. 38, 74 p.

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management arecritical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines. 86 p.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: SANTOS, R. 2003. Poverty profile in Philippine fisheries, p. 138-143. In DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 This article is based on a lengthier paper commissioned by the Support to Regional Aquatic Resource Management(STREAM), a five-year learning and communication initiative based in Bangkok, Thailand, and founded by the Networkof Agriculture Centres in Asia Pacific, Department for International Development, Food and Agriculture Organizationand Voluntary Service Overseas.3 There is no globally agreed definition of poverty; there are only dominant meanings and evolving poverty measures.The World Bank defines poverty as “pronounced deprivation in well-being.” Deprivation, in the World Bank definition,means to be hungry, to lack shelter and clothing, to be sick and not cared for, to be illiterate, to be vulnerable to adverseevents, to be excluded in institutions of state and society.4 The poverty threshold for 1996 is the 1994 figure, P8,885, as there was no survey done in 1996. Poverty reports arepublished every three years, the last three were done in 1994, 1997 and 2000. How FSP reached this figure is not clear.

Poverty Profile in Philippine Fisheries1, 2

RONET SANTOSSharing, Promotion and Awareness of Regional Knowledge Programme

Voluntary Service Overseas20 South Lawin cor. Bacolod Rd.

Philam Homes, Quezon CityPhilippines

Introduction

There has been limited concern with targetingpoor people in fishery management in the past. Thisis partly due to assumptions that downstreambenefits in improvements in fishery productionwould lead to livelihood benefits for the poor (Friendand Funge-Smith 2002), when in fact usually thenonpoor groups are the ones benefiting. Thenonpoor’s economic position is further strengthened,leading to further differentiation and marginalizationthat feed social conflict. On the other hand,specifically targeting poor fishers in developmentinterventions has also led to exacerbating socialdivisions - which just shows how poverty is not wellunderstood and difficult to address.

Fishery management has focused traditionally onbiophysical aspects – i.e., corals, other benthos, fishes,and the physics and chemistry of water. Todayfisheries are coming under increasing pressure fromother human activities. Fishery researchers, managersand policymakers recognize the importance ofunderstanding not only the biophysical conditions thatdetermine system structure and processes, but alsothe social and economic conditions, contexts andmotivations that are associated with the use of fisheryresources (Bunce et al. 2000).

Poverty3 is a social and economic condition andits links with the biophysical condition of fisheries arenot well understood. Majority of the estimated 800,000persons (DA-BFAR 2000) directly dependent onfisheries are perceived to be poor. The Fisheries SectorProgram (FSP) noted that in 1996, 80% of fisherhouseholds lived below the poverty threshold at thattime (DENR et al. 2001)4. Understanding poverty infisheries therefore is crucial in the success of any fisherymanagement program whose objectives includemaintenance of the resource base and sustaining thewell-being of the people who use the resource. The

Typical subsistence fisher (Tubigon, Bohol), a sector which has longbeen overlooked in fisheries management in the country.

R. S

anto

s

Poverty profile in fisheries 139

key challenges for institutions and agencies involvedin fisheries management are not just to utilize existingand emerging technical information more effectively,but also: (1) how to better understand poor fishers’livelihoods, and (2) how to enable their perspectivesto exert greater influence over policies and processesthat relate to fisheries management which have animpact on their lives (STREAM 2001).

Poverty Measures

Poverty measures reflect how poverty is defined.There are two approaches used in measuring povertyin the Philippines: income-based and outcome-based(Callanta 1988; Balisacan and Fujisaki 1999; Monsodand Monsod 1999). Globally, the trend is towards theuse of outcome-based approaches. Income-basedapproaches use a “poverty line”5 usually defined interms of having enough income to spend on a specifiedminimum amount of food and nonfood basic items ofexpenditure. Poverty incidence figures are an exampleof this. Outcome-based measures focus on the absenceor lack of some minimum acceptable level of basicneeds (which go beyond lack of income) or on thelack of some basic capabilities for people to functionor survive. The human development index (HDI)6 isan example of an outcome-based measure; theminimum basic needs (MBN) measure (a percentagefigure) is another.

Poverty in Philippine Fisheries

Poverty monitoring

National level. Poverty monitoring in the Philippineshas traditionally been done at the national level7, until1997 when the Minimum Basic Needs-Community-based Information System (MBN-CBIS) was

introduced (ESCAP 1998). There are three ways inwhich poverty is monitored at the national level:1. through the triennial (latest was in 2000) family

income and expenditure survey (FIES) done bythe National Statistics Office (NSO) with about41,000 sample families which yields poverty andsubsistence threshold figures and povertyincidence figures at the provincial, regional andnational levels;

2. through the triennial (latest was in 2000)computation of HDI by the National StatisticalCoordination Board (NSCB)8 based on the incomefigures generated through the FIES survey, theliteracy figures of the Department of Educationand life expectancy figures of NSO; HDI indexfigures are available at the provincial and nationallevels (Figure 1); and

3. through the annual9 poverty indicator survey(APIS) by NSO which uses both income andoutcome-based measures using about 41,000sample families which yields national10, regionaland provincial percentage figures for each of thecurrent 13 (it used to be 33) MBN indicators11.It is therefore not possible to get poverty figures

for specific sectors such as fisheries at the national level.There seems to be no point in doing so, as the costsseem to outweigh the benefits. Poverty figures,however, are helpful in targeting specific provinceswhere poverty incidence is high or where the provinceranked low in the HDI or MBN rankings.

Poverty incidence in the Philippines was 34% in200012. The HDI figure of the Philippines for the sameyear was 0.656 and the country was ranked 77 outof more than 150 countries, which makes it amiddle-income country. HDI and poverty incidencefigures and APIS results are available at the NSCBand NSO websites (www.nscb.gov.ph andwww.census.gov.ph).

5 The poverty threshold for the year 2000 is P11,605 (NSCB). The World Bank poverty threshold, which is usedinternationally, is US$1 a day.6 The HDI is composed of three indicators: income, education and life expectancy.7 Based on communications with Jessa Encarnacion, information officer at NSCB; Paulo Oblea, statistician at NSO; andJay de Quiros and Fe Cabral, development management specialists at the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC).8 The first HDI computation was done in 1994 and had breakdowns up to the provincial level.9 The frequency of doing APIS is annual except on years when there is an FIES. There was one done in 1998 and anotherone in 1999; the next report will be for 2002.10 They start with the national and regional figures before coming up with the provincial figures.11 The MBN indicators currently consist of 13 indicators divided into 3 dimensions (survival, security and enablingdimensions). Example of an indicator under each dimension: survival - % of families with access to safe drinking water;security - % of families with lands other than residence; enabling - % of families with children in elementary school tofamilies with children 6 to 12 years old.12 The poverty incidence level in the Philippines has not dropped significantly since 1985 compared to its Asian neighbors,Indonesia and Thailand.


Figure 1. Year 2000 provincial HDI presented as ranges by thirds.


Overall fisheries-related production has beenincreasing and for the last 10 years hovered around2.7 million t from 0.5 million t in 1970, but catch perunit effort (CPUE) for small pelagic fisheries hasdecreased from about 2.8 t/hp in 1948 to about 0.2 t/hp in 1996 (DENR et al. 2001). Such decline in CPUEmust be linked to poverty levels in fisheries.

Local level. Poverty monitoring at the local levelbegan with the introduction of MBN-CBIS in 1997.The MBN-CBIS was first installed in all barangays ofthe 960 fifth and sixth class municipalities13 nationwidein cooperation with the Social Reform Council,Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty (whichbecame NAPC in 1998), Department of the Interiorand Local Government (DILG), and Department ofSocial Welfare and Development. Unlike APIS, whichalso uses the MBN framework, the MBN-CBIS is basedon total enumeration (100% sampling), which makesit more reliable. The APIS and MBN, however, arenot comparable (meaning MBN-CBIS figures cannotbe aggregated beyond the municipal level to yieldprovincial and national figures) because municipalitiesare permitted to use other indicators in addition tothe core 13 that is used in the APIS. The results of theMBN-CBIS are therefore a more reliable guide in localpolicymaking, budgeting and overall implementationof development programs at the local level. A yearafter it was introduced, enumeration has been donein more than 60% of the barangays in the first 960municipalities that were targeted.

Causes of poverty in the aquatic resources sector

A cause and effect diagram done by theInternational Institute for Rural Reconstruction in 1998shows that “low fish catch” is the immediate reasonfor “declining incomes” and “decreasing quality oflife,” which are aspects of poverty (DENR et al. 2001).The underlying reasons mentioned were: (1) illegalfishing in municipal waters, (2) loss of fish nurseryand (3) overexploitation. These in turn were causedby: (1) financing of illegal fishing activities andintrusion of commercial fishing in municipal waters,(2) land reclamation of destroyed mangroves and (3)increasing population pressure. Deeper reasons citedwere: (1) de facto open access regimes and (2) anoverall lack of integrated planning and managementof coastal resources (DENR et al. 2001).

Simple cause and effect diagrams (or sometimescalled problem trees or causal maps) are a commonway of exploring and understanding the causes ofpoverty. Another way is the livelihoods frameworkof the Department for International Development(DfID) that looks at resources (which it calls assets)that people have, the vulnerability context, and thecontext of policies, institutions and processes (seewww.livelihoods.org). What the above shows is thatthe causes are complex, which means the solutions arealso necessarily complex.

How the problem of poverty in fisherieshas been addressed

The Philippine Medium-term Development Plan(covering 1999-2004) calls for reducing overall incomepoverty from 32% in 1997 to about 26% in 2004. TheNAPC calls for reducing poverty to 20% by 2004(UNDP 2000). The government, through NAPC, hasa five-point anti-poverty agenda for small fishers (seeTable 1). The plan emphasizes resource managementover poverty alleviation as can be seen from itsnational targets on local management of coastaland marine resources for 1999-2004 (Table 2).

Other poverty-focused interventions in fisheries

The Fisheries Resource Management Project(FRMP) is the only project in the Philippines that hasan expressed poverty focus (in the broadest sense ofthe term). FRMP responds to issues of fisheriesresource depletion and persistent poverty. The threemajor components of this program are: (1) fisheriesresource management, (2) income diversification and(3) capacity-building.

Another major project is the Coastal ResourceManagement Project which is implemented by theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources,Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources and DILG and supported by theUnited States Agency for International Development.Its strategic aim is to assist LGUs to institutionalizeCRM planning and implementation and influencenational policy on CRM. The poverty alleviationobjective seems to be implicit in this strategic aim.

There are more than a hundred nongovernmentorganizations involved in varying degrees of poverty-

13 This means aggregation can be done only up to the municipal level.


focused fishery management activities. Most of theseare involved in organizing small fishers into people’sorganizations, helping these to establish MPAs,assisting them with supplemental and alternativelivelihood projects and in advocating for pro-poorpolicies in fisheries. The private sector remains largelyuntapped in poverty-focused programs.

Integrating poverty-focused processesin fishery management programs

Current literature suggests that addressingpoverty in fisheries does not necessarily meangiving exclusive assistance to fishers who areperceived to be poor (World Bank 2000;STREAM 2001; Friend and Funge-Smith 2002;DfID14). A better understanding of the wider

context (resources available to people, policies,institutions, processes and vulnerability) thatconstrains fishers from taking full advantage of theopportunities available to them to carry out sustainablelivelihood options is required. The NAPC’s anti-poverty overall strategy reflects the above trend,although it still leans towards exclusively targetingperceived poor fishers by basically increasing theirassets15. The Medium-term Development Plan targetsfavor the strengthening of the capacity of mandatedinstitutions to carry out CRM programs.

Table 1. Anti-poverty agenda of NAPC for small fishers, 2001 and beyond.

Sectoral AgendaAsset reforms

Human development services

Employment and livelihood services

Participation

Security and social protection

Core Strategies• Priority use of municipal waters by municipal and small fishers• Preferential rights and priority use of small fishers cooperatives and organizations on

the following: expired, abandoned, underutilized fishponds and aquaculture areasand devices

• Provision of adequate settlement and habitat areas for fishers through strictimplementation of Republic Act 8550, Section 108 (settlement of fisher communities)

• Provision for scholarship and training programs to improve skills of fisher communitiesand their organizations

• Implementation of Fisheries Administrative Order 195 on banning importation of fish(chilled/ frozen) for wet markets

• Provision of production and income to support fisher beneficiaries through coldstorage infrastructure, post-harvest facilities and farm-to-market roads

• Support mechanisms for communities affected by El Niño• Revision of Department of Agriculture’s (DA) credit policy on availment• Participation of fishers in law enforcement through the establishment of provincial

legal assistance centers• Support for Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs) at

the national and local levels by allocating P100 million ($2 million) in DA’s 2002budget

• Release of allocated budget for training under the fisheries programs to supportcapability- building of fishers

• Stop military operations in coastal areas by instituting consultation process in thelocal area

Increased coastal management adopted by 250 local government units(LGUs) (out of more than 800 coastal LGUs) covering 6,000 km ofcoastline for the management of municipal waters• 2,000 ha of mangrove areas and 25,000 ha of coral reefs

rehabilitated under effective LGU management• 250 LGUs with active CRM interventions develop site-specific

CRM plans and corresponding investment portfolio• 250 LGUs with municipal FARMCs established and strengthened

Table 2. Strategic objectives for local management of coastal and marineresources, 1999-2004 (DENR et al. 2001).

14 See www.livelihoods.org.15 Assets here refer to human, financial, social, physical and natural assets. Human development services are aimed atincreasing human assets, while employment and livelihood services, at increasing financial asset, and participation, atincreasing social capital.


The presence of poverty monitoring systems(which can have general and sector-specific, such asfisheries, components) indicates the existence of clearanti-poverty agenda within LGUs, and these systemsalso reflect how poverty is understood, which in turngives a picture of how it will be addressed. Currentpoverty monitoring systems in the country at thenational level are useful in national policymaking andin targeting specific areas for developmentintervention. But these have very little relevance tomunicipal governments - to whom a significantamount of responsibility for implementing fisheriesmanagement has been devolved - in betterunderstanding poverty and addressing it at the locallevel. These municipal governments may find the MBNframework in poverty monitoring - which they canadjust to suit their specific needs based on localunderstandings of poverty - more relevant for theirpurposes.

References

Balisacan, A. and S. Fujisaki, Editors. 1999. Causes of poverty:Myths, facts and policies, a Philippine study. University of thePhilippines Press, Quezon City, Philippines.

Bunce, L., P. Townsley, R. Pomeroy and R. Pollnac. 2000. Socio-economic manual for coral reef assessment. AustralianInstitute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.

Callanta, R. 1988. Poverty, the Philippine scenario. Bookmark,Quezon City, Philippines.

DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources). 2000. The 1999 Philippine fisheriesprofile. DA-BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines.

DENR/DA-BFAR/DILG (Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources and Department of the Interior andLocal Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebooks. Vols. 1-8. Coastal Resource Management Projectof DENR, Cebu City, Philippines.

ESCAP (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific).1998. Review of statistical activities in the region. EleventhSession of the ESCAP Committee on Statistics, 24-26 November1998, Bangkok, Thailand.

Friend, R. and S. Funge-Smith. 2002. Focusing small-scaleaquaculture and aquatic resource management on povertyalleviation. STREAM, Food and Agriculture Organization andNetwork of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific.

Monsod, S. and T. Monsod. 1999. International and intranationalcomparisons of Philippine poverty. In A. Balisacan and S.Fujisaki (eds.) Causes of poverty: Myths, facts and policies,a Philippine study. University of the Philippines Press, QuezonCity, Philippines.

STREAM (Support to Regional Aquatic Resource Management).2001. Support to regional aquatic resource management:Program pack. Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific,Food and Agriculture Organization and Voluntary ServicesOverseas, Bangkok, Thailand.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2000. Over-coming human poverty: UNDP Poverty report 2000. UNDP,New York, USA.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2002. Humandevelopment report. Deepening democracy in a fragmentedworld. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.

World Bank. 2000. World development report 2000/2001: Attackingpoverty. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.


Women in Fisheries in the Philippines1

IDA M. SIASONUniversity of the Philippines-Visayas (UPV)

Miag-ao, Iloilo CityPhilippines

Overview of the Fisheries Sector

The Philippines is an archipelagic country of 7,100islands and is endowed with vast aquatic resources.It is a world-significant fish producer, ranking eleventhamong the 80 fish-producing countries of the world.The fishing industry contributed 3.8% to total grossdomestic product (GDP) and 18.6% to gross valueadded (GVA) in the agriculture industry group,valued at P34 billion (constant prices).

Approximately 990,872 people are employed inthe fisheries sector, about 5% of the country’s laborforce. Of these, 68% are employed by municipal fishing,26% by aquaculture, and 6% by commercial fisheries.The 1995 census of population reports that 91.7% ofthose employed in fisheries are male and 8.2% arefemale, indicating that fisheries is a male-dominatedfield. The aggregate employment proportions by sexin the rural population are 70% male and 30% female.As demonstrated in a later section and revealed byvarious studies, the participation rate of women inthe fishing sector is underestimated.

Social, Demographic and PsychologicalCharacteristics of Women

in Fishing Households

Several studies on gender dimensions in fisheries(de Castro et al. 1986; Illo and Polo 1990; Israel-Sobritchea 1994; Hondrade and Rodriguez 1994;Ardales 1997; Villacorta 1998) show that the majorityof female respondents have completed an average of4-6 years or less of education. Their level of educationis not very different from that of men. While thisfigure is similar to rural women in general, it is lower

than the average among women in urban areas (6.9years).

Accurate income data are difficult to obtain,although in the above studies when household incomeis reported, the range has been from P13,740 ($327) toP37,000 ($880) in 1991. Data from the 12 bays in thePhilippines (PRIMEX-ANZDEC 1996) reported anaverage annual income of P25,426 ($605) in 1992.Therefore, despite the importance of the fisheriessector to the national economy, the majority of thosewho engage in it as a livelihood earn average incomesway below the poverty threshold.

The following characteristics of the communitiesreported in the 12 bay studies (PRIMEX-ANZDEC1996) reveal the living conditions of fisher households:

• Average age of household head is 41 years; ofspouse, 37 years.

• Average family size is 5.1 (although the rangereported in the studies cited above is 4-9 members).

• Some 82% own their houses.• Some 44% of houses are made of nipa and bamboo,

and 34% of nipa and wood.• Some 40% own the lot where their house stands.• Some 51% have toilet facilities.• Some 25% of households are members of

community organizations.• Some 20% have used loans, 83% of which came

from informal sources.In the five study sites, both women and men are

members of the local fisherfolk association. The otherwomen are mainly active in homemaker types oforganizations such as those for health and socialwelfare. However, they usually represent theirhusbands in assemblies of fisher or farmerorganizations, which are male-dominated.

1 This paper is an edited reprint of the full article which originally appeared as: SIASON, I.M. 2002. Women in fisheriesin the Philippines, p. 69-77. In M.J. Williams, N.H. Chao, P.S. Choo, K. Matics, M.C. Nandeesha, M. Shariff, I. Siason, E.Tech and J.M.C. Wong (eds.) Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries: Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum, 29 November2001, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 209 p.

This paper can be cited as above or as follows: SIASON, I.M. 2004. Women in fisheries in the Philippines, p. 144-149. InDA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Women in fisheries 145

The attitudes of women regarding their roles(Hondrade and Rodriguez 1994) project the genderdivision of labor prevailing in most of Philippinesociety. The men support the family financially andhandle the heavy workload. Women attend to all theproblems and needs of the family and household,safekeep and allocate the husband’s meager earnings,and manage the household budget. The women viewthemselves more as supporters than leaders, and areproud of the success of those they have assisted. Theyhave a self-sacrificing attitude in pursuing their homeobligations.

These beliefs about roles are manifested in theactivities performed daily, which include child bearingand rearing, dishwashing, laundering, house cleaning,vegetable gardening, fuel and water gathering.Typical also in rural households is rearing pigs orpoultry in backyards, which women do to augmentmeager incomes and to provide for family foodneeds.

Women’s involvement in community decision-making and leadership is limited. Some serve ascaptains of barangay (smallest political unit in thePhilippines’ governance system). More often,however, the women assume lesser positions such assecretary, treasurer or “muse” of organizations, andbecome top officers only in all-women associations(Hondrade and Rodriguez 1994). Women believe thatmen are more decisive than they are. Such a perceptionreinforces the male-dominated leadership anddecisionmaking structures and processes. However,more women than men regularly attend communitymeetings (Hondrade and Rodriguez 1994; Abreganaet al. 1996). Without realizing it, women may actuallyhave an active influence in decisionmaking.

Role of Women in Fisheries

Fishing is an occupation dominated by menbecause of the image that only they go to sea in theirfishing boats. Women are prohibited to go mainlydue to the need for them to remain within thepremises of the household to do their designatedresponsibilities. Thus, they have little directinvolvement in fish capture. However, they areinvolved in shell and fry gathering/gleaning, spearfishing in rivers, reef fishing using scoop nets, trapsand fish baskets, all of which tend to be nearshoreactivities (Lachapelle 1997; Villacorta 1998). Theseactivities nevertheless contribute to household incomeor provide food for the table. Though less common,Muslim women in fishing villages in Davao (southernPhilippines) join their husbands in fishing expeditions(Israel 1993), in hauling nets and lines (de Castro et al.

1986; Villacorta 1998) and in installing and maintainingstationary gear (Lopez-Rodriguez 1996a).

Fishing as an occupation is more than just fishproduction. The participation of women before andafter fish capture has been given little importance.However, these pre and post-production activities aresignificant in terms of their economic and social value.These include net mending, sorting fish upon landing,fish vending, trading and market retailing, andprocessing and preservation (salting or drying). Menare involved in marketing mainly when dealing withintermediaries and the fish caught is of highcommercial value (tuna, abalone). Otherwise, womenhandle the small-scale marketing that involvesinexpensive fish varieties. Fish processing andpreservation is mainly the arena of women because itis associated with food preparation. Women engagedin post-harvest fishing activities constitute 40% of suchworkers and substantially increase the total incomeof their households (Legaspi 1995). The social value ofsuch activities lie in the support wives give to theirfisher husbands, and in reinforcement of relationshipswithin the community, such as in dealing with suki orfavored buyer.

As regards seeking credit, while banks and otherformal credit institutions recognize the men as borrowers,however, the women transact loans from relatives andneighbors through informal community links.

Women’s participation in community-basedcoastal resources management

Due to the steady decline in marine fish productionand the alarming degradation of the marineenvironment, there has been a marked shift towardsdeveloping strategies in favor of managing andsustaining coastal resources through the involvementof different stakeholders, including women. Aperusal of the reports on experiences in community-based coastal resources management (CBCRM)reveal that the gender issue is not reported as a distinctcomponent, except in Lopez-Rodriguez’ article (1996b),which focuses on women’s issues and gender roles inthe project site in Batan, Panay Island. In this project,the men, women and children were trained in tilapiacage culture - feeding, sampling, cage cleaning andharvesting. The women were assigned the tasks offinancial recording and record-keeping. Among thesignificant outcomes of the experience, in addition tothe generation of additional income, are:reinforcement of women’s entrepreneurship in fishvending; fostering of unity among cooperativemembers; training in leadership; and appreciation andrecognition by men of women as partners at work


and at home. The sensitivity to gender issues, whichwas part of the training in community organization,has also resulted in men increasingly assuming someshare of household chores.

The other reports make no distinction of who-does-what in interventions in CBCRM process. Atmost, they mention that women’s groups are amongthose that have been established as part of the essentialcommunity organization component. Whether thisneglect is only in the reporting may not be a trivialmatter. Nevertheless, the recommendations shouldhave reflected a specific concern for women’s issues.

Interviews with a few NGO personnel reveal thatwomen’s issues are given some emphasis in theirrespective CBCRM programs. However, theirexperiences are not published. This deprives the publicof needed information that would have been useful infostering the integration of women in fisheriesdevelopment. The interviews also reveal that women,more so than men, serve on the front line in enforcingfisheries regulations and confronting violatorsregarding, for example, the use of illegal gear, use ofdynamite in fishing, etc. The women are seen as betternegotiators and as more level-headed in handlingconflicts than men.

Nonfishing-related activities

Coastal communities engage in a combination offishing and farming as a way of coping with the seasonalnature of these occupations. Table 1 drawn from Lopez-Rodriguez (1996b) illustrates the gender-desegregatedprofile of activities in fishing communities. The profileshows that women play multiple roles beyond the childbearing and community maintenance ones with whichthey are mainly associated.

It is common for women to engage in work outsidethe home, such as sewing, weaving, running sarisari(variety) stores, selling beauty products and foodpeddling. Women have also been implementers andbeneficiaries of livelihood projects offered by bothgovernment and nongovernment agencies.

Women are easily recruited as communityvolunteers and development workers, especially indomains that seem to be an extension of their traditionalroles. These are time-consuming, unpaid jobs such asday-care workers, nutrition scholars, barangay healthworkers and church volunteers.

Problems/Issues InvolvingWomen’s Sectoral Participation

Post-capture activities, such as fish marketing andprocessing which women have assumed, will require

capitalization that poor fishing households cannotafford. While credit programs for artisanal fishers exist,these are generally intended for production activities,such as for gear improvement, construction of artificialreefs, fry gathering, crab-fattening, etc. Such loans aremade available primarily through the male-dominatedfishers’ cooperatives. Thus, there is no credit facilityprimarily intended to respond to the needs of womenwho sell fish or process the catch. Such credit may beused to buy the catch of other fishers for biggerprocessing operations.

Technical assistance, training and extension havebeen designed to target only the male fisher, notmindful of women who are just as active in manyspheres of fish production. Women do not learn newtechnology and are not consulted on technicalproblems in production activities. Usually their sourceof knowledge of such things is through their fisherhusbands, who learn directly from the fisheriestechnicians.

Women’s participation in the reduction of post-harvest losses in fisheries and improvement of fishprocessing technology is crucial. They should be amajor target group in training and support withregard to these.

Fish marketing and trading activities are limitedas women are less mobile and expected to operateclose to the domestic front. Thus, information onprices and market trends is not available as this isusually available only in the central fish markets.

Low educational attainment and socioculturalconstraints hamper the full participation of womenin development activities of the sector. Their abilityto use and access available information is affected bytheir level of literacy. Their belief in their own lackof competence and ability, vis-à-vis their malecounterparts affects their self-confidence inindependently pursuing projects.

Women’s participation in income-generatingactivities and other development tasks, such asattendance at meetings and training courses, isobserved to be short-lived, especially whenmonitoring by granting agencies ceases. One reasonfor this is the time required from women, consideringtheir multiple burdens of regular domestic andproductive activities. Unless provisions are made todeal with other commitments, full involvement indevelopment programs will not be sustained.

Women’s work is most disadvantaged andmarginalized when coastal and marine resources aredegraded and depleted. When reefs and mangroveareas are destroyed, women fishers who use simplegears are relegated to shell gathering or to vendingthe produce of nearby fishponds (Lopez-Rodriguez,


Table 1. Activity profile: Camaligan, Lalab and Magpag-ong, Batan municipality, Aklan, 1993(Lopez-Rodriguez 1996b).

Activity

A. HouseholdCookingWashing dishesHouse cleaningFuel gatheringWater gathering

B. Aquaculture production1. Pond preparation

Cleaning of pondDrainage/dryingFertilizingFilling of pond

2. Releasing of fingerlings3. Harvesting

C .Marine fisheries productionLetting down the netsRaising of netsMending of netsProcessing of catchSelling of catchShell gathering

D. Community activitiesLocal governmentChurch activitiesSocial dancesMarket daysCockfightsAthletics

E. Farming1. Land preparation

PlowingHarrowingDike repair

2. PlantingSeedling preparationTransplanting

3. MaintenanceFertilizingPesticide applicationHerbicide applicationWeeding

4. HarvestingCuttingThreshingDrying

5. Poultry/livestock raising6. Home gardening

F. Copra gatheringGathering of coconutsHalving of nutsPreliminary dryingExtraction of meatDrying of meat

G. Nipa thatchingCutting of nipa stalksSlicing leaves from stalksBundling

Adult Male Young Male Adult Female Young Female

***

******************

************

******************

*********

******

************

*********

***************

*********

******

***

******

***

******

***

*********

******

***

******

***************

******

***************

***

************

***

***

******

***

************

***

***************

***

***

******

***

******

***

************

*********

Table 1 (cont.)


1996a). Younger women leave the fishing villages toseek employment as either domestics or factoryworkers. The men, on the other hand, could acquiremore powerful vessels to take them further to sea.These concerns highlight the need for the deliberateinclusion of women in CBCRM, as they are significantstakeholders.

There is no research program that systematicallytackles gender issues, women’s participation andintegration in fisheries development. Databaseswhich are sex-disaggregated and which may be usedin more effective planning and implementation in thissector hardly exist.

Recommendations

Extension programs intended for fisheries shouldincorporate gender concerns into the planning anddesign of the activities. This may manifest itself ininterventions to assist the traditional roles of men andwomen in society, and at the same time open upavenues for new or expanded roles and responsibilitiesfor women.

In the same vein, technical assistance for improvedfish processing technology, a major domain of fishers’wives, should be instituted. This may go beyond thetraditional sun drying and salting processes, and intonewer technologies, but with adequate support inequipment and related facilities.

Training for entrepreneurship should be anotherpriority. Women are already engaged in small tradingenterprises. They would benefit from inputs on risk-

Table 1 (cont.)

Activity

G. Nipa thatchingTransportingPipis sewingSelling

H .Daet weavingAcquisition of buntalFiber extractionPagkiskisCombingWashingBoilingSolar dryingConnecting fibersSabungonSubpononEikisonWeaving

Adult Male Young Male Adult Female Young Female

***

***

*** ***

******

************************************

*********************************

taking, better business practices, and financialmanagement.

An improved market information system willbenefit fishers’ decisions on fish prices and make themless dependent on prices offered by intermediaries.The aim is to increase the profit margins of fishers’household.

While interventions intended to benefit womenare desirable, provisions to provide them with sometime to attend to the development activities shouldbe included; for example, day-care services, child-minding centers and possible pooling of cookingresponsibilities.

There should be stronger advocacy and actualconduct of gender sensitivity training for both menand women in the communities. This will aim tosensitize the community to the issues brought on bythe culturally constructed gender division of labor,the relative valuing of men’s and women’s works,gender stereotypes, and to lead it toward gender-fairand gender-sensitive interactions. This can likewisesurface issues on domestic violence and reproductivehealth and rights (Lopez-Rodriguez 1996a). If theseissues are adequately addressed, women’s statusand participation in the fisheries sector willimprove.

Research programs that will systematicallyexamine women’s participation and impact in CRMshould be pursued. Action research which tests theworkability of new roles and responsibilities forwomen (e.g., as information disseminators or asrecipients of formal credit for entrepreneurial


activities) should be carried out to identify factorsinfluencing the effectiveness of the role changes.

Interventions to strengthen and formalizewomen’s role in CBCRM and other communitydevelopment initiatives should be instituted. Genderperspectives in environmental issues and resourcemanagement should be incorporated into trainingprograms and management structures.

References

Abregana, B., P.G. Barber, M. Maxino, P. Saunders and D. VanderZwaag.1996. Legal challenge for local management of marine resources:A Philippine case study. ERMP Rep. (32):1-112.

Ardales, V. 1997. Gender roles in sustainable agricultural and aquaculturalproductivity: The case of Western Visayas. Center for Researchand Development, University of Iloilo, Iloilo, Philippines.

De Castro, L., C. Formacion and L. Zapanta. 1986. Role of rural womenin the development of fisheries in Panay: Focus on the socio-cultural and economic variables. University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

Hondrade, S. and L. Rodriguez 1994. Food system in Batan. FoodSystems Development Project, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

Illo, J.I. and J. Polo. 1990. Fishers, traders, farmers, wives: The lifestories of ten women in a fishing village. Institute of PhilippineCulture, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines.

Israel, L. 1993. Women in the fisheries sector: A review of the literature.Lundayan 2(2): 2-3. Tambuyog Development Centre, QuezonCity, Philippines.

Israel-Sobritchea, C. 1994. Gender roles and economic change in afishing community in Central Visayas, p. 279-304. In I. Ushijimaand C. Zayas (eds.) Fishers of the Visayas. Vis. Marit. Anthropol.Stud. I: 1991-1993. CSSP Publications, University of thePhilippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Lachapelle, G. 1997. Gendered livelihoods and development in a coastalcommunity in the Visayas region of the Philippines. Department ofGeography, Dalhousie University, Canada.

Legaspi, A. 1995. Role of women in fisheries development in thePhilippines, Annex 23. Final report of the Regional Workshop onthe Role of Women in Fisheries Development, GOP-UNDP SU/TCDC-TCCP.

Lopez-Rodriguez, L. 1996a. Gender relations in community-basedcoastal resource management, p. 78-83. In C. Foltz, R.S.Pomeroy and C.V. Barber (eds.) Proceedings of the Visayas-wide Conference on Community-based Coastal ResourcesManagement and Fisheries Co-Management. Fisheries Co-Management Res. Proj. Work. Pap. No. 4. ICLARM, Makati City,Philippines.

Lopez-Rodriguez, L. 1996b. The fishers of Talangban: Women’s rolesand gender issues in community-based coastal resourcesmanagement. In E.M. Ferrer, L. de la Cruz and M.A. Domingo(eds.) Seeds of hope. College of Social Work and CommunityDevelopment, University of the Philippines, Quezon City,Philippines.

PRIMEX-ANZDEC. 1996. Fisheries Sector Development Project. ADB-TA 2236-PHI Draft Final Report. Fisheries Sector Program,Department of Agriculture, Quezon City, Philippines.

Villacorta, L. 1998. Various case studies. In A sourcebook of gendercases in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. PCAMRD-DOST,Laguna, Philippines.


Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia:An Overview of Key Challenges and Opportunities1

GERONIMO SILVESTRE2


Philippines

DANIEL PAULY3


Philippines

1 This paper is a reprint of the full article which originally appeared as: SILVESTRE, G. and D. PAULY. 1997. Managementof tropical coastal fisheries in Asia: An overview of key challenges and opportunities, p. 8-25. In G. Silvestre and D. Pauly(eds.) Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p.

This paper can be cited as above or as follows: SILVESTRE, G. and D. PAULY. 2004. Management of tropical coastalfisheries in Asia: An overview of key challenges and opportunities, p. 150-167. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p. (ICLARM Contribution No. 1379).2 Current address is: Tetra Tech EM, Inc., Coastal Resource Management Project, 5th Floor, CIFC Towers, North ReclamationArea, Cebu City 6000, Philippines.3 Current address is: Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2204 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Abstract

Coastal fisheries are an important component ofthe fisheries sector and rural economy of tropicaldeveloping countries in Asia – generating food,employment and foreign exchange. In 1994, marinelandings of these countries were about 13.3 million t(roughly 16% of world marine landings), mostoriginating from coastal areas. The coastal fisheryresources consist dominantly of species with relativelyhigh growth, natural mortality and turnover rates; andexhibit maximum abundance in shallow depths (lessthan 50 m). Fishers use a multiplicity of gears, withheavy concentration in nearshore areas whereabundance, catch rates and shrimp availability arehighest. The management of these coastal fisheriesattempts to promote three main objectives: (1)productivity/efficiency, (2) distributional equity and(3) environmental integrity. Efficient institutional/administrative arrangements are sought to attain theseobjectives and to maintain a balance among them.

Coastal fisheries operate in a spectrum rangingfrom light fishing, essentially single sector (i.e.,fisheries) situations to intense fishing and multisectoruse of the coastal area (and its adjacent terrestrial andmarine zones). Issues impacting coastal fisheriesmultiply through this range, requiring increasinglycomprehensive and integrated analytic frames andscope of action to sustain fisheries benefits. The keyissues impacting coastal fisheries in the region include:(1) overfishing, (2) inappropriate exploitation patterns,(3) post-harvest losses, (4) conflicts between large andsmall-scale fisheries, (5) habitat degradation, (6)inadequacy of management information and researchand (7) institutional weaknesses and constraints.Appropriate management strategies and actions on abroad front are necessary, and success is largelypremised on institutional capabilities and resourcesmobilization. Moreover, the ultimate mitigation ofthese factors rests on effectively addressing povertyand promoting overall economic development.

Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia 151

Introduction

Coastal fisheries are important components of thefisheries sector and rural economy of tropicaldeveloping countries in Asia. These fisheries providefood and employment to a significant portion of thepopulation, as well as valuable foreign exchange to theeconomy (Hotta 1996). In 1994, marine landings ofthese developing countries were about 13.3 million t(i.e., 16% of world marine landings and 12% of worldfisheries production). Roughly 8 million fishers wereinvolved in marine fisheries and aggregate fisheryexports were about $9 billion per year. Most of themarine landings originated from fishing operations incoastal shelves (between the shoreline and 200 m depth)especially on their shallower parts (from 0 to 50 m).However, these fisheries are adversely affected by anumber of problems and constraints, with seriousconsequences for the income of fishers, the supply offish to consumers and poverty in rural communities.

This paper attempts to provide an overview ofthe main issues confronting coastal fisheries in tropicaldeveloping Asian countries as well as thecorresponding management directions to help resolveor mitigate them. Numerous works provide detailedreviews of the overall situation through time andrepresent a substantive background and source ofmaterials for this synopsis. Among others, the workof Aoyama (1973), Shindo (1973), Marr (1976, 1981)and Pauly (1979) and the contributions in Tiews (1973),Pauly and Murphy (1982), and Pauly and Martosubroto(1996) elaborate the situation in the 1970s. For the 1980s,reviews include Soysa et al. (1982), Sivasubramaniam(1985), IPFC (1987 a and b), APO (1988), Pauly andChua (1988), and Pauly (1989). More recently, FAO(1992, 1995a and b), Yanagawa and Wongsanga (1993)and Hotta (1996) provide detailed situational updates.

We have avoided the detailed conventional reviewapproach for this synopsis. The works cited above andthe country-specific contributions to this volumeprovide sufficiently detailed treatments. We haveconcentrated instead on drawing from the availableliterature the commonalities in the main issues andopportunities occurring across the countries andlogically structuring them into generic categories. Manyof the problems have been building up for some timeand now lead to inescapable conclusions. In manyrespects the substance of the required solutions remainsthe same, though the debate over implementationstrategies to effectively resolve the problems continuesvigorously.

We first provide, by way of background, somebasic features of coastal fisheries in tropical developingcountries in Asia. A synopsis of the main fisheries

management objectives pursued in these countries isthen presented in generic categories based on themultiplicity of detailed objectives sought bymanagement. Consideration of the objectives is a logicalnecessity for evaluating the existing situation versusthe desired state. The main management issues arepresented, using selected site-specific assessments forillustration. The key management interventionscurrently being emphasized to address these issuesare then briefly discussed. Lastly, the structure of theobjectives, issues and interventions is summarized andtrends affecting the feasibility of management successare briefly discussed.

Sectoral Background

The scope of this study includes fisheries in coastalareas, from the shoreline to 200 m depth, situatedwithin the area bounded by 60ºE longitude in the west,135ºE longitude in the east, 10ºS latitude in the south,and 20ºN latitude or the coast of mainland Asia in thenorth (Figure 1). This geographical delineation includesthe fisheries of 13 developing coastal states (excludingSingapore given its level of economic development andlimited shelf area). Table 1 provides selected statisticspertaining to these countries, 5 in South Asia and 8 inSoutheast Asia. They had a combined population ofabout 1.7 billion in 1996, the highest being in India andthe lowest in the Maldives and Brunei Darussalam.Gross national product (GNP) per capita variedbetween $215 per annum (Cambodia) and $20,400(Brunei Darussalam). It is generally low, with only 3countries having a per capita GNP above $2, 000 (BruneiDarussalam, Malaysia and Thailand). High populationgrowth, low incomes and underdevelopmentcharacterize many of these countries, though acceleratedeconomic growth is improving these conditions,particularly in Southeast Asia (ADB 1996).

The marine jurisdictorial area of the countriescovered here is extensive, spanning an aggregate ofabout 13 million km2. This is roughly 1.5 times the extentof their combined land area, totaling 8.5 million km2.The extent of the declared exclusive economic zones(EEZ) is highest for Indonesia, India and the Philippinesand is lowest for Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia andBangladesh (WRI 1995). Despite the large marine area,however, only 35% (4.6 million km2) of the aggregateEEZ consists of shallow, productive continental shelves.The most extensive shelves are found off Indonesia,India, Malaysia and Vietnam. The highest shelf to EEZratios are found in Malaysia, Bangladesh and Indonesiawhere over 50% of the EEZ consists of shelves.Longhurst and Pauly (1987) provide a review of thebiophysical characteristics and ecology of the tropical


Figure 1. Map illustrating geographical scope of this study and the location of the developing countries covered.

Country

BangladeshBrunei DarussalamCambodiaIndiaIndonesiaMalaysiaMaldivesMyanmarPakistanPhilippinesSri LankaThailandVietnamTotal

Population(x 106; 1996)

124.00.3

10.2943.7197.620.60.3

47.7133.269.318.261.476.3

1,702.8

Per CapitaGNP($; 1995)

28320,400

215335940

3 930900890465

1,130660

2,680250

-

Land Area(x 103 km2)

144.05.8

181.03,287.61,904.6

329.80.3

676.6796.1300.065.6

513.1331.7

8,536.2

ExclusiveEconomic Zone

(x 103 km2)76.838.655.6

2,014.95,408.6

475.6959.1509.5318.5

1,786.0517.4257.6722.1

13,140.3

Area (x103 km2)

559

15452

2,777374

-230

59178

2786

3284,588

As % of EEZ

722227225179

-4518105

334535

Continental Shelf (0-200 m Depth)

Table 1. Selected statistics for tropical developing countries in Asia (ADB 1995, 1996; WRI 1995).


waters discussed here and point to the significance ofcoastal shelves to fisheries productivity. Moreover,mangroves, coral reefs and seagrasses line the coastalfringes of these shelves and enhance their productivityparticularly in Southeast Asia where the peak inbiodiversity of these habitats occur (McManus 1988;Fortes 1988, 1995). These coastal habitats are comingunder increased stress from various human activitiesdue to expanding populations and economies (Gomezet al. 1990; Sen Gupta et al. 1990; Chou 1994; Holmgren1994; and Wilkinson et al. 1994).

Table 2 summarizes selected fisheries statistics ofthese countries for 1994. Annual fisheries productionrange from 6,000 t (Brunei Draussalam) to 4,540,000 t(India), with over half of the countries producing over1 million t each. Overall fisheries production, includinginland fishery and aquaculture, was about 20 million t,or a little over 18% of global fisheries production.Export of fish and fishery products was about $8.8billion, representing a significant source of foreignexchange for these economies. Over $1 billion in fisheryexports was registered by three countries, Thailand,Indonesia and India. Hotta (1996) estimatesemployment in fisheries (inland and marine fisheries,as well as aquaculture) to be about 11 million. Fish hastraditionally been an important part of the diet of thepopulation, particularly in Southeast Asia. Per capitafish consumption is highest in the Maldives, followedby the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand and BruneiDarussalam, with annual consumption exceeding 25kg. The lowest per capita consumption is in the threeSouth Asian countries, namely: Pakistan, India andBangladesh. These statistics indicate fisheries to be animportant source of food, employment and foreignexchange.

Table 2 also summarizes marine fisheries catches.Aggregate marine fisheries catches were about 13.3million t (representing roughly 16% of world marinelandings), which constitutes 67% of the total fisheriesproduction for these countries. Hence, marine fisheriescontributes the bulk of fisheries production. Marinefisheries production varied between 6,000 t (BruneiDarussalam) and about 3 million t (Indonesia). Fivecountries, Indonesia, Thailand, India, the Philippinesand Malaysia, registered marine fisheries landingsexceeding 1 million t, which is indicative of extensivecoastal fisheries. It is estimated that about 7.8 millionfishers are working in marine fisheries in the 13countries covered here. The number of full-time andpart-time fishers varies between 1,600 in BruneiDarussalam and about 3.8 million in India, and millionsmore are involved part time, including women andchildren (Pauly 1997). The bulk of marine fisheriesyields and employment originates from fishingoperations in shallow, coastal shelves, indicating thatcoastal fisheries account for a substantial part of thefood and employment generated by the fishing sectorand contributes significantly to foreign exchangeearnings via export of shrimps, small pelagics anddemersals.

The coastal fishery resources consist of highlydiverse, multispecies complexes (Pauly 1979; Longhurstand Pauly 1987). These are dominantly species withrelatively high growth, natural mortality and turnoverrates (Raja 1980; Ingles and Pauly 1984;Sivasubramaniam 1985; Chullasorn and Martosubroto1986; Dwiponggo et al. 1986; and data in FishBase,Froese and Pauly 1996). A common feature of theseresources is that they frequently exhibit maximumabundance in nearshore, shallow areas. Figure 2

Table 2. Selected 1994 fisheries statistics for tropical developing countries in Asia (FAO 1994; Hotta 1996).

Country

BangladeshBrunei DarussalamCambodiaIndiaIndonesiaMalaysiaMaldivesMyanmarPakistanPhilippinesSri LankaThailandVietnamTotal

Total FisheriesProduction

(x 103 t year-1)1,091

6103

4,5404,0601,173

104824552

2,657224

3,4321,155

19,921

Marine FisheriesProduction

(x 103 t year-1)251

630

2,4202,9701,053

104599418

1,666211

2,798817

13,343

Fishery Exports($ x 106 year-1)

240-

141,1251,583

32537

103153533

324,190

4528,787

Per Capita FishConsumption

(kg•year-1)8.2

21.912.04.0

15.529.5

126.015.52.2

36.116.325.313.48.7

Number ofFishers (x 103)

552

753,8371,523

10022

696308733

9861

2667,777


Figure 3. Size range of fishes caught in areas less than (dashed line) andmore than (solid line) 15 m depth off Brunei Darussalam illustrating trendof increasing fish sizes with depth observed in South and Southeast Asia(Silvestre and Matdanan 1992).

illustrates the depth distribution of resource abundanceoff Brunei Darussalam. Note that catch rates observedthrough time consistently show peak abundance inwaters less than 50 m. Such a distribution of resourceabundance is widespread across the South andSoutheast Asian area. This is very different from thesituation prevailing in the North Atlantic (whichprovided the early models for fisheries developmentand industrialization in South and Southeast Asia),where commercially viable fish abundance occursdown to depths of 1 km and more.

Another feature of these coastal fisheryresources is that many of the species exhibitincreasing size with depth. Figure 3 illustrates thesize range of fishes in shallow (less than 15 mdepth) versus deeper waters off BruneiDarussalam (Silvestre and Matdanan 1992). Thishighlights the significance of nearshore areas asnursery grounds and the serious implications ofconcentrated small and large-scale fishing in theseareas. The abundance of very valuable shrimpsonly in nearshore waters and the favorableconcentration of finfishes in areas less than 50 mdepth has encouraged the concentration of fishingeffort and incursion of trawlers in shallowgrounds.

The abundance and diversity of coastal fisheryresources have supported vibrant, small-scalefisheries for centuries in these countries (Butcher1996). The period between the two world warssaw various attempts to “modernize” thesefisheries. These efforts were generally unsuccessfulfor a variety of technical and social reasons, notleast of which includes the lack of dynamism oflate colonial societies (Butcher 1994). The periodimmediately following the Second World War was

different. Starting in the Philippines, a wave oftechnology and investments occurred which rapidlydeveloped the demersal and, later, the pelagic fisheriesin Southeast Asia (Pauly and Chua 1989). Mechanizationof coastal fisheries also occurred in South Asia, althoughit appears to have been more diffuse.

A multiplicity of gears are currently used to exploitthe multispecies resources. These vary from relativelysimple, inexpensive gears, like handlines and gillnets,using no water craft or dug-outs, to large trawls and

Figure 2. Fish abundance off Brunei Darussalam (based on trawl surveys conducted around 1970, 1980and 1990) typical of variation in resource abundance with depth observed in South and Southeast Asia(Silvestre and Matdanan 1992).


purse seines using boats with powerful inboard engines.Sequential (and overlapping) deployment of these gearsand small/large-scale duality of coastal fisheries arecommon features. Figure 4 illustrates these features inthe case of Brunei Darussalam. The mix of gears usedare concentrated in shallow grounds where abundance,catch rates and shrimp availability are highest. Manyof the species are fished sequentially by different gearsas they grow and move to deeper, offshore areas.Varied technological and biological interactionscharacterize the coastal fisheries exploitation regimes,making assessment and management rather difficult(FAO 1978; Pauly 1979; and Pauly and Murphy 1982).

The situation in Brunei Darussalam is unique inthat the levels of exploitation are so low that majormanagement problems have not occurred so far(Silvestre and Matdanan 1992). In the other countries,however, a heavy concentration of small and large-scale gears in many shallow coastal waters has led tooverfishing, gear conflicts and dissipation of economicrent. Recent assessments have noted the increasingtrend of overfishing of coastal fish stocks and habitatdegradation (FAO 1995a; APFIC 1996). This has seriousimplications for fish supply as well as other benefitsderived from coastal fisheries. In these countries, foodfish consumption is projected to grow from anaggregate of 14.2 million t in 1992 to 20 million t by

2010 (Hotta 1996).

Overview of Main FisheriesManagement Objectives

Fisheries management may be viewed as adynamic resource allocation process where theecological, economic and institutional resources of afisheries exploitation system are distributed with valueto society (in the broad sense) as the overall goal. Somerecent works covering the status of fisheriesmanagement science and related concepts areAnderson (1987); Caddy and Mahon (1995); Olver etal. (1995); Stephenson and Lane (1995); Williams (1996);and Caddy (in press). The fisheries managementprocess includes the resolution of normative andempirical debates to determine the direction ofresource allocation decisions. What constitutes valueto society is ultimately determined in the political field,and highly influenced by existing needs (or perceptionsof such needs), available knowledge and information(or access to them), and religious and cultural valuesor norms in society.

The coastal fisheries discussed here are set in avariety of natural and human conditions. There is,therefore, a wide diversity of specific objectives beingpursued in their management. These objectives may

Figure 4. Fishing area by gear type off Brunei Darussalam typical of those observed in other coastal areas in South and SoutheastAsia (Khoo et al. 1987).


be gleaned from national legislations, developmentplans and fisheries project documents. Some objectivesare implicitly rather than explicitly stated, and manyhave been noted to be conflicting or incompatible whenpursued simultaneously (Lawson 1978; Lilburn 1987).From the available literature, we will summarize thesediverse objectives into generic categories of objectivesand management directions.

Figure 5 gives a schematic representation of theconventional “fishing system” framework in fisheriesmanagement. The arrows indicate the interactionsbetween and among components of fishery resourcesand the fisheries relying on these. The frameworkemphasizes the essential dependence of fisheries onavailable resources for continued viability and a

sustained flow of goods and benefits. It is a widelyrecognized principle of management in these countriesthat fisheries management systems must set up fishingregimes that appropriately match the productivecapacity of the resource base.

Another feature of coastal fisheries managementis the widening scope of “fisheries management” itself.Given the increasing multiplicity of issues impactingmany coastal fisheries, fisheries management concerns(and objectives) have taken on a wider framework andscope of action in many areas. Figure 6 illustrates anexample of the scope of multidisciplinary workconducted in San Miguel Bay, Philippines (Silvestre1996). This encompasses: (1) fishery resources and thehabitats (e.g., coral reefs, mangroves) and habitatcharacteristics (e.g., water quality) which sustain them;(2) other activities (e.g., forestry) which impact fisheries,fishery resources and natural environment; and (3)socioeconomic development and policy frameworkwithin which fisheries and other economic activitiesoperate. Similar to the situation in San Miguel Bay,coastal fisheries management in the South and

Southeast Asian region increasingly entails theimplementation of a wide range of measures withinthe confines of the traditional fisheries sector, as wellas interventions requiring coordination with othersectoral agencies (e.g., forestry, agriculture) at variouslevels of the institutional hierarchy.

Within this frame of reference, Figure 7 gives thetypical hierarchy of objectives sought in themanagement of coastal fisheries in these countries.Consistent with sustainable coastal fisheriesdevelopment as the overall goal, management entitiesattempt to: (1) optimize productivity/efficiency of thefisheries exploitation regime; (2) ensure that the benefitsof production or improved productivity are distributedequitably; and (3) ensure that the productivitygenerated results in minimum damage to the resourcebase and the supporting natural environment.Environmental integrity also encompasses theintergenerational equity concerns embodied in thesustainable development concept of the BrundtlandCommission report (WCED 1987). These threeobjectives are not always mutually compatible and theoptimal balance among the three is highly dependenton situational realities and have been noted to varytemporally and spatially within individual countries.Apart from the three generic (“ends”) objectives above,appropriate management systems/regimes are soughtto effectively attain a balance among these objectives.Hence, institutional effectiveness is a fourth genericcategory of (“means”) objective sought in coastalfisheries management in South and Southeast Asia.

Figure 7 also gives typical “third-level” objectivescommonly encountered. These are translated into anumber of policy instruments and managementmeasures taking the form of regulatory instruments,market-based incentives, institutional measures,research agendas and/or government supportinvestments. For example, the licensing scheme in manycountries has productivity as the main rationale. TheIndonesian trawl ban (Sardjono 1980) and the 15-kmexclusive municipal fishing zones in the Philippines hadequity as their primary consideration. The ban on theuse of poisons and explosives in fishing in manycountries has environmental integrity as the maindriving force.

The Challenges: Overviewof Key Management Issues

Coastal fisheries in the tropical developingcountries of South and Southeast Asia operate in aspectrum ranging from light fishing, essentially singlesector (i.e., fisheries) situations, to intense fishing andmultisector use of the coastal area (and its adjacent

Figure 5. Schematic representation of theconventional “fishing system” framework in fisheriesmanagement.


• high fish production/revenue• high catch/effort• high foreign exchange earnings• supply stability• high returns on investments• equal access to production factors• reasonable artisanal catches• reasonable fish prices• reasonable artisanal incomes• high employment level• reasonable water quality• reduced impact on critical habitats• reduced stress on biodiversity• use of nondestructive gears

Figure 7. General goal and objectives in fisheries management.

terrestrial and marine zones). The number of negativefactors impacting coastal fisheries multiply through thisrange, requiring increasingly comprehensiveapproaches and wider scope of action to sustainfisheries benefits. Many coastal fisheries are in (ormoving into) the more industrialized, intensive stagesof the fishing and coastal use spectrum, necessitatingimproved management efforts. We briefly outlinebelow the main issues which require increased

management attention.

Excessive fishing effort

High levels of fishing effort on coastal fish stocks,particularly in nearshore traditional fishing grounds,is a common management concern (Yanagawa andWongsanga 1993; FAO 1995a and b; APFIC 1996; Hotta1996). High fish demand (due to increasing population

Figure 6. Schematic representation of an expanded framework for fisheries management. Interrelations among the fisheries resources, thefisheries exploiting them, and other components of the human and natural dimensions are illustrated by arrows (Silvestre 1996).


and incomes), burgeoning fishing populationscombined with a lack of livelihood opportunities inrural areas, advances in fishing technology andaccelerated industrial fisheries development have ledto excessive fishing pressure and overfishing in manycoastal areas. This has resulted in a leveling-off (if notdecline) in landings; reduced catch rates, incomes andresource rents; and intense competition and conflictamong fishers. Figure 8 illustrates the gravity of theissue of excessive fishing effort evident in some areas.In the case of the demersal and small pelagic fisheriesin the Philippines (which are concentrated in veryshallow waters), by the mid-1980s the level of effortexceeded what was required to harvest maximumeconomic yield by 150-300% and maximum sustainableyield by 30-130%. This implies dissipation of resourcerents of about $450 million annually for the demersaland small pelagic fisheries combined. The developingcountries of South and Southeast Asia can ill affordthe economic losses resulting fromoverfishing. Although there are coastalareas which remain lightly fished (e.g.,sparsely populated eastern Indonesia,parts of East Malaysia), the generalconsensus is that few coastal fish stockscan accommodate an expansion in fishingeffort, and that many coastal fisheries innearshore areas (particularly in the Gulfof Thailand, the Philippines, Bay ofBengal and western Indonesia) requiresignificant reductions in fishing effort(Pauly and Chua 1988; FAO 1995a; APFIC1996; Hotta 1996).

Inappropriate exploitation patterns

Inappropriate patterns of exploitationhave led to suboptimal benefits from theexploitation of coastal fishery resources.This stems from the species and sizeselectivity of the mix of fishing gears used,i.e., their technological characteristics andspatio-temporal deployment in coastalfishing grounds. The selectivity of fishinggears and techniques for their assessmentare well documented in the literature(Hamley 1975; Pope et al. 1975; Sainsbury1984; Silvestre et al. 1991). The theory offishing illustrates the utility of influencingselectivity to maximize fish yields andrelated benefits (Beverton and Holt 1957;Ricker 1975; Gulland 1983). Armstronget al. (1990) provide an update on theimportance of selectivity to the

conservation of fish stocks.The concentration of fishing effort in shallow,

coastal shelves is a problem across many areas in Southand Southeast Asia. The use of explosives and poisonsin fishing is also rampant in certain places. The use offine-meshed nets by artisanal fishers in nearshore areasto catch fish (as well as milkfish and shrimp seeds foraquaculture) is a serious concern. The use of small-meshed nets by trawlers is leading to substantial losses.Figure 9 illustrates the results of multispecies yieldand value per recruit assessment of the trawl fisheryoperating in the Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. Note thatthe use of small-meshed (i.e., 2 cm) trawl codends isleading to losses of up to 20% and 35% of potentialyield and value, respectively.

Post-harvest losses

The magnitude of post-harvest losses is another

Figure 8. Surplus production models of the Philippine small pelagic and demersalfisheries (Silvestre and Pauly 1986; Dalzell et al. 1987).


major concern. Alverson et al. (1994) estimate the extentof discards for the fishing areas discussed here to beover 5 million t. This is broken down as follows:western central Pacific – 2.8 million t; eastern IndianOcean -0.8 million t; and Western Indian Ocean –1.5 million t. This level of discards is high at roughly40% of marine landings of the 13 developing countriescovered here. There are doubts about the accuracy ofthese estimates, based as they areon limited observations with smallspatio-temporal coverage, andbetter figures will become availablein the coming years. However, webelieve the level to be significant(see for example Khan and Alamgir,this vol.) for countries withsubstantial trawl fleets and a limitedmarket for low-value marine fishes.Apart from discards, the extent ofphysical losses due to spoilage oflandings should be limited given thepossibility of conversion to fish sauce

and related products (Pauly 1996a). Value lossof harvests due to reduced quality is acommon concern.

Large and small-scalefisheries conflicts

The question of who should have accessand, thus, benefit directly from the use ofcoastal fishery resources is a primaryconsideration in the management of fisheries.Increased competition and conflict betweenthe small and large-scale fishing sectors ischaracteristic of many coastal fisheries(Thomson 1988). Table 3 illustrates the unevencompetition between the small-scale (i.e.,municipal) and large-scale (i.e., trawl) fisheriesin San Miguel Bay, Philippines. The trawlers,consisting of 89 units and belonging to only40 households, obtain 85% of pure profit, 42%of catch value and 31% of the total catch inthe San Miguel Bay fishery. The rest goes to2,300 small-scale fishing units owned by 3,500households and employing about 5,100fishers. Social equity and relative factorendowments (i.e., abundant labor andlimited capital) in these countries oftenrequire the resolution of these conflicts infavor of the small-scale sector, as occurred inIndonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia andBangladesh. Competition and conflict persistdue to the economic and political power of

the industrial sector and require increased managementand enforcement efforts.

Habitat degradation

Coastal fish stocks and the coastal environmentwhich sustains them are coming under increased stressfrom fishing and other economic activities. On anonshore-offshore axis, Table 4 summarizes ongoing

Figure 9. Multispecies yield and value per recruit assessment of the trawlfishery in Lingayen Gulf, Philippines (Silvestre 1990). Intersections of the“eumetric” and “cacometric” lines for yeld (A and B) and gross value (A’ and B’)indicate mesh size and fishing mortality combinations where yield and valueare maximized. Note excessively high effort and low mesh sizes in LingayenGulf which lead to losses of up to 20% and 35% relative to maxima in yield andvalue, respectively.

ParameterNumber of fishing unitsTotal horsepowerNumber of ownersNumber of householdsCrew income/month (P) a

Number of fishers% of total catch% of total catch value% of total rent

Medium + Small Trawlers89

13,2004040

339-810500

314285

Small-scale Fishery2,3005,6002,0303,500

164-3425,100

695815

Table 3. Summary of data on the duality of the fisheries in San Miguel Bay, Philippines(Smith et al. 1983).

a Then $1=P10.


Chua 1988; Silvestre 1990; Chou 1994). Trawling incoastal areas damages patch reefs as well as seagrassand soft-bottom communities (Longhurst and Pauly1987).

Localized pollution, particularly in semi-enclosedcoastal waters, is increasing in frequency due topollutants from domestic, industrial, agricultural andmining sources (Gomez et al. 1990; Sen Gupta et al. 1990;Holmgren 1994; APFIC 1996; Hotta 1996). Deforestationis leading to increased flooding and alteration ofhydrological regimes in coastal areas. The degradationof coastal habitats (e.g., coral reefs, mangroves, andseagrass/algal beds) is apparent in many areas due tothe combined effects of siltation, pollution, alteration ofhydrological regimes, habitat conversion and extractiveactivities like coral/sand mining and mangrove forestry(Fortes 1988; Chou 1994; Holmgrem 1994; Wilkinson etal. 1994; Koe and Aziz 1995). Moreover, the threat ofpotential oil spills is increasing given increased oil tankertraffic and marine transport in the area. All these impactshave repercussions on coastal biodiversity and on theproductivity of coastal fishery resources. For instance,the biomass decline associated with high effort in thesurplus production models given in Figure 8 may beaggravated by the degradation of coastal habitats inthe Philippines (Barut et al., this vol.).

Inadequacy of information and research

The inadequacy of information and research inputsinto the complex decisionmaking process that constitutescoastal fisheries management is a commonly raised issue.The appropriateness of the scope, elements, timeliness

economic activities in coastal and adjacent terrestrialand marine zones. The table also provides a summaryof the main impacts of these activities on the coastalenvironment. The use of explosives and poisons infishing occurs in many coastal fishing grounds, leadingto degradation of coral reefs (Gomez 1988; Pauly and

Terrestrial Coastal Marine

Upland(>18%slope)

LoggingMiningAgriculture

SiltationFloodingToxic mine

tailings

Main ResourceUses/Activities

MainEnvironmentalIssues/Impactson the CoastalZone

Major Zones Midland(8-8%slope)

MiningAgriculture

Agrochemicalloading

ErosionSiltationFlooding

Lowland(0<8%slope)

Urbandevelopment

IndustriesAgricultureTourism

SiltationDomestic

pollution

Interface(1 km inland fromHHWL-30 m depth)

Mining (coral/sand)Mangrove forestryAquacultureFisheriesTourismIndustriesUrban development

Reduced biodiversityHabitat degradation and

destructionOverfishingIndustrial pollutionDomestic pollution

Nearshore(30 m-200 m

depth)

Artisanalfisheries

Commercialfishing

Marine transportOil drilling

Reducedbiodiversity

OverfishingOil spills

Offshore(>200 m depth-

EEZ)

Marinetransport

Industrialfishing

Offshoredevelopment

OverfishingOil spills

Deep-Sea(beyond

EEZ)

Marinetransport

Industrialfishing

Oil spills

Table 4. Generic coastal transect summarizing main activities and issues relevant to coastal fisheries and integrated coastal zone managementin South and Southeast Asia.

Figure 10. Relative indices of demersal biomass, number of fishers,and number of commercial trawlers in Lingayen Gulf, Philippinesfrom the 1930s to the 1980s (Silvestre 1990).


and accuracy of the available statistical information hasoften been questioned. Many countries requireimprovements in fisheries statistics and databases tomake real-time management of coastal fisheries feasible(see for example FAO/SEAFDEC/SIFR 1994). Figure10 illustrates the patchiness of information for conductingsite-specific assessment in these countries. In this examplefrom the Lingayen Gulf (Philippines), the spatial scopeof available catch statistics does not meet assessmentneeds and effort information is not available. Assessmentof the status of fisheries in the area is, therefore, possibleonly based on the results of independent trawl surveysand population censuses conducted in the past. Thepublished results of these surveys and censuses allowedSilvestre (1990) to show that resource biomass was downto about 13% of its original level in the late 1940s,precluding further expansion of the fisheries.

The inadequacy of fisheries research in support offisheries management efforts is also commonly cited.Much of the fisheries research is criticized for being tooacademic and peripheral to the management questionsat hand, and for failing to take the extra step to elaboraterequisite management options and measures. Manyresearch results also remain unpublished leading to whatPauly (1995) refers to as the “shifting baseline syndrome”in fisheries. The short history of quantitative fisheriesresearch, limitations in the available statistical baselineand limited research resources require that past studiesbe documented, analyzed and made available forfisheries management purposes. For example, trawlsurveys conducted in many countries remainunderutilized and potentially offer many insights forfisheries management (Silvestre et al. 1986; Pauly andMartosubroto 1996). Other areas commonly lackingresearch and information include: site-specific fisheriesassessments; selectivity research; research on locationand size of underfished stocks; marine protected areas;fish processing and marketing; socioeconomic research;and policy and institutional studies (IPFC 1987b;Yanagawa and Wongsanga 1993; FAO/SEAFDEC/SIFR1994; APFIC 1996; Hotta 1996).

Institutional weaknesses and constraints

All these issues and concerns arise and persist dueto the inability of existing institutions to deal with thechanging realities of coastal fisheries. Problems andconstraints commonly cited include: inadequacies in thepolicy and legal framework; limited personnel andtechnical capabilities; shortage of resources/funding;inadequate or overlapping mandates and functions; anda lack of institutional collaboration/coordination (IPFC1987a and b; APFIC 1996; Hotta 1996). An increasedemphasis on the participation of stakeholders and

devolution of management authority to local levels arenotable trends in many of the countries included in thisstudy.

The Opportunities: Overview of KeyManagement Interventions

Given the multiplicity of issues impacting coastalfisheries, a variety of management interventions areprescribed in the available literature for their resolutionor mitigation (Yanagawa and Wongsanga 1993; FAO1995a and b; APFIC 1996; and Hotta 1996). We brieflyoutline below seven main categories of managementinterventions which we believe to be appropriate, giventhe status of coastal fisheries in these countries. Thoughmany of these are in place, there is a common concernabout the comprehensiveness and scale of the existingmix of measures to sufficiently reverse or mitigate themultiplicity of impacts on, and sustain the benefitsderived from, coastal fisheries. Successful fisheriesmanagement will require effective implementation of awide range of measures as well as fundamental shiftsin management perspectives (Anderson 1987; Hilbornand Walters 1992; Pauly 1994, 1996b; Olver et al. 1995;Stephenson and Lane 1995; Caddy, in press).

Limited entry and effort reduction

The establishment of viable systems of rights andaccess to limit entry into coastal fisheries is sorelylacking. Licensing schemes in many countries are stillviewed as statistical and revenue generating exercises,rather than as effective management handles to limitentry and control fishing effort. In overfished coastalareas, the obvious need is for a reduction of fishingeffort, particularly in nearshore, traditional fishinggrounds. The requisite effort reduction in some areasis quite substantial as in the example for Philippinedemersal and small pelagic fisheries shown in Figure8. In this case the reduction required is about half ofprevailing effort levels. This kind of situation requiresdirect exit interventions, enhancement of alternativelivelihood prospects and occupational mobility offishers, restructuring of relevant policy and regulatoryframeworks, and the redirection of subsidies andsupport towards improved rural/communitydevelopment. Other measures outlined below are alsodirectly relevant to requisite effort reduction schemesin overfished coastal fisheries.

Gear, area and temporal restrictions

Measures influencing the species and size, and toa certain extent the sex and maturity stage, composition


of catches include: (1) technological controls orlimitations, e.g., gear restrictions such as meshregulations, hook size control, trawl bans; (2) spatialrestrictions, e.g., marine sanctuaries, area closures; and(3) temporal restrictions, e.g., seasonal closures.Regulatory instruments include various forms ofspecies and size restrictions on landings, as well asprohibitions on landing of gravid females. Table 5 usesselected regulations in effect in the Philippines toillustrate some of the forms that these selectivitymeasures may take. It should be noted that a creativeuse of other measures, such as incentives/disincentivescan be made to influence selectivity and the resultingexploitation pattern/levels of coastal fisheries.

While much of the theoretical and methodologicalaspects of gear selectivity are covered in the literature,there is a considerable scope for in situ information onselectivity to set up measures for site-specificmanagement. Considerable opportunities exist for amore creative use of gear restrictions, zonationschemes, marine sanctuaries or protected areas(Bohnsack 1994), and seasonal closures to influence

the selectivity of coastal fisheries (Silvestre 1995). Thedesign and operation of measures to improveselectivity will vary depending on the number ofspecies and fishing gears used. The complexity of theselectivity problem increases from single species, singlegear situations to multigear, multispecies situations(Pauly 1979; Gulland 1983). This has hindered the morecreative use of gear, area and temporal restrictions.

McManus (this vol.) points to faunal assemblagesassociated with spatial elements which can be tappedby managers in designing area restrictions, sanctuariesor zonation schemes (see also McManus 1986, 1989,1996). The opening and closing of the fishing season forshrimps in Australia illustrates the potential for temporalrestrictions, given similarities in the dynamics ofexploited shrimp species (Rothlisberg et al. 1988; Staples1991). Attention is also required in developing anddispersing appropriate hatchery techniques for culturedspecies, e.g., milkfish, shrimps, groupers. The restrictionof gears with small-mesh nets in nearshore areas cansucceed only if aquaculture dependence on wild seedsis curtailed.

Table 5. Illustrative examples of regulatory instruments affecting the selectivity of fishing operations in the Philippines(Silvestre 1995).

a FAO - Fishery Administrative Order; PD - Presidential Decree; LOI - Letter of Instruction.

Regulatory Instrument

1. Technological controls- mesh regulation

- “gear” ban

2. Spatial restrictions- area closure

3. Temporal restrictions

4. Others

Law/Ordinancea Specifications

Prohibition of use of nets with mesh sizes less than 3 cm when stretched(nationwide).Regulating the use of fine-meshed nets in fishing (nationwide).Prohibition of commercial trawling (less than 3 GT) in waters 7 fathomsdeep or less (nationwide).Prohibition o f operation of muro-ami and kayakas in all Philippine waters(nationwide).Regulations governing the operation of commercial fishing boats inPhilippine waters using tuna purse seine nets (nationwide).Regulations governing pa-aling fishing operation in Philippine waters(nationwide).Prohibition of use of explosives and poisons in fishing (nationwide).

Prohibition of commercial fishing (with the use of boats more than 3 GT) inwaters less than 7 fathoms (nationwide).Extended the ban on commercial trawls and purse seines within 7 km ofthe coastline in all provinces (nationwide).Extended boundaries of municipal waters from 3 nautical miles (5.5 km) to15 km from the shoreline (nationwide).Regulation governing the conservation of the ipon goby fisheries of theIlocos provinces; open season from November to January; closed seasonin September, October and February (area specific i.e., Ilocos Norte).Closed season of five years for the operation of commercial fishing boatsin San Miguel Bay (area specific).Ban on the taking or catching, selling, possession, and transportation ofsabalo (full grown bangus or milkfish) (nationwide).Regulation for gathering, catching, taking or removing of marine tropicalaquarium fish (nationwide).

PD 704 (1975)

FAO 155 (1986)PD 704 (1975)

FAO 163 (1986)

FAO 188 (1993)

FAO 190 (1994)

PD 704 (1975)

PD 704 (1975)

LOI 1328 (1983)

RA 7160 (1992)

FAO 9 (1950)

FAO 136 (1982)

FAO 129 (1980)

FAO 148 (1984)


Improvement of marketingand post-harvest facilities

The level of discards and (value) loss in catchesrequire increased management intervention (Alversonet al. 1994). Post-harvest facilities (i.e., salt, ice and coldstorage) are lacking in strategic locations in many areas.Private sector participation in providing these facilitiesneeds to be enhanced given the noted inefficiency ofthe public sector in maintaining such facilities.Development and dissemination of appropriateprocessing (e.g., surimi) and handling techniques alsorequire attention, as do the development andmaintenance of rural road infrastructures. Improvedselectivity of coastal fisheries is also important inreducing the magnitude of discards.

Enhancement of awareness andparticipation of stakeholders

Enhancing the awareness and participation ofstakeholders is necessary for better and more cost-effective management of coastal fisheries. Improvedtransparency and institutionalized participation ofstakeholders in the management decisionmakingprocess is desirable. Other measures that can beimplemented include: enhancement of fishers’organizations and other NGOs; education/awarenessprograms; devolution/decentralization of managementauthority; and appropriate extension, training and creditsupport for nonfishing activities.

Reduction of environmental impacts

The need for a reduction of the impacts of fishingand other economic activities on the coastalenvironment that sustains fisheries is evident in manycountries. Efforts toward integrated coastal zonemanagement (Chua and Pauly 1989; Clark 1992) andthe adoption of integrated coastal fisheriesmanagement approaches (Silvestre 1996) will benecessary for the reduction of undesirable impactson the coastal environment. Other areas requiringintervention include: wider adoption of multiple-usezonation schemes; restoration/rehabilitation ofcoastal habitats; curtailment of destructive fishingmethods; adoption of appropriate environmentalimpact assessment systems; and improvement andenforcement of penalties/incentives systems.Progress in the wider use of the precautionaryapproach and (development of mechanisms for)“internalization” of environmental costs is highlyrelevant to reducing coastal environmental impacts.

Institutional strengthening/upgrading

Concern about the issues above persists due toinability of existing institutions to elaborate and effectthe requisite management interventions. Strengtheningof the policy, regulatory and organizational frameworksrelevant to fisheries is urgently required. The areasidentified as needing attention include: technical,personnel and facilities upgrading; improvement offinancial capability and strengthening of mandates oforganizations; enhancement of organizationalcoordination/collaboration; increased transparency,accountability and participation in the managementdecisionmaking process; and the development ofeffective and cost-efficient monitoring, control andsurveillance (MCS) systems (Flewelling 1995). The costsof improved management are substantial andexploration of appropriate cost-sharing schemes withindustry (as the ultimate beneficiary) needs to bedeveloped.

Enhancement of research and information

Management systems have to be supported byresearch and information There is need for researchin: appropriate size and siting of sanctuaries orprotected areas; resource enhancement and habitatrehabilitation techniques; selective fishing; appropriatefisheries management reference points; ecosystemmodeling (Christensen and Pauly 1995, 1996); andpolicy and institutional support. Documentation andretrospective analysis of existing information and paststudies (e.g., trawl surveys) is important for purposesof comparison and for the potential insights theyprovide for the management of coastal fisheries.Establishment of statistical baseline information shouldbe consistent with MCS and management referencepoints appropriate to the situational realities obtainedin the individual countries. There should be moreresearch collaboration and exchange of research andexperiences between the countries given similaritiesin their resource base and development context.

Conclusion

In the 13 developing South and Southeast Asiancountries covered in this study, coastal fisheries generatefood, employment and foreign exchange. Many factorsimpact the magnitude and sustainability of thesebenefits. Figure 11 shows a logical structuring of themain objectives, issues and interventions relevant tocoastal fisheries management in these countries and alsoprovides a summary of the main points covered in this


paper. There are three generic categories of (“ends”)objectives for the management of coastal fisheries, viz.,productivity/efficiency, distributional equity andenvironmental integrity. A fourth generic (“means”)category, institutional effectiveness/efficiency, is oftenconsidered necessary for success in attainment of themain (“ends”) objectives. Seven key issues affect theattainment of these objectives and the benefits derivedfrom coastal fisheries. Seven key managementinterventions for the resolution or mitigation of theseissues are listed. The issues are interconnected and havecross-reinforcing tendencies, e.g., overfishing intensifiesconflicts between small and large-scale fisheries leadingto the use of destructive gears and increased habitatdegradation. The management interventions are alsointerconnected, although only the link to the main issuesbeing addressed is illustrated. Apart from providing asummary, Figure 11 in essence presents a systems matrixof generic elements which should be considered inadvancing coastal fisheries management efforts in Southand Southeast Asia.

Beyond the reflection and debate, Figure 11illustrates the need for effective action on a wide frontat various levels of the institutional hierarchy. Themanagement interventions outlined in this paper show

scope for action at the local, national and internationallevels. Much of the overall success will depend onnational institutional capabilities. The strengthening andupgrading of these capabilities and effectiveimplementation of the interventions outlined are in turndependent on the resources that can be mobilized forsuch purposes. In the context of the development needsof these countries, there is competition for resourcesgiven other equally pressing developmental and socialneeds. The reviews given by Holdgate et al. (1982),Tolba and El-Kholy (1992), and FAO (1995b) identifypositive and negative international trends affecting theenvironment, food, agriculture and fisheries particularlyrelevant to this study. High population growth, externaldebt burden, declining commodity prices, marketaccess difficulties and the shrinking international aid“pot” are minuses for the ability of most countries todevote sufficient resources to the problems at hand.The positive developments are increased economicgrowth (although this can lead to more pollutionproblems), environmental awareness, democratizationand regional collaboration. Thus, the ultimate solutionsto the multiplicity of issues impacting coastal fisheriesare also premised on addressing poverty and promotingoverall development in South and Southeast Asia.

Figure 11. Summary of management objectives, key management issues and constraints,and interventions (strategies and actions) for the coastal fisheries of the developingcountries of tropical Asia. Management interventions have crosscutting benefits/implications, but only the connections to the main issue being addressed are illustrated.


Acknowledgments

Thanks are due Mr. Len Garces and Ms. BingSantos for assistance in assembling some of theinformation given in the tables, and for locatingimportant references used in this study.

References

ABD. 1995. Key indicators of developing Asian and Pacific countries.Vol. XXVI. Asian Development Bank, Manila. 417 p.

ADB. 1996. Asian development outlook - 1996 and 1997. AsianDevelopment Bank, Manila. 245 p.

Alverson, D., M. Freeberg, S. Murawski and J.G. Pope. 1994. Aglobal assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAOFish. Tech. Pap. (339): 233 p.

Anderson, L.G. 1987. Expansion of the fishery managementparadigm to include institutional structure and function. Trans.Am. Fish. Soc. 116(3): 396-404.

Aoyama, T. 1973. The demersal fish stocks and fisheries of theSouth China Sea. FAO and UNDP, Rome. SCS/DEV/73/3: 80 p.

APFIC. 1996. Summary report of the APFIC Symposium onEnvironmental Aspects of Responsible Fisheries, Seoul,Republic of Korea, 15-18 October 1996. RAP Publ. 1996/42.Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bangkok, Thailand. 27 p.

APO. 1988. Fishing industry in Asia and the Pacific. AsianProductivity Organization, Tokyo. 481 p.

Armstrong, U., R. Ferro, D. MacLennan and S. Reeves. 1990.Gear selectivity and the conservation of fish. J. Fish. Biol. 37(A): 261-262.

Beverton, R. and S. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploited fishpopulations. Fishery Invest., London, Ser. 2, 19: 533 p.

Bohnsack, J.A. 1994. Marine reserves: they enhance fisheries,reduce conflicts and protect resources. Naga, ICLARM Q.17(3): 4-7.

Butcher, J. 1994. Harvesting the sea. An ecological history of themarine fisheries of Southeast Asia. Research School of Pacificand Asian Studies, Australian National University. 116 p.

Butcher, J. 1996. The marine fisheries of the Western Archipelago:towards an economic history, 1850 to the l960s, p. 24-39. InD. Pauly and P. Martosubroto (eds.) Baseline studies ofbiodiversity: the fish resources of Western Indonesia. ICLARMStud. Rev. 23, 312 p.

Caddy, J.F. and R. Mahon. 1995. Reference points for fisherymanagement. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (347): 82 p.

Caddy, J. F. Fisheries management after 2000: will new paradigmsapply? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. (In press).

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1995. Fish production, catches andthe carrying capacity of the world oceans. Naga, the CLARMQ. 18(3): 34-40.

Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1996. Ecological modeling for all.Naga, the ICLARM Q. 19(2): 25-26.

Chou, L.M. 1994. Marine environmental issues of Southeast Asia:state and development. Hydrobiologia 285: 139-150.

Chua, T.E. and D. Pauly, Editors. 1989. Coastal area managementin Southeast Asia: policies, management strategies and casestudies. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 19, 254 p.

Chullasorn, S. and P. Martosubroto. 1986. Distribution andimportant biological features of coastal fish resources inSoutheast Asia. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (278): 84 p.

Clark, J.R. 1992. Integrated management of coastal zones. FAOFish. Tech. Pap. (327): 167 p.

Dalzell, P., P. Corpuz, R. Ganaden and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimationof maximum sustainable yield and maximum economic rentfrom the Philippine small pelagic fisheries. Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources Tech Pap. Ser 10(3), 23p.

Dwiponggo, A., T. Hariati, S. Banon, M.L. Palomares and D. Pauly.1986. Growth, mortality and recruitment of commerciallyimportant fishes and penaeid shrimps in Indonesian waters.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 17: 91 p.

Dwiponggo, A. 1988. Recovery of overexploited demersalresources and growth of its fishery on the north coast ofJava. Indones. Agric. Res. Dev. J. 10(3): 65-72.

FAO. 1978. Some scientific problems of multispecies fisheries.Report of the Expert Consultation on Management ofMultispecies Fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (181): 42 p.

FAO. 1992. Review of the state of world fishery resources. Part 1.The marine resources. FAO Fish. Circ. (710). Rev 8. Part 1.114 p.

FAO. 1994. FAO yearbooks. Fishery statistics. Vol. 78, 702 p.FAO. 1995a. Review of the state of world fishery resources: marine

fisheries. FAO Fish. Circ. (884): 105 p.FAO. 1995b. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO,

Rome. 57 p.FAO/SEAFDEC/SIFR. 1994. Status of fishery information and

statistics in Asia. Proceedings of the Regional Workshop onFishery Information and Statistics in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand,18-22 January 1994. Vols. I and II.

Flewwelling, P. 1995. An introduction to monitoring, control andsurveillance for capture fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (338):217 p.

Fortes, M.D. 1988. Mangrove and seagrass beds of East Asia:habitats under stress. Ambio 17(3): 207-213.

Fortes, M.D. 1995. Seagrasses of East Asia: environmentalmanagement perspectives. RCU/EAS Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 6.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 1996. FishBase 96: concepts, design anddata sources. ICLARM, Manila. 179 p.

Gomez, E.D. 1988. Overview of environmental problems in theEast Asian Seas region. Ambio 17(3): 166-169.

Gomez, E.D., F. Deocadiz, M. Hunspreugs, A.A. Jothy, K.J. Kuan,A. Soegiarto and R.S.S. Wu. 1990. State of the marineenvironment in the East Asian Seas region. UNEP Reg. SeasRep. Stud. No. 126, 63 p.

Gulland, J. 1983. Fish stock assessment: a manual of basic methods.FAO/Wiley, New York. 223 p.

Hamley, J.M. 1975. Review of gillnet selectivity. J. Fish. Res.Board Can. 32(11): 1943-1969.

Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stockassessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman andHall, New York. 570 p.

Holdgate, M., H. Kassas and G. White (eds.) 1982. The worldenvironment, 1972-1982. UNEP Rep. Tycooly International,Dublin.

Holmgren, S. 1994. An environmental assessment of the Bay ofBengal region. Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras. BOBP/REP/67: 256 p.

Hotta, M. 1996. Regional review of the fisheries and aquaculturesituation and outlook in South and Southeast Asia. FAO Fish.Circ. (904): 45 p. FAO, Rome.

Ingles. J. and D. Pauly. 1984. An atlas of the growth, mortalityand recruitment of Philippine fishes. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 13,127 p.

IPFC. 1987a. Papers presented at the Symposium on theExploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources inSoutheast Asia, Darwin, Australia, 16-19 February 1987.RAPA Rep. 1987/10: 552 p.


IPFC. 1987b. Report of the Symposium on the Exploitation andManagement of Marine Fishery Resources in Southeast AsiaDarwin, Australia, 16-19 February 1987. RAPA Rep. 1987/9:39 p.

Khoo, H.W , S. Selvanathan and H.A.M.S. Halidi. 1987. Capturefisheries, p. 89-109. In T.E. Chua, L.M. Chou and M.S.M.Sadorra (eds.) The coastal environmental profile of BruneiDarussalam: resource assessment and management issues.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 18, 193 p.

Koe, L.C.C. and M.A. Aziz. 1995. Regional programme of actionon land-based activities affecting coastal and marine areas inthe East Asian Seas. UNEP, Bangkok. RCU/EAS Tech. Rep.Ser.(5): 117 p.

Lawson, R. 1978. Incompatibilities and conflicts in fisheries planningin Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian J. Soc. Sci. 6(1-2): 115-136.

Lilburn, B. V. 1987. Formulation of fisheries management plans, p.507-527. In IPFC. Papers presented at the Symposium on theExploitation and Management of Marine Fishery Resources inSoutheast Asia, Darwin, Australia, 16-19 February 1987.RAPA Rep. 1987/10: 552 p.

Longhurst, A. and D. Pauly. 1987. Ecology of tropical oceans.Academic Press, New York. 407 p.

Marr, J.C. 1976. Fishery and resource management in SoutheastAsia. RFF/PISFA Pap. 7, 62 p.

Marr, J.C. 1981. Southeast Asian marine fishery resources andfisheries, pp. 75-109. In L.S. Chia and C. MacAndrews (eds.)Southeast Asian seas: frontiers for development. McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

McManus, J.W. 1986. Depth zonation in a demersal fishery in theSamar Sea, Philippines, p. 483-486. In J. Maclean, L.B. Dizonand L.V. Hosillos (eds.) The First Asian Fisheries Forum. AsianFisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.

McManus, J.W. 1988. Coral reefs of the ASEAN region: status andmanagement. Ambio 17(3): 189-193.

McManus, J.W. 1989. Zonation among demersal fishes in SoutheastAsia: the southwest shelf of Indonesia, p. 1011-1022. InProceedings of the Sixth Symposium On Coastal and OceanManagement/ASCE, 11-14 July 1989. Charleston, SouthCarolina.

McManus, J.W. 1996. Marine bottom fish communities from theIndian Ocean coast of Bali to mid-Sumatra, p. 91-101. In D.Pauly and P. Martosubroto (eds.) Baseline studies ofbiodiversity: the fish resources of Western Indonesia. ICLARMStud. Rev. 23, 312 p.

Olver, C.U., B.J. Shuter and C.R. Minns. 1995. Towards a definitionof conservation principles for fisheries management. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 52: 1584-1594.

Pauly, D. 1979. Theory and management of tropical multispeciesstocks: a review, with emphasis on the Southeast Asiandemersal fisheries. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 1, 35 p.

Pauly, D. and G.l. Murphy. (Editors.). 1982. Theory andmanagement of tropical fisheries. Proceedings of the ICLARM/CSIRO Workshop on the Theory and Management of TropicalMultispecies Stocks, 12-21 January 1981, Cronulla, Australia.ICLARM Conf. Proc. 9, 360 p.

Pauly, D. and T.E. Chua. 1988. The overfishing of marine resources:socioeconomic background in Southeast Asia. Ambio 17(3):200-206.

Pauly, D. 1989. Fisheries resources management in SoutheastAsia: why bother? p. 1-10. In T.E. Chua and D. Pauly (eds.)Coastal area management in Southeast Asia: policies,management strategies and case studies. ICLARM Conf. Proc.19, 254 p.

Pauly, D. 1994. From managing fisheries to managing ecosystems.ICES, Copenhagen. ICES Inf. 24:7.

Pauly, D. 1995. Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome offisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 (10): 430.

Pauly, D. and P. Martosubroto. 1996. Baseline studies ofbiodiversity: the fish resources of Western Indonesia. ICLARMStud. Rev. 23, 321 p.

Pauly, D. 1996a. Fleet-operational, economic, and culturaldeterminants of by-catch uses in Southeast Asia, p. 285-288. In Solving by-catch: considerations for today andtomorrow. Alaska Sea Grant College Prog. Rep. No. 96-03.University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Pauly, D. 1996b. One hundred tons of fish and fisheries research.Fish. Res. 25(1): 25-38.

Pauly, D. 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality.marginalization, and some implications for fisheriesmanagement. In E.K. Pikitch, D.D. Huppert and M.P. Sissenwine(eds.) Global trends: fisheries management. AmericanFisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland.

Pope, J., A. Margetts, J. Hamley and E. Akjüz. 1975. Manual ofmethods for fish stock assessment, part III. Selectivity offishing gear. FAO Tech. Pap. 41 (Rev. 1), 65 p.

Raja, B.T.A. 1980. Current knowledge of fisheries resources inthe staff area of the Bay of Bengal. Bay of Bengal Programme,Madras. BOBP/WP8, 23 p.

Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biologicalstatistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board. Can.(191), 382 p.

Rothlisberg, P., D. Staples and B. Hill. 1988. Factors affectingrecruitment in penaeid prawns in tropical Australia, p. 241-248.In A. Yañez-Arancibia and D. Pauly (eds.) IOC/FAO Workshopon Recruitment in Tropical Coastal Demersal Communities. IOCWorks. Rep. No. 44.

Sainsbury, K. 1984. Optimum mesh size for tropical multispeciestrawl fisheries. J. Cons. CIEM 41: 129-139.

Sardjono, I. 1980. Trawlers banned in Indonesia. ICLARM Newsl.3(4): 3.

Sen Gupta, R., M. Ali, A.L. Bhuiyan, M.M. Hossain, P.M. Sivalingam,S. Subasinghe and N.M. Tirmizi. 1990. State of the marineenvironment in the South Asian Seas region. UNEP Reg. SeasRep. Stud. No. 123.

Shindo, S. 1973. General review of the trawl fishery and thedemersal fish stocks of the South China Sea. FAO Fish. Tech.Pap. 120, 49 p.

Silvestre, G.T., R.B. Regalado and D. Pauly. 1986. Status of Philippinedemersal stocks - inferences from underutilized catch ratedata, p. 47-96. In D. Pauly, J. Saeger and G. Silvestre (eds.)Resources, management and socioeconomics of Philippinemarine fisheries. Tech. Rep. Dep. Mar. Fish. 10, 217 p.

Silvestre, G.T. and D. Pauly. 1986. Estimate of yield and economicrent from Philippine demersal stocks, 1946-1984. Paperpresented at the WESTPAC Symposium on Marine Science inthe Western Pacific, Townsville, Australia, 1-6 December1986.

Silvestre, G.T. 1990. Overexploitation of demersal stocks inLingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 973-876. In R. Hirano and I.Hanyu (eds.) The Second Asian Fisheries Forum, AsianFisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.

Silvestre, G.T., M. Soriano and D. Pauly. 1991. Sigmoid selectionand the Beverton and Holt yield equation. Asian Fish. Sci.(4): 85-98.

Silvestre, G.T. and H.J.H. Matdanan. 1992. Brunei Darussalamcapture fisheries: A review of resources, exploitation andmanagement, p. 1-38. In G. Silvestre, H.J.H. Matdanan, P.H.Y.Sharifuddin, M.W.R.N. De Silva and T.E. Chua (eds.) Thecoastal resources of Brunei Darussalam: status, utilizationand management. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 34, 214 p.


Silvestre, G.T. 1995. Fisheries management and the selectivity offishing operations. FAO Consultation of Experts and Industryon Selective Fishing for Responsible Exploitation of the Resourcesin Asia, Beijing, 12-17 October 1995. Inf. Pap. (12):25 p.

Silvestre, G.T. 1996. Integrated management of coastal fisheries:lessons from initiatives in San Miguel Bay, Philippines. ICLARM,Manila, 13 p.

Sivasubramaniam, K. 1985. Marine fishery resources of the Bay ofBengal. Bay of Bengal Programme, Madras, BOBP/WP/36:66 p.

Smith, I.R., D. Pauly and A.N. Mines. 1983. Small-scale fisheriesof San Miguel Bay, Philippines: options for management andresearch. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 11, 80 p.

Soysa, C.H., L.S. Chia and W.L. Collier, (Editors.) 1982. Man, landand sea: coastal resource use and management in Asia andthe Pacific. Agricultural Development Council, Bangkok, 320p.

Staples, D. 1991. Penaeid prawn recruitment: geographiccomparison of recruitment patterns within the Indo-WestPacific Region. Mem. Queensland Mus. 31:337-348.

Stephenson, R.L. and D.E. Lane. 1995. Fisheries managementscience: a plea for conceptual change. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 52:2051-2056.

Thomson, D. 1988. The world’s two marine fishing industries –how they compare. Naga, ICLARM Q. 11(3):17.

Tiews, K. (Editor.). 1973. Fisheries resources and their managementin Southeast Asia. German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment. Federal Research Board for Fisheries and FAO,Berlin (West), 511 p.

Tolba, M. and O. El-Kholy, (Editors.). 1992. The world environment,1972-1992. Two decades of challenge. Chapman and Hallfor UNEP, London.

WCED. 1987. Our common future. World Commission forEnvironment and Development. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Williams, M. 1996. The transition in the contribution of living aquaticresources to food security. Food, Agriculture, and theEnvironment Discussion Paper 13, 41 p. International FoodPolicy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

Wilkinson, C.R., S. Sudara and L.M. Chou, Editors. 1994.Proceedings, Third ASEAN-Australia Symposium on LivingCoastal Resources. Vol. 1: status reviews. Australian Instituteof Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. 454 p.

WRI. 1995. People and the environment. WRI in collaborationwith UNEP and UNDP.

Yanagawa, H. and P. Wongsanga. 1993. Review of fisheryproduction, provisional estimation of potential yield and thesituation of fisheries in the Southeast Asian region – 1976 to1989. SEAFDEC Spec. Publ. (18), 114 p.

Role of national government agencies in coastal and fisheries management 169

S E C T I O N I I I

Fisheries Management,Policies and Tools


The Evolving Role of National Government Agenciesin Coastal and Fisheries Management1

WILLIAM P. JATULANTetra Tech EM, Inc.



Introduction

The role of national government agencies (NGAs)in strategic facets of coastal and fisheries managementis indispensable. Successful programs having sufficientsupport from national and other assisting organizations(e.g., nongovernment organizations, academicinstitutions) are important for local governments andcommunities to manage coastal and fisheries resourceseffectively (DENR et al. 2001a).

While current coastal and fisheries managementregimes are biased towards devolution and co-management approaches, giving ample influence andauthority to local governments and local communitiesin implementing plans and programs, the role of NGAsremains essential especially in policy direction andtechnical guidance. Among the important NGAs havingroles and responsibilities for coastal and fisheriesmanagement in the Philippines are the: Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR) andDepartment of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources (DA-BFAR). This paper examinestheir changing roles in the context of the LocalGovernment Code (LGC), which paved the way formainstreaming coastal and fisheries management in thePhilippines.

Mandates and Functions of GovernmentAgencies in Coastal and Fisheries

Management

Department of Environmentand Natural Resources

The role of DENR in coastal resource management

(CRM) largely emanates from Executive Order (EO)192, which reorganized the department in 1987 andprovided a broad mandate and responsibility for theconservation, management, development and properuse of the country’s environment and natural resources.This is supplemented by specific laws and administrativeissuances that depict DENR’s role in specific coastalmanagement concerns such as for mangrove areas,marine pollution and environmental impact assessmentsystem (Table 1).

Over the years, DENR initiated important policyand institutional reforms that consolidated its role incoastal management. Among these initiatives was theimplementation of the Coastal Environment Program(CEP) in 1993 (DAO 19). Until 2001, the program hadcarried the functions of a cooperative activity rangingfrom resource inventory and assessment to actual projectimplementation by people’s organizations in 78 sitesacross the country (DENR 2002).

In 2002, the Coastal and Marine Management Office(CMMO) was established via DAO 2002-08 to functionas an interim administrative arrangement to ensure theefficiency and effectiveness of the department in thedelivery of services pending approval of congressionalinitiatives to strengthen national government’s programsin coastal management. CMMO is primarily tasked tocoordinate and integrate all coastal managementactivities, specifically in policy review and formulation,coordination and integration of development andimplementation of coastal programs and projects, andestablishment and maintenance of coastal and marineinformation management system.

The shift from CEP to CMMO marked the changein focus and paradigm on the role of DENR in CRM,notably the support to devolution on LGU’s mandate

1 This paper can be cited as follows: JATULAN, W.P. 2004. The evolving role of national government agencies in coastal andfisheries management, p. 171-174. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Inturbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 372 p.


n CRM (Table 2). Parallel units are now organized atthe regional and community (Community Environmentand Natural Resources Office [CENRO]) levels torespond to the technical needs of LGUs in their effectiveimplementation of CRM plans and programs.

In 2003, CMMO regular operations commencedwith the installation of operational mechanisms andstaffing requirements. The CMMO logframe settingforth the technical assistance program for LGUs hasbeen mainstreamed into the department’s major finaloutputs, and specific targets have been spelled out forfull-swing implementation. To date, about 595 staffhave been designated to various CMM units, i.e., 121coastal CENROs nationwide (except for the provincesof Marinduque, Romblon and Siquijor as no designatesare named yet), 15 regional offices and central office(Table 3).

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources

As early as 1947, BFAR (then Bureau of Fisheries)has been the government institution primarily responsiblefor the regulation and management of all fishery resources

of the Philippines. Succeeding legislation further definedthe fisheries production and regulatory thrusts of thegovernment, which were national in scope and character(DA-BFAR 1995) (Table 4). Under PD 704, the nationalpolicy on fisheries was to accelerate and promote theintegrated development of fishery industry and maintainoptimum production (Peña 1997).

The enactment of the LGC of 1991 and the FisheriesCode of 1998 further defined roles and responsibilities incoastal and fisheries management (Trinidad 1998). Withrespect to the coastal area largely encompassing the 15-km municipal waters, BFAR’s mandate is now limited totechnical assistance to LGUs in the development,management, regulation, conservation and protection offisheries resource (Section 65, Fisheries Code of 1998).Beyond municipal waters, BFAR’s role has been focusedon management of commercial fisheries, includingstraddling and highly migratory fish stocks; maintenanceof a monitoring, control and surveillance system;development and implementation of industry plans; andprovision of extension services related to fish technology,marketing and development of value-added fisheryproducts (ADB et al. 2003).

Table 1. Policies that influenced DENR’s role in coastal management (DENR et al. 2001b).

aDAO – Department Administrative Order; EO – Executive Order; MOA – Memorandum of Agreement; PD – Presidential Decree; and RA – Republic Act.bRevoked by DAO 2003-07.cCMMO is now a national program under the Undersecretary for Management and Technical Services.

Year

1974

1975

1976

19781984

1987

1992

199219931995

2000

20012002

Legislationa

PD 461

PD 705

PD 979

PD 1586EO 967

EO 192

RA 7586

DAO 30DAO 19EO 263

Joint DA-DENRMOA No. 1DAO 17b

DAO 8c

Feature(s)

The Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources was divided into Department of Agricultureand Department of Natural Resources.Releases to BFAR mangrove areas suitable for fishpond development; established mangroveareas needed for forest purposes.The Marine Pollution Decree vested on DENR-Environment Management Bureau (EMB) theauthority to promulgate laws governing marine pollution.The Philippine environmental impact assessment system was established under DENR.BFAR was transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to the Ministry of Agricultureand Food. However, jurisdictional authority over management of marine environment, includingcoral reefs and other marine habitats, remained with MNR.DENR was mandated to exercise responsibility for the exploration and development of naturalresources.NIPAS Law declared eight categories of protected areas, including protected seascapes under theadministration of DENR-Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau.Defined scope of devolved DENR functions to local government units (LGUs).Established the Coastal Environment Program (CEP).Adopted and provided mechanisms for the implementation of the Community-based ForestryManagement as the national strategy to ensure sustainable development of the country’s forestlands/resources (including mangrove areas).Delineated and defined functions and responsibilities of DA-BFAR and DENR in the implementationof the Fisheries Code.Provided guidelines for the delineation and delimitation of municipal waters.Aimed at strengthening CEP by establishing the Coastal and Marine Management Office (CMMO).


Table 2. Comparison of the salient features of CEP and CMMO.

Parameter CEP CMMO

Objectives

Rationale

Basic policy

To implement programs and projects onconservation and management of Philippineenvironment.Protection and proper management of coastalenvironments are important concerns, being thesource of livelihood opportunities and food, andwhere majority of population resides.Partnership with all sectors to protect, conserveand manage coastal environments.Integrity of coastal ecosystems and maximizingtheir productivity and biodiversity.Equitability of access to and utilization ofresources and substantive involvement of localcommunities.

To provide policy guidance, technical assistance and support informationneeds for CRM.

Consolidation of DENR’s role in CRM and strengthening of itsorganizational capacity to maintain sustainable development in coastalareas; enabling the department to assume leadership in setting nationalpolicy framework and to support LGUs.Devolution of coastal management functions.Use of precautionary approach in management of coastal and marineresources.Involvement of stakeholders in all stages of coastal and marineenvironment management planning.Multisectoral and multi-institutional collaboration intrinsic in coastalmanagement.Maintenance of healthy and productive coastal and marine ecosystemas fundamental to management.Allocation of coastal and marine resources for long-term socioeconomicbenefits.

Table 3. Staff distribution by Coastal and Marine Management unit.a

Region No. of Staff Regional

Coastal CENROs CMMSb CMMDc CMMO Total

7 40 8 - 484 32 8 - 407 56 6 - 628 39 8 - 47

12 86 7 - 9310 72 7 - 7911 31 8 - 398 19 4 - 23

11 11 3 - 1411 15 8 - 237 16 5 - 21

12 22 8 - 305 21 6 - 278 29 4 - 33- - 9 - 9- - - 7 7

121 489 99 7 595

123

4a4b56789

101112

CARAGANational Capital RegionCMMO (Central)Grand Total

a Listing provided by CMMO as of January 2003.b Coastal and Marine Management Section.c Coastal and Marine Management Division.

Conclusion

Government agencies in coastal and fisheriesmanagement have evolved in response to changes inthe policy environment and local needs. These changeshave occurred in various modes and uneven pace.Technical assistance programs, such as DENR-UnitedStates Agency for International Development CoastalResource Management Project and Asian DevelopmentBank-BFAR Fisheries Resource Management Projecthave been facilitative of change especially that focusing

on policy and institutional reforms. While such reformsare well underway, the attitudes of people affected bychange leave much to be desired. There is this tendencyof NGAs to resist further devolution by holding on ortrying to regain command and control of functions andfinancial resources (Courtney et al. 2002).

The role of NGAs would remain significant inmolding and harmonizing policies to enable localgovernments to effectively implement coastal andfisheries management programs. To date, whilelandmark fisheries-related legislations were passed,


there is still an absence of a formal institutionalarrangement for a single national agency to coordinatecoastal management. From the policy and institutionalstandpoint, current mandates of DENR and DA-BFARtend to separate fisheries from coastal ecosystem.Several bureaus of DENR have, in one way or another,contributed to coastal management implementation.DA-BFAR rightly so, considers fisheries managementwithin the realm of its expertise. But, glaringly missingin these assertions is the absence of a nationalcoordinating agency that puts into proper perspectivevarious initiatives into one consistent and coherentprogram and policy for the Philippine coastal zone.

Local governments would continue to rely onNGAs for technical guidance so much so that theirinitiatives are consistent with the national policy andcoastal and fisheries management framework. Over thelast 10 years, LGUs, by virtue of being projectbeneficiaries, or out of their own initiative, receivedtechnical assistance and capability-building programsfrom various service providers, NGOs and donor-assisted programs. These somehow fill the vacuum thatLGUs want to satisfy, that is, to discharge their coastalmanagement mandate enshrined in LGC.

References

ADB (Asian Development Bank), GEF (Global Environment Facility) andDENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2003.Integrated Coastal Resource Management Project Final Report.Prepared by Tetra Tech EMI and PRIMEX Inc., Pasig City, Philippines.

Courtney, C.A., A.T. White and E.T. Deguit. 2002. Building Philippinelocal government capacity for coastal resource management.Coast. Manage. 30 (1): 27-45.

DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources). 1995. Fisheries Administrative Orders (a compilation).Fisheries Sector Program, Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, Quezon City, Philippines.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources) and DILG (Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment). 2001a. Philippine coastal management guidebookno. 1: Coastal management orientation and overview. CoastalResource Management Project of the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 58 p.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources) and DILG (Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment). 2001b. Philippine coastal management guidebookno. 2: Legal and jurisdictional framework for coastalmanagement. Coastal Resource Management Project of DENR,Cebu City, Philippines. 170 p.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 2002.Coastal and Marine Management Office Regional OrientationWorkshop for Regional Planning Officers and Chiefs of Coastaland Marine Management Division. DENR, Quezon City, Philippines.

Peña, N. 1997. Philippine law on natural resources. Rex Book Store,Quezon City, Philippines.

Trinidad, A.C. 1998. The Fisheries Code of 1998: Somethingold…something new…something better? Tambuli 4: 17-24.

Table 4. Key legislation that influenced BFAR’s role in fisheries management (DENR et al. 2001b).

Year Legislation Feature(s)

RA 3512PD 704EO 967

EO 116

EO 292RA 7160RA 8435RA 8550

196319751984

1986

1987199119971998

Created the Philippine Fisheries Commission.BFAR’s mandates included development and management of the country’s fisheries.Administration of BFAR was transferred from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) toMinistry of Agriculture and Fisheries (some functions, such as those related to the managementof coastal and marine habitats remained with DNR).BFAR was relegated to the food production group of DA and became a staff bureau. BFAR’sadministrative, regulatory and enforcement functions and field units were abolished.Both DA and DENR were assigned fisheries-related functions.Specific fishery management functions (regulatory and enforcement) were devolved to LGUs.Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act.BFAR was reconstituted as a line bureau of DA.

Equitable access and preferential use of municipal waters by municipal fisherfolk 175

1 This paper can be cited as follows: GARCIA, J.R. 2004. Equitable access and preferential use of municipal waters bymunicipal fisherfolk, p. 175-179. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Inturbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

Equitable Access and Preferential Useof Municipal Waters by Municipal Fisherfolk1

JENEEN R. GARCIAEnvironmental Legal Assistance Center

354-P Betty Lu CompoundQueens Road, Cebu City

Philippines

Introduction

At first glance, “equitable access” and “preferentialuse” seem to contradict each other. The seas, after all,are there for anyone to enter equally—how canpreferring one sector over all other sectors make accessto marine resources more equitable for everyone?

The long history of use—and depletion—ofPhilippine marine resources has proven that increasingfisheries production does not necessarily mean morefood on the table of fisherfolk families. Ironically, itcan even mean greater poverty for small-scale fishers.Fortunately, the government has realized that thosewho have less in life must have more in law. Thefollowing discussion traces how the national policyon marine resource use has evolved from an openaccess regime to the beginnings of true community-based resource management (CBRM).

Fish is Where the Money is

Fisheries used to be a domestic matter. Pre-Hispanic barangays had exclusive rights to theirtraditional fishing grounds (La Viña 1999). But whenSpanish rule “transferred” ownership of all resourcesto the state through the 1866 Spanish Law of Waters,the country’s fisheries became open to all. Anythingunder the sea was fair game for whoever was willingto invest time, effort and money into it. On the otherhand, no laws to ensure sustainable yield or equitabledistribution were passed by the government tomanifest its “ownership”. As a result, uncontrolledexploitation of fisheries resources continued during

the Spanish and American periods, with nobodybeing held legally liable for the decline in fish stocks.

Only the threat of Japanese encroachment movedthe government to finally pass a Fisheries Law in 1932,restricting commercial fishing activities to Americanand Filipino-owned corporations. For the first time,municipal waters were defined as up to 5.5 km fromshore; municipal governments now had authority togrant licenses to commercial fishers within thesewaters. Despite imposing these limitations, theCommonwealth and succeeding governments werestill bent on increasing fish production by grantingmore fishing licenses and encouraging more efficienttechnology (La Viña 1999).

Effectively then, whoever had the capital basedon this policy controlled the country’s fisheries.Usually, capital came from wealthy lawmakersthemselves, many of whom worked with foreigninvestors (La Viña 1999). The sea and its bounties,

Dried fish is often a source of income for small-scale fishers.

J. G

arci

a


previously thought to be equally open for use by all,turned out to be exclusive to a preferred sector due toexisting policies and unequal distribution of capital.

The Descent to Poverty

With the introduction of the best technology thiskind of capital could buy, and with the innumerablefishers wanting to get as much fish as they could, notonly were the open seas efficiently overfished, most ofthe ecosystems that supported fisheries—mangroves,seagrass beds and coral reefs—were destroyed as well.

Traditional fisheries management could no longercompensate for the leaps in technological efficiency andthe demands of a large-scale, international market(Johannes 2002). Small-scale fishers, already poor tobegin with, could not hope to acquire the technologyor tap markets that could earn them the same profits ascommercial fishers.

Steadily, the contribution of municipal fisheries tothe national yield decreased as commercial fisheriesaccelerated (Lacanilao 1998). Whereas small-scalefisheries production exceeded commercial fisheriesproduction by 150% in the early 1950s, the contribution

of the small-scale sector dropped to only 30% by 1996(Cruz-Trinidad et al. 2002).

Household incomes of fisherfolk across thecountry were pushed below the poverty line. In 1996,80% of fisherfolk households were living in poverty(PRIMEX 1996). Commercial and municipal fishers stillplied the same seas and exerted the same effort, butcommercial fishers simply had bigger nets. Small-scalefishers, no longer reaping the benefits from theirtraditional fishing grounds, were essentially beingeased out of their waters. Hard-pressed to earn aliving, many fisherfolk devoted all efforts and whatcapital they had to farming or deep-sea fishing. Theyconsequently had no interest or spare time and moneyfor coastal resource management (CRM) education ormeaningful participation in the governance of theirresources. Some resorted to destructive fishingmethods in fishing grounds elsewhere because theirtraditional fishing grounds were already incapable ofproducing enough fish (Figure 1).

Illegal fishing practices and the lack of CRMinitiatives further degraded the marine ecosystem,which in a vicious cycle worsened poverty in everyhousehold (ELAC 2002). In 1996, even the commercialfish catch decreased, indicating that overfishing and

Figure 1. ELAC CBRM problem analysis.


damaged coastal habitats had finally taken their toll(Lacanilao 1998).

Getting to the Bottom of It

Because of centralized resource management, thestate had failed to protect a great majority of its peopleagainst poverty. Open access to fishery resources hadgiven an unfair advantage to the wealthy, therebydepriving fisherfolk of their right to food security anduse of the resource they depended on for food.

Social justice dictated that the masses, instead of aminority, benefit most from the country’s resources.Fisheries had to be harvested at a rate and volumethat would ensure a continuing supply of food forboth present and future generations. Fisherfolkcommunities, long marginalized by the law and thefishing industry, were now seen as the saviors of thecountry’s coastal resources, and CBRM became theofficial strategy. The rationale for CBRM is not onlymoral, but practical as well. Coastal communities arebound not merely by family or geographical ties butmore by a shared interest in a commonresource. Whatever happens to theirresource base, whether positive ornegative, can mean feast or famine forthem. Most commercial fishers can easilymove from one rich fishing ground tothe next or, if no viable fishing groundremains, simply invest in anotherenterprise (Lacanilao 1998). Municipalfisherfolk, having less mobility andcapital, must deal with the consequencesof marine degradation.

The Law Comes Through

The 1987 Philippine Constitution,Article XIII, Section 7, says that thegovernment “shall protect the rights ofsubsistence fishermen, especially of localcommunities, to the preferential use ofthe communal marine and fishingresources, both inland and offshore. Itshall provide support to such fishermenthrough appropriate technology andresearch . . . and other services.”Embodying this policy are the LocalGovernment Code and the 1998Fisheries Code.

Working with the principle thatorganized communities are the bestmanagers of their own resources, the

Local Government Code assigns municipalgovernments the responsibility of creating andimplementing guidelines for local fisheries. Article 149of this Code grants “duly registered organizations andcooperatives of marginal fishermen preferential rightto fishery privileges . . . “ It also sets the municipalwaters at 15 km from the shoreline.

The Fisheries Code, taking this a step further,declares as a policy the right of municipal fisherfolk topreferential use of municipal waters. By givingexclusive fishing rights to local residents in municipalwaters at least 10 km from shore, it somewhat levelsthe playing field between small-scale and commercialfishers. The law also provides various options forlimiting access to the fishery including those in themunicipal sector (Box 1).

The 1998 Fisheries Code is also considered abreakthrough in fisheries legislation because it“returns” the management of municipal waters fromnational to local governments. Organized communitymembers are given the opportunity to formallyparticipate in management efforts through, among

Box 1. Modes of Access Limitations as Provided forby the 1998 Fisheries Code

The fishing license and permit system is mandated to be based on the limitsof maximum sustainable yield (MSY), with preference in allocation being givento resource users of local communities in adjacent or nearest municipal waters.Catch ceiling limitations are intended to limit access through restrictions on theharvesting of resources. Users of municipal waters are also intended to belargely limited to residents of the city or municipality to which the municipalwaters pertain, as seen in the requirement for the establishment of a registry ofmunicipal fisherfolk. Priority is given to resident fisherfolk and/or their cooperativesand organizations in the granting of demarcated fishery privileges in municipalwaters. Fishery activities may also be limited or prohibited in overfished areas.Commercial fishing vessels are also generally prohibited from fishing withinmunicipal waters, unless specifically authorized to do so by the LGU concerned.

The establishment of closed seasons and closed areas, as well as fishrefuges and sanctuaries, is another mode of limiting access (temporal and spatial).The municipal government, in consultation with the FARMC, has jurisdictionover the establishment of closed seasons and closed areas within municipalwaters, while the BFAR, with the concurrence and approval of the affected LGUand FARMC, may do so in waters beyond the municipal boundaries.

User fees and other fishery charges are based on resource rent. Thisconcept considers social benefits from using the fishery as a resource, over andabove financial profits of users. By considering only the latter, there is a tendencyto expand fishing effort (both labor and capital) to levels at which society issuffering a net loss. Other procedures recognized as limiting access include thelimited entry of both commercial and municipal fishing vessels in areas deemedas overfished by either the DA or relevant LGU. Another is the absolute prohibitionon the use of active (e.g., trawl, purse seine, Danish seine, and bag net) fishinggear in municipal waters; and that of fishing beyond the total allowable catch orfishing during closed seasons.

Source: DENR et al. (2001).


others, the Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesManagement Councils (FARMCs).

Legal instruments, such as the Certificate ofAncestral Domain Title and Mangrove StewardshipContracts, now also exist to give coastal communitiesa semblance of tenurial security. These instrumentslikewise encourage communities to take charge ofresource management planning and implementation.Tenurial rights are imperative in ensuring thatfisherfolk communities obtain permanent, exclusiverights over the resources in a specific area, that ficklepolitics or legislation will not eventually deprive themof the long-term benefits of their management efforts(Quicho et al. 1999).

Working at Ground Level

However, the benefits of enlightened legislationare sometimes hardly felt because of poorimplementation. Lack of government support,sometimes with government officials themselvesbreaking the laws, has proved to be detrimental tothe community’s will to manage their resources. Thegovernment’s political will to enforce fisheries laws iscrucial in sustaining the community’s morale inasserting their territorial and resource use rights.

Fortunately, nongovernment organizations(NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) step in tohelp communities assert these rights by first enhancingindigenous knowledge and practices in resourcemanagement. Information and education programsinstill a conservation ethic where there is none yet,and build the community’s confidence in their abilityto manage their own resources. Once sociallyprepared, the organized community goes through aprocess of assessing their resources and currentsituation, determining the causes of their resourceproblems and identifying the best ways to deal withthese problems. Collective participation and learninggives the community a greater sense of ownership forthe identified interventions, making members morelikely to implement these.

NGOs and POs, being based in the communities,have also taken the cudgels for the “preferentialaccess” granted to municipal fishers by assisting inthe delineation of municipal waters and theapprehension of coastal law violators. Community-based law enforcement is the most effective way toprotect municipal resources while lightening the loadof understaffed and underfunded governmentagencies (Lacanilao 1998).

Feed Only Hunger

With the help of current policies and implementinginstitutions, equitable access and preferential use aregradually becoming not only principles or provisionsin the law, but also realities enjoyed by municipalfisherfolk. However, any system has room forimprovement. To ensure food security and long-termprotection of community rights, legislativeinterventions must be based on scientific assessmentsand not just on economic benefits, even if communitiesare intended to share in the gain. For example, Quichoet al. (1999) suggested that tenurial instruments bebased not just on traditional territories defined by thecommunity, but also on ecological—instead ofpolitical—boundaries. Commercial fishing licensesmust be issued not just on the basis of revenue needs,but more importantly on the local fishery’s carryingcapacity. Given that fishing pressure has to bedecreased, social justice and science still dictate thatmunicipal fisherfolk be given the opportunity to fillthe market’s need for fish instead of commercialfishers.

The importance of territorial rights, CRMeducation and government support cannot beunderestimated. A study by Hickey and Johannes(2002) of resource management initiatives in the islandstate of Vanuatu revealed that because fishing groundsbelonged to “indigenous custom owners and theirdescendants” instead of to the state, the fisheriesharvest was equitably distributed and fishing effortsspread out. More importantly, the effectiveness ofinitiatives introduced could easily be perceived andtherefore sustained by the community. CRM initiativesproposed by the government through an educationcampaign caught on quickly among the villages oncesome communities discovered how effective theywere. When resource use or territorial conflicts arose,the government would withhold support for theinitiatives, leading the communities to create effectivedispute resolution processes.

In the end, the principles of equitable access andpreferential use bring back fisheries management to adomestic level. They reflect a deeper, traditionalattitude towards fisheries: that of respect for the seaas giver of life. Though Johannes (2002) said thatindigenous cultures only developed a conservationethic when they had depleted their own resources, itis still arguable that traditional Philippine societiesconserved the country’s rich resources not becausethey were running out of food, but because they tookonly what they needed. Only with the unfair


competition posed by upper class individuals, manyof whom are backed by foreign interests, didenvironmental degradation accelerate to the point ofnational poverty. As Juan Flavier wrote: “Hunger didnot kill them. Greed did.”

References

DENR/DA-BFAR/DILG (Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources and Department of the Interior andLocal Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook no. 2: Legal and jurisdictional framework for coastalmanagement. Coastal Resource Management Project of DENR,Cebu City, Philippines. 170 p.

ELAC (Environmental Legal Assistance Center). 2002. ELAC draftCBRM framework. Process documentation of the ELAC CBRMWriteshop, 20-23 November 2002, Cebu City, Philippines.

Green, S.J., A.T. White, J.O. Flores, M.F. Carreon III and A.E.Sia. 2003. Philippine fisheries in crisis: A framework formanagement. Coastal Resource Management Project of theDepartment of Environment and Natural Resources, CebuCity, Philippines. 77 p.

Hickey, F.R. and R.E. Johannes. 2002. Recent evolution of village-based marine resource management in Vanuatu. SPC Trad.Mar. Resour. Manage. Knowl. Inf. Bull. (14 October): 8-21.

Johannes, R.E. 2002. Did indigenous conservation ethics exist?SPC Trad. Mar. Resour. Manage. Knowl. Inf. Bull. (14 October):3-7.

Lacanilao, F. 1998. State of Philippine coastal fisheries: Keynoteaddress at Food Security and Fishery Resources, 10 December1998. National Research Council of the Philippines, QuezonCity, Philippines.

La Viña, A.G.M. 1999. Management of fisheries, coastal resourcesand the coastal environment in the Philippines: Policy, legaland institutional framework. Policy, Legal Inst. Stud. Work.Pap. No. 5. International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement and Swedish International Development Agency.

PRIMEX (Pacific Rim Innovation and Management Exponents, Inc.).1996. Fisheries Sector Development Project, Philippines (ADBTA No. 2236-PHI). Phase I Report. Vol. II: Fisheries SectorProgram review. (Unpublished).

Quicho, R.F.N. Jr., G.T. Mislang and A.S.P. Batay-an. 1999. Accessto resources in coastal waters for municipal fisherfolk. Paperpresented at Pangisdaan ni Juan: A Forum on Access toResources in Coastal Areas, 11 November 1999. Universityof the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, Philippines.


Local Governance for Municipal Fisheries: Can LocalGovernments Afford to Have Coastal Resource Management

as a Basic Service Responsibility?1

ROSE-LIZA V. EISMACoastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc.

PDI Condominium, Banilad, Cebu CityPhilippines

Introduction

The devolution of powers to local governmentunits (LGUs) reinforced opportunities for local levelplanning and implementation of coastal resourcemanagement (CRM) programs. Prior to the enactmentof the Local Government Code (LGC), resourcemanagement programs and action plans typicallyoriginated from national government agencies, withthe support of scientific and academic institutions thatgenerated the technical information base formanagement strategies (DENR et al. 2001). At present,LGUs play a pivotal role in CRM, having been givenmore duties, responsibilities and accountabilities formanagement of coastal resources within municipalwaters. Although CRM is not legally defined, manyof the activities encompassed by it are found, bothimplicitly and explicitly, in major policies. Some LGU-based activities, which are the main CRM processes,include enactment of ordinances, adoption of CRMplans, enforcement, technical assistance, training,information-education campaigns, databasemanagement, and setting up of monitoring andevaluation systems.

Sources and Uses of Funds

Adequate resources are essential for theseexpanded coastal management responsibilities.Funding for CRM is available from two sources:government and nongovernment. Governmentsources for most LGUs can come from local taxes, fees,

licenses and charges and also from national sources,such as internal revenue allotments (IRA) and sharein the proceeds of national wealth. With LGUs havinggreater fiscal autonomy, revenues can be generatedfrom internal sources, such as taxes, incomes, fees andcharges. The LGC, under Section 186 thereof, providesthat LGUs may exercise the power to levy taxes, feesor charges through an ordinance which is enacted afterpublic hearings are conducted for the purpose.

Each LGU also gets annual shares in IRA whichare determined on the basis of collections from nationalinternal revenue taxes actually realized. The totalannual IRA shares due all LGUs are allocatedaccording to provinces (23%), cities (23%),municipalities (34%) and barangays (20%). In addition,LGUs can receive about 40% of the national revenueas their equitable share in proceeds derived fromutilization and development of national wealth withintheir respective territories based on Section 289 ofLGC.

It is apparent that CRM monies can be tapped byLGUs from different sources. They can impose taxesor even enter into memoranda of agreement withoutside nongovernment organizations (NGOs) to helptheir CRM programs. However, concerns have beenraised on whether these available funds are actuallybeing used by LGUs to finance CRM. For CRMfunctions, LGUs can create their own sources ofrevenue by virtue of LGC and the Philippine FisheriesCode. Section 149 of the Fisheries Code lists downthe following fisheries-related functions that cangenerate revenues for LGUs:

1 This paper can be cited as follows: EISMA, R.V. 2004. Local governance for municipal fisheries: Can local governmentsafford to have coastal resource management as a basic service responsibility?, p. 180-183. In DA-BFAR (Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Local governance for municipal fisheries 181

• fishery privileges to erect fish corrals and oyster,mussel or other aquatic beds;

• bangus fry concessions;• licenses for operation of fishing vessels of 3 GT or

less;• licenses for operation of small and medium-scale

fishing vessels within 10.1 to 15 km area;• permits for operation of pearl farms; and• auxiliary invoices for transfer of fish and fishery

products.

LGU Funding: Not Always Enough

Despite all these available funding sources, manyLGUs still feel that they are unable to pay for theadditional obligation of managing their 15-kmmunicipal waters. For most LGUs, CRM is still anunderfunded mandate. In a 1997 survey of coastalmayors, 75% identified inadequate funding for coastalmanagement as a key constraint (DENR, n.d.). WhileLGUs may impose taxes or fees for the use of municipalwaters, many are still hampered with the lack oflegitimacy and political will to collect from this taxbase, thus, making the principal revenue source comingfrom their share of IRA.

Presently, the share of each province, city andmunicipality in IRA is based on land area (25%),population (50%) and equal sharing (25%) (Section 285,LGC). The formula for computation of IRA does notinclude the area of municipal waters, hence, mostLGUs think that it does not reflect the true extent ofresponsibilities of coastal municipalities.

A coastal municipality has to take on significantbasic service responsibilities and costs compared tononcoastal communities. For CRM plans to be carriedout, incremental costs are attached to these. CRMactivities that need to be implemented includeestablishment of marine reserves, law enforcement,rehabilitation of mangroves, setting up ofenvironment-friendly enterprises in coastal areas, andsuch others. To achieve the estimated annualbudgetary requirements for CRM programs, LGUsneed approximately P1-1.3 million annually to beginand maintain the process (White and Cruz-Trinidad1998). A more detailed costing for CRM programs fora six-year period (including one year for investment)estimates P1.4 million for investment and a recurringcost of P400,000-600,000 per year for a period of fiveyears (Table 1). The bulk of investment costs isaccounted for by boat purchase (which was noted tobe a cost that can be shared with other LGUs), anoffice and some capital equipment (vehicles, computer,global positioning system units, etc.). Most of the

recurring cost is accounted for by staff costs; the restare small budget items, such as meetings, trainingsand maintenance of equipment. Possible cost-sharingwith other LGUs (like in the case of the boat) andperformance of regular LGU functions such asconsultations and public hearings can significantlybring down costs.

Based on their present share in IRA, LGUs areunable to meet the needed budget for CRM. Lack offunding poses serious implications for key CRMprograms. Without the needed funds, LGUs are forcedto reduce personnel and to abandon local programsand activities. Indeed the need for CRM fundingcannot be overemphasized. To address this, LGUs alsohave to rely on other sources.

Most LGUs are facing so many local problems withmore devolved functions and less support fromnational agencies. Hence, programs aimed at CRM areoften not a priority of LGUs. In some instances,priorities for implementing these programs are alsodependent on the will of local officials. This becomespossible because of increasing fiscal autonomy whereLGUs can decide on how to utilize their local funds.For instance, the use of the Development Fund is merelysubject to minimum requirements. Under Section 384of the Implementing Rules of the LGC, it shall only bemandatory for LGUs to set aside in its annual budgetamounting to no less than 20% of its IRA for the yearas appropriation for local development projects.However, the condition neither specifies the kind ofdevelopment project nor requires CRM as part of localdevelopment projects.

Political differences between local chief executivesand legislative bodies also become a major stumblingblock for prioritization of CRM programs.Furthermore, there is lack of awareness by LGUs onhow to utilize available and existing funding for CRM,such as, but not limited to, Environmental GuaranteeFund of private companies, Community-basedResource Management Project, and the like. Finally,local revenue generation is often hampered bydegraded habitats within the locality.

Strategies to Increase Funding for CRM

The coastal and marine resources in the countryare in near crisis condition. CRM is necessary to achievenational goals for food security from these resources.One way of achieving this is by ensuring the deliveryof CRM as a basic service of local governments. WhenCRM becomes a basic mandate of LGUs, there will beproper basis for appropriating funds and imposingtaxes, licenses and fees. At present, coastal LGUs are


CRM Benchmarks and LGU Activities Investment Cost Operating Costs - YearYear 0 1 2 3 4 5

Step 1. Setting up the municipal CRM officea. Staffb. Capital outlay 70,000 250,000 275,000 302,000 332,750 366,025c. Maintenance and operations 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Step 2. Issue identificationa. Program preparation, staffing and development 20,000

of workplanb. Participatory coastal resource assessment 10,000c. Mapping of municipal water boundaries 10,000

Step 3. CRM plan preparation and adoptiona. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Management Councils established and activeb. Multisectoral technical working group 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

establishedc. Water use zones delineated and mapped 10,000d. Multi-year CRM plan drafted, finalized and 5,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

adoptede. Database development 50,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Step 4. Action plan and project implementationLegislation

a. Ordinances enacted for CRM plan regulation 0Regulation

a. Registry of municipal fisherfolk established 5,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000b. Permits and licenses issued 10,000

Law enforcementa. Coastal law enforcement units trained 20,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

and operationalb. Purchase and maintenance of boats 500,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000c. Ordinances enforced 0 0 0 0 0 0d. Violators prosecuted 0 0 0 0 0 0e. Best practicesa implemented 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

Step 5. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)a. M&E team trained 20,000b. Environment and ICM process monitored and 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

fedback to database and planc. Performance evaluations conductedd. Management capacity assessment conducted 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000e. Outcome evaluations conducted

Step 6. Information, education and outreacha. Annual CRM status reports and maps producedb. Information management system functional and

institutionalizedc. Information disseminatedd. Technical assistance and outreach program established

Others 690,000 20,000 15,000 10,500 35,000 35,000Total 1,430,000 461,000 481,000 503,500 558,750 592,025

Table 1. Investment and operating costs associated with CRM process (Trinidad 2000).

a CRM best practices include: (i) setting up and maintaining sanctuaries and other protected areas; (ii) having a fully functioning FARMC;(iii) placing mangroves under community-based forest agreements; (iv) making the Bantay Dagat or other enforcement groups operational;and (v) setting up environment-friendly enterprises.

Local governance for municipal fisheries 183

2 The Policy Forum was sponsored by Silliman University’s Center of Excellence in Coastal Resource Management andCoastal Resource Management Project, both funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

hampered by funding to have CRM as a basic serviceresponsibility. Hence, it is but timely to find schemesfor the inclusion of the CRM mandate and funding forall coastal LGUs.

A list of recommendations was discussed by theProgram and Policy Advocacy Group (PPAG) 2 duringthe Sixth Policy Forum on Estimation of IncrementalCost for CRM in Coastal Municipalities. The PPAG isa formal gathering of select individuals from nationalgovernment agencies (NGAs), NGOs, people’sorganizations, academe and other coastalstakeholders. The list of funding mechanisms is asfollows:

Amend specific provisions of LGC to make CRMa basic service similar to health, agriculture, etc.These provisions include:• Section 17 - to expressly state therein that CRM

is a basic service of coastal LGUs;• Section 484 - to make “mandatory” municipal

and provincial Environment and NaturalResource Officers;

• Section 284 - to expand responsibilities ofmunicipal and provincial Environment andNatural Resource Offices to include CRM; and

• Section 291 - to highlight LGUs’ share innational wealth from coastal and marineresources.

Include municipal waters in the computation forsharing in IRA.Develop guidelines for use of the EnvironmentalGuarantee Fund to include CRM.Appropriate special funds for CRM programsof LGUs in the General Appropriations Act.Review and revise guidelines to include use ofthe 20% Development Fund for CRM. Also,LGUs must be encouraged to increase their shareof local sources of revenues and mandatorilyallocate a portion for CRM activities.Expand the menu of projects in the Rural-UrbanDevelopment Fund to include CRM through aPresidential Instruction.Include, through an amendment, CRM as apriority area in coming up with the AnnualInvestment Plans as provided for in ExecutiveOrder 189 (dated 21 December 1999) and LocalBudget Circular No. 70 (dated 14 March 2000).Legislate through an ordinance a specialassessment tax or fee for a local CRM fundsimilar to the Special Education Fund ascollected via the real property tax.

The private sector as a source of funds

LGUs can also rely upon financial inputs of theprivate actors and NGOs to carry out their CRMprograms. Outside actors can also augment thedomestic funding source. They often fund a great dealof CRM activities and provide technical assistance tolocal officials and law enforcement equipment, suchas patrol boats, radios and even honoraria for BantayDagat members. Major foreign agencies, e.g., USAID,United Nations Development Programme, GlobalEnvironment Facility, etc., also serve as externalfunding sources. These bilateral and multilateraldevelopment assistance packages are usuallydistributed through various NGAs.

References

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources) and DILG (Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment). 2001. Philippine coastal management guidebookno. 2: Legal and jurisdictional framework for coastal management.Coastal Resource Management Project of DENR, Cebu City,Philippines. 170 p.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). n.d.Proposed national coastal resource management policy forthe Philippines. (Unpublished).

Trinidad, A.C. 2000. Cost and benefits of CRM as LGU intervention.Paper presented at the Sixth Policy Forum, Program and PolicyAdvocacy Group, 18-19 July 2000, Dumaguete City,Philippines.

White, A. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management arecritical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines. 96 p.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.


The Changing Role of Local Governments:Bohol Provincial Government

and Fisheries Management1

Introduction

Bohol is the first province in the Philippines toproactively utilize the existing policy and legalframework for coastal resource management (CRM).It is promoting CRM through the provision oftechnical assistance to its component municipalities.This is promising for Bohol, which counts over 80,000full-time fishers. It is also strategic for the wholecountry, given that Bohol covers a huge 6,245 km2 ofmunicipal waters and has a shoreline of over 650 km(Green et al. 2002). It is also an area renowned forfalling catches, overharvested fisheries, damaged reefsand illegal fishing activities.

Bohol lies in the heart of Central Visayas,geopolitically known as Region VII, along with theprovinces of Cebu, Siquijor and Negros Oriental(Figure 1). Bohol is the 10th largest province of thePhilippines and is composed of 48 municipalities ofwhich 30 are coastal. The province has 367 coastalvillages with a population of close to 1.2 million (NSO2002). Fish provides more than 50% of the animalprotein of the province.

Fish catch in the province has decreasedconsiderably in the last few years being roughly 5%of what it was in the 1950s (Figure 2). The decline isdue to a larger number of fishers using more efficient

fishing gear (mostly newly introduced types of net)and catching smaller fish . Certain species of fish havealmost completely disappeared. This is the experiencein Cogtong Bay on the east of Bohol, named after thelarge groupers found in the area in years past, thatcan no longer be found in the bay.

The fishers most affected are those fishing within1-3 km offshore, especially the hook-and-line fishersusing nonmotorized boats that target demersal fishes.The inshore habitats are, on the whole, degraded withmost mangrove areas having been converted (roughly5,000 ha) to fishponds during the last three decades.In a series of studies done in the province on the statusof living coral, none were found to be in excellentcondition. Only 14% sampled were in good condition,while fair and poor states of the habitat were found in38% and 48% of areas sampled, respectively. Thismeant that over 75% of Bohol’s living coral cover wasonly in a poor to fair state and explains some of thereduction in fish catch (Green et al. 2002).

As set forth in the Local Government Code (LGC)of 1991 (Republic Act 7160), the responsibility formanaging coastal resources in the Philippines waslargely devolved to local governments, mainly citiesand municipalities. The LGC devolved the basicpowers and authorities to local governments inplanning, environmental protection, legislation,

NUNILA M. PINATBohol Environment Management Office

Office of the Governor, Province of BoholPhilippines

STUART J. GREENTetra Tech EM, Inc.



1 This paper can be cited as follows: PINAT, N.M. and S.J. GREEN. 2004. The changing role of local governments: Boholprovincial government and fisheries management, p. 184-188. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource ManagementProject, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Bohol provincial government and fisheries management 185

Figure 1. Location map of Bohol Province, Philippines, showing status of BEMO-assisted CRM implementation in the various municipalities.


regulation, enforcement, extension services,intergovernmental relations, and relations withpeople’s organizations and nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs). Most municipalities were notable to assume these “devolved” CRM functionsinstantly as they were more focused on otheractivities, such as establishing the requiredadministrative and financial systems (Courtney et al.2000). Also, the technical capacity in CRM was notreadily available.

The Experience of Bohol

The province has had some major environmentalproblems, notably illegal quarrying of its famousChocolate Hills and the plan to sell water to CebuCity. The quarrying resulted in one less hill but,nevertheless, the experience saw their most famoustourism asset and number one pride desecrated.Likewise, the sale of water was estimated to providesignificant economic benefits, but another loss for theBoholanon psyche. Add to this sand mining,habitat destruction, pollution and depleted fisheryresources. After these initial issues, there was a severebacklash from many sectors that something had to be

done before the province just ended up looking andbeing another Cebu Province.

In 1997, Bohol, in coordination with theGovernance and Local Democracy Project and CRMPof the Department of Environment and NaturalResources and a variety of other institutions decidedto hold a Bohol-wide Environment Summit. The aimsof this summit were to get together the differentstakeholders to assess the current environmentalsituation in Bohol and agree on strategies to halt thecreeping degradation and ensure environmentalsecurity. The summit was a success with over 1,000representatives of key stakeholders of the provinceattending. The outputs were consolidated into the“Bohol Covenant for Sustainable Development”.Another key output of the summit was the demandfrom different stakeholders for legislation, that laidout a framework on how the provincial governmentwould implement its covenant.

After further refinement and consultation, theprovincial government approved the BoholEnvironment Code (BEC) (Provincial Ordinance No.1, Series of 1998), which laid out the key responsibilitiesof the province in maintaining ecological balance andan implementation “road map”. One of the key features

Figure 2. Declining fish catch of marginal fishers.

Bohol provincial government and fisheries management 187

of BEC was the establishment of a ProvincialEnvironment Management Office, later to be calledthe Bohol Environment Management Office (BEMO),which has nine key sectors, one of which is CRM. TheCRM section was created and formalized through aMemorandum of Agreement involving CRMP (Yambaoet al. 2001). BEMO’s main mandate is to capacitatemunicipalities in offering integrated coastalmanagement (ICM) as a basic service, similar to healthand education. The CRM section of BEMO beganoffering technical assistance to municipal governmentsin the basic CRM planning process, starting fromparticipatory coastal resource assessment to planningand the development of five-year plans. Once planswere established, models of best practices at thevillage level, for mangrove management, marineprotected areas and fisheries management wereinitiated. The status of BEMO-assisted CRMimplementation across the various municipalitiesin the province is summarized in Figure 1.

The province, having a bird’s eyeview of things,developed a niche that could push ICM to a higherlevel. The province identified key geographical areas

2 With over 15 NGOs working in the province and various programs funded by the World Bank and others, and aftera provincial workshop, new priority areas for CRM were identified. Donors and NGOs were encouraged to move toEast and South Bohol.

that required CRM; key hotspot areas for illegal fishing;and coral and mangrove management which neededconcerted effort among local government units(LGUs), more resources and an integrative approach.

The BEMO set itself up as more of a “learninginstitution”, catalyst and information processor focusingon capacitating LGUs and sharing lessons of CRMimplementation. It also became an “institutional memory”which could take a longer-term view than municipalitieswhich undergo changes in politicians and programs. Interms of networking and resources, it was also able tohelp direct, modify and push for external institutions tofocus on a province-wide approach and to share thevariety of external funding and programs around theprovince fairly and equally. Of an estimated P70 million(Green et al. 2002) being spent in the province per yearon ICM-related activities, after the intervention of BEMOand the governor, the resources were directed awayfrom the traditional focus of North and West Bohol tocover the whole of the province’s 30 coastalmunicipalities2. The BEMO’s province-wide perspectivepaved the way for nurturing small CRM projects aroundthe province to bloom and expand to larger geographic

Table 1. Key milestones of BEMO since its establishment.

• Bohol Environment Code legislated• Established BEMO with 3 staff and a minimal budget• Established initial CRM learning areas with CRMP in Northwest Bohol (7 LGUs)• Established CRM resource center and pool of trainers within the province, trained in all basic

CRM courses from mangrove management to CRM planning and MPA establishment aswell as others

• Established quick response unit to initiate a speedy response to urgent problems• Established expansion CRM learning areas in eastern and southern Bohol (8 LGUs)• Established a Provincial Natural Resources Database, upon which to base planning and

coastal management interventions• Conducted the Bohol Coastal Law Enforcement Summit with over 500 stakeholders from law

enforcement agencies, judges, fisherfolk and commercial fishers to explore coastal lawenforcement problems in the province and develop a remedy

• Established second batch of expansion learning areas (8 LGUs)• Developed clear CRM implementing framework and benchmarks for the province• Presented and validated the framework and benchmarks for the province with all coastal

NGOs, NGAs and LGUs to converge efforts in CRM• Purchased and launched three mother patrol boats and established multi-agency coastal law

enforcement teams and councils per coastal district• Provincial Government awarded ISO 14001 for its environmental management• Over 30 staff now working in various environment sectors; 8 are full-time, focusing on CRM• BEMO CRM section now present in all coastal LGUs of the province• Over 95 MPAs established• Over 2,500 h a of mangrove placed under Community-based Forestry Management Agreements• Over 50% of coastal LGUs with legislated and budgeted five-year CRM plans• Over one-third of the province have officially delineated municipal waters

Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Milestones


areas and move into a more “ecosystem”, inter-LGUand fisheries management approach.

Table 1 shows the key milestones of BEMO sinceits establishment and indicates that the province istaking a key leadership role in ICM. If enabled throughlegislation, and human and financial resources, it hasgreat potential to be the key technical assistance providerfor fisheries and environmental management. It canprovide guidance and direction to NGOs, nationalgovernment agencies, people’s organizations and LGUsin implementing a collaborative CRM across the province.This has in turn proved lucrative for the province,attracting a variety of agencies and donor groupsinterested in sparking a relationship with the provincialgovernment. Counterparting and a common frameworkand direction are the keys to this, with BEMO buildingon its institutional memory of what works and does notwork in CRM in the province.

Key Lessons

Following are the key lessons in the experience ofBohol in its role in fisheries management:

• It is important to have an agency or group whichcan help focus on a wider area managementapproach, within provinces or by districts, toencourage a larger ecosystem approach.

• Having a provincial “learning institution” whichcan share, build on and develop key lessons arounda simple CRM framework, will ensure thatimplementation will improve as each CRM projectcycle is passed and that the lessons are fed directlyinto other ongoing projects.

• Having a provincial government pushing for CRMinterventions gives substantial peer pressure onkey institutions working in CRM and helps focuslimited human and financial resources to wherethey are needed.

• The provincial government has a huge mandateand potential role in fisheries management, despitethis being somewhat unspecified in LGC. It is upto key political leaders to pick up the mandateand move to implementation.

References

Courtney, C., A.T. White and E. Deguit. 2000. Building Philippinelocal government capacity for CRM. Coast. Manage. 30: 27-45.

Green, S.J., R.D. Alexander, A.M. Gulayan, C.C. Migrino III, J.Jarantilla-Paler and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Bohol Island: Itscoastal environmental profile. Bohol Environment ManagementOffice, Bohol, and Coastal Resource Management Project,Cebu City, Philippines. 174 p.

NSO (National Statistics Office). 2002. Population census for theProvince of Bohol. NSO, Philippines.

Yambao, A, E. Deguit and A.T. White. 2001. Provincial CRM: Bohol,Masbate and Davao del Sur forge ahead. Tambuli 7: 1, 4-14.

189Tuna industry

The Philippine Tuna Industry Gets Organized1

STANLEY N. SWERDLOFFUSAID Growth with Equity in Mindanao Project

Aldwinco Commercial Bldg. 7, Ladislawa Garden VillageBuhangin, Davao City

Philippines

Introduction

The Philippine tuna industry is an importantelement in the country’s economy, contributing over100,000 direct jobs and US$180 million in foreignexchange earnings (Swerdloff 2002). Prior to 1999, theindustry was poorly organized, with a handful ofspecial-purpose associations, only sporadic contact withgovernment agencies and no real policy agenda. Thisall changed with the advent of the South Cotobato,Sultan Kudarat, Sarangani and General Santos(SOCSKSARGEN) Federation of Fishing Associationsand Allied Industries (SFFAAI) in August 1999. Theorganization of SFFAAI was a focal point of thefisheries component of the Growth with Equity inMindanao (GEM) Project of the United States Agencyfor International Development.

The Federation

The SFFAAI initially brought together six tunafishing associations representing both traditionalhandline and sophisticated purse seine fishingtechnologies. The purse seine vessels use large nets tocatch skipjack and juvenile yellowfin tuna, while thehandline fishers use simple hook-and-line fishing tocatch large yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In 2000, thefederation was joined by the General Santos City tunacanners and the fresh-frozen sashimi processors. Thefederation now consists of 8 associations representingover 200 fishing and processing companies withapproximately 2,800 fishing and service boats. Itrepresents close to 30,000 fishers and 11,000 processingworkers.

The main mandate of the federation is to unitethe diverse subsectors of the tuna industry, serve as aforum to discuss problems and how to resolve them,and to be the key voice of the local tuna fishery in

1 This paper can be cited as follows: SWERDLOFF, S.N. 2004. The Philippine tuna industry gets organized, p. 189-191. InDA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

lobbying for policy reforms and other concerns thataffect the industry. With new lines of communicationopen between fishers and processors, the industry isdeveloping long-term strategies to remain competitivein the world market.

During the 1999-2000 international tuna industrycrisis, when record tuna catches caused ex-vessel pricesto plummet below breakeven levels, the SFFAAIhosted two regional workshops to discuss the causesand solutions to the problem. These were followedby a National Tuna Forum, co-hosted by theDepartment of Agriculture (DA)-Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources (BFAR), in which all segmentsof the industry gathered to develop a strategy foralleviating the crisis. SFFAAI commissioned a “Rapidassessment of the Philippines tuna industry” (Dy 1999)and drafted a strategic plan for the sector. Thefederation strategies include:

• Philippine participation in the process ofdeveloping regional tuna management;

• support of sustainable fishing practices;• legal access to fishing grounds of neighboring

countries;

Yellowfin tuna ready for sale at General Santos City market.

USA

ID-G

EM


• removal of European Union tariff barriers oncanned tuna;

• rationalization of pumpboat registrationprocedures; and

• solutions for frozen sashimi US patent andregulatory issues.

Key outputs

With a firm strategy in hand, the federation thensponsored a National Tuna Congress in late 1999,which attracted over 300 participants from associatedindustries (fishing, processing, banking, suppliers) andgovernment agencies. This event laid the groundworkfor a coordinated effort by private sector andgovernment to address the fundamental problems ofthe tuna industry. With these positive results, thefederation subsequently hosted three more NationalTuna Congresses in 2000-2002.

SFFAAI has lobbied for strong Philippineparticipation in regional fisheries management,legitimate fishing access agreements with neighboringcountries and regulation of domestic tuna fisheries. Ithas clearly been successful in changing the attitude ofthe tuna industry with regard to long-termsustainability of the resource and cooperativeundertakings within the region. For example, thefederation supports the Multilateral High LevelConvention on Management and Conservation(MHLC) of Migratory Species in the Western andCentral Pacific. MHLC held 7 sessions between 1995and 2000, with official participation by 27 countriesand territories, including all of the major tuna fishingstates and Pacific Island countries. The objective ofMHLC was to develop a regional commission thatwould manage the highly migratory resources (mainlytuna) in the international waters of the tropical Pacific.As a regional management regime was put in place,each coastal state was expected to adopt compatibleregulations for its exclusive economic zones. ThePhilippines sent two observers to the first two MHLCsessions, but they were not able to actively participate.

When the federation learned of the importance ofMHLC, it briefed its members and BFAR on thepotential impact of the proposed regional commissionon the Philippine fishing sector. This initiative led toactive participation by large Philippine delegations atthe succeeding five sessions. Strong inputs from thefederation convinced the Department of ForeignAffairs (DFA) that MHLC was an importantundertaking, and DFA responded by naming seniordiplomats to head the delegation.

Key issues

Prior to each MHLC session, the industry andBFAR/DFA met to discuss upcoming issues and todevelop Philippine positions (the issue/position paperswere prepared by the federation, with technicalassistance provided by GEM program). With thiscoordinated effort, the Philippines was able to winimportant concessions in the final convention text. Forexample, several large fishing countries wanted to bantransshipment of fish at sea because this practice wasadvantageous to the Philippine fleet, but impracticalfor other fleets. The Philippines managed to counterthe arguments and avoid the ban. Another issue wasthe demand of the island countries that all vesselsfishing on the high seas should use satellite monitoringequipment, and accommodate observers from thecommission. While this is fine for large purse seinevessels, it is impractical for the 2,500 Philippine smallboats using hook-and-line fishing. The Philippines wasable to insert a language that exempts the more“traditional” craft and their fishers from theserequirements.

Achievements

Noting its satisfaction with the convention text,the Philippines became a signatory in September 2000.In terms of fisheries management, the MHLCConvention is a powerful tool for assuring sustainablefisheries. The text requires all participating countriesto adopt management regulations that are compatiblewith strict MHLC standards. Thus, the Philippinegovernment, as a responsible signatory, must reviseits fisheries regulations to include sustainable fishingpractices. In fact, BFAR is currently reviewing andrevising regulations to comply with MHLC standards.The tuna industry, recognizing that it will lose fishingrights in the Pacific if it does not abide by the newregulations, has become a strong supporter of MHLC.In fact, the industry encouraged the government tohost one of the MHLC Preparatory Conferences, andthis resulted in the country hosting the Third MHLCPreparatory Conference in November 2002. Thefederation, along with Manila colleagues, workedhand-in-hand with BFAR to plan and implement thehighly successful conference. The regional commissionis expected to begin operations in 2003 followingratification by at least 13 countries, and DFA hasprepared documents for ratification by the PhilippineSenate.

191Tuna industry

In addition to MHLC, the tuna industry is workingclosely with DFA and DA to participate in a UnitedNations-sponsored initiative to combat illegal,unreported and unregulated fishing. This newinitiative, in conjunction with MHLC, will improveregistration and data reporting of the commercial fleet,and bolster the Philippine image as a responsible playerin international fisheries.

In its efforts to gain legitimate access toneighboring countries, SFFAAI has urged DFA andBFAR to negotiate bilateral fisheries agreements. Thefirst agreement, setting terms and conditions forfishing access, was finalized with Indonesia in 2001and is now in force. A Memorandum of Understandingfor Fisheries Cooperation has been finalized with Palauand signing will take place in mid-2003.

In the trade arena, SFFAAI sparked an effort byDTI to reduce canned tuna tariff barriers in theEuropean Union. This cooperative undertaking bygovernment and industry has resulted in a reductionof tariff from 24% to 12%, a tremendous competitiveboost for the Philippine tuna industry.

The federation has also successfully lobbied forrevisions in the Maritime Industry Authority andBFAR regulations affecting tuna handline boats, andis currently seeking amendment to the Fisheries Codeto assure proper registration of all commercial fishingboats.

Internally, the federation has undertaken a numberof technical workshops for its members, includingimprovement of fish quality, longline fishing methods,bioeconomics of net mesh size, and alternativehandline fishing techniques.

Growth

After viewing the success of the SOCSKSARGENFederation, tuna industry players from Manila, Visayasand Zamboanga sought organizational expansion to

the national level. This resulted in the formation ofthe Philippines Confederation of Tuna Industries in2000, which brought together virtually all tuna fishingand processing elements in the country.

The national confederation has now become thecentral voice of the tuna industry. One of the firstactions of the confederation was to request theformation of a joint government-industry body tocoordinate policies and strategies in support of thetuna industry. The DA responded by forming, throughSpecial Order, the National Tuna Council, with tenrepresentatives from industry and officials from fivegovernment agencies. The council has become the all-important interface between government andindustry.

The national confederation entered theinternational arena when it hosted two organizationalmeetings of tuna purse seine vessel owners from Asia,the Americas and Europe. This effort resulted in theformation of the World Tuna Purse Seine OwnersAssociation in early 2001. For the first time in history,the major tuna fishing fleets of the world are workingtogether to rationalize the catch of this internationalfavorite.

What started as an effort to increasecommunication at the local level has now resulted in anational structure that influences the world of tuna.

References

Dy, R. 1999. A rapid assessment of the Philippines tuna industry.University of Asia and the Pacific, Pasig City, Philippines.

Swerdloff, S. 2002. Summary report: USAID- Growth with Equityin Mindanao. Louis Berger Group, Davao City, Philippines.

Bigeye tuna being offloaded from a carrier, for marketing,General Santos City.

USA

ID-G

EM


Information Management Systemsfor Philippine Fisheries1

MARCIANO F. CARREON IIITetra Tech EM, Inc.



Introduction

Philippine fisheries are characterized by decliningproductivity. This can be most effectively solved, asnoted throughout much of this book, by the reductionof fishing effort. It is very likely, given the number offishers, that reduction of effort will result in the directdisplacement of many people. Considering thedependency of millions of Filipinos on this resource,any decision made to reduce effort will be subjectedto considerable question and opposition, and ultimatelywill be difficult to implement. As such, it is necessaryto back decisionmakers, among others, withinformation that are timely, accessible and as accurateas possible. This scenario is but one of several potentialuses and values of a decision support system, or in thiscase, an information management system (IMS) forfisheries and coastal resources.

It is essential that data are gathered, analyzed,stored and distributed within an information systemso they can be utilized in an efficient and effectivemanner. Consequently, managing fisheries in such amanner requires development and use of fisheries IMS(DENR et al. 2001).

Information Use in Fisheries: Applications inDevelopment and Protection of Resources

The characterization of physical, biological, socialand economic aspects of fisheries intrinsically requiresthe generation and use of data. This characterizationis used in the formulation of plans and theimplementation of actions under these plans. Processeddata or information are central to how fisheriesresources are managed. The sensitive and dynamic

1 This paper can be cited as follows: CARREON, M.F. III. 2004. Information management systems for Philippine fisheries,p. 192-196. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: Thestatus of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

nature of fisheries, i.e., the existence of a host of externalfactors that randomly and continuously act on fisheries,requires a demanding level of the quality and precisionof data.

There are a host of data sets from various sourcesthat are used singularly or in conjunction with oneanother in undertaking measurements to provideestimates of the health, scope, characteristics, limitationsand potentials of a given fishery. The more traditionaldata sets in fisheries are fish production data, collectedat a regular frequency, usually gathered at designatedlanding sites, and for the most part broken down intospecies or larger taxonomic groups. Also collected atlanding sites are length-weight frequency data. Thereare also test or experimental fishing data sets, and fishvisual identification for underwater investigations.These are just examples of a plethora of data sets ordatabases that are quite specific to fish stocks. Beyondthis are the spatial or geographic, oceanographic andecological and even the demographics-related data thatequally need to be generated and analyzed to draw apicture of what is happening in the fisheries andconsequently support decisions in fisheries and coastalresource management (CRM).

The investments required in making the dataavailable, and to gain capacities and undertake actionsto use these are sizeable. To date, the capacity togenerate and use data in fisheries in the Philippines isvery limited. While data are being collected andanalyzed, these are often for site-specific areas underparticular project support. Such data may contributeto plans for these management areas of concern andare used to formulate policy and make decisions locally.But, such information are not yet collected at a nationallevel to make consistent decisions about actions needed

Information management systems 193

to address specific fisheries concerns. Thus, we havenot yet made clear links between information andnational fisheries management actions, except forspecific and small areas in the country.

Systemic and Institutional Issues in FisheriesInformation Management

Developing a culture of informationuse in planning

While detailed information on fisheries may belimited, there exists a number of studies on the state offisheries in selected areas. Mostly sourced fromassessments undertaken in projects, these informationprovide indicators on the state of a fishery and shouldbe sufficient basis to draw up mitigating measures toaddress evident problems and issues. The culture ofusing information in fisheries management has yet tobe established. A constant practice that almostsingularly prevented the development of such a culture,particularly with government, is that of planning basedon budgets and on political programs that go underrecycled and refurbished slogans. The need for andutility of information is contingent on the intent tomanage fisheries. Only when managing fisheries isestablished as a priority, will information be generatedproperly and consistently for this end.

Establishment of information managementunits in institutions

The establishment of an IMS, particularly thegeneration and processing of data can be costly. Withthe potential range of databases used in managing

fisheries, it makes sense that this be organized in asystematic manner. An IMS for fisheries databases is abasic tool in the pursuit of establishing the use ofinformation in managing fisheries. Such a system allowsfor easier access, quick retrieval and cross referencingof data sets both horizontally and vertically withingovernment and among research institutions.

The development of this system, data flow designsand processing should parallel the physical structureof the user organization or the structure of linkagesamong user organizations. Within the user organizationare points or nodes of information utility. It is necessaryto establish units within these nodes to handle dataflows, minor processing and act as repositories of datasets immediately needed by users within the node.The establishment of the structure and units requiressystems and subsystems development, equipment andtraining of personnel.

Formulation and implementation of datagathering regime for fisheries management

The development of an information system in theBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) iscurrently underway through the Fisheries InformationManagement Center (FIMC) under the FisheriesResource Management Project (FRMP). The system,referred to as PhilFIS or the Philippine FisheriesInformation System, is already in its final stages ofdevelopment and deployment. There are a numberof project-based resource databases under thesystem as well as bibliographic and map databases.The system is also composed of databases thatrequire updating almost on a real-time basis (Table1). To make the latter databases functional, there

Table 1. Databases and information contained in the PhilFIS system.

Catch and effort

Map

Resource and ecological assessments

Socioeconomic assessment

DocumentsBibliographic collections

Licensing and violationsFisherfolk information systemPhilippine fish fauna checklistData synchronization and systems management

Information on key fishing gears and their CPUE over time for keyareas in the countryMaps in the country using a geographic information system and basemaps for most of the countryDocuments and primary information on the results of the FRMP-initiatedbaywide resource and ecological assessments in various bays andcoastal areas in the countryDocuments and primary information on the results of the FRMP-initiatedsocioeconomic assessmentsFisheries and coastal management related documents in the countryBibliographies pertaining to the country’s fisheries sector, storedelectronicallyFisheries-related violations and licensing information in the countryFisherfolk information from around the countryThe country’s identified fish faunaData and systems management for PhilFIS

Database Contents Description


The National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP) was designed to institutionalize stock assessment so that continuous and reliabletime series data will be available for the development of sound fisheries management strategies. The program aims to train and equip regionaltechnical staff of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) regional offices in stock assessment and to put together variousassessments being conducted in the Philippines under one umbrella.

Pursuant to Sections 7, 8 and 9 of Republic Act (RA) 8550 or the Fisheries Code of 1998, stock assessment should be conducted toprovide the basis for management options. Stock assessments are necessary for the determination of maximum sustainable yield, totalallowable catch, closed seasons and the number of commercial fishing vessel licenses to be issued, among others, as provided by RA 8550.

Trained enumerators hired by the project collect catch, effort and length frequency data in selected major and minor landing sites in 15political regions of the country (see Figure 1). In selected monitoring stations, other biological data such as sex and maturity, gut content andfecundity are also collected. Sampling in all sites follows the procedures contained in the sampling manual developed by the project.

Data collected at the monitoring stations are encoded into a database, which is connected to the BFAR central office through an intranetsystem. Processing, analyses and interpretation of data are done in the regional offices with technical assistance from the central office, theUniversity of the Philippines College of Fisheries and other institutions with expertise in stock assessment. Thus far, information generatedby the project has been used by some local government units in formulating municipal ordinances to conserve and manage their marinefisheries resources. The NSAP also provides catch data to the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, which includes these in the national fisheriesstatistics.

Box 1. The National Stock Assessment Program

Figure 1. Geographic coverage of the National Stock Assessment Program of BFAR.

NOEL BARUTBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesDepartment of Agriculture, Quezon City

Philippines

Information management systems 195

is a need to input data continuously. This datagathering initiative is currently limited to a fewsites and selected species under the National StockAssessment Program (NSAP) of BFAR (Box 1).

There is also the Municipal Coastal Database(MCD) developed by the Coastal ResourceManagement Project (CRMP) of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. The MCDwas developed primarily as a tool for municipaland city governments to manage strategicinformation and data on the status of coastalresources and implementation of CRM activitiesas performed by LGUs. The MCD is managedand utilized at four levels: municipal/city,provincial, national and regional. Each level hasits distinct MCD installation CDs, reports, andmanagement and maintenance requirements.The municipality is the primary user of MCDand the responsible government unit formanaging it. Information and data are enteredonly at this level. Information requirements forMCD and types of responses are illustrated inTable 2. The provincial unit is the nextresponsible party for MCD consolidation andmanagement. It imports municipal/city MCDdatafiles and generates provincial reports. TheDENR Regional Coastal and MarineManagement Division is responsible for

consolidating all provincial level MCDs andgenerates regional reports. The DENR Coastaland Marine Management Office is responsiblefor consolidating all regional MCD datafiles tomaintain a nationwide MCD.

Standards, linkages and compatibility

There exist a number of databases andinformation systems that have been developed orare usable for fisheries. These include: PhilFIS (seewww.frmp.org/philfis2), Knowledge-based,Decision Support and Adaptive System for CRM andSustainable Offshore Fisheries Development Project(KDACS, see www.upv.edu.ph/kdacs), FishBase(see www.fishbase.org), Fisheries ResourceInformation System and Tools (FIRST, seewww.worldfishcenter.org/trawl), ReefBase (seewww.reefbase.org), Aquatic Resources ManagementInformation System (ARMIS), and Agriculture andFisheries Research and Development InformationSystem (AFRDIS, see www.bar.gov.ph/afrdis.htm).

In July 2002, the University of the Philippines -College of Fisheries in Miagao, Iloilo, sponsoredthe First Consultative Meeting on KnowledgeManagement for Philippine Fisheries. The objectivesof the meeting were to inform partners on updatesregarding fisheries database and information

General information

Local government unit (LGU) budgetCRM organizations

CRM planning

CRM and fisheries-related legislation passed bythe SanggunianCoastal resource/habitat status

Municipal fisheriesCoastal law enforcement

Incidence of illegal activities

Marine protected areas (MPAs)Mangrove managementEnvironment-friendly enterprise developmentCRM-related trainings

Classification, location, province, total number of barangays (coastaland noncoastal), population, land area, municipal water area, officeresponsible for CRM

CRM allocations, number of staff hired, CRM-related revenueMunicipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council, Bantay

Dagat and rating for how active/inactive the organizations areCoastal profile, planning and assessments conducted, ordinance adopting

the planList of all ordinances and resolutions related to coastal management

Area and relative condition of each prime habitat, corals, seagrasses,mangroves, etc.

Municipal production, average CPUEFish warden/s’ activities, patrolling operations, apprehensions, cases

filed and convictionsDestructive fishing, commercial fishing intrusion, illegal cutting of

mangroves, illegal shoreline developmentName of MPA, area, ordinance, fish abundance, living coral coverOrganization, area, year initiated, number of membersLocation, attributes, people involved, effectivity of enterpriseList of trainings conducted and partners working in the municipality

Datafield Basic Description of Fields Requiring a Response

Table 2. Examples of typical datafields of DENR-CRMP MCD (DENR-CMMO 2000).


systems and to establish modes of communication,leading to and promoting the development ofknowledge management infrastructure forPhilippine fisheries. The development of theinfrastructure primarily deals with the issue ofcompatibility of these systems with the goal ofdeveloping a fisheries database interface or otherforms of linkage that may maximize utility of thesesystems as depicted in Figure 2. The initiative is afirst step to make these interfaces functional andcompatible.

Considerations for Future InformationManagement Initiatives in Fisheries

The development of IMS for Philippinefisheries has been influenced by a number offactors, not necessarily based on a goodunderstanding of the need for such systems. Thedevelopment has been driven by a simple notionthat one should have it because other countries haveit. Also the evolving use of computer technology hasinfluenced IMS development, often in a direction thatmakes its use impractical, especially by regional andprovincial fisheries offices without adequate computerfacilities or training.

This is the case with several of the current nationaldatabases, resulting in poor utilization of these systemsand subsequently in difficulties in generating resourcesfor upgrades and maintenance. An observation nowbeing accepted is that computerization of a system thathas no roots from a manual system is very likely to failin terms of functionality and sustainability. Basically,this simply says that if there was no effort to establisha manual system first and test it, there may not be anyrationale in putting up a computerized one.

Information has to be generated, processed andmanaged for specific practical and essential purposes.Thus, an IMS in fisheries makes sense only if it is usedto manage fisheries. This simple axiom is not yet beingfollowed and is why most attempts at establishing afisheries IMS have failed. While there are existingefforts in fisheries IMS, most of these have yet to realizeits full utility. A more likely scenario for success is theestablishment of a limited fisheries management regimein pilot areas and the development of a fisheries IMSas a component of that limited regime. This may bethe more simple approach to establishing the roots offisheries management and functional informationsystems in this country. It will have to be tailored toneeds and capacity of government institutions that willmake it function.

The need to make sound decisions in fisheriesmanagement is ever more critical in view of theworsening state of fisheries. Sound decisions can onlybe made if done in an informed manner. It is thenexpected that there will be an improved emphasis onthe use of fisheries information and IMS in this countryin the near future. The information systems enumeratedherein may also see their full utilization as a result ofthis predicament.

References

DENR-CMMO (Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Coastal and Marine Management Office). 2000. Municipalcoastal database 2000, version 3.0. DENR-CMMO, Cebu City,Philippines. 29 p.

DENR, DA-BFAR and DILG (Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources and Department of the Interior andLocal Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook series no. 3: Coastal resource managementplanning. Coastal Resource Management Project of DENR,Cebu City, Philippines.

Figure 2. UML Modeler, a software that was used to develop KDACS;the window shown represents how user requirements were gatheredin the KDACS design phase.

Perspectives on a licensing system for municipal fisheries 197

Perspectives on a Licensing Systemfor Municipal Fisheries1

HUGH TRUDEAUFisheries Resource Management Project

Puerto Princesa City, PalawanPhilippines

It is difficult to discuss a licensing system withoutfirst describing the environment or infrastructure thatwill support and use it. For this reason, this paper willdiscuss peripheral matters as well as the licensingsystem itself.

Normally, a licensing system is used to achieveone or more of the following objectives:

• data capture on the activity subjected to licensing;• application of minimum standards of competence;• regulation or limitation of the activities subject to

licensing; and• revenue generation and collection.

In the context of fishery management, licensing isgenerally described as a tool of fisheries managers.This implies, however, that there is a formalorganization and effort to manage the fishery.Management includes all of the activities that arerequired in order to monitor the resource and itshabitat, evaluate the results on a continuous basis,resolve issues that arise at the earliest possible stage,prepare solutions to perceived problems in the formof a fishery plan, translate that plan into operationalplans, prepare supporting legislation when required,and finally apply the solutions through active anddedicated enforcement.

The difficulty in discussing licensing in the contextof fisheries management in the Philippines is that thisinfrastructure does not exist in any municipality at thepresent time. The Constitution of the Philippines placesthe responsibility for the protection and managementof the resource on the national government.Management of fisheries has been delegated to themunicipalities through such instruments as the LocalGovernment Code and the Fishery Code.

Municipalities, however, lack the trained professionalsto adequately manage the fisheries.

In the present situation, fisheries management isgenerally a reactive exercise to deal with issues as theyarise. This is usually when a situation is so serious asto generate considerable public outcry. Then the matteris relegated to a government department, committeeor individual, most often in or associated with themunicipal agriculture office. This “firefighting”approach does not address the underlying problemsof lack of trained professionals, organizationalinfrastructure, equipment, training or budgets toproperly manage the fishery.

The Fisheries Resource Management Project(FRMP) of the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources attempted to design and implement alicensing scheme for municipal governments. Theabove-mentioned problems, however, had to be dealtwith first if the licensing system was to be used tomake any real difference. In addition to the basicproblems, the approach taken was to encourage acooperative arrangement between municipalities thatshare a common bay or fishery. This approachrecognized that the initial establishment of a properfishery management office would be a costlyundertaking. By sharing the costs through a baymanagement center approach, the cost to individualmunicipalities would be kept to a minimum whileensuring a consistent and professional managementsystem for everyone.

Unfortunately, none of the more than 50municipalities that were presented with the conceptactually took the necessary steps to implement it. Nogood reasons were given for this lack ofimplementation but the basic reluctance seems to be

1 This paper can be cited as follows: TRUDEAU, H. 2004. Perspectives on a licensing system for municipal fisheries, p.197-199. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: Thestatus of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


the perception that it is too costly and perhaps toocomplicated. There may also be an unstated reluctanceamong the municipalities to give up the autonomy thatwould result from delegating managementresponsibility to the bay-level fishery managementoffice. Whatever the reasons, there does not exist aproper fishery management structure in any of themunicipalities of the country.

FRMP is faced now with the problem of deliveringon its stated goals with respect to licensing systems.The only option is to install stand-alone systems ineach municipality and leave them to their own devicesas to how the system will be used. The obvious lackof efficiency and effectiveness of this approach cannotbe dealt with in the time frames that are left under theterms of the project contract.

How will the above circumstances affect theattainment of the usual goals of a licensing system?

• The first goal stated above is the establishment ofa database. This is probably the biggest gain thatcan be expected from this arrangement. The systemwill establish a registry of eligible fishers asmandated by Republic Act 8550. It will also establisha register of vessels and gears currently licensed.This in itself is a worthwhile undertaking althoughit presents some problems with respect tomaintaining consistency on a national basis. Thequestion is who will use the database and for whatpurposes.

• Unlike other licenses such as for a driver,professional and tradesperson, the fishing licensedoes not address the issue of qualifications forfishing other than the usual citizenshiprequirements. It may be desirable to consider thissome time in the future particularly when and ifthere are training programs available for fisherfolks but it is unlikely that this will be the case,particularly for municipal fishers, for theforeseeable future.

• Regulation or limitation of activities is one of themain features of a licensing system in terms ofmanaging fisheries. Potentially the license can limitor regulate the number of people authorized tofish. It is unlikely to be used this way anytimesoon even if it is desirable to reduce fishing efforton depleted stocks. A more acceptable applicationwould be to limit the amount and type of gear,the areas open to fishing activities and the time orseasons that would be permitted. These andsimilar limitations could be applied throughconditions to a license. The problem is with thelack of a professional organization to determinewhat is required and where to apply each of thevarious limitations.

• Revenue generation and collection is one of themain attractions stated by most if not all of themunicipalities when first presented with thelicensing scheme. It is, however, misleading tothink that this is a vast untapped source of revenue.The current system of licensing in municipalitiesinvolves the issuance of a mayor’s permit forfishing enterprises. Presumably the fishing licensewould replace that so that, all other things beingequal, the new system would be revenue neutral.There is of course argument that can be made forincreasing the license fees, which are nominal atbest at present. The fees for licenses should at leastoffset the costs of management of the resourceand at best should address the issues of collectinga resource rent from what is legally a commonproperty resource. This, however, is a verycomplicated process and will suffer fromconsiderable resistance and the same lack oforganization.There have been many comments made recently

in the media regarding the proposed amendment tothe Philippine Constitution and change of form ofgovernment to a parliamentary type. A few haveaccurately noted that what is needed is a change ofattitude more than a change of form of government.This is also what is required with respect to fisheriesmanagement. There are many problems with thecurrent approaches and simply applying technologywill not resolve them. Any approach taken or systemsintroduced will depend in the final analysis on theenforcement effort that is applied to itsimplementation. Currently, enforcement is relegatedto a volunteer approach, which is perceived to benecessary because of the costs that would be incurredfrom institutionalizing it as part of the fisheriesmanagement approach. This argument of course doesnot value the resource itself or try to determine howmuch is being lost through improper management andlack of enforcement.

The political nature of the Bantay Dagat (sea patrol)being a volunteer program reporting directly to theoffice of the mayor, ensures that there will be lack ofconsistency and effectiveness in the enforcement ofany fishery laws. There are many laws that have beenenacted through municipal ordinance that have neverbeen implemented or enforced. Stories of graft andcorruption are rampant everywhere with regard tothis approach, which should not be surprising toanyone. Volunteers require income and have expensesas well and the symbiotic relationship that developsbetween enforcers and illegal fishers is the obvioussolution.

Perspectives on a licensing system for municipal fisheries 199

Millions of pesos have been spent training peopleunder FRMP and similar projects only to see themreplaced after a short time and necessitating thetraining of their replacements. This is not to say thatsome of the volunteers are not sincere. It is the systemthat is faulty, not necessarily the people.

A final thought on the introduction of acomputerized licensing system is the operation andmaintenance of the system itself. Computers arecomplicated and sensitive machines that are prone toa multitude of problems. One of the greatest dangersis the poor source of power available in many areas,particularly in the provinces, to run them. Precautionscan be taken to minimize this but breakdowns areinevitable. Similarly, software is also prone to problemsand corruption and these can result in loss of data andshutdown of the whole licensing process.

Backup systems are necessary for the data andfor the entire system. Technically trained people arerequired to set up, maintain and to further developthe systems as experience is gained in their usage. Thisrequires a commitment of resources beyond the simpletraining of the licensing operators whose functionsare basically clerical in nature. The problems ofmaintaining centralized (local or national) databasesadd even more complexity and vulnerability to thesystem. If the system is simply installed on a municipalcomputer and the operator trained and then left tohis own devices, the system will fail sooner or later.

The bottom line is there is a need for a change ofattitude regarding the whole fishery managementexercise. Licensing is a tool of management but willnot accomplish much if introduced without thenecessary infrastructure to use it.


Commercial Fisheries Licensing System1

EDWYN B. ALESNA2

JOEZEN Q. DIZON-CORRALES3

AUSTERLITO CABANGBANG4

2Licensing DivisionDepartment of Agriculture (DA)

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) - Central OfficeQuezon City

3Coastal Resources Management Section4Licensing Section

DA-BFAR - VIIArellano Blvd., Cebu City

Philippines

The Concept of Licensing

In a modern society, licensing plays an importantrole in regulating or controlling many economicactivities. Licensing puts order in these activities andcontributes baseline information on which policies canbe formulated.

In fisheries management, licensing can potentiallyserve as a means for regulating access to fisheriesresources to ensure their viability, integrity andsustainability. Licensing may limit the number ofvessels, fishers, gears and gear types, and areas andtimes of fishing (Trudeau and Federico 2001).Moreover, it is through licensing that the governmentcollects resource rents, which the Fisheries Code of1998 defines as “the difference between the value ofthe products produced from harvesting a publiclyowned resource less the cost of producing it, wherecost includes the normal return to capital and thenormal return to labor”. Licensing is, however, not astand-alone management activity. It must becomplemented with regular enforcement, information,education and communication (Pollock 1996).

Current Guidelines on Licensing

In the Philippines, jurisdiction over fisheries isdefined by the Local Government Code of 1991(Republic Act [RA] 7160) and the Fisheries Code of1998 (RA 8550). Both laws distinguish between

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ALESNA, E.B., J.Q. DIZON-CORRALES and A. CABANGBANG. 2004. Commercialfisheries licensing system, p. 200-201. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources).In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

commercial and municipal fisheries. Local governmentunits have jurisdiction over the management andutilization of fisheries resources within municipalwaters while the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources (BFAR) is in charge of resources outsidemunicipal waters. Thus, BFAR is the main agencyresponsible for managing commercial fisheries.

The Fisheries Code provides the currentprescription on licensing commercial fishing vessels,including those fishing in international waters. Section26 of Article II in RA 8550 states that no person shall beallowed to operate a commercial fishing vessel withouta license. All vessels and gears need also to be licensed,otherwise, their operations are illegal. The Codeincorporates new provisions regarding the licensingof commercial fishing. The validity of a license for acommercial fishing vessel has been increased from oneyear to three years. The BFAR Central Office approvesapplications for new commercial fishing vessel licenseswhile the respective Regional Offices handle therenewal of such licenses. Commercial fishing gears shallbe registered and licensed while fishers aboardcommercial fishing shall be licensed as fishworkers. Inaddition, license fees have been increased by about20% compared to previous ones.

As of 2002, there were 3,601 licensed commercialfishing vessels in the country employing about 375,000fishworkers. Reported fish production attributed fromcommercial fishing was about 976,500 t valued at aboutP36.1 billion in 2001 (BAS 2002).

Commercial fisheries licensing system 201

Issues and Problems in Licensingof Commercial Fisheries

Overfishing in the commercial sector has beenreviewed in other papers in this profile. To effectivelyaddress overfishing in commercial fisheries, a well-enforced licensing system is required. However, evenwith the new provisions on licensing in the FisheriesCode of 1998, BFAR is still experiencing problems,including the following:1. License fees are still greatly undervalued and

should reflect the appropriate resource rents.2. Many commercial fishing vessels are currently

operating without licenses.3. Many fishing boats are dubiously registered as

being under 3 GT and are thus licensed as municipalfishing boats, but upon inspection are well above3 GT.

4. There is a need to reclassify what constitutes acommercial fishing boat. Ideally, this should bebased not only on the size of the boat, but also onthe fishing gear and associated technologies used.

5. Currently, BFAR makes no link between the newlicenses that it issues and the capacity of fish stocksto withstand more fishing effort. Licenses are stillissued without adequate assessment of fish stocks.

6. There is muddled jurisdiction among the PhilippineCoast Guard, the Maritime Industry Authority andBFAR on licensing and classification of boats.

7. Once BFAR issues a license, it does not conductadequate monitoring, control, and surveillance ofhow it is used and where the boat operates.

Current Thrusts to Rationalize the Licensing System

In 2003, BFAR will implement a project that willundertake a national registration of commercial fishingvessels. Basically, the project will take stock of thenumber of fishing vessels operating legally or illegallyin Philippine waters. A computerized licensing systemwill also be instituted to process the data collected.Using the information, BFAR can then review itsexisting licensing policy and revise it as necessary. Thereview will also address in part the provisions of theFisheries Code, which is up for amendment after itsfirst five years of implementation.

Part of the exercise is the designation of a three-month registration period for licensing of commercialfishing vessels. Those who are unable to obtain alicense during this period will be prohibited fromfishing by the access limitation rules or the revisedrules for control and management of commercial

fisheries that will be developed. However, this willrequire collaboration among enforcement agencies.

An equally important activity is the declaration ofa one-year moratorium on the issuance of new fishingvessel and gear licenses, importation of fishing vessels,new construction of commercial fishing vessels,renovation or refit of existing vessels, and transfer oflicenses of existing vessels. Other activities will includepreparation of registration forms, orientation oflicensing officers, information dissemination, andreview and revision of the current licensing policies.

Data on the status of fisheries stocks taken fromthe National Stock Assessment Project will also beevaluated, including current levels of fishing effort.The information will then be used to estimate themaximum sustainable yield of a fishery, which will bethe basis for limiting the number of fishing vessels tobe licensed. Moreover, a review of existing license feeswill be undertaken in order to extract true resourcerent values.

References

BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 2002. Fisheries statistics ofthe Philippines, 1997-2001. Department of Agriculture - BAS,Quezon City, Philippines.

Pollock, B. 1996. Fisheries management in the Philippines: A briefreview. In Main report of the Second National FisheriesWorkshop on Policy Planning and Industry Development. Vol.2. Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, Quezon City, Philippines, and Food and AgricultureOrganization, Rome, Italy.

Trudeau, H. and C. Federico. 2001. BFAR national fisheries licensingsystem. In Commercial fisheries licensing manual. Vol. 2.Fisheries Resource Management Project, Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, QuezonCity, Philippines.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: ARMADA, N.B. 2004. Size limits on fish caught, p. 202-205. In DA-BFAR (Departmentof Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Size Limits on Fish Caught1



Miagao, Iloilo, 5023Philippines

Background

A major impact of excessive fishing is thereduction of average size of fishes. It is notuncommon to observe such occurrence in tropicalfish stocks such as those in the Philippines. Fisherscontinuously develop fishing gears in response tothe changes in fish stock they exploit. One suchadaptation is the continued decrease in mesh sizesdue to ever smaller and smaller fishes available inthe fishing ground. Initially, most fishers will beusing nets with bigger mesh sizes and will spendless time fishing. As the stock becomes moreexploited, the fishes become progressively smallerwhile fishers adapt by making nets with smallermesh sizes. This continues until fish depletion willforce the fishers to use fine-meshed nets and spendmore time fishing.

By using small or fine-meshed nets, fish areactually caught at an early stage in their life,preventing them from growing to sizes at whichmaximum benefit can be derived in terms ofbiomass. This condition is known as growthoverfishing (Pauly 1988). It has two consequences,namely: (1) the average sizes of target species willprogressively decrease or (2) the target species willbecome depleted and will be replaced by othersmall-sized, fast-growing species. Whichever thecase, fish sizes will progressively decline. This,likewise, means lesser yield for the same numberof young, which requires that more fish be caughtto land the same volume of harvest. The fishescannot grow older and the number of parents inthe stock will become less and less each timearound. This means that succeeding batches willproduce fewer eggs and young and some maynever have a chance to reproduce at all. The fishing

pressure on the small individuals may become toostrong that in the long run the subsequent catchwill be composed mainly of immature or evenjuvenile individuals (Table 1) and many may nothave the chance to grow to their reproductive ages.With this situation, allowing the fish to spawn atleast once in their life could have a considerableimpact on the future fish population.

The Theory Behind Size Limits

Fisheries biologists have studied the effects ofoverfishing in general and growth overfishing inparticular on harvestable fish biomass. Some methodsto determine biological reference points weredeveloped and measurements were compared toknown or expected values. This measured the possiblenegative effects of growth overfishing with the aimof zeroing in on management interventions that mayavert depletion. The combined effects of fishing effortand the average size when a species of fish is beingharvested can be investigated using the Beverton andHolt (1957) yield per recruit model or the Thompsonand Bell (1934) model.

With progressively increasing fishing effort, theaverage yield from each individual fish entering afishery will initially increase, reach a maximum andthen ultimately decrease. Likewise, harvesting fish ata certain size will yield a maximum harvest and thenbecome less as smaller fishes are harvested. It is evenpossible to come up with a good combination betweenappropriate fishing effort and size of fish beingharvested to optimize the use of harvestable biomass.This single species approach can only be applied totropical fisheries in which one or a few fish speciesdominate the catches.

Size limits on fish caught 203

Both models can likewise be expanded tomultispecies and multigear fisheries that are typical inthe tropics. The expanded application of the modelscan show gear and species interaction and eveneconomic interaction if monetary values are assigned.Silvestre (1990) calculated the appropriate mesh sizeand mortality combinations where yield and valuesare maximized from the demersal multispecies mix ofLingayen Gulf, Philippines. In brief, both the biologicaland economic rents can be predicted from the variouslevels of exploitation and mesh sizes being used, thusindicating the appropriate combinations of fishingeffort and mesh size to yield the maximum harvest.

Towards the Application of Size Limits

There might be awareness of the wisdom ofimposing size limits on fish caught in the Philippines.However, what really have been done so far to supportor implement such initiative? A provision in Philippinefishery law says that fishers are not allowed to usenets with mesh sizes smaller than 3 cm. For fast-growing demersal fishes and small pelagics, this maybe adequate. The 3.5 cm size may be appropriate forthe demersal species mix of Samar Sea and San PedroBay (Silvestre and Soriano 1986; Armada 1996). Butwho among the fishers are taking the mesh size limitseriously? Figure 1 summarizes the size compositionof various fishing gears catching sardines (Sardinellafimbriata) in the waters of Antique. The figure clearlyshows that sustenance fishing gear like beach seinecatches smaller individuals compared to other

sustenance gears like hook-and-line and gillnet, andeven when compared to a fishing gear operated onboard commercial boats like ringnet.

This issue regarding the destructive effect of fine-meshed nets of beach seines was raised with fishersduring information campaigns and other occasions.A gear-swapping program in favor of a less destructivegear like gillnet was even attempted. In the end,however, although fishers fully understood thedestructive effects of fine-meshed nets, they could notbe convinced to abandon beach seine because no othergear could replace it in terms of assuring daily catchand spreading immediate benefits to many peopleinvolved in pulling the net to the shore.

There is also the issue of the appropriateness ofthe 3 cm minimum mesh size limit to slow-growinglarge species of fish. For large pelagic species like tuna,this mesh size limit is too small. In fact, other countriesexploiting tuna and tuna-like species claim thatPhilippine fishers are catching the young and juvenilesof these species through the use of ringnets and purseseine in combination with payao, a fish aggregatingdevice. Ganaden and Stequert (1987) showed thepreponderance of small and immature yellowfin tunas(Thunnus albacares) caught in the Philippine waterscompared to those caught in other areas like theWestern Pacific, Western Atlantic and Western IndianOcean (Figure 2).

Size limits on fish catch may also be indirectlyachieved through restriction of fishing activities in aspecific fishing ground or during a specific period oftime. The creative design and application of area

Species

Alepes djedabaDendrophysa russeliiGazza minutaGerres abbreviatusGerres filamentosusGerres oyenaLeiognathus bindusLeiognathus brevirostrisLeiognathus elongatusLeiognathus splendensSaurida undosquamisSecutor ruconiusSelaroides leptolepisSillago sihamaSphyraena barracudaUpeneus sulphureusValamugil cunnesius

Juvenile9318657158869441806563434956728767

Immature2

148

2019102

103

1215636

1435

Maturing1

28154822

197

111116101663

12

Mature2

2894712

24787

27281564

11

Gravid2

123181063448

107235

Spent00000000000000000

Stages of Maturity

Table 1. Relative abundance (%) of different stages of maturity of selected species caught by trawlfrom August 2000 to July 2001 in Sapian Bay, Philippines (modified from Armada 2002).


Figure 1. Length composition of sardines (Sardinella fimbriata) caught by variousfishing gears in the waters of Antique (modified from Armada 1992).

Figure 2. Size composition of yellowfin tuna catches in the Philippines, comparedto that of other fishing areas in the Western Pacific, Western Atlantic andWestern Indian Ocean (Ganaden and Stequert 1987).

Size limits on fish caught 205

restrictions as regulatory measures still need to be fullytapped by management entities in the Asian region(Silvestre 1995). A number of legal measures restrictingfishing during a specific period of time are already inplace. However, compliance with time restrictions hasbeen inconsistent perhaps because they areunreasonably long from the point of view of resourceusers. Fishing, even for sustenance or on a small-scalelevel, is primarily an economic activity. Thus, fisherscannot be separated from their livelihood for a longtime without viable livelihood alternatives.

There is, therefore, a need to refocus timerestriction towards shorter but optimally effectivetime periods. Closed seasons should be short butenforced during particular periods when a substantialnumber of adults can be guaranteed to spawn andthere is a high probability of survival for the young.Small and inexpensive biological studies such as sexualmaturity monitoring of commercially importantspecies should be pursued to determine the shortestbut optimally viable period for restricting fishing.Such studies can be done together with the fishers tofacilitate the work and, most importantly, to ensureefficient communication of results and properunderstanding of the whole intention. There is alsoa need to harness existing scientific routines, such asfishing gear selectivity and size at maturity studies,to provide the basis for fisheries managementoptions. The results of such studies can also be usedfor information materials depicting appropriate meshsizes and minimum size of fish. The modest targetcould be to ensure sustained harvest by allowing thefish to spawn at least once, before being caught,therefore, always ensuring the next generation forfishers to catch.

References

Armada, N.B. 1992. Fisheries resource assessment study of coastalwaters of Antique, Philippines. Report submitted to AntiqueIntegrated Area Development and Pacific Rim Innovationsand Management Exponents, Inc., Antique, Philippines. 56p.

Armada, N.B. 1996. Trawl survey of San Pedro Bay, Philippines.Vol. 5: The fisheries of San Pedro Bay, Philippines. IMFOTech. Rep. No. 16: 41-55. Institute of Marine Fisheries andOceanology, College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines- Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

Armada, N.B. 2002. Fishery resources assessment of Sapian Bay,Philippines. Resources and socio-economic assessment ofSapian Bay, Philippines. Final Report to the Fisheries ResourceManagement Project, Department of Agriculture, Quezon City,Philippines.

Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploitedfish populations. Fish. Invest. (2 Sea Fish.) 19: 533 p. Ministryof Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, UK.

Ganaden, R. and B. Stequert. 1987. Tuna fisheries in thePhilippines. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of TunaWorking Groups in the Southeast Asia Region, 25-28 August1987, Manila. Indo-Pacific Tuna Development andManagement Programme, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Pauly, D. 1988. Some definitions of overfishing relevant to coastalzone management in Southeast Asia. Trop. Coast. AreaManage. 3(1): 14-15.

Silvestre, G. 1990. Overexploitation of the demersal stocks ofLingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 873-876. In R. Hirano and I.Hanyu (eds.) The Second Asian Fisheries Forum. AsianFisheries Society, Manila, Philippines.

Silvestre, G. 1995. Fisheries management and the selectivity offishing operations. Paper presented at the Consultation ofExperts and Industry on Selective Fishing for ResponsibleExploitation of the Resources in Asia, 12-17 October 1995,Beijing, China.

Silvestre, G. and M. Soriano. 1986. Effects of incorporating sigmoidselection on optimum mesh size estimation for the Samar Seamultispecies trawl fishery, p. 482-492. In S.C. Venema, J.M.Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Contributions to tropicalfisheries biology: Papers for the FAO/DANIDA Follow-up TrainingCourses on Fish Stock Assessment in the Tropics, 5-30 May1986, Hirtshals, Denmark, and 12 January - 6 February 1987,Manila, Philippines. FAO Fish. Rep. (389):519 p.

Thompson, W.F. and F.H. Bell. 1934. Biological statistics of thePacific halibut fishery. 2. Effect of changes in intensity upontotal yield and yield per unit of gear. Rep. Int. Fish. (PacificHalibut) Comm. (8): 49 p.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: GUIDOTE, M.N. 2004. Fisheries management and enforcement, p. 206-214. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Fisheries Management and Enforcement1

MARLITO N. GUIDOTETetra Tech EM, Inc.



Introduction

The role of fisheries law enforcement in fisheriesmanagement is to ensure that all regulatory or restrictivemanagement interventions are complied with by specificindividuals or communities. Achieving this goalinvolves motivating the regulated community to complyby means of compliance strategies and enforcementprograms (EPA 1992).

There are three main actors in fisheries lawenforcement: the regulatory managers or those whoformulate regulatory or restrictive acts; the regulatedcommunities or those whose actions are regulated; andthe enforcers or those tasked to ensure that regulationswill be complied with. In the Philippines, for example,local legislative bodies such as the Sangguniang Bayan

may pass an ordinance regulating the use of compressorby municipal fishers within their area of jurisdictionwhile tasking the municipal agriculturist to ensurecompliance or else apply the necessary sanctions (Figure1). The Sangguniang Bayan then is the regulatorymanager, the municipal fishers are the regulatedcommunity while the municipal agriculturist is theenforcer. The collaboration between and among thethree actors will spell success or failure of fisheries lawenforcement.

Regulatory Managersand the Fisheries Resources

Under the decentralized system of government,regulatory management affecting fisheries is shared

Figure 1. The role of the three actors in fisheries law enforcement as illustrated by the case of anordinance regulating fishing with use of compressors.

Fisheries management and enforcement 207

both by the national government and the localgovernment. The Fisheries Code of 1998 and the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 provide the framework bywhich these regulatory powers are shared by the twolevels of government.

The Fisheries Code of the Philippines (RepublicAct [RA] 8550) mandates the Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(DA-BFAR) as the lead agency in formulatingregulatory mechanisms directly related to fisheries.However, other agencies under the executive branchof government may also institute regulations thatindirectly affect fisheries. For example, the Departmentof Transportation and Communication (DOTC), withattached agencies including the Philippine Coast Guard(PCG) and the Maritime Industry Authority(MARINA), regulates commercial fishing vessellicenses and enforces anti-pollution measures inshipping. Likewise, the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources (DENR) regulates foreshoreand shoreline areas.

The Local Government Code meantime gives thelocal government units (LGUs) and the nationalgovernment the shared responsibility of managing andmaintaining ecological balance. It also gives localgovernments the authority to enforce fishery laws inmunicipal waters and laws pertaining to theconservation of mangroves. Local legislative bodiessuch as the Sangguniang Bayan (Municipal Council),Sangguniang Panlungsod (City Council) andSangguniang Panlalawigan (Provincial Board) mayissue fisheries ordinances in their respective areas ofjurisdiction, as long as they are consistent with nationalregulations.

Regulatory management in fisheries has becomeprogressively more important due to the increasingawareness of the relevance of the fishing sector toPhilippine society. As a major fish-producing country,the Philippine population is highly dependent on fishfood. Recorded per capita consumption of the fish,meat and poultry food group is 54 kg/year in 1993 ofwhich 67% is composed of fish and fish products (DA-BFAR 1995). Fisheries contributed 3.5% to the grossdomestic product in 1996 and provided employmentto about 1 million people (DA-BFAR 1997).

Over the years, Philippine fisheries have seen anupsurge in illegal and destructive fishing practices(DENR et al. 2001). Such practices have a long historyin coastal communities. Dynamite fishing for instancehas been around since the First World War in LingayenGulf while the use of sodium cyanide and otherpoisonous substances has been occurring in the samearea for over three decades (Galvez et al. 1989).

Apart from these, regulations concerningcommercial fishing operations never seem to achievean acceptable level of compliance (Trinidad et al. 1993;Israel and Banson 1996; White and Cruz-Trinidad 1998)in spite of so many government interventions. Marine-based pollution, such as oil spills, ballasts and bilgedischarges, garbage and solid waste dumping fromships have also been on the upsurge due to heavyshipping traffic (Burke et al. 2002). These and otherfactors that affect water quality expose marine fisheriesto more vulnerabilities. As a result, fish catch declineswhile the conflict between municipal fishers andcommercial fishers intensifies (DENR et al. 2001).

Fisheries regulations therefore must strike abalance among maintaining healthy fisheries, ensuringthe survival of municipal fishers and allowingcommercial fishers to stay in business. To do this istantamount to limiting certain activities, changingbehavior and outlook of some sectors and evenintroducing new paradigms through restrictive orregulatory management to counteract long years ofneglect and destruction.

The Philippine government has always reliedprincipally on regulatory mechanisms to manage themarine and coastal zones, particularly to controlactivities, allocate resources among users and potentialusers, and resolve conflicts among competing values.Though regulatory mechanisms have their specificfunctions, sole reliance on them has proven quiteinsufficient and ineffective in abating the degradationof marine and coastal resources. There have been tellingstories of management successes and failures alongthis line over the years (DENR/UNDP 1997)

There are two broad categories of regulatorymechanisms in fisheries: (1) limiting access and use ofresources and (2) general environmental protection(DENR/UNDP 1997). When the regulatory taskinvolves limiting access to, and use of, resources, DA-BFAR is the regulatory manager for resources outsidemunicipal waters while those within municipal watersare regulated by municipal/city LGUs. On the otherhand, with regard to general environmentalprotection, DENR is mandated to conserve and protectcoastal and marine environment with LGUs sharingthe responsibility in their respective territories (LocalGovernment Code of 1991). (See Table 1).

Introduction of restrictions and regulations,whether of the national government or LGUs, doesnot automatically translate to changing behaviors oroutlook of fishers. However, studies indicate that thedegree of acceptance by the regulated community ofany restrictive or regulatory management interventionmay depend on the strength of the compliance strategythat goes with the restriction (EPA 1992).


A well-designed regulation has greater chancesof achieving compliance while a poorly designedregulation may even worsen enforcement efforts. Thebest regulations are those that motivate or encouragethe regulated community to comply voluntarily andthose with mechanisms that enable enforcers to compelcompliance. Among the fisheries regulations that aredifficult to enforce are those related to excludingcommercial fishing in municipal waters, use of prohibitedgears (Figures 2 and 3) and of poison and explosives infishing and licensing of vessels engaged in fishing (Table2).

The Regulated Communityand the Challenge of Compliance

The activities of individuals and communities thatdirectly or indirectly affect fishing and the coastalecosystem are regulated under various laws, rules andregulations. The legal instruments that bind theseregulations include codes, laws, memorandum ordersand the like. Ideally, the regulated community compliesvoluntarily with the regulations, otherwise sanctionsare imposed to compel compliance (Table 3).

Regulations directly affecting fishing activities arecovered by the Fisheries Code of 1998 and the variousFisheries Administrative Orders. These are furtherrefined to suit local applications of ordinances by

LGUs. The regulated community under the code arethe municipal fishers, fishworkers, commercial fishingboat owners and boat captains. The code also restrictscertain law enforcement activities, thus, even enforcersmay be considered part of the regulated community.The National Integrated Protected Area System(NIPAS) Act of 1992 to a certain degree also directlyaffects fishing. Other than those mentioned, the localgovernment, which is both a regulatory manager andenforcer, is part of the regulated community underthe NIPAS Act.

Some activities that indirectly affect fishing andcoastal ecosystems are covered under the PhilippineMerchant Marine Rules and Regulations (PMMRR) of1997. The regulated communities under PMMRRinclude all maritime industry workers such as fishingvessel crew professionals and nonprofessionals alike.

There are also special regulations that restrictcertain activities specifically related to fisheries lawenforcement such as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA6770), the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA1379), Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of PublicOfficials (RA 6713) and the Revised Penal Code.Regulated communities under these laws are the localgovernment officials and the fisheries law enforcers.

Some writers note that the Philippines has acollection of stringent environmental laws but theproblem always lies in implementation (Pal and

Figure 2. Curtailing blast fishing, which is one of the more difficult tasks in fisheries lawenforcement, requires, among other things, an understanding of how violators are able toprocure blasting caps.


Figure 3. Law enforcers must have a knowledge of the production and distributionpoints of blast fishing.

Zarcadoolas 2002). Legislative measures alone haveminimal effect in conserving natural resources sincethese are often ignored by people who face morepressing issues of survival.

There are many factors that lead tononimplementation of regulations and noncomplianceof people depending on the regulatory situation,economic circumstances and cultural norms of theregulated community and even values of regulatorymanagers and enforcers. The sociocultural, economic,personal or psychological, institutional andtechnological factors affect regulations and compliance(EPA 2002).

In the case of dynamite fishing, for instance, thestudy of Galvez et al. (1989) shows that socioculturalfactors outweigh the logic behind the purpose of thelaw. The authors note that using dynamite was viewedby the community as victimless crime and thereforedoes not bear guilt upon perpetrators. Besides,informants claim that effects of blast fishing are limitedto a small area, compared to trawl fishing.

Economics becomes a serious factor when thebenefit of noncompliance outweighs that of complying.Tolerance and acceptance of blast fishing practicepervades when almost all members of the regulatedcommunity benefit from it. Whenever the blast fishercomes home, his catch is shared with many, includinglocal officials and police who participate in a feast(Galvez et al. 1989).

Personal and psychological factors will always bepart of noncompliance and are addressed onindividual basis by enforcement and rehabilitation.An interview conducted by the writer with World

Wide Fund for Nature-Philippines among fishers ofTañon Strait in Southwestern Cebu and SouthernNegros Oriental revealed that killing dolphins andother cetaceans is practiced because they are seen ascompetitors of fishers (WWF unpubl.).

Critical in fisheries enforcement are institutionaland technological factors that affect compliance. In thedelineation of municipal waters, for instance, theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 100, S. 2002stated that DA and not DENR should issue theguidelines delineating municipal waters. This opinionled to the revocation of DENR Administrative Order17, S. 2001 (DAO 17) through DENR AdministrativeOrder No. 7, S. 2003 in spite of the fact that DAO 17was already in effect for two years. An earlier Opinionof DOJ (Opinion No. 67, S. 2001) did not raise theissue of authority of the issuing office but merely statedthat guidelines on the delineation/delimitation ofmunicipal waters are not legal but technical issues. Suchconflicting and confusing issuances that affect fishingactivities results in nondeliberate or deliberatenoncompliance.

Another institutional issue is the nationalgovernment’s promotion of fish aggregating devices.Such devices contribute to overfishing and encourageintrusion of commercial fishing vessels in nearshoremarine waters (Green et al. 2002).

Technological factors related to logistics andbudgetary constraints also contribute tononcompliance. One clear example is the absence of avessel monitoring system needed in monitoring,control and surveillance against foreign fishing fleetintrusions. This technological weakness results in


DA-BFAR

DENR

DOTC (PCG/Marina)

P N P

Fishing in Philippine territorial waters exceptmunicipal waters

Utilization of shoreline and foreshore areasActivities on areas under NIPAS Act

None

None

Use of active and passive gears

Issuance of Environmental Compliance CertificateApproval of Environmental Impact StatementIssuance of fishing vessel permits and

licenses and marine pollution controlTrading, transport of ammonium nitrate

agricultural grade (in blast fishing)

Provincial governmentMunicipal/city government

Barangay government

Maintenance of ecological balanceMaintenance of ecological balance and solid

waste managementSolid waste management and marine pollution

Issuance of permit for sand extractionFishing inside municipal waters

None

Local

National

Regulatory Agency Regulatory Mechanism

Limiting Access toand Use of Resources

General Environmental Protection

Table 1. Regulatory agencies and mechanisms.

Fishing inside municipal waters

Licensing of commercial fishingvessels

Declaration of amount of fishcatch

Accreditation of fishing vesselmakers

Importation, storage transportand trade of ammoniumnitrate

Use of noxious and poisonoussubstances in fishing

Municipal fishing registration

Commercial fishingvessel operators



Traditional boat makers

Traders of ammoniumnitrate

Municipal fishers

Municipal fishers

No budgetary allocation for vessel upgrade ofsmall and medium-scale commercial fishersto operate beyond 15 km from shoreline (RA8550)

No coordination of licensing and permittingagencies due to procedural lapses

Tax disincentives from the Bureau of InternalRevenue (BIR)

No government incentive for complying

Demand of mango traders for flower inducers

Demand and easy cash for aquarium fishesand live fish trade

Lack of uniform system among LGUs

DA-BFAR

DA-BFAR, PCG-MARINA

DA-BFAR, BIR

MARINA

PNP Firearms andExplosives Office

LGU

Local government

Regulated Activity RegulatedCommunity

Barriers to Compliance(of Regulated Community)

RegulatoryManagers

Table 2. Regulated activities and barriers to compliance.

NIPAS Act, 1992

PMMRR 1997

Fisheries Code, 1998

Ombudsman Act, 1998

Local government officials

Fishing vessel crew

Commercial fishing boat owners

LGU officials and law enforcers

Exercise of local government jurisdiction overmarine protected areas

Compl iance of boat captain and crew todocumentary requirements, such as permitsand licenses to practice skills and professionrelated to maritime travel

Compliance by owners to required licenses offishing vessels and registry of fish catch

Enforcement of laws, rules and regulations bygovernment officials without fear or favor

Source ofRegulation

Regulated Community Regulated Activities

Table 3. Regulations and regulated communities.


undetected poaching by foreign vessels in Philippineterritorial waters.

The Fisheries Enforcerand the Enforcement Response

The bulk of the fisheries law enforcers’ work fallson their ability to detect violations and to respondappropriately. The ability to detect violationsautomatically assumes that the enforcers have theoperative understanding of regulations and necessarywares to prevent violations from continuing byneutralizing the violator. However, one importantfactor to consider, especially in a legalistic society, isthe enforcer’s jurisdiction over the violations. At times,authority and jurisdiction influences the enforcementresponse.

Who then are the fisheries law enforcers? Unlikeother countries that have fishery law enforcers whoare mandated solely to enforce fishery laws, Philippinelaws, such as the Fisheries Code of 1998 and the LocalGovernment Code of 1991, identify multiple agenciesto enforce them. There are at least seven nationalgovernment agencies and local government officestasked with enforcing various aspects of fishery laws(Table 4). Section 124 of the Fisheries Code, forinstance, authorizes the enforcement officers of BFAR,Philippine Navy, PCG, Philippine National Police(PNP), PNP-Maritime Command, LGUs and othernational government agencies to enforce the code andall other fishery laws, rules and regulations (see Figures4 and 5). These offices and agencies, which have otherfunctions, at times have complementing but more oftenoverlapping functions related to enforcement offishery laws. Still, others, such as international

environmental lawyer Antonio A. Oposa, Jr., defendthe overlaps as intentional if only to emphasize thatthe job of enforcing environmental laws is the job ofeveryone.

Enforcement response is founded on the authorityand jurisdiction of the enforcer over the violation andthe violator. It should be understood that manyenvironmental law violations, fishery laws notwithstanding, occur in progression and the enforcer’sjurisdiction over them varies at every stage.Enforcement response follows a continuum fromprevention to apprehension and prosecution (Table5). There are fishery law enforcers that have theprimary mandate of preventing violation fromoccurring in the first place while others have the specificauthority to search, arrest, seize and take custody ofevidences, and while yet another set of enforcers hasthe distinct mandate to prosecute violations. All ofthese actions constitute enforcement response. This isalso one reason why the government authorizes manyagencies and offices to enforce fishery laws.

Enforcement response of law enforcers in thePhilippines has been dictated by the primary mandate,authority and jurisdiction of the responding agency.While the task of fisheries law enforcement has beendistributed among various agencies in Section 24 ofRA 8550, it is still expected that the primary agencytasked to enforce particular regulations in RA 8550should be the first to respond. The experience of LGUs,which sometimes seek the intervention of thePhilippine Navy in desperate attempts to addresspersistent illegal fishing activities, has always beenunpleasant as their requests are either referred toBFAR, PCG or the boatless PNP.

RA 8550RA 9147

RA 8550RA 8550EO 477RA 8550RA 8551,amending RA 7965RA 8550, RA 8551

RA 8550, LOI 1328RA 8550RA 9147RA 7586

All Philippine territorial waters except municipalwaters

All aquatic critical habitats, aquatic resourcesExclusive economic zonePhilippine territorial watersShips plying Philippine territorial watersMunicipal waters/area of operation (AOR)As specified in AOR of the unit

Criminal aspect of violations committed insidePhilippine territorial waters

Municipal watersProjects impacting marine environmentTurtles and tortoises and wetland speciesFish sanctuaries, nature reserves, mangrove

reserves

Authority Jurisdiction related to Fisheries

BFAR

Philippine NavyP C G

PNP-local

PNP-Maritime

Deputized fish wardens/local enforcers

DENR

Fisheries Law Enforcer

Table 4. The authority and jurisdiction of fisheries law enforcers.


While local government officials should be the firstline of defense in fisheries law enforcement, theirtreatment of enforcement is typically reactionary andimpulsive and not programmatic. Therefore, in theabsence of any local policy or protocol for enforcementresponse appropriate to an LGU, LGUs and nationalgovernment agencies will always have the tendencyto pass on the responsibility of fisheries lawenforcement from one agency or office to the otherleaving the community with little choice but to takethe law into their own hands on the delicate basis ofthe Rule of Court (citizen’s arrest), which does notalways shield them from countersuits.

For successful fisheries law enforcement, theregulation must be firmly grounded on social,economic, political, technological and cultural normsof the regulated community. If the regulation attemptsto alter the normative values of the community, it musthave a fine mix of encouragement to motivate andforce the members to comply at the same time.

Conclusion

Effective fisheries law enforcement does not needto constantly compel compliance. From policymakingto actual enforcement of regulations, the fundamentalobjective should be to encourage voluntary compliance.Poorly planned regulations will never achieve voluntarycompliance and will always pose difficulties inenforcement no matter how creative enforcers are. It is

therefore important that regulations are properlyformulated and founded scientifically and wheneverpossible, culturally. Regulations should be crafted inthe most transparent and participatory manner, perhapseven involving the media at the onset because theirunderstanding of the issue is critical in advocacy. Likelaws, regulations must be socially marketed to thoseaffected (Oposa 1999). Their promulgation must beannounced in the widest extent possible with everyeffort to convey their essence, rationale and benefits tothe affected community. Making the regulatedcommunity understand that the long-term benefits ofa regulation outweigh its immediate drawbacks has abetter chance of encouraging voluntary compliance. Amultimedia approach (radio, TV, comics) with emphasison dwindling fisheries resources, strengthening fishers’organizations and stronger coordination between andamong law enforcement bodies (Galvez et al. 1989) mayalter norms, beliefs, behavior and even myths ofcommunities on illegal and destructive fishing practicesover time.

There should also be special attention given tosociocultural, economic, institutional and technologicalimplications of regulations to the regulated community.Such information should be used to formulate incentivesfor complying. An example is the Memorandum Orderof DOTC that guarantees amnesty for unlicensed bancasand socialized rates for those voluntarily registeringduring a grace period.

Supplemental livelihood is another compliancestrategy employed by both national agencies and LGUs.Mariculture and aquaculture are being promoted byBFAR as alternatives to fisheries extraction from the

Figure 4. Enforcement of fishery law is often done by amulti-agency task force. In a story that made theheadlines, a multi-agency task force of PNP, BFAR, DENR,Coast Guard and local government fisheries enforcerssuccessfully conducted joint operations in Mactan, Cebu,in 2003.

Figure 5. Fish examinations are conductedregularly by a multi-agency task force called theCoastal Law Enforcement Alliance in Region VII.

S. G

ulay

an


wild. In San Vicente, Palawan, and Gilutungan Island,Cebu, communities engage in seaweed farming andjointly police their waters from dynamite fishers as thisaffects their livelihood. Showcasing best practices byother communities in fisheries management andenforcement sometimes provides information,inspiration and subtle suggestions to other localdecisionmakers and communities.

Peer pressure can be particularly effective. It isbest applied to individuals and minority groups inthe community who are noncompliant. Self-interestof the individuals and the community must also beunderstood and the regulations must somehowconveniently fit into that self-interest of the majorityor the larger society who stand to gain from it.

Even with compliance strategies in place,enforcement programs must also be equally strong sothat the gains from effective fisheries management willbe sustained. A strong enforcement program lendscredibility to the regulating office and the legal systemthat supports it and promotes fairness to those whocomply (EPA 1992). The involvement of enforcers incrafting regulations is also important especially thosewho have a larger stake in the enforcement continuumsuch as the police. Experienced enforcers can giveregulatory managers very good perspectives on theenforceability of regulations.

Training and continuing education of fisheries lawenforcers is important. The growing sophistication ofthe modus operandi and instruments used by violatorsat times outdate the skills and knowledge of enforcersto detect and stop them. It is therefore important thatfisheries law enforcers must be up to speed with thelatest technology being used by violators and updatedby newer techniques to interdict them.

Scientific and academic communities must alsosupport and participate in upgrading the skills ofnontechnical fishery law enforcers, such as the police,coast guard and even deputized fish wardens.

Enforcement response at every stage of thecontinuum must be ascertained. Preventing violationeven before it actually occurs is better thanapprehension. Regulatory managers must be able toutilize every available educational tool, information,communication and community outreach opportunity

to convey the essence of the regulation to the regulatedcommunity.

If prevention is no longer possible, apprehensionmust be grounded on the strongest technical and legalbases. Enforcers must be trained continually andprofessionally on skills relative to search, arrest,seizure and handling of the evidences. These skillsupgrade must ensure the highest degree of competencyand integrity as prerequisite to successful prosecution.

Lastly, fisheries regulatory managers must ensurethat the players in the prosecution stage of enforcementresponse are continually updated about newregulations. A good judgment is hinged on effectiveprosecution. As Oposa noted (1999), swift and painfuljudgment made public achieves the desired deterrenteffect.

References

Burke, L., E. Selog and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in SoutheastAsia. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA.

DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources). 1995. On the allocation of fishing areasfor exclusive use by municipal fisheries sector: A policy brief.DA-BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines. (Unpubl.).

DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources). 1997. 1996 Philippine profile. DA-BFAR,Quezon City, Philippines.

DENR/UNDP (Department of Environment and Natural Resourcesand United Nations Development Programme). 1997. Philippinemaster plan for marine and coastal environment. CoastalEnvironment Program, DENR, Quezon City, Philippines.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources) and DILG (Department of the Interiorand Local Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook no. 8: Coastal law enforcement. Coastal ResourceManagement Project of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines. 164 p.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Principles ofenvironmental enforcement. Office of Enforcement, EPA,Washington, DC, USA.

Galvez, R., T.G. Hingco, C. Bautista and M.T. Tungpalan. 1989.Sociocultural dynamics of blast fishing and sodium cyanidefishing in two fishing villages in the Lingayen Gulf area, p. 43-62. In G. Silvestre, E. Miclat and T.E. Chua (eds.) Towardssustainable development of the coastal resources of LingayenGulf, Philippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 17, 200 p.

Table 5. The enforcement-response continuum.

Prosecutors, National Bureau ofInvestigation, Police (criminal), BFAR,DENR (administrative)

Prosecution

All local government officialsand national governmentagencies

Prevention

BFAR, PCG, PNP-Maritime, PNP

Apprehension (Search, Arrest,Seizure, Custodial Investigation)


Green, S.J., R.D. Alexander, A.M. Gulayan, C.C. Migrino III,Jarantillo-Paller and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Bohol Island: Itscoastal environment profile. Bohol Environmental ManagementOffice and Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines.

Israel, D.C. and C.P. Banson. 1996. Empirical estimation ofoverfishing in the Philippine commercial fisheries sector.Development Academy of the Philippines, Pasig City,Philippines.

Oposa, A. 1999. Enforcing coastal laws. Paper presented at theFirst Conference of Coastal Municipalities, League ofMunicipalities of the Philippines, 29 May 1999, Manila,Philippines. (Unpublished).

Pal, I.F.B. and C. Zarcadoolas. 2002. Interplay of perception,culture and mass media in the enforcement of Philippine coastaland fishery laws. Univ. Philipp. - Visayas J. Nat. Sci. (1/2):214-222.

Trinidad A.C., R.S. Pomeroy, P.V. Cruz and M. Aguero. 1993.Bioeconomics of Philippine small pelagic fishes. ICLARM Tech.Rep. 38, 74 p.

White, A.T. and A. Cruz-Trinidad. 1998. The values of Philippinecoastal resources: Why protection and management arecritical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines.

Fishery enhancement effects of marine reserves 215

Evidence for Fishery Enhancement Effectsof Marine Reserves in Central Philippines1

ANGEL C. ALCALA2

GARRY R. RUSS3

AILEEN P. MAYPA2

2Silliman University-Angelo King Center for Researchand Environmental Management

Dumaguete CityPhilippines

3School of Marine Biology and AquacultureJames Cook University

Townsville, Queensland 4811Australia

Abstract

Three lines of evidence for local fisheriesenhancement by marine reserves at Sumilon andApo Islands, central Philippines are discussed. Thedata on catch rates and underwater census of fishdensity and biomass gathered at these islandsduring several separate years from 1976 to 2001,provide a compelling argument for adult fishexport or spillover from the no-take marinereserves to fished areas in the non-reserves.

Introduction

There is reason to believe that the originalpeoples on Pacific islands practiced some forms ofindigenous conservation methods. People on theseislands periodically closed portions of reefs orwhole reefs to allow fishery resources to recoverafter periods of exploitation. The early Filipinosalso probably had some forms of coastal resourcemanagement, but accounts of their activities havebeen lost in history.

Marine reserves or no-take marine reserves areareas of the marine environment protected fromvarious forms of human or extractive exploitationsuch as fishing. In the sense of this definition,marine reserves are synonymous to marine

protected areas, marine harvest refuges, andmarine sanctuaries. The areas outside reserves arereferred to as nonreserves or fished areas, wheresmall-scale fishers are allowed to fish usingtraditional, nondestructive fishing gears. Marinereserves vary in size, but the ideal size is thoughtto be about 20% of the total marine area, based ontheoretical models on risk of fish stock collapse.Thus a 100-ha coral reef area should have a 20-hamarine reserve. The remaining 80-ha area, thenonreserve, is open to fishing by small-scale fishers.In practice the area of a reserve is subject tonegotiation with local fishing communities, andcould be bigger or smaller than 20%. There is nodoubt that large reserves are preferable to smallones, since fishery and conservation benefits aredirectly proportional to size. But in manydeveloping countries marine space is limited, andit may not be possible to set aside large areas ofthe marine environment for conservation purposes.

No-take marine reserves are now recognizedas one of the best options for managing coastaland marine resources. First, they are precautionarymeasures against possible total collapse of fisheries.Second, they are the most viable options for fisherymanagement and biodiversity conservation indeveloping nations because they are relatively easyto set up, are generally acceptable to small-scale

1 This paper is a reprint of the full article which originally appeared as: ALCALA, A.C., G.R. RUSS and A.P. MAYPA. 2002.Evidence for fishery enhancement effects of marine reserves in Central Philippines. UPV J. Nat. Sci 7(12): 1-5.

This paper can be cited as above or as follows: ALCALA, A.C., G.R. RUSS and A.P. MAYPA. 2004. Evidence for fisheryenhancement effects of marine reserves in Central Philippines, p. 215-218. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


fishers, and offer economic benefits to localcommunities, including enhanced fisheries andincome from tourism.

There are other beneficial effects of marinereserves, but only the fishery enhancement functionof reserves with the supporting evidence forspillover or export of adult fishes from reserves isthe subject of this paper. Spillover was predictedin 1957 by R.G.H. Beverton and S.G. Holt in theirtheoretical model of enhancement of yield perrecruit if fishing is confined to a small part of thearea occupied by a stock.

The empirical basis for our evidence onspillover or fish export from reserves comes fromour work on Sumilon and Apo Marine Reservesduring the period 1974-2001. Sumilon MarineReserve is about 0.75 km long, about 25% of thetotal coral reef area, established at the western sideof the island in April 1974. The reserve had fullprotection from 1974 to 1980, but some violationsbegan to occur in the early 1980s. The managementduring the succeeding years can be characterizedas unstable, at times protected and at other timesfished. Apo Island had originally a 0.45 km longmarine reserve, about 11% of the coral reef area,but the area is being increased to about 15% at thepresent time. The reserve was established on thesoutheastern side of the island in 1982. The ApoMarine Reserve, in contrast to Sumilon MarineReserve, has been fully protected by the localcommunity since its establishment in 1982.

There are now more than 30 potential and actualmarine reserves, including several establishedunder our own initiative, in the 29,000 km2 Bohol(Mindanao) Sea and the oceanographic features ofthis body of sea water. Only noncommercial(artisanal and subsistence) fisheries occur at bothislands.

Evidence for Spillover

First piece of evidence:Sumilon Marine Reserve, 1976-2001

The yield of reef and reef-associated fish(caesionids, acanthurids and carangids 74-87% of yield)from traps at eight separate years during the 25-yearperiod when the reserve was protected (1974-1984),18 months after protection broke down (1985-1986),and after 14 years of unstable management (2001)showed increased yields during time of protectionand decreased yield when protection ceased. Therewas a steady increase of fish yield from traps during

the period of protection from 75% of the reef area,from 9.7 to 16.8 t.km-2.year-1. When protection ceasedin 1984-1985, the yield from 100% of the coral reefarea declined to 11.2 t.km-2.year-1 in 1985-1986 . Theyield from traps (45% of total yield) from the wholereef in 1985-1986 was significantly less than the averageyield of the nonreserve (75% of the total reef area)measured over six separate years during the periodof protection (one sample t-test, t5 = 3.05, p<0.05). After14 years of erratic management, the annual yieldfurther declined to 10 t.km-2.year-1 in 2001. The yieldconsisted of similar families of fish from about thesame number of traps in 1974-1984 taken during 12months in 2001.

When yields from traps and gill nets for fourseparate years from 1979 to 1985-1986 were pooled,a similar picture emerged (one sample t-test, t2=6.18,p<0.01). The projected annual yield for 2001 is alsolower than those in 1979, 1980 and 1983-84.

The mean CPUE (catch.person-1.trip-1) for thethree main fishing gears (hook and line, gill net andtrap) also significantly decreased from about 2.0 kgduring the period of protection in 1983-1984 to about1.0 kg over a one-year period in 1985-1986, after 18months had elapsed following cessation ofprotection.

The results of the underwater census of thecaesionids (which comprised more than 60% of thecatch) in the reserve and nonreserve are generallyconsistent with the export of adults to thenonreserve. The mean density of this group washigher in the reserve in 1983 (when protection wasin place) than in 1985 (when protection was lifted).The mean density was lower in the nonreserve in1983 and 1985 than in the reserve in 1983 (but withbroader range in 1983). The low mean density inthe nonreserve in 1985 might be explained byreduced export from the reserve. This argument ismerely suggestive in view of the low mean densityin the nonreserve in 1983 before the lifting ofprotection.

We attribute the fishery enhancement duringthe period of protective management of SumilonReserve to the spillover of adult fishes from thereserve to the non-reserve, where fishers caughtthem.

The finding that fishers get more fish from 75%of the reef area when protected than from 100% ofthe area when not protected appears contrary tocommon sense. Two British fishery scientists, R.J.H.Beverton and S.J. Holt, in 1957, provided atheoretical explanation: at high levels of fishingmortality, closing an area to fishing can enhanceyield per recruit.

Fishery enhancement effects of marine reserves 217

Second piece of evidence:Apo Marine Reserve, 1983-1993

Underwater census over a period of 10 yearsat Apo has provided evidence for spillover fromthe reserve. This is supplemented by the localfishers’ unanimous assessment that their fish catchesfrom the nonreserve had increased during theperiod. The density of large predatory fishes atdifferent distances from Apo reserve boundaryduring the first eight years of protection (foursampling periods pooled) and the last three yearsof protection (three sampling periods pooled) washighest in fished areas closest to the reserve. Thedata provide evidence for the export of adult fishesfrom the reserve to the fished areas.

The next step is to determine the CPUE offishers fishing at various distances from theboundaries of the reserve. Such data shouldcomplement the underwater fish census data todemonstrate adult fish export from the reserve.

Third piece of evidence:Apo Marine Reserve, 1981-2000

The reserve showed an increasing trend from1983 to 2000. There was a threefold increase inbiomass during this 17-year period. The biomass inthe control sites in the nonreserve also showed anincreasing trend, though less pronounced. Most ofthis increase of biomass at the Apo nonreserveoccurred at the site closer to (200-300 m) than fartheraway (400-500 m) from the boundary of the Aporeserve. This pattern of having more fish nearer thereserve did not appear until the last decade ofsampling. The next step to confirm the outwardmovement of fish is to show the same trend in fishcatch.

Over time there has been an increasing proportionof acanthurids and carangids in the fish catch at Apononreserve, but the total catch of these two fish groupsremained remarkably constant. During the sameperiod (1981-2000), the catch rates of hook-and-linefishers increased. Carangids, which are reef associated,and acanthurids (genera Naso and Acanthurus), whichare reef fishes, are caught mostly by hook-and-line.They have been always observed on Apo reef, bothin reserve and nonreserve. Fishers at Apo have largelyabandoned the use of gill nets and bamboo traps asfishing gears since the latter half of the 1990s, andnow depend largely on hook-and-line. Moreover, theyfish in the vicinity of coral reefs. In this way theyrealized savings through reduced fishing effort and

expense. One significant factor that contributed to thereduced fishing effort has been the tourism activities,which flourished as a consequence of the protectionof the island’s marine biodiversity by the localcommunity. Tourism has been a source of income forthis community.

Most of the fish catch at Apo in 2000 belonged toCarangidae, Acanthuridae and Caesionidae, the samefamilies that dominated the catch in the previous years.

All of the above findings constitute the third pieceof evidence for the fish spillover effect of the ApoMarine Reserve.

Other Studies

Other studies have tended to show this spillovereffect for spiny lobsters in Florida (Davis 1977), snowcrabs in Japan (Yamasaki and Kuwahara 1990), andsport fishes in Florida (Johnson et al. 1999). A studyusing acoustic telemetry (tracking) by C. Mayer of theUniversity of Hawaii has demonstrated that fish (amullid and a carangid) frequently ranged beyondreserve boundaries.

Conclusion

Although the three pieces of evidence do notunequivocally demonstrate net export or spillover ofpost-settlement fish, as this demonstration requiresthe use of the Before-After-Control-Impact-PairDesign, our evidence is a compelling argument forthe spillover effect of marine reserves. The three piecesof evidence took 10-25 years of study. Our long-termstudy is continuing and involves four more sites incentral Philippines. Our aim is to demonstrateunequivocally that spillover from fully protected marinereserves occurs and enhances fisheries of areas adjacentto reserves. The importance of this demonstration isthat it is needed to convince fishing communities toaccept the idea of marine reserve establishment.

Bibliography

Alcala, A.C. 2001. Marine reserves in the Philippines: Historicaldevelopment, effects and influence on marine conservationpolicy. Bookmark, Makati. Philippines. 115 p.

Alcala, A.C. and G.R. Russ. 1990. A direct test of the effects ofprotective management on abundances and yield of tropicalmarine resources. J. Cons. CIEM 46: 40-47.

Davis, G.E. 1977. Fishery harvest in an underwater park.Proceedings of the Third International Coral Reef Symposium2: 605-608.


Johnson, D.E., Funicelli,A. and Bohnsack, J.A. 1999. Effectivenessof an existing estuarine no-take fish sanctuary within theKennedy Space Center, Florida. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 19:436-451.

Maypa, A.P., A.C. Alcala, and A.C. Russ. Impacts of long-termprotection of a marine reserve on fish yields of Apo Island,central Philippines. Paper presented at the Sixth Indo-PacificFisheries Conference, May 2001, Durban, South Africa.

Russ, G.R. 2001. Marine reserves as reef fisheries managementtools: Yet another review. In P.F. Sale (ed.) Coral reef fishes:New insights into their ecology. Academic Press, USA.

Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1996. Do marine reserves exportadult fish biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, CentralPhilippines. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 132: 1-9.

Russ, G.R. and A.C. Alcala. 1999. Management histories of Sumilonand Apo marine reserves, Philippines, and their influence onnational marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 18: 307-319.

White, A.T. and H. Calumpong. 1992. Summary field report. SavingTubbataha Reef. Monitoring marine reserves in the CentralVisayas. Earthwatch Expedition, Philippines, April-May 1992,24 p. (Unpublished).

Yamasaki, A. and A. Kuwahara. 1990. Preserved area to effectrecovery of overfished Zuwai crab stocks off Kyoto Prefecture,p. 575. In Proceedings of the International Symposium onKing and Tanner Crabs, Alaska Sea Grant College Program,University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

Marine protected areas 219

Marine Protected Areas1

PORFIRIO M. ALIÑO3

HAZEL O. ARCEO2

ANDRE J. UYCHIAOCO2, 3

2Marine Science Institute, University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City 1101

3Bolinao Marine Laboratory, University of the PhilippinesBrgy. Guiguiwanen, Bolinao, Pangasinan 2406

Philippines

Definition and Purposesof Marine Protected Areas

“Marine protected area” (MPA) is a general termused to refer to areas of the sea protected whether bylaw and/or in fact from one or more activities. Thereare many kinds of MPAs, and there is no consensus onthe definitions of the various terms used to refer tothem (e.g., no-take zones, sanctuaries, reserves, harvestrefugia, parks, etc.). Marine fishery reserves refer toMPAs protected from fishing and/or protected for thebenefit of fisheries. Fully protected marine reservesare areas of the sea completely protected from fishingand other extractive or harmful human uses (Robertsand Hawkins 2000). No-take marine reserves areprotected from fishing and other extractive use butnot necessarily from harmful nonextractive use.

MPAs restrict harmful activities to protectecosystem values (e.g., spawning and nursery groundsof fishery stocks). Zones are defined in some MPAs toreduce conflicts between incompatible uses bygeographically separating conflicting uses (Figure 1).

Fully protected marine fishery reserves can preventloss of, and restore, fishery productivity even as theyfacilitate habitat protection and recovery. Since fishingoften targets the larger individuals in a population,no-take MPAs result in stocks with larger individuals.In fully protected marine reserves, individuals thatwould have otherwise been harvested will also be ableto grow in size and number. Higher densities ofmature individuals result in higher frequency of matingand reproductive success. In addition, larger fishesgrow slowly but invest heavily on production of eggs,so that fecundity tends to increase with size (Edwards1984 in Roberts and Polunin 1991). Thus, larger

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ALIÑ0, P.M., H.O. ARCEO and A.J. UYCHIAOCO. 2004. Marine protected areas, p. 219-222. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

individuals produce disproportionately more young,so MPAs result in more young fish and so more fishoverall. Once adults increase inside, crowding and thesearch for food will also drive some outside wherethey can boost catches —this is called “spill-over”.Currents will also disperse young produced by largeadults in the reserve to populate other places. Thus,while there are short-term losses of fishing ground,MPAs result in net benefits that may be moresustainable over the long term.

Moreover, MPAs require less information to setup, are less expensive and simpler to implement andenforce than catch quotas, size limits and gearrestrictions. Nonetheless, MPA setup will still requireidentification of nursery grounds, spawning groundsor areas of particular stock vulnerability, and will alsorequire information campaigns and political lobbying.MPAs also protect habitats/ecosystems in addition tofishery protection, enhancement and sustainability.However, MPAs are not stand-alone solutions; theymust be embedded in and/or used in conjunction withother coastal management interventions. For example,they are also ideal sites for stock enhancement sincereseeded propagules in areas without sufficientprotection may be easily decimated.

Then and Now

MPAs in the Philippines have been reviewed byGomez et al. 1984; Alcala 1988; White 1988; Bleakleyand Wells 1995; DENR-PAWB/UNEP 1997; Pajaro etal. 1999; Aliño et al. 2002; UPMSI et al. 2002.; and Whiteet al. 2002. The Philippines is probably the SoutheastAsian nation with the most number of MPAs legallyestablished (UPMSI et al. 2002) with 439 and many


others being proposed (Pajaro et al. 1999).The Hundred Islands National Park, although not

declared as a marine park per se, is the Philippines’first national park with a significant marine component(Gomez et al. 1984). It was declared throughPresidential Proclamation (PP) 667 in 1940 and laterreinforced by Presidential Decree 564. The park ismanaged by a multisectoral Protected AreaManagement Board led by the Philippine TourismAuthority and the municipal government of Alaminos.The Sumilon Marine Reserve and the Apo IslandMarine Reserve established in 1974 and 1985,respectively, are among the nation’s earliest fisheryreserves. Tourist zones and marine reservesthroughout the country were legislated by PP 1801 in1978 but have not been implemented as such becausethe law is very general. Sixteen wilderness areas(mangrove swamp forest reserves) were establishedby PP 2151 and 27 mangrove forest reserves by PP2152, both in 1981. The United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)declared Puerto Galera a Biosphere Reserve in 1977and Tubbataha Reefs a World Heritage Site in 1993(originally established by PP 306 in 1988). Tubbatahais also within the Palawan Biosphere Reserve (inscribedby UNESCO in 1990).

The Local Government Code (Republic Act [RA]7160) of 1991 entrusted responsibility over the

environment and natural resources from the nationalgovernment to local government units includingempowering municipal/city legislative bodies toestablish MPAs within municipal/city waters throughmunicipal/city ordinances. The National IntegratedProtected Areas System (NIPAS) Act (RA 7586) in 1992provided a common framework for national parks anda protected areas system. The NIPAS Act also providedfor the development of 10 high-priority protectedareas, including the Turtle Islands Heritage ProtectedArea, Siargao Island Protected Landscapes andSeascapes, Batanes Protected Landscapes and Seascapes,and Apo Reef Marine Natural Park. A similar effort,the National Integrated Protected Areas Project,adopted two marine areas in Palawan, i.e., El NidoMarine Reserve and Malampaya Sound. Section 81 ofthe Fisheries Code (RA 8550) of 1998 provides for thedesignation of at least 15% of municipal waters forfish refuges or sanctuaries and allows 25-40% of fishinggrounds to be established as mangrove reserves.Recently, Section 25 of the Wildlife ResourcesConservation and Protection Act (RA 9147) of 2001provided for the protection of habitats critical tothreatened species; the implementing rules andregulations for the Wildlife Act are being drafted.

Only around 10-13% of MPAs in East Asia areconsidered effective (Bleakley and Wells 1995). In thePhilippines, management levels are generally

Figure 1. MPAs allow fish to grow in size and number and result in more eggs and young fish.

Marine protected areas 221

considered to be “low” (Bleakley and Wells 1995) witharound 16-38% of Philippine MPAs deemed strictlyenforced (Pajaro et al. 1999).

Generally, only a small fraction of the nation’s coralreefs are being managed adequately, the rest are underheavy stress. Community-based management, whilesometimes very effective, continues to be successfullyimplemented only in very small areas. In the last fewyears, local community organizations managing MPAswere assisted by the Haribon Foundation in organizingthemselves into a national alliance called thePambansang Alyansa ng Maliliit na Mangingisda atKomunidad na Nangangalaga ng Karagatan atSanktuwaryo sa Pilipinas (PAMANA). Managementin conjunction with local government (including coastallaw enforcement) continues to rapidly gain ground butits conservation effectiveness is not evident in mostareas except for a few exemplary ones like Apo Island.

Constraints and Lessons

Problems often arise when there is lack of publicunderstanding and support, weak enforcement

arrangements, lack of sustainable financing, unclearjurisdiction, roles and accountability for theimplementation of MPA, unclear hierarchy of objectives(e.g., environmental integrity/sustainability andincreased catch/income), adjacent stresses (e.g.,pollution or siltation), and disappointments withrespect to unrealistic expectations of the rate of biomassbuildup (see Figure 2).

Key lessons learned for effective MPAs are asfollows (modified and expanded from Roberts andHawkins 2000):1. MPAs’ objectives should be stated clearly and

management should be explicitly designed toachieve such objectives.

2. Generally, 6-20 ha of coral reefs have not beensufficient, rather 10-15% of the area to be managedshould be targeted for intensive protection andmanagement.

3. All MPAs need a management plan. Theestablishment and management of an MPA thatwork in one area may not work in others. MPAeffectiveness can be improved and should bemonitored and evaluated. MPA plans need to be

Figure 2. Following the establishment of an MPA, people may unrealistically expect the speedy recovery of fish stockseven as pollution, intrusion of fishers, overfishing and other threats have yet to be controlled.


regularly evaluated and adjusted.4. The involvement of local stakeholders from planning

to management (including enforcement andmonitoring and evaluation) is critical and hence,must be encouraged. Active multisectoralparticipation in MPA management tends to be moresustainable.

5. MPAs should be established within an integratedcoastal management framework. MPAs should becombined and integrated with other managementstrategies.

6. An imperfect reserve is better than no reserve atall. However, be careful not to raise undueexpectations.

7. MPAs allow us to employ the precautionary principle(Lauck et al. 1998).

8. The objective of increased catch and income mustalways be kept in mind.

9. Financial sustainability is essential for MPAs to lastand must be planned for.

Opportunities and Next Steps

Planning and managing networks of MPAs (e.g.,wherein distances between MPAs are proportional tothe MPA sizes, e.g., 10 km between 0.5-1.0 km2 reserves)enable individual MPAs to provide sources of fishyoung to each other. This renders MPAs in the networkmore robust to stress.

No-take MPAs that have been established and arebeing established are often based on the Apo Islandmodel. Since it is a small island, MPAs based on thatmodel are often too small. Rather, as a rule of thumb,10-15% of the area to be managed should be protected(e.g., by the village or municipality).

In the last 30 years, MPAs protecting large areas ofcoral reefs were mainly established by PP 1801 in 1978and NIPAS initiatives from 1993 to the present.Numerous but mostly tiny areas of coral reefs wereprotected by local government legislation from 1992 tothe present. Considering these, we estimate that it willtake around 100 years before we have protected (atleast by legislation) 5,000 km2 or 10% of the Philippines’coral reefs. Consider also that at the same time this isdone, there are many other reef areas that are beingdestroyed. Since it has been estimated that in only 10-38% of reefs protected by legislation that protection isenforced, it will actually take around 300-1,000 yearsbefore 10% of Philippine reefs shall have been effectivelyprotected. Thus, in conjunction with protecting moreareas, we must also be improving the effectiveness ofour management.

References

Alcala, A.C. 1988. Effects of marine reserves on coral fish abundancesand yields of Philippine coral reefs. Ambio 17(3): 194-199.

Aliño, P.M., N.E. Palomar, H.O. Arceo and A.J. Uychiaoco. 2002.Challenges and opportunities for marine protected areamanagement in the Philippines. In Proceedings of the NinthInternational Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia.

Bleakley, C. and S. Wells. 1995. East Asian Seas. In G. Kelleher, C.Bleakley and S. Wells (eds.) A global representative system ofmarine protected areas. Vol. 3. World Bank, Washington, DC,USA.

DENR-PAWB/UNEP (Department of Environment and NaturalResources-Parks and Wildlife Bureau/United Nations EnvironmentProgramme). 1997. National Biodiversity Assessment and ActionPlan. DENR-PAWB, Quezon City, Philippines, and UNEP.

Gomez, E.D., R.T. Biña and C.A. Rodriguez. 1984. Marine parks inASEAN countries. Proc. 1st ASEAN For. Congr. 3(6): 811-820.

Lauck, T., C.E. Clark, M. Mangel and G.P. Munro. 1998. Implementingthe precautionary principle in fisheries management throughmarine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 8 (Suppl.): S72-S78.

Pajaro, M., F. Olano and B. San Juan. 1999. Documentation andreview of marine protected areas in the Philippines: A preliminaryreport. Haribon Foundation for the Conservation of Nature,Quezon City, Philippines.

Roberts, C.M. and J.P. Hawkins. 2000. Fully-protected marinereserves: A guide. World Wide Fund for Nature EndangeredSeas Campaign, Washington, DC, USA, and EnvironmentDepartment, University of York, York, UK.

Roberts, C.M. and N.V.C. Polunin. 1991. Are marine reserves effectivein management of reef fisheries? Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1: 65-91.

UPMSI/ABC/ARCBC/DENR/ASEAN (University of the Philippines-MarineScience Institute/Asian Bureau for Conservation/ASEANRegional Center for Biodiversity Conservation/Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources/Association of SoutheastAsian Nations). 2002. Marine protected areas in Southeast Asia.UPMSI/ABC/ARCBC/DENR/ASEAN, Laguna, Philippines. 142 p.and 10 maps.

White, A.T. 1988. Marine parks and reserves: Management for coastalenvironments in Southeast Asia. ICLARM Educ. Ser. 2, 36 p.

White, A,T., A. Salamanca and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Experiencewith marine protected area planning and management in thePhilippines. Coast. Manage. 30: 1-26.

Marine protected areas: Urgent call for an offshore marine sanctuary under RA 8550 223

Marine Protected Areas: Urgent Call for an OffshoreMarine Sanctuary under Republic Act 85501




The establishment of marine protected areas(MPAs) in certain portions of municipal waters hasbecome a major component of coastal resourcemanagement initiatives in various parts of thePhilippines. Common goals of this activity are therehabilitation of critical (e.g., coral reef) habitats,replenishment of fish resources, and to a lesser degree,promotion of tourism or recreation. The activeparticipation of the adjacent community in the planning,implementation and monitoring process is consideredan important characteristic and major factor in theeventual success of MPA establishment.

Municipal waters are under the jurisdiction of therespective local government unit (LGU) as mandatedby the Local Government Code of 1991. Coastal citiesor municipalities have the task and responsibility tomanage these waters through ordinances and otherregulatory measures. Thus, a municipality mayestablish a MPA through a local ordinance. Anotherestablished process for protected area management isthrough the National Integrated Protected AreasSystem Act (Republic Act [RA] 7586), usually underits category of “protected landscape/seascape”. Underthis scheme, the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR) assumes the leadershipthrough the formation of a Protected AreaManagement Board with the participation of respectiveLGUs and in consultation with the community.

The Fisheries Act of 1998(RA 8550) is anotherimportant legal basis for the establishment of municipalMPAs. Section 81 – Fish Refuge and Sanctuaries – statesthat LGUs may establish these in consultation withthe respective Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesManagement Councils and the Department of

Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources(DA-BFAR). The same section of the code providesthe basis for the establishment of MPAs (fish refugeand sanctuaries, where all commercial fishing isprohibited) through DA-BFAR outside of municipalwaters. Section 80 - Fishing Areas and Reserves forExclusive Use of Government – refers explicitly to areasbeyond 15 km from the shoreline, where utilization(exploitation) can be restricted to government agencies(e.g., for propagation or scientific purposes). Five yearsafter the enactment of RA 8550, this option has not yetbeen exercised, probably due to a lack of well-justifiedproposals, the present focus on inshore coastal watersand the problems in monitoring offshore areas.

However, given the overfished status of manyPhilippine fishing grounds, it is urgent and advisableto declare MPAs also in offshore waters for therehabilitation of economically important fish stocksand to exclude commercial fishing from certain areas.These are usually portions of bays and gulfs beyond15 km which are too small to render legal commercialfishing practically and economically feasible. Ifcommercial fishing is taking place in such areas, italmost automatically leads to encroachment intomunicipal waters, and this cannot be preventedwithout unreasonably expensive enforcement efforts.

Areas of this nature, i.e., where municipal watersof opposing coastal LGUs leave only little space inbetween, are numerous due to the archipelagic natureof the country. They include central portions ofLingayen Gulf, Manila Bay, Ragay Gulf and TayabasBay, among others. Suitable central portions of largewater bodies like these should be considered asreserves or sanctuaries when enforcement (patrolling)

1 This paper can be cited as follows: HERMES, R. 2004. Marine protected areas: Urgent call for an offshore marinesanctuary under Republic Act 8550, p. 223-225. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, CebuCity, Philippines. 378 p.


capabilities have been strengthened and compliancehas improved. Management systems under theresponsibility of DA-BFAR should be devised, testedand applied.

There are certain smaller areas where conservationefforts under RA 8550 (i.e., outside municipal waters),can be implemented almost immediately. A case inpoint is the Maca Shoal in the Visayan Sea (Figure 1).The shoal has an area of approximately 20 km2 and islocated at latitude 11º06’N and longitude 123º27’Eabout 15-20 km north of the coast of Negros Island.Its shallow portions are less than 2 m deep.Surrounding waters have a depth of 40-50 m. At thisshoal, the outer limits of the respective municipalwaters of Concepcion, Iloilo; Bantayan, Cebu; andSagay City, Negros Occidental, as determined by theNational Mapping and Resource InformationAuthority under DENR DAO 17, almost touch, but

leave a relatively small triangular area ofapproximately 15 km2 of open water in between,which coincides largely with the Maca Shoal. This areais entirely enclosed by municipal waters and notconnected to the central commercial fishing groundof the Visayan Sea further to the north. A rapid surveyof the area should be done to verify that it consists ofa critical habitat worth protecting and that it harborsfishery resources, as would be expected of shoals.Based on the analysis and interpretation of the resourceand habitat information, the MPA establishmentprocess should be initiated.

Management responsibility for this area shouldbe assumed jointly by BFAR Regional Office 6 (Iloilo)and 7 (Cebu) - both are cooperating in the BFAR-GTZVisayan Sea Coastal Resources and FisheriesManagement Project (VisSea) - with support fromappropriate enforcement agencies such as the

Figure 1. Maca Shoal, Visayan Sea.

Marine protected areas: Urgent call for an offshore marine sanctuary under RA 8550 225

Philippine Coast Guard. The management task shouldbe shared with Sagay City LGU, the well-establishedmarine reserve which is situated towards the south,contiguous to the proposed area. Some monitoringand enforcement duties could be delegated to thisLGU, while broader participation should bemobilized within the community and also in otherswhose members use the area of Maca Shoal as theirtraditional fishing ground (e.g., Bantayan Island,Cebu). These efforts to promote and includecommunity-based approaches in the establishment ofan offshore MPA need to be accompanied by intensiveinformation and education initiatives, focusing on thereasons for its establishment and the expected benefitsto resource users.

The management of Maca Shoals MPA, whichwould be the first to be established outside municipalwaters solely under the authority of RA 8550, couldserve as a model for the promotion of future offshoreMPAs which are required to conserve and replenishdepleted Philippine fish stocks.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: WHITE, A.T., A.T. MENESES and M.F. OVENDEN. 2004. Management rating systemfor marine protected areas: An important tool to improve management, p. 226-231. In DA-BFAR (Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Management Rating System for Marine Protected Areas:An Important Tool to Improve Management1




ANNA T. MENESESMELODY F. OVENDEN

Marine Protected Area ProjectCoastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc.

3rd Floor, PDI CondominiumBanilad, Cebu City

Philippines

The Need to Improve Marine ProtectedArea Management

In 1974, the first municipal marine protected area(MPA) was declared in Sumilon Island. In the 1970s,there were very few recorded MPAs in the Philippines.Over the years, more MPAs were established. To date,about 439 MPAs have been legally establishedthroughout the Philippines (Pajaro et al. 1999). Despitethe numbers, most are merely “paper parks” with adesign and perhaps an official declaration, but lackingin applied sustainable management strategies. It isestimated that only about 10% of existing MPAs areactually achieving habitat protection (Pajaro et al. 1999;White et al. 2002). The growth in the number of MPAshas increased the need for effective management toolsthat involve devolution of authority from central tolocal governments, as well as support of public andprivate institutions to train local governments andcommunities in MPA planning and management(DENR et al. 2001; White et al. 2002).

In rural Philippines, conservation efforts are not ahigh priority compared to food security. Thus, theincrease in fish yields that eventually results from MPAestablishment is a tangible benefit that should beemphasized to obtain support from local stakeholders.

In this context, MPAs are valued as a means to ensurethe food needs of coastal communities while also aidingin protection of the marine environment.

Establishing MPAs is now one of the key strategiesof integrated coastal management (Salm et al. 2000).The accepted objectives for establishing them in thePhilippine context are to (Roberts and Hawkins 2000;White et al. 2002):

1.protect and enhance marine biological diversityand marine habitats;

2.sustain and increase fishery yields;3.reduce resource use conflicts;4.provide a simple and easy way to enforce

conservation;5.encourage community participation and

empowerment in planning and management; and6.provide areas for ecotourism, environment-

friendly enterprise, scientific research, publiceducation and cultural diversity.Since most MPAs face difficulty in enforcement

and implementation due to poverty and a general lackof awareness about the coastal environment, a systemis needed to improve the overall quality ofmanagement. A malfunctioning MPA is a loss ofopportunity to protect and conserve resources, as wellas a loss of economic benefits to local communities.

Management rating system for marine protected areas 227

Marine Protected Area Report Guideand Management Rating System

There are a growing number of cases where MPAsare able to sustain management operations for habitatand species protection. Building on these successes ofMPAs in the Philippines, the development of the MPAmanagement rating system through the MPA Project2

highlights the need and means to increase the numberof well-managed MPAs. The MPA managementrating system, initiated in 2001, is evolving throughthe practical application and participation of multiplepartners. The MPA Project is providing a means toimprove and standardize MPA monitoring in thecountry by assisting implementation throughrecommendations based on findings and lessonslearned from research, field interventions andapplication of the management rating system. It isdeveloping and testing a national system to evaluatethe effectiveness of MPAs while establishing an MPAdatabase that is shared and updated with the objectiveof centralizing information on MPAs and making itavailable for use in decisionmaking by MPA managers.The marine protected coast, reef and managementdatabase (MPA database), also initiated in 2001, willbe fully operational in 2004 and is accessible throughthe website, www.coast.ph, and participatingnongovernment and government partners.

The management rating system is designed toaid MPA managers in evaluating their performance interms of management, implementation andenforcement (Table 1). Once applied, it shows thepriorities for improved management and providesfeedback to the community and other levels ofmanagement.

At present, there are 160 MPAs recorded in theMPA database, and it is still a work in progress.Some 36% of these have been rated according to theMPA management rating system: 66% are found inthe Visayas; 22%, Luzon; and 12%, Mindanao. MostMPAs are still in the beginning stages ofimplementation (Table 2).

Effective management and visible changes in theutilization of resources are some of the benchmarksof change monitored in the system. In the Philippines,assuming that a community-based managementstrategy is the most effective in achieving a fullyfunctional MPA, an important success factor iscommunity empowerment and local enterprise

development. In this regard, the rating systemmeasures end benefits of MPA establishment as wellas the level of community and local governmentparticipation in the planning and implementation ofMPA plans and laws. The MPA guide helps allconcerned to recognize weaknesses in an MPA andwhat is needed to improve effective management. Themanagement strategies being utilized around thecountry to implement MPAs vary tremendously. Thedatabase shows a breakdown of leading organizationsinitiating or managing MPAs (Table 3).

MPAs in the Visayas managed by localgovernments and people’s organizations are moreadvanced compared to MPAs in other regions. Mostof these MPAs practice community-based resourcemanagement and collect users’ fees. These are effectivestrategies that help sustain management andenforcement of MPAs through time. There are 10MPAs in the Visayas imposing the collection of users’fee, only 2 in Luzon and none in Mindanao. Penaltiesare also being imposed by 13 MPAs in Visayas, 5 inLuzon and 1 in Mindanao.

The majority of sanctuaries recorded are relativelysmall (Table 4). From 142 MPAs with size information,about 15% are less than 6 ha and 56% are between 6and 50 ha. The smallest MPA size recorded is 1 ha(Nalayag Point Fishery Refuge and Sanctuary inBatangas) and the largest is 1,822 ha (GasanCommunity Marine Reserve in Marinduque).However, there are also larger MPAs that are classifiedas marine parks and seascapes under the nationalintegrated protected areas system (NIPAS Act).Examples are the Tubbataha Reef National MarinePark in Palawan (33,200 ha) and Apo Reef NaturalPark in Mindoro (27,469 ha).

Strategies and Lessons Learned

The MPA Project has signed a Memorandum ofAgreement with six government agencies, fiveacademic institutions and seven nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs) with interest in environmentalconservation and resource management in coastalareas. This agreement encourages collaborative effortsamong various groups to work together towardscoastal and marine conservation in the country.Collaboration will be crucial for long-term adoptionof the MPA system nationwide and to the applicationof the rating system so that managers and supporters

2 The MPA Project is a three-year project of the Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc., supported by agrant from the Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation. Started in 2001, the project has the overall goal ofimproving the management and conservation of coral reef ecosystems through MPAs in the Philippines, with thesubsequent view of a wider application in the Asia-Pacific region.


The rating level achieved is limited by the number of years the MPA is in existence.The MPA rating system is intended to assist local governments and communities to improve the management oftheir MPA. This simple rating system is dynamic and is not a definitive statement on the status of any MPA rated.

Table 1. MPA management rating system.a

Table 1 (cont.)

Site selected

Site surveyed with baseline assessment complete(Reports available on fish abundance, coral substrate and information on issues and concerns)

Education program started(Conducted at least two types of MPA-related trainings/orientation for the affected barangay/s)

Social acceptance sought(Consulted members of the affected barangay/s: fishers, resource users and social groups,both men and women)

Management body membership tentatively determined(The identified management body had met at least twice regarding the MPA.)

Preliminary management plan drafted

Level III: MPA Enforced: Good (year 1 or 2) (20 points required)Criteria or activity satisfied 0/1

Sanctuary rules and/or management plan posted at strategic locations

Education program increased awareness about MPA functions/benefits(Conducted at least five trainings for capacity-building and community empowerment with representationfrom fishers, resource users and social groups, both men and women. Process should be documented)

Biophysical monitoring measuring habitat condition and changes(Documented surveys at least once after the baseline assessment, using standard/accepted method)

Patrolling and surveillance conducted(At least three fish wardens on rotation assigned to guard and patrol the area during the day and night)

Name of MPA:Level I: MPA Initiated: Passing (year 1) (6 points required)Criteria or activity satisfied 0/1

Level II: MPA Established: Fair (year 1 or 2) (12 points required)Criteria or activity satisfied 0/1

Acceptance approved and documented by community(Documented either through barangay resolution or signature campaigns as well as documentationof public consultations/meetings)

Education program raising awareness about MPA benefits(Conducted at least four documented information, education and communication activities regardingMPAs with participation of affected barangay/s)

Management body formally organized and recognized(Management group has legal mandate from or is recognized by local government)

Management plan adopted by community and local government unit (LGU) or Protected AreaManagement Board (PAMB)(Management plan initially implemented and/or endorsed by LGU/PAMB)

Ordinance approved by municipal council

Anchor buoys, marker buoys and/or boundary marks installed

Management activities started(Conducted at least two MPA-related activities, such as maintenance of buoys, patrolling,apprehension of violators, implementation of user’s fees, etc.)

aThis management rating system evolved from the work of the Coastal Resource Management Project team ofNegros Oriental (William Ablong and Erwin Dolumbal), with assistance from Alan White, in January 2001.


Table 1 (cont.)

Table 1 (cont.)

Marker and/or anchor buoys maintained(Budget allocated for maintenance of buoys; can be part of or an item within the municipal coastal resourcemanagement budget)

MPA outpost or other structures constructed(Guardhouse and/or other MPA-related structures constructed)

Management body is active(Members attend meetings regularly; body implements the management plan and enforces theprovisions in the ordinance.)

Budget from local government or other sources allocated and is accessible for MPA management(There is a legal document by the local government or an agreement with the private sector allocatingbudget for MPA management.)

Fishing effectively stopped inside the sanctuary zone(No fishing-related violations/apprehensions reported in the sanctuary for the past six months.)

Illegal and destructive fishing reduced outside of MPA(Violations/apprehensions reported outside sanctuary were reduced by 50% for the last six months.)

Level IV: MPA Sustained: Very Good (year 3 or after) (25 points)Criteria or activity satisfied 0/1

MPA management plan updated and adopted in a participatory process(Revisions made with the participation of all stakeholders: fishers, dive operators, partners,LGUs, resource users and social groups, both men and women)

Biophysical monitoring and feedback of results implemented for two years or more(Documented surveys using standard/accepted method; reports are available.)

Monitoring includes local participation(Locals were trained to do monitoring.)

Budget from government or other sources allocated and is accessible for two or more consecutive years(There is a legal document by local government or an agreement with the donor, allocating budget for MPAmanagement.)

Management body capacitated for financial management as needed(Management body is able to handle its money effectively, i.e., facilitates wise use and properdocumentation)

Enforcement system fully operational(Enforcement group with clear mandate and workplan; enforcement system fully operational forat least one year)

Illegal and destructive activities stopped inside and within vicinity of MPA(No violations/apprehensions reported in the past year.)

Environment-friendly enterprise and/or fees initiated as part of MPA(Imposes collection of user’s fees; sells environment-friendly souvenirs to tourists, etc.)

Level V: MPA Institutionalized: Excellent (year 4 or after) (30 points)Criteria or activity satisfied 0/1

MPA management plan incorporated in LGU development plan

Monitoring of impacts on environment and socioeconomics conducted and feedback of resultscompleted(Reports on biophysical assessment, attitude and perception surveys, and economic valuationstudies conducted are available; results reported to stakeholders)


Table 2. Summary of ratings of MPAs from the MPA database (CCEF and MPA Project collaborators 2003).

MPA Category

Initiated

Established

Enforced

Sustained

Institutionalized

-

ManagementPerformance

Passing

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

-

% of Records

14

6

9

6

1

64

Activities Usually Satisfied

Education programs startedSocial acceptance soughtManagement body tentatively determined

Ordinance declaring a sanctuary is approvedHigh community acceptanceManagement activities started

Management body is activeFishing and illegal activities reducedBiophysical monitoring and measuring habitat changes conducted

Enforcement system fully operationalIllegal and destructive activities stoppedEnvironment-friendly enterprise or collection of user’s fees initiated

MPA used as a study tour site with residentsMPA management plan incorporated in the local government’s development planRevenues from enterprise and/or fees sustained and accounted for-

RatingLevel

1

2

3

4

5

No data

Table 1 (cont.)

Information on MPA management plan, rules and monitoring maintained(Information campaign has reached 60% of affected communities through brochures, posters andinstallation of signboards)

Revenues from enterprises and/or fees sustained and accounted for(Collection of fees consistently enforced and recorded properly; financial report easily accessible)

Management plan reviewed and updated(Further refinement of management plan after it has been revised)

MPA used as a study tour site; residents advocate for MPAs(Presence of an identified group that conducts tours and is capable of giving relevant informationabout the MPA)

Expansion strategies considered or initiated(There are plans of increasing the size of the MPA and/or enlarging the scope of activities in it,e.g., outreach programs, culturing of clams, etc.)

Total points accumulated:______• Total possible points: 38• All points are cumulative. Points from higher levels can be used to satisfy lower rating levels.• Required points for the levels:

» I: Passing = 6 points accumulated» I I : Fair = 12 points accumulated» III: Good = 20 points accumulated» IV: Very Good = 25 points accumulated» V: Excellent = 30 points accumulated

Date of survey: ________Researcher/source of information: ____________________ Affiliation/institution: _________________________


have a common framework from which to evaluatetheir work and the relative success of MPAs.

The national government is assisting to implementlarge MPAs declared under the NIPAS Act. But, givenscarce funding for operations and the tremendousneeds of management, most of these sites have limitedfield operations and depend on implementationstrategies that involve community and localstakeholder participation. In this regard, the MPArating system is equally applicable to MPAs declaredunder NIPAS and the process is similar to thosedeclared under the local government.

A common observation from most of the successfulMPAs is that the local government together withpeople’s organizations must play a key role inimplementation. Assistance from national governmentagencies, academe and NGOs is also often crucial. Thelevel of involvement of an organization varies amongsites. However, the presence of a strong leader withunwavering resolve to enforce the law can make thedifference between success and failure. Likewise, thepresence of a multisectoral consultative group is veryhelpful.

In many MPAs, there is confusion in the process ofimplementing resource management interventions.This is due to the absence of clear guiding agenda tofollow for management. A realistic and evolvingmanagement workplan is thus necessary to guide theimplementing body in achieving their goals forsustainable management and habitat protection. TheMPA management rating system will help. Funds formanagement are needed to cover the cost for boundarymarkers and anchor buoys, signs, guardhouse, patrolboat, flashlights and other equipment necessary foreffective enforcement. Sources include budget

allocations of local governments, grants from privatesector or NGOs and collection of users’ fees.

Future Directions

The MPA management rating system is assistingin better understanding of how MPAs work and whatconstitutes an effective and successful MPA. Thesefindings are being used in creating MPA models thatcan serve as guides for newly created or managedMPAs and to improve quality and objectives ofmanagement. The MPA database system will helpcentralize and standardize monitoring of PhilippineMPAs over time in all aspects of information that arerelevant to track. Collaboration among government,academe, NGOs and other institutions is essential inthis regard.

References

CCEF (Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation) and MPA(Marine Protected Area) Project collaborators. 2003. Marineprotected coast, reef and management database 2003:Improving coral reef marine protected area management inthe Philippines. CCEF, Cebu City, Philippines. (Unpublished).

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources) and DILG (Department of the Interiorand Local Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook nos. 1-8. Coastal Resource Management Projectof DENR, Cebu City, Philippines. Var. p.

Pajaro, M., F. Olano and B. San Juan. 1999. Documentation andreview of marine protected areas in the Philippines, apreliminary report. Haribon Foundation for the Conservationof Natural Resources, International Development ResearchCentre-Canada and British Embassy, Philippines.

Roberts, C.M. and J.P Hawkins. 2000. Fully-protected marinereserves: A guide. Endangered Seas Campaign, World WildlifeFund, Washington DC, US, and Environment Department,University of York, York, UK.

Salm, R.V., J.R. Clark and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastalprotected areas: A guide for planners and managers. Thirded. International Union for the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

White, A.T., C.A. Courtney and A. Salamanca. 2002. Experiencewith marine protected area planning and management in thePhilippines. Coast. Manage. 30(1): 1-26.

Table 4. Average size of 142 MPAs.

Area (ha)

Less than 66 - 5051 - 2,0002,001 – 300,000

No.21792022

%15561415

Average Area(ha)

3.4415.01

603.9481,052.35

Records

Table 3. Different management strategies of surveyed MPAs.

Type of Management

National government through NIPAS ActLGU with assistance from national government and NGOsPeople’s organization with assistance from national government, LGU and NGOsPrivate sector or dive resort ownersN G OMultisectoralNo information

%

101144421

28


Multiple Small-scale Marine Sanctuariesin Municipal Waters: The Magsaysay Example1

WILLIAM R. ADANMindanao State University at Naawan

9023 Naawan, Misamis OrientalPhilippines

Introduction

The establishment of a marine sanctuary is avaluable tool in coastal resource management (CRM).There is evidence that “no take” zones in coastal watersserve as breeding and nursery grounds of manymarine species. Moreover, they bring back healthypopulations of marine life with the restoration ofdegraded habitats within the reserves. A sanctuarythus can become a source of eggs, fry and new fish toreplenish the productivity of adjacent waters.

The Fisheries Code of 1998 mandates municipallocal governments to allocate, where applicable, at least15% of their coastal waters as a sanctuary or no-fishing area. The choice between establishing one“big” sanctuary, covering thousands of hectares ormany smaller “postage stamp” size sanctuaries in themunicipal water remains a question for planners andscientists. The key factors that determine this choiceinclude the availability, size and distribution of marinehabitats, water quality and local oceanography, as wellas willingness of the community to manage the areaand abide by the sanctuary rules.

Site Profile

Magsaysay is located on the northeastern partof Misamis Oriental, 152 km from Cagayan de Oro,and 31 km from Gingoog City (Figure 1). Themunicipality has a 15-km coastline that is fringedby coral reefs and dotted with various species ofmangroves. The coastal waters of Magsaysay,which have yet to be delineated, have an estimatedarea of 175 km2. It has nine coastal barangays witha fishing population of 1,017 (MSU 2002).

The Magsaysay coastal waters are noted forsardine, flying fish and milkfish fry fishery. Blue crabsand various species of coral reef fishes abound in thearea. Older fishers in the area claim, however, thatthese diverse and rich marine resources have declinedseverely since the early 1970s when illegal anddestructive activities, particularly dynamite fishing,became rampant in the area.

“Postage Stamp” Sanctuary Establishment

The Technology Outreach and Community HelpFoundation was the first nongovernment organizationto introduce CRM in Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental.The foundation started organizing the fisherfolk ofSta. Cruz in 1994 to address issues of damaged coastalhabitats and declining fish yields. Over six years, ithelped assist the eight barangays of Magsaysay toestablish marine sanctuaries as a strategy to restorethe productivity of their coastal waters. A total of 87.6ha of independent community-based marinesanctuaries were declared in Magsaysay, distributedas follows: Sta. Cruz (4.6 ha), Damayuhan (9 ha), VillaFelipe (9 ha), Poblacion (2 ha), Bonifacio (9 ha), Artadi(6 ha), San Isidro (21 ha), Kandiis (21 ha) and Consuelo(6 ha) (Figure 1).

Experiences

Resistance to sanctuary establishment. Theestablishment of a sanctuary, more often than not, haspolarized the community. Opposition to the sanctuarywas often caused by the perception that the fisherswere deprived of their right to fish in their traditionalfishing ground. In most cases, there was apparently a

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ADAN, W.R. 2004. Multiple small-scale marine sanctuaries in municipal waters: TheMagsaysay example, p. 232-236. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Inturbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

Small-scale marine sanctuaries: The Magsaysay example 233

direct correlation between local poaching in thesanctuary and level of community support. In VillaFelipe and San Isidro where 40-50% of the residentswere opposed to sanctuary establishment, poachingand destruction of sanctuary markers were generallyattributed to local resident fishers. In barangays withhigher level of community support (75-85%),poaching and other violations of sanctuary ruleswere usually committed by nonresident fishers.

Site and physical configuration of sanctuary.All the sanctuaries are located in sites with coralreefs and seagrass beds, with each being scientificallyassessed prior to establishment. The sanctuaries areconstructed adjacent and parallel to the coastline,extending seaward in either square or rectangularshape. Only the 21 ha sanctuaries of San Isidro and

Figure 2. Signboard showing Kandiis MPA in Magsaysay.

Touc

h Fo

unda

tion,

Inc

.

Figure 1. Location of Magsaysay municipality and its nine coastal barangays.


Damayuhan (9 ha) have a buffer zone of 50 m x 50 mand 20 m x 20 m, respectively. The buffer zone is off-limits to any fishing activity but allows the passage ofsmall fishing crafts. The rest of the sanctuaries haverestricted use areas along their left and right sides.Hook-and-line fishing, gleaning and swimming arethe only human activities allowed in these areas.

Management system. All sanctuaries are managedby the barangay local government, supported by theBarangay Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesManagement Council and the local peoples’organizations. The sanctuaries were establishedthrough the passage of a barangay ordinance that wasapproved by the Barangay Council (SangguniangBayan), following the standard procedure in locallegislation prescribed by Republic Act 7160, the LocalGovernment Code of 1991.

Guardhouse construction. Semi-permanentguardhouses or watchtowers were constructed instrategic locations in six of the eight establishedsanctuaries to safeguard the protected area. Theirconstruction cost has been shared 50-50 by barangayand municipal funds. Most guardhouses havesearchlights and guards are provided with handheldradios connecting them to barangay authorities.Volunteers, like Bantay Dagat, barangay-authorizedguards and the Civilian Volunteer Organization(CVO), guard the sanctuaries.

Impacts

Biological and economic gains. Fishers claim thatfish in the protected area have increased both innumber and species diversity. This claim is supportedby the Mindanao State University assessment in 2000-2001 (MSU 2002). Fishers also claim that their fishcatch in adjacent waters has increased from the rangeof 0-5 kg/4 hours of fishing to 5 kg or more. Catcheshave increased over time in sanctuaries establishedearlier that adopted heavy guarding and strictimplementation of rules and regulations, like Sta. Cruz,Poblacion and Bonifacio. From interviews, fishers inthese areas disclosed that their daily income fromfishing also increased from the range of P200 to asmuch as P600 in some days. In Sta. Cruz, the oldestestablished sanctuary (1996), the fisherfolkorganization has purchased and installed a mini iceplant to preserve fish surplus intended for distributionto outside markets. The availability of crushed ice inthe locality reduces spoilage and allows fishers todispose of their catch in urban areas like Butuan Cityand Gingoog City, thus increasing their income.

Collateral benefits. Sanctuary establishment ledto the generation of income augmentation projects

intended primarily for displaced or adversely affectedfishers, although later other members of thecommunity were included as beneficiaries of theprojects. These projects include seaweed farming;livestock dispersal (kabir, goat, swine and cattle);contour farming for pineapples and bananaproduction; and multipurpose cooperative operation.The beneficiaries disclosed, however, that theirincomes from these livelihood activities were less thanfrom fishing. They blamed the unpredictable weatherin the area for crop failures, and the high cost of feedfor losses in animal production ventures.

Recommendations

While the Barangay Council takes the lead inmanagement of the sanctuary, there is, however, nodefinite structure and authority within it that givesfocus to the sanctuary alone. Most activities on thesanctuary are done on volunteer or bayanihan basis, asystem that is often unreliable. It is therefore necessarythat a Sanctuary Management Board be created underthe immediate supervision of the Barangay Council.A sanctuary manager may be designated or appointedby the council and committees created in the board toaddress specific tasks or concerns such as maintenance,monitoring, evaluation, surveillance, enforcement andeducation. The members of the board and the differentcommittees should come from the fisherfolkorganization in the area.

The creation of buffer zones should be encouragedfor small sanctuaries (4-9 ha). This would prohibit fishersfrom directly fishing on the boundary lines of thesanctuary, the effect of which is just like fishing withinthe sanctuary. During the Sanctuary Managers Forumheld in Magsaysay in early 2003, some localgovernment representatives responded to the issue byagreeing to amend their respective sanctuary ordinancesfor the creation of buffer zones (Table 1).

Milkfish or bangus (Chanos chanos) fry catchers havepersistently requested to exclude their catching groundfrom the 21-ha marine sanctuary. This proposal shouldbe carefully considered. On one hand, their livelihoodcould be protected by moving the shoreline boundaryof the sanctuary seaward and establishing itimmediately next to a properly demarcated bangus fryground. On the other hand, fry gathering with the useof push nets with extremely small mesh sizes tends toimpact larvae and juveniles of many other species, notjust bangus. This lessens the contribution of marineprotected areas (MPAs) as a nursery ground.

Small-scale marine sanctuaries: The Magsaysay example 235

Table 1. Summary workshop output of the Magsaysay Marine Sanctuary Managers’ Forum, February 2003, Poblacion, Magsaysay,Misamis Oriental.

Best Practice

Intensive publicconsultation onsanctuary establishment

Proper site assessment

Proper boundarydemarcation

Legitimized by barangayand municipal ordinance

Construction of guardhouse(s) withcommunication facilitiesand searchlights

Community participationin surveillance andprotection

Presence of volunteerorganizations (CVO,Bantay Dagat, barangayguards) to guard thesanctuary

Gain / Benefit

Observable increase in fishstock and species diversity

Regeneration of corals andincrease in seagrass cover

Increase in fish catch andincome of fishers

Livelihood projects resultingfrom sanctuary establishment

Increased ecologicalawareness among residents

Other CRM activities, likemangrove reforestation andbeach cleanup followedsanctuary establishment

Coastal folk identify with thesanctuary and develop asense of community pride

Well-maintained sanctuarieswith guardhouses attract localvisitors

Problem

No clear management structureand authority

No individual or group tasking ofresponsibilities and accountabilities

Bayanihan basis on themaintenance of the sanctuary isirregular and unreliable

Resource and impact assessmentpurely perceptive andunsystematic

Fishing done alongside sanctuaryboundaries

Guarding of the sanctuary isirregular, on and off basis

Lack of patrol boats andsurveillance equipment

Difficulty in filing cases againstviolators in court

Poaching and lost boundarymarkers

Need / Solution

Organize within the Barangay Council aSanctuary Management Board

Create task committees with clearlydefined roles, functions andresponsibilities

Develop sanctuary and resourcemanagement and operational plan

Conduct training on participatoryresource assessment, monitoring andevaluation

Create buffer zones where fishing isrestricted to protect the core sanctuary area

Develop a system for continuousguarding through periodic assignment/shifting/rotation of guards

Allocate barangay funds to purchasepatrol boat and surveillance equipment

Provide paralegal training to deputizedfish wardens, CVO, Bantay Dagat andbarangay guards; municipal governmentto allocate funds for court cases

Provide continuing education andinformation drive and communityparticipation in surveillance andprotection; develop and install strong, all-weather markers

Conclusion

“Postage stamp” sanctuaries may have theadvantage over a single larger sanctuary in municipalwaters as these mobilize more ecologically and politicallyconscious people covering a wider area compared to asingle sanctuary. Since more people have developed astrong attachment to and sense of ownership of theirsanctuary and immediate waters, there is a higherprobability of sustaining appropriate management of

coastal resources. The establishment of a marine sanctuary is the

most visible starting point for other coastalmanagement interventions. While at the start it maypolarize a community, it may later become the rallyingpoint for other coastal management efforts once itstangible benefits are made manifest to the people.Networking the marine protected areas in a givenbody of water consolidates management efforts andconcerns and may expand the restorative and


enhancing effects of MPAs to coastal habitats andresources.

The experience of Magsaysay shows that collectiveeffort and self-discipline are possible only when themembers of the community understand the issues andconcerns that affect them and work together towardsa common goal. It is evident that sacrifice and deferredgratification are values that a community can learn.When these values are internalized, the coastal folkmay avoid what Hardin (1968) called the “tragedy ofthe commons”.

References

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248.

MSU (Mindanao State University). 2002. Resource and socialassessment of Gingoog Bay. Fisheries Resource ManagementProject Terminal Report. MSU Naawan Foundation for Scienceand Technology Development, Inc., Misamis Oriental,Philippines.

Artificial reefs and fish aggregating devices: Help or hindrance? 237

Artificial Reefs and Fish Aggregating Devices:Help or Hindrance?1

1 This paper can be cited as follows: BABARAN, R.P. 2004. Artificial reefs and fish aggregating devices: Help or hindrance?,p. 237-240. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: Thestatus of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

RICARDO P. BABARANInstitute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanology



Introduction

Demersal fish species have been observed toassociate with submarine features like seamounts orbanks, while pelagic ones usually aggregate nearfloating or drifting objects or structures. Thisinformation has been used in the deployment ofartificial structures either at the sea bottom, calledartificial reefs (ARs), or anchored or drifting at thesurface or midwater levels, commonly called fishaggregating devices (FADs), to attract and aggregatefish to support certain fisheries.

A number of hypotheses have been forwarded toexplain the mechanisms responsible for the attractionand/or aggregation of fish near ARs or FADs. Theseseparately deal with the natural tendency of fish toaggregate near areas with abundant food supply;behavior of fish to seek refuge from predators;utilization of structures as reference points to guidethe movement of fish; and tendency of fish to usestructures as social aggregation points (Pickering andWithmarsh 1997; Freon and Dagorn 2000).

FADs and ARs have been deployed in thePhilippines since the 1970s. It has been assumed thatthey enhance fisheries but as evidence suggestsotherwise, they have become rather controversial forvarious reasons. Key issues related to these structuresin the Philippines include the following (White et al.1990; Munro and Balgos 1995):

• They have proliferated around the country with littleor no regulation and management.

• They have been encouraged and placed as “fisheriesenhancement” tools without proper monitoring andevaluation.

• ARs are commonly believed to function like coral reefecosystems, but in reality they have been shown onlyto aggregate marine organisms. There is little evidenceto suggest productivity is enhanced through their use,but strong evidence that they contribute to overfishing.

• FADs have very limited productivity potential,especially for juvenile fishes, making their catch mucheasier without management and regulation.

Artificial Reefs

ARs have been used to enhance coastal fisheriesin Japan and in other countries for several hundredyears (Buckley 1985). They provide shelter for adultand juvenile fish (Bohnsack 1989), reference points fororientation (e.g., for formation of schools), feedingareas (Bohnsack 1989) and breeding areas (White etal. 1990).

In the Philippines, ARs have been traditionally usedin the Visayas as early as the 1950s using smallcollections of branches, twigs and other materialscalled gango, usually used for aggregating certaindemersal species such as rabbitfish and snapper. Thesewere harvested every few months or daily throughthe use of fishtraps placed within the area and eachgango had an owner who had exclusive use over theFAD.

Following the trend in Malaysia and Thailand inthe 1970s, the Philippine government embarked on anartificial reef development program in the 1980s andearly 1990s. The reefs were mostly constructed withlow-profile bamboo materials or used tires (Figure 1)(Miclat 1988). Over 25,000 units of these reef moduleswere deployed in 75 sites throughout the country


(Miclat 1988; Delmendo 1991). Although concrete isusually preferred because it can be molded easily andlasts longer in seawater, there were only limitedattempts to use it due to higher cost. With increasingawareness over the destructive impacts of bottomtrawls in the 1980s, ARs were also used as deterrentto trawling in coastal waters. The use of certainmaterials such as tire and junk vehicles was laterdiscouraged as they were found to contain pollutantsthat leech into seawater.

The species aggregating near tire and bamboo ARswere mostly benthic organisms because of theirposition and deployment in shallow reef areas. Reefspecies quickly colonize shallower ARs which beganto resemble a miniature reef after about 10 years. Butthe question of increased productivity versus simpleaggregation has been the subject of several studies.

After the Fisheries Sector Program promoted ARsin 1990-1994, their use as a management tool waned.There are now many documented examples of poordeployment of ARs, even placing them directly overreefs, destroying these in the process. One studyconducted by the Resource Management Division ofNegros Oriental indicated the strong aggregatingcapacity of ARs and concluded that even if they coveronly a small percentage of the existing natural coralreef area, they can severely contribute to overfishing(Waltemath and Schirm 1995). Generally, there wouldbe no lack of fish habitat in an overfished ecosystem,such as in the Philippines. Yields from artificial reefsites are estimated to be about 150 times higher thanthose from natural coral reefs (Waltemath and Schirm1995). This shows that unregulated fishing in ARsmay do much more harm than good to reeffisheries.

Based on these lessons, the Philippine nationalgovernment, through the joint Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources - Department

of Agriculture – Department of the Interior and LocalGovernment – Department of National Defense(DENR-DA-DILG-DND) Administrative Order No.97-01, series of 1997, banned the further use of ARsand FADs in the country, without specifiedmanagement guidelines. This was superceded in 2000by the Joint DENR-DA-DILG-DND MemorandumOrder No. 2000-01 which laid out guidelines on theestablishment, management and utilization of ARsin municipal waters and encouraged their use understrict criteria. It is stipulated that ARs are only allowedin no fishing sanctuaries.

Fish Aggregating Devices

The use of FADs as a fishing gear accesory hasalso proliferated around the country since 1980.Being fairly cheap to assemble with local designscosting no more than $100 (P5,400), they are widelyused. In fact, their abundance and use are now havingserious repercussions for fisheries management in thePhilippines. Their placement inside municipal watershas also encouraged illegal entry of commercial fishingvessels tempted by large catches as FAD owners getat least 25-35% increase in value of the total catcharound their FADs. For instance in the province ofBohol, it is estimated that there are more than 1,000FADs within its coastal waters, with the majority beingowned by commercial and nonfishers. Over 90% ofFADs are within 10 km of the coastline of the provinceand are regularly used by commercial fishers (Greenet al. 2002).

Anchored FADs, locally called payaw, essentiallyhave four main parts: a floating structure, anaggregating device, an anchor and a rope line. Thefloating structure is typically a raft made of bamboo(Figure 2). Bamboo, however, has a limited lifespanespecially when rammed by ships. Thus, to preventloss of the FAD, a steel tank is sometimes used inplace of a bamboo raft. In other FAD designs, thefloating structure is formed with the use of severalpieces of vertically oriented bamboos that are bundledtogether (Malig et al. 1991).

The aggregating device is formed by hanging aline holding several coconut or palm fronds and itsdepth sometimes extends down to 35 m below thesea surface. The anchor, which is made of concreteand molded using a 200-l fuel drum, serves to holdthe floating structure in place. The line that links thefloating structure to the anchor is a polypropylene ropewith a diameter of 14-16 mm depending on the speedof the water current in the fishing ground. Because ithas a lower specific gravity relative to seawater, thepolypropylene rope tends to float in seawater.

Figure 1. Tires used for artificial reefs.

Artificial reefs and fish aggregating devices: Help or hindrance? 239

country’s fisheries production of tuna species (especiallyjuveniles) since the 1970s (Figure 3).

Aside from ringnet and purse seine, several typesof line gears are used by artisanal fishers near anchoredFADs. The line gears used include single and multiplehook-and-line, troll and, to a limited extent, single setlines and longline. Although prohibited by FAD owners,surface set gillnet operations that involve the dispersalof minced fish meat laden with toxins from plants aredone.

The types of fish captured by different fishing gearsoperating near anchored FADs depend on the waterlevels where gears are cast. Gears that are usuallydeployed over a fishing zone near sea surface like purseseine, ringnet, line gears with small-sized hooks andthe prohibited set gillnet capture similar species. Theseare mostly juveniles of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares),juveniles and, sometimes, adult sizes of skipjack tuna(Katsuwonus pelamis), and several small pelagic speciesof jackfish, including Selar crumenopthalmus andDecapterus macrosoma.

Meanwhile, handline fishers using a drop-stonefishing technique usually capture adult sizes of yellowfintuna and sometimes bigeye tuna at water depths rangingfrom 40 m to 200 m. Troll fishers, meanwhile, capturedolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) and billfish (Istioporidae)from relatively shallower depths or near the surface,usually with the use of lured hooks but sometimessimply with fibrous lures.

FADs have also more recently been implicated asthe main cause in several serious shipping accidents.A lack of regulation and management in their use isallowing proliferation in shipping lanes and navigationroutes around the country. Similar to ARs, evidence

Figure 2. Payaw.

Similar to ARs, anchored FADs are normallydeployed to support or sustain fishing operations offishing gears mostly for those of commercial operators,such as purse seine and ring net. The operation ofthese gears near anchored FADs may be partiallyresponsible for the tremendous increase in the

Figure 3. Philippine production trends for yellowfin and skipjack tuna, 1967-2001 (FAO Fishstat).


suggests that FADs do not increase fisheriesproduction, despite fishers believing them to bespawning areas of key species. Like ARs, they merelyaggregate fishes, both mature and juvenile, andfacilitate their capture, thus aggravating overfishing(Pickering and Whitmarsh 1997). They also increaseconflicts between commercial and municipal fishingsectors on who gets access to scarce fish resources.

Conclusion

FADs and ARs require further research andscientific studies. Based on existing studies, they haveon the whole had a negative impact on fisheries in thecountry and have contributed to overfishing. Stepsshould be initiated to at least limit or regulate thecombined number of FADs developed by commercialfishers and those owned by nonfishers. Further useof FADs and ARs should only be pursued within theframework of comprehensive coastal and fisheriesmanagement plans, which are implemented andmonitored.

References

Bohnsack. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs theresults of habitat limitations or behavior preference? Bull.Mar. Sci. 44(2): 631-645.

Buckley, R.M. 1985. Habitat enhancement and urban recreationalfishing, p. 365-382. In F.M. Ditri (ed.) Artificial reefs: marineand freshwater applications. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Michigan,USA.

Delmendo, M.N. 1991. A review of artificial reefs developmentand use of fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the ASEANregion, p. 116-141. In V.L.C. Pietersz (ed.) Symposium onArtificial Reefs and Fish Aggregating Devices for theManagement and Enhancement of Marine Fishery Resources,14-17 May 1990, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization,Bangkok, Thailand. 435 p.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Fishstat Plus, version2.3. FAO Fisheries Department, Rome, Italy.

Freon, P. and L. Dagorn. 2000. Review of the fish associativebehavior: Towards a generalization of the meeting pointhypothesis. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 10: 183-207.

Green, S.J., R.D. Alexander, A.M. Gulayan, C.C. Migrino III, J.Jarantilla-Paler and C.A. Courtney. 2002. Bohol Island: Itscoastal environmental profile. Bohol Environment ManagementOffice, Bohol, and Coastal Resource Management Project,Cebu City, Philippines. 174 p.

Malig, J.A., S. De Jesus and J.O. Dickson. 1991. Deep-sea fishaggregating devices (FADs) in the Philippines, p. 214-228. InV.L.C. Pietersz (ed.) Symposium on Artificial Reefs and FishAggregating Devices for the Management and Enhancementof Marine Fishery Resources, 14-17 May 1990, Colombo, SriLanka. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Food andAgriculture Organization, Bangkok, Thailand. 435 p.

Miclat, R.I. 1988. Artificial reef development: The Philippineexperience. Report of the Workshop on Artificial ReefsDevelopment and Management. ASEAN/SF/88/GEN/8.

Munro, J.L. and M.C. Balgos, Editors. 1995. Artificial reefs in thePhilippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 49, 56 p.

Pickering, H. and D. Whitmarsh. 1997. Artificial reefs and fisheriesexploitation: A review of the “attraction versus production”debate, the influence of design and its significance to policy.Fish. Res. 31: 39-59.

Waltemath, M. and B. Schirm. 1995. Effects and management ofartificial reefs, including experiences outside the Philippines,p. 25-30. In J.L. Munro and M.C. Balgos (eds.) Artificial reefsin the Philippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 49, 56 p.

White, A.T., L.M. Chou, M.W.R.N. De Silva and F.Y. Guarin. 1990.Artificial reefs for marine habitat enhancement in SoutheastAsia. ICLARM Education Series 11, 45 p. International Centerfor Living Aquatic Resources Management, Philippines.

Invertebrate stock enhancement 241

Invertebrate Stock Enhancement1

MARIE ANTONETTE JUINIO-MEÑEZPhilippine Environmental Governance Project

3/F M&L Bldg., 29 Road 1Project 6, Quezon City

and Marine Science Institute

University of the PhilippinesDiliman, Quezon City

Philippines

Introduction

The Philippines has a high diversity ofcommercially important invertebrate fishery resourcesbelonging to three major groups: crustaceans (i.e.,shrimps, crabs, lobsters); molluscs (i.e., gastropods,bivalves, cephalopods); and echinoderms (i.e., seacucumbers and sea urchins). Various species of molluscsand echinoderms are a regular source of protein forpoor coastal dwellers and a source of income forgleaners (Figure 1). Some of these are high-value foodand shell species in both local and export markets (e.g.,abalone, top shells, giant clams, window pane oysters,sea cucumbers and sea urchins). Because most of thesespecies are found in shallow waters and are sedentaryor slow-moving, their populations are highlyvulnerable to overharvesting. Traditionally,commercial collectors and buyers move on to othersites once local populations are exhausted, resultingin their widespread depletion. One of the fewdocumented cases is the case of giant clams, where anationwide field survey in the mid-1980s found thatthree giant clam species - Tridacna gigas, T. derasa andHippopus porcellanus - have been overfished (Juinio etal 1989). The last species, which has a very limiteddistribution in Southern Philippines, is virtually extinct.

Another is the case of the sea urchin fishery inBolinao, Pangasinan, where overexploitation resultedin the collapse of this multimillion fishery (Talaue-McManus and Kesner 1995). Prior to its collapse, thesea urchin fishery was the major source of livelihoodfor many local coastal families and the single mostvaluable commercial fishery in the area (Figures 2 and3). Anecdotal reports of fishers and traders indicate

the same has happened in other places. Moreover, thesame is true for sea cucumbers, top shells and abaloneleading to a significant decline in total nationalproduction and exports. Despite these occurrences,very little attention has been given to the managementof coastal invertebrate fisheries.

Stock Enhancement as a Management Strategy

Large-scale stock enhancement has been practicedin Japan for nearly a century. It is also used as a strategyto increase and sustain production of variousinvertebrate and finfish resources in other developedcountries, such as Taiwan, Norway and USA. Stockenhancement commonly involves broodstockdevelopment, breeding, large-scale larval and juvenilerearing, release of seedstock to the wild andmonitoring to assess possible impacts. As such, thistechnology and capital-intensive strategy is often a

Figure 1. Gleaners collecting sea urchins.

S. G

reen

1 This paper can be cited as follows: JUINIO-MEÑEZ, M.A. 2004. Invertebrate stock enhancement, p. 241-245. In DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


last resort in fishery management, especially for poorercountries. However, due to widespread depletion oflocal invertebrate fishery resources and local extinctionof species in the case of giant clams, smaller scale stockenhancement, in conjunction with the establishmentof marine protected areas and habitat rehabilitation,has emerged as a viable option to enhance the recoveryof some depleted populations.

Local stock enhancement initiatives includetransplanting adults and/or juveniles from the wildpopulation to a protected area, or release of hatchery-produced juveniles or subadults. In either case,resource managers attempt to enhance stocks ofexisting invertebrate species or to reintroduce a speciesthat once thrived in an area. This contrasts with thecommon practice in the 1970s of transplanting adultsor spat of the slipper oyster (Crassostrea iredalei) andthe green mussel (Perna viridis) where the species didnot naturally occur, for farming purposes.

Compared to transplantation of wild populations,the most significant efforts to date involve release ofhatchery-produced juveniles to reestablish viablespawning populations. The longest running effort alongthis line is the reseeding of giant clams. In the 1980s,scientists from the University of the Philippines-MarineScience Institute (UPMSI) and Silliman University andfrom Australia and several Pacific Island nationscollaborated on a research program to develop giantclam mariculture technology. In the 1990s, localconservation measures to reestablish viable clampopulations started and continue to the present. Asidefrom hatcheries at the two research institutes, theGuiuan Development Foundation, Inc. also producescultured giant clams. All seven local species of giantclams have been cultured at the Bolinao MarineLaboratory of UPMSI. In 1995, UPMSI startedproducing hatchery-reared juvenile Tridacna gigas,which is one of the endangered giant clam species.The species has been reseeded into 24 out of 27restocking sites nationwide (Figure 4) (Mingoa-Licuanan and Gomez 2002). Stewardship arrangementswith local government units (LGUs), people’sorganizations, private groups and nongovernmentorganizations have been solicited in this effort.

After the collapse of the sea urchin fishery inBolinao in the early 1990s, UPMSI researcherspioneered the hatchery and growout culture of seaurchin Tripneustes gratilla. A strategy involvingresearch, field monitoring, maintenance of broodstockin sea cages, reseeding and community-based growoutwas piloted in northwestern Luzon (Juinio-Meñez etal. 1998). Growout culture was done in collaborationwith fishers’ organizations, LGUs, regional stateuniversities and BFAR to reestablish viable spawning

populations and provide a supplemental source oflivelihood to fishers. Growout culture in sea cages,while more labor-intensive, ensured high survivorship(63-87%) up to sexual maturity prior to harvesting,relative to reseeding (1-10%). Thus, growout culturewas necessary to maximize survivorship of the limitedseedstock produced (40,000–120,000 per year in 1996-2001) in the pilot hatchery. In 1999, the presence ofnatural recruits (i.e., early benthic juveniles) providedthe first indication of stock recovery in Bolinao. Todate, a small-scale fishery exists in Bolinao (Juinio-Meñez 2002). Unfortunately, lack of regulation mayforestall further recovery of the sea urchin stocks.

The UPMSI hatchery in Bolinao has recentlypioneered the production of sea cucumbers incollaboration with scientists from UP Mindanao andUP Visayas. In addition, top shells and abaloneseedstocks have also been produced in 2002. As thenew culture technologies are refined and scaled-up, acommunity-managed multispecies reef invertebratesea farm, which will also serve as a reproductivereserve, will be piloted.

In the Visayas, the Aquaculture Department(AQD) of the Southeast Asian Fisheries DevelopmentCenter (SEAFDEC) has stocked immature adultwindow pane oysters (kapis) along the Tigbauancoastline to reestablish spawning populations. Earlyharvesting by dredgers frustrated first attempts atenhancement. Subsequent efforts were done in closecollaboration with LGUs to regulate harvesting andprevent depletion of spawning stocks.

Culture and stock enhancement of abalone andtop shells are also underway at SEAFDEC (Platonand Yap 2002). The development of artificial feedsthat can be used to tag abalone will be valuable inmonitoring the viability of released hatchery-rearedindividuals. Notably, a Japanese company that exportslocal top shells to Japan is the only private restockinginitiative. Alarmed at the reduced market supply oftop shells, the company decided to establish a privatehatchery in Palawan, which started producing juveniletopshells (Trochus niloticus) in 2000 to stock depletedareas in collaboration with SEAFDEC (Anon. 2001).

Ecological and Economic Considerations

The development of culture technologies for someof the local commercially important invertebratespecies provides opportunities to expand options formariculture in the country and contribute in therecovery of depleted wild populations. However, thereare fundamental ecological considerations attendantto stock enhancement (e.g., Smith 1999). Hatchery-produced seedstocks are products of spawning of a


few individuals, thus loss of genetic diversity is apotential negative impact of releasing hatchery-produced juveniles. Similarly, relocation of broodstockor seedstock to another region with a distinctpopulation genetic structure poses a threat to geneticdiversity. This may reduce the populations’ resilienceto environmental changes especially if the fitness ofhatchery-reared stock is inferior relative to naturalstocks. Aside from this, unregulated stockenhancement can lead to displacement of other speciesin the natural environment, and transmission ofhatchery-based diseases and parasites to wild stocks.

Aside from ecological considerations, economicones constrain widespread utilization of stockenhancement as a resource management strategy.Fundamental to this are technical personnel andinvestment in hatchery production, which entailconsiderable capital outlay even for smaller scale

seedstock production. Furthermore, proper monitoringof growth, survival and genetic structure of releasedhatchery stocks will require technical expertise that ispresently limited in the country. In fact, the impact ofmany large-scale reseeding programs in developingcountries is inconclusive and many doubt theireconomic viability.

Conclusion

In the interim, limited local stock enhancementefforts could be subsidized by national and regionalresearch institutions to enhance the recovery ofdepleted natural stocks. The economic costs andpotential long-term ecological costs of improper stockenhancement are quite high. Local efforts are unlikelyto be viable without public-private sector partnerships.For this to work, appropriate disincentive (e.g., user

Figure 2. Overexploitation led to the collapse of the sea urchin fishery inBolinao, Pangasinan, resulting in multimillion peso losses in terms of livelihood,supplemental food and exports.

Figure 3. Philippine sea urchin roe exports have declined in recent years and have becomeincreasingly dominated by lower value products (e.g., paste).


fees) and incentive systems (e.g., exclusive use rights)should be instituted and legitimized to promoteresponsible harvesting practices. The bottom line isthe lack of sound resources management and goodgovernance which precipitate into extreme conditionsthat make stock enhancement, along with otherrestoration technologies, an imperative. The onlyrational recourse is to prevent similar conditions fromhappening in the first place. The benefits of effectivelymanaging natural populations can never be outweighedby any technological intervention.

References

Anon. 2001. Aquafarm news special feature: Stock enhancement.SEAFDEC Asian Aquacult. 23(5-6): 17-40.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A. 2002. Enhancement of Tripneustes gratillapopulations in Pangasinan, northwestern Philippines. Paperpresented at the Second International Symposium on StockEnhancement and Sea Ranching, 28 January-1 February 2002,Kobe, Japan.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A., N.N.D. Macawaris and H.G. Bangi. 1998.Community-based sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) grow-outculture as a resource management tool. In G.S. Jamieson andA. Campbell (eds.) Proceedings of the North Pacific Symposiumon Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Management. Can.Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125: 393-399.

Figure 4. UPMSI’s sites for giant clam restocking.


Juinio, M.A.R., L.A.B. Meñez, C.L. Villanoy and E.D. Gomez. 1989.Status of giant clam resources in the Philippines. J. MolluscanStud. 55: 431-440.

Mingoa-Licuanan, S.S. and E.D. Gomez. 2002. Giant clamconservation in Southeast Asia. Trop. Coasts 9(2): 24-31,56.

Platon, R.R. and W.G. Yap. 2002. Prospects and challenges ofstock enhancement and sea ranching in Southeast Asia. Paperpresented at the Second International Symposium on StockEnhancement and Sea Ranching, 28 January-1 February2002, Kobe, Japan.

Smith, P.J. 1999. Genetic resources and fisheries: Policy aspects,p. 43-62. In R.S.V. Pullin, D.M. Bartley and J. Kooiman (eds.)Towards policies for conservation and sustainable use ofaquatic genetic resources. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 59, 277 p.

Talaue-McManus, L. and K.P. Kesner. 1995. Valuation of a Philippinemunicipal sea urchin fishery and implications of its collapse, p.229-239. In M.A. Juinio-Meñez and G. Newkirk (eds.) Philippinecoastal resources under stress: Selected papers from theFourth Annual Common Property Conference, CoastalResources Research Network, Dalhousie University, Halifax,NS, Canada, and Marine Science Institute, University of thePhilippines, Quezon City, Philippines.


The Potential Role of Restocking and StockEnhancement in the Management of Marine

Invertebrate Fisheries in the Philippines1, 2

JOHANN BELLLEN GARCES

The WorldFish CenterP.O. Box 500 GPO, 10670 Penang

Malaysia

Introduction

Throughout Southeast Asia, capture fisheries areno longer yielding their potential harvests – in manycases, the abundance of valuable species has beenreduced to 10% of previous levels (Silvestre et al., inpress). The result is that coastal fisheries are notsupporting as many livelihoods as they could. Thisproblem has been caused by overfishing, harvestingmethods that damage the habitats supporting fish andinvertebrates, and a general deterioration of inshoreecosystems (Silvestre and Pauly 1997; Talaue-McManus2000). Overfishing is particularly severe in the case ofmany invertebrates, which are easy to collect due totheir shallow distribution and sedentary habits. Thecoastal fisheries of the Philippines are suffering the sameproblems as those elsewhere in the region: catches havedeclined dramatically, and several of the most valuablespecies are now rare (Pauly et al. 1989; Barut et al. 1997).

The solution to overfishing is easy to identify, butdifficult to implement. Basically, arrangements need tobe made for fewer people to fish so that stocks canrecover to levels that will enable them to providegreater yields (Hall 1999). This will involve hardshipfor the displaced fishers in the short to medium-term,and so they should be given some form of propertyrights as an incentive to make the sacrifices needed torestore stocks to more productive levels (i.e., they needto be the beneficiaries of the restored stock).

This remedial action is not easy for governmentsto implement because it involves loss of jobs for aperiod. The development of aquaculture promises to

ease some of the pain of having to ask people to leavecapture fisheries by providing alternative livelihoodsin a fisheries-related sector. However, the developmentof aquaculture will not absorb all the effort that needsto be removed from fisheries to restore them to moreproductive levels.

The decisions facing many fisheries managers nowcenter around questions like: how many people needto stop fishing?; how much of the fished area should beclosed to allow recovery?; how long should these areasremain closed?; or perhaps even how long does thefishery need to be closed completely to allow recovery?Understandably, managers are under pressure tominimize the time needed to restore fisheries so thatjobs can be made available as soon as possible. However,even with the application of stringent measures like atotal moratorium on fishing, the time needed forrecovery cannot always be predicted well due to greatannual variation in the natural supply of larvae. Evenunder the best scenario, it may take several years beforethe remnant stock produces a year-class strong enoughto replenish the stock (Doherty 1999). In some situations,multiple generation times may be needed forreplenishment to the required level.

The desire to restore overfished stocks in theshortest possible time has led some managers toconsider the use of restocking programs, where culturedjuveniles are released to augment the remnant wildstock, thereby reducing the time needed to re-create arelatively large spawning biomass. The potential benefitof a restocking program must, however, be balanced

1 This paper can be cited as follows: BELL, J. and L. GARCES. 2004. The potential role of restocking and stock enhancementin the management of marine invertebrate fisheries in the Philippines, p. 246-251. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 WorldFish Contribution No. 1694.

Restocking and stock enhancement for marine invertebrate fisheries 247

against the costs involved in producing large numbersof juveniles in hatcheries fit for survival in the wild,and there must be confidence that the interventionwill make a significant and cost-effective reduction inthe time required for recovery of spawning biomass.To make such decisions, managers need several piecesof information about the biology of the target species.This information is presented below3.

Information Needed to Assess the PotentialBenefits of Restocking

Stock delineation

A thorough understanding of the size anddistribution of the stock(s) supporting a fishery is animportant information needed to assess the need forrestocking to design a responsible restocking program.In particular, managers need to know whether thefishery is based on a single homogeneous stock, orcomposed of multiple, largely self-recruitingpopulation. A good indication of stock structure canbe provided by a thorough analysis of the geneticpopulation structure of the species, although somestocks can still be divided into relatively isolated unitseven when gene frequencies are generallyhomogeneous. Thus, other tools may also be neededto help determine stock delineation, e.g., multivariatecomparison of morphometrics or species compositionof parasites. Stock delineation equips managers tounderstand whether spawning biomass needs to berebuilt for all, or just certain components, of the stock.

Stock assessments

Once the stock structure of the fishery has beenidentified, the status (stock size and age/size structure)of the population(s) should be identified. Only thencan managers assess whether the spawning biomassof the population(s) is so low that it is unlikely torecover quickly enough simply by implementingconventional management measures, e.g., a totalmoratorium on fishing, or whether restocking will alsobe required to restore the number of spawning animalsto levels that will once again allow regular substantialharvests to be made. Restocking is normally anexpensive option, so restoration of spawning biomassshould be based on other forms of managementwhenever possible, provided they will be effectivewithin acceptable timeframes.

This process involves estimating how long it willtake the spawning biomass of each population torecover with and without restocking (Heppell andCrowder 1998). To do this, the desired level ofspawning biomass needs to be identified (e.g., 50% ofthe virgin level), and the data need to be collectedthat will enable the potential contribution of restockingto be assessed. These data include: remnant stock size,generation time, fecundity, annual variability in thesettlement success of postlarvae, natural mortality atdifferent life history stages, and behavior of the speciesthat may affect spawning success or survival at lowpopulation density. Different restocking scenarios, e.g.,variations in the frequency, number and survival rateof released animals, and the subsequent survival oftheir F1, F2, F3 progeny, should also be examined.

Capacity of hatcheries to producesufficient juveniles

If the modeling described above indicates thatrestocking will be beneficial, an assessment then needsto be made to determine whether the existinghatcheries have the capacity to produce the requirednumber of juveniles. Where the capacity of hatcheriesis limited and it is not possible to invest in additionalfacilities, it may be necessary to produce juveniles overa longer period. This will mean that the restockingmodel developed above will need to be adjusted.

Other Components of a ResponsibleRestocking Program

If the decision is made to proceed with a restockingprogram, careful attention will also need to be paidto: (1) how juveniles are produced and released; (2)managing the restocked population(s); and (3)determining relative contributions of restocking torestoration of spawning biomass (Blankenship andLeber 1995; Munro and Bell 1997). A summary of theactions needed to complete these components of aresponsible restocking program is set out below.

Hatchery protocols to maintain the geneticdiversity of the stock. The hatchery practices neededto reduce the likelihood that the natural genefrequencies could be changed as a result of relativelylarge releases of cultured juveniles are described byMunro and Bell (1997) and references therein. Theseprotocols include using large numbers of broodstock,replacing spawning animals regularly, ensuring that

3 The following section is taken largely from Bell (in press) and Bell and Jamu (in press).


most broodstock spawn and preventing selectivebreeding among broodstock. If there are problemsachieving any of these requirements, they can usuallybe solved by releasing multiple cohorts derived fromdifferent parents. This results in a cumulative releasedpopulation that has gene frequencies representativeof the original wild stock. Where the analysis of stockstructure indicates that there is more than onepopulation unit in the fishery, juveniles should onlybe released in the area where the broodstock werecollected. This will involve applying the protocolsoutlined above to separate groups of broodstock fromeach population unit.

Requirements of released juveniles. The culturedjuveniles must be released in ways and at times wherethey can avoid predators and find food to ensure theirgreatest possible chance of surviving and contributingto spawning biomass. This involves soundunderstanding of the distribution and abundance oftheir predators, and identification of nursery habitatsthat provide protection. Field experiments should thenbe done to identify optimal release strategies(Blankenship and Leber 1995).

Quarantine procedures. All batches of culturedjuveniles to be released should be tested to ensurethat they meet acceptable levels for pathogens andparasites prior to stocking. This will not only helpsafeguard the remnant wild stock against any diseasespromoted under hatchery conditions, but it will alsoreduce risks to other species because pathogens areoften more virulent in atypical hosts (Munro and Bell1997 and references therein).

Management measures to maximize benefits.Investment in hatchery production will be wastedunless measures are taken to manage juveniles releasedin a restocking program. This will often involve a totalmoratorium on the catching of species until there hasbeen recovery of spawning biomass to the desiredlevel. However, this is not easy when the species underrestoration is part of a multispecies fishery andvulnerable as by-catch. In such cases, gear modifications,and spatial and seasonal closures for fisheries or otherspecies may also be needed to protect target species.An effective moratorium on the capture of targetspecies until replenishment occurs is likely to causeshort-term hardship for fishers. Thus, it is importantto explain to them the longer-term benefits ofrestocking and the need for restraint, otherwise, manypeople may assume that the release of animals meansthat there will now be more to catch. It is also importantto let fishers know that future harvests will have to beset at lower levels, otherwise, overfishing and stockreduction will reoccur.

Allocation of property or access rights to fishersprior to the moratorium will provide them with theincentive to comply because they will be the ultimatebeneficiaries. However, the hardship that a restockingprogram imposes on fishers in the short to medium-term needs to be recognized. If necessary, otherincentives may need to be provided to createalternative, related livelihoods (e.g., aquaculture).Where such resources or occupations are unavailable,well-enforced temporary exit arrangements withappropriate financial compensation may be necessary.

Determining the contribution of restocking torecovery. An important part of responsible applicationof a restocking program is to measure the success ofintervention, to be certain exactly how recoveryoccurred and to determine the contribution made byrestocking. A genetic tag is needed for this purpose,because the F1, F2, F3, etc. generations derived fromreleased animals must be tracked so that theircontribution to the restored biomass can be assessedcompared to those individuals derived from theoriginal remnant wild stock.

How does Stock Enhancement Differfrom Restocking?

Whereas restocking is a potential tool for restoringthe spawning biomass of a severely overexploitedfishery, stock enhancement is intended to increase and/or stabilize the production of an operational fishery.Stock enhancement is a process used to overcomerecruitment limitation, which occurs when the naturalsupply of juveniles fails to fill the carrying capacity ofthe habitat (Doherty 1999; Bell, in press). The result ofrecruitment limitation is that nursery habitats usuallydo not support as many juvenile fish and invertebratesas they could. Stock enhancement can help to correctthis situation by adding more juveniles to optimizeproduction from fishery (Bell, in press).

Information Needed to Assess the PotentialBenefits of Stock Enhancement

As described above, stock enhancement shouldonly be contemplated where there is good evidencethat production is often limited by recruitmentlimitation. Large variation in the abundance ofjuveniles settling among years, continued rapid growthof new recruits and the persistence of strong year-classes are strong indicators that the habitats couldsupport more juveniles than they receive naturally(Munro and Bell 1997; Doherty 1999). A prime task ofmanagers considering stock enhancement is to identifythose years where insufficient juveniles occur naturally


to produce optimum yields. This must be done as earlyas possible in the settlement season using well-designed sampling programs for assessing theabundance of settling postlarvae. The process fordetermining how many juveniles are required tooptimize production each year is explained in detailby Bell (in press). The important points to note aboutthe process of stock enhancement are that: (1) it canprovide managers with the ability to manipulate theage-structure of a fishery to create optimum harvestregimes; and (2) in most cases, careful considerationof how many juveniles to add will result in release offewer juveniles than the habitat can support that year.

Other Components of a Responsible StockEnhancement Program

Many of the steps involved in developing andimplementing a stock enhancement program in aresponsible way are the same as those outlined abovefor restocking programs above (but see also Blankenshipand Leber 1995). A key difference to restocking,however, concerns management of released animals.In contrast to restocking, the management of stockenhancement programs needs to pay more attention tothe number of juveniles released, to supporting measuresto increase productivity, and to the development ofregulations to optimize the biological, social and financialsustainability of the fishery.

In general, enhanced stocks do not requirespecialized management, provided the animals arereleased at the size, and in the habitat and time of year,that optimizes survival and cost. The cultured animalssimply add to the stock available for capture and shouldbe managed together with the wild individuals tomaximize yield per recruit using conventional measures.However, several aspects of management, which mayneed particular attention, are as follows:

Maintaining a sufficient spawning biomass forreplenishment. Excessive harvests of adults will reducethe scope for natural replenishment and increase thecost of producing cultured juveniles to provide theoptimum number of one-year old animals each year.Thus, any perception on the part of fishers that therelease of juveniles can be relied on to correct excessharvesting must be combated by monitoring of captureregulations.

Rotational fishing. An additional measure used toassist natural replenishment in some fisheries, e.g., forscallops in Japan (Masuda and Tsukamoto 1998), isrotational fishing. This management tool provides ampleopportunity for reproduction when the number of areasfished sequentially exceeds the number of years it takesthe species to reach maturity.

Integration with aquaculture. Opportunities forstock enhancement can be expected from some of thecurrent initiatives to use wild-caught juveniles foraquaculture (Hair et al. 2002). For example, proposalsto use the settling larvae of rock lobsters (puerulus) foraquaculture in Tasmania, Australia, has led toarrangements where a greater proportion of puerulusthan would survive normally are to be returned to thewild at a larger size by farmers, thus enhancing thestock (D. Mills, pers. comm.).

Artificial habitats. For certain species, productioncan be increased further by providing additional habitator reducing predation. Inshore herbivorous speciesassociated with hard substrata, e.g., abalone, turbansnails and sea urchins, are obvious candidates forincrease of production through addition of artificialsubstrata. The artificial structures capable of providingadditional habitat for a wide range of species aredescribed by Grove et al. (1994) and Morikawa (1999).

Removal of predators. More productive conditionscan also be created for some species by actively removingpredators. This has been done effectively for enhancedscallop fisheries in Japan (Ventilla 1982). However, suchmanipulations should be guided by sound judgementsabout the overall effects on the ecosystem (FAO 2003).

Status and Potential for Restockingand Stock Enhancement in the Philippines

As outlined above, a key prerequisite for includingrestocking or stock enhancement among the measuresavailable to managers to restore and increase theproduction of coastal fisheries is availability of largenumbers of cultured juveniles. In many, but certainlynot all, cases this will depend on cost-effective methodsfor the mass production of juveniles in hatcheries. ThePhilippines is well positioned to supply juveniles ofseveral species, and to develop hatchery technologyfor others. The status of hatchery technology for marineinvertebrates in the Philippines is summarized in Table1.

The culture of giant clams in the Philippines wasstarted in 1985 by the University of the Philippines-Marine Science Institute (UP-MSI) in collaboration withthe Silliman University Marine Laboratory inDumaguete City and the Australian Centre forInternational Agriculture Research (ACIAR). Productionof juvenile giant clams in a responsible way has nowbeen in progress for many years and restocking effortsfor Tridacna gigas are currently in progress in variousparts of the country.

Culture of the sea cucumber, Holothuria scabra, isstill at the research and development stage. However,there are plans to transfer technology from elsewhere


Sp

ecie

sG

iant

cla

ms

(Trid

acna

gig

as, T

.de

rasa

, T. s

quam

osa,

T. m

axim

a, T

. cro

cea,

Hip

popu

s hi

ppop

us, H

.po

rcel

anus

)Se

a cu

cum

ber

(Hol

othu

ria s

cabr

a)

Sea

urch

in(T

ripne

uste

s gr

atill

a)

Abal

one

(Hal

iotis

asi

nina

)

Top

shel

l(T

roch

us n

ilotic

us)

Win

dow

-pan

e sh

ell

(Pla

cuna

pla

cent

a)Sh

rimp

(Pen

aeus

mon

odon

)M

ud c

rab

(Scy

lla s

p.)

Sta

tus

of H

atch

ery

Met

ho

ds

Hat

cher

y an

d oc

ean

nurs

ery

met

hods

deve

lope

d si

nce

1985

Hat

cher

y m

etho

ds u

nder

dev

elop

men

t at

expe

rimen

tal s

cale

Hat

cher

y and

gro

wou

t met

hods

dev

elop

edsi

nce

1996

Hat

cher

y an

d gr

owou

t dev

elop

ed s

ince

1997

; arti

ficia

l die

t dev

elop

ed in

199

8 to

tag

juve

nile

s pr

ior

to

rest

ocki

ng;

expe

rimen

tal r

esto

ckin

g m

etho

ds u

nder

deve

lopm

ent

Hat

cher

y de

velo

ped

sinc

e 20

00;

“die

t-ta

ggin

g” m

etho

ds a

lso

deve

lope

d in

colla

bora

tion

with

a p

rivat

e ha

tche

ry in

Pal

awan

; ex

peri

men

tal

rest

ocki

ngm

etho

ds u

nder

inve

stig

atio

nEx

perim

enta

l res

tock

ing

met

hods

und

erde

velo

pmen

tH

atch

ery

and

grow

out

met

hods

wel

lde

velo

ped

Tech

nica

l an

d ec

onom

ic f

easi

bilit

y of

hatc

hery

and

gro

wou

t met

hods

cur

rent

lybe

ing

test

ed

Inst

itu

tio

ns

UP-

MSI

in

colla

bora

tion

with

SEA

FDEC

, Sill

iman

Uni

vers

ity,

NG

Os

UP

-MS

I

UP

-MS

I

SE

AFD

EC

SE

AFD

EC

SE

AFD

EC

SE

AFD

EC

SE

AFD

EC

Res

tock

ing

an

d S

tock

En

han

cem

ent A

pp

licat

ion

sR

esto

ckin

g of

T. g

igas

and

T. d

eras

a at

var

ious

loca

tions

in th

ePh

ilipp

ines

, e.g

., Si

laqu

i Isl

and,

Hun

dred

Isla

nds

(Pan

gasi

nan)

,Pu

erto

Gal

era

(Orie

ntal

Min

doro

), Fo

rtune

Isla

nd, A

rthur

s R

ock

(Bat

anga

s),

Sang

a-Sa

nga

(Taw

i-Taw

i), S

an S

alva

cion

Isl

and,

Subi

c Ba

y (Z

amba

les)

and

Kal

ayaa

n Is

land

s (P

alaw

an)

Prop

osed

rest

ocki

ng in

Lin

gaye

n G

ulf (

Pang

asin

an) a

s pa

rt of

the

Fish

erie

s an

d O

cean

Res

ourc

es G

over

nanc

e Pr

ojec

t; po

ssib

lyal

so in

Que

zon

prov

ince

and

Min

dana

oR

esto

ckin

g at

Bol

inao

(Pan

gasi

nan)

Saga

y M

arin

e R

eser

ve

Saga

y M

arin

e R

eser

ve (N

egro

s O

ccid

enta

l)

Pana

y G

ulf

Non

e to

dat

e

Non

e to

dat

e

Ref

eren

ces

Gom

ez a

nd B

elda

(19

88);

Min

goa-

Licu

anan

and

Gom

ez (1

996)

; Sur

tida

and

Bue

ndia

(20

00);

SE

AFD

EC

(200

1)

P. A

liño

and

A. U

ychi

aoco

(pe

rs.

com

m.)

Juin

io-M

eñez

et

al

. (1

998)

;SE

AFDE

C (2

001)

SEAF

DEC

(200

1)

SEAF

DEC

(200

1)

SEAF

DEC

(200

1)

Prim

aver

a (1

993)

; Sur

tida

(200

0)

Agba

yani

(200

1)

Tabl

e 1.

Sta

tus

of h

atch

ery

tech

nolo

gy fo

r m

arin

e in

vert

ebra

tes

in th

e Ph

ilipp

ines

.


in the region to restock depleted populations of thisspecies in Lingayen Gulf, Quezon province andMindanao if assessments indicate that this form ofmanagement is warranted.

The propagation and growout of the sea urchin,Tripneustes gratilla, have also been underway at UP-MSI. Current efforts to restock this species to establisha viable spawning population have shown positiveresults at a marine park in Bolinao, Pangasinan.

At the Southeast Asian Fisheries DevelopmentCenter (SEAFDEC), adoption and refinement ofhatchery production techniques are underway forabalone (Haliotis asinine), top shell, (Trochus niloticus)and window-pane shell (Placuna placenta). For abaloneand top shell, restocking experiments are in progressat a marine reserve in Sagay, Negros Occidental. Anartificial diet has been developed to “diet-tag” juvenilesof these two species prior to restocking. Researchinvolving window-pane shell is focused mainly ondeveloping restocking techniques in Panay Gulf.There, adult wild shells are stocked in pens in anattempt to increase spawning success.

SEAFDEC has also developed hatchery andculture technologies for shrimp, Penaeus monodon, andmud crab, Scylla serrata. Although this technology wasdeveloped to provide “seed” for growout inaquaculture, it could also be used for stockenhancement programs if the need arises.

References

Agbayani, R.F. 2001. Production economics and marketing of mudcrabs in the Philippines. Asian Fish. Sci. 14(2): 201-210.

Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos and L.R. Garces. 1997. Overview of Philippinemarine fisheries, p. 62-71. In G. Silvestre and D. Pauly (eds.)Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARMConf. Proc. 53, 208 p.

Bell, J.D. (In press). Management of restocking and stock enhancementprograms: The need for different approaches. Proceedings ofthe Second International Symposium on Stock Enhancement andSea Ranching, January 2002, Kobe, Japan.

Bell, J.D. and D. Jamu. (In press). Assessing the potential for restocking,habitat enhancement, fish sanctuaries and aquaculture to restoreproduction of Chambo in Malawi. Proceedings of the Malawi NationalStrategy to Restore Production of Chambo.

Blankenship, H.L. and K.M. Leber. 1995. A responsible approach tomarine stock enhancement. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 15: 167-175.

Doherty, P.J. 1999. Recruitment limitation is the theoretical basis forstock enhancement in marine populations, p. 9-21. In B.R. Howell,E. Moksness and T. Svasand (eds.) Stock enhancement and searanching. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2003. Fisheries management2. The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelinesfor Responsible Fisheries 4 (Supplement 2). FAO, Rome. 112 p.

Gomez, E.D. and C.A. Belda. 1988. Growth of giant clams in Bolinao,Philippines, p. 178-182. In J.W. Copland and J.S. Lucas (eds.)Giant clams in Asia Pacific. ACIAR Monogr. No. 9.

Grove, R.S., M. Nakamura, H. Kakimoto and C.J. Sonu. 1994. Aquatichabitat technology innovation in Japan. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55: 276-294.

Hair, C., J. Bell and P. Doherty. 2002. The use of wild-caught juvenilesin coastal aquaculture and its application to coral reef fishes, p.327-353. In R.R. Stickney and J.P. McVey (eds.) Responsiblemarine aquaculture. CAB International, New York, USA.

Hall, S.J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystem andcommunities. Fish Biology and Aquatic Resources Series I. BlackwellScience, Oxford, UK. 274 p.

Heppell, S.S. and L.B. Crowder. 1998. Prognostic evaluation ofenhancement programs using population models and life historyanalysis, p. 495-507. In C. Coleman, J. Travis and A.B. Thistle(eds.) Proceedings I of the International Symposium on FisheriesEcology - Marine Stock Enhancement: A New Perspective. Bull.Mar. Sci. 62. Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science,Florida, USA.

Juinio-Meñez, M.A., N.D. Macawaris and H.G. Bangi. 1998. Community-based sea urchin (Tripneustes gratilla) growout culture as aresource management tool. In G.S. Jamieson and A. Campbell(eds.) Proceedings of the North Pacific Symposium on InvertebrateStock Assessment and Management. Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 125: 393-399.

Masuda, R. and K. Tsukamoto. 1998. Stock enhancement in Japan:Review and perspective. Bull. Mar. Sci. 62: 337-358.

Mingoa-Licuanan, S. and E.D. Gomez. 1996. Giant clam culture, p. 281-299. In S. De Silva (ed.) Perspectives in Asian fisheries. AsianFisheries Society, Makati City, Philippines. 497 p.

Morikawa, T. 1999. Status and prospects on the development andimprovement of coastal fishing ground. FAO Fish. Circ. No. 943:136-239.

Munro, J.L. and J.D. Bell. 1997. Enhancement of marine fisheriesresources. Rev. Fish. Sci. 5(2): 185-222.

Pauly, D., G. Silvestre and I.R. Smith. 1989. On development, fisheriesand dynamite: A brief review of tropical fisheries management.Nat. Resour. Modelling 3(3): 307-329.

Primavera, J.H. 1993. A critical review of shrimp pond culture in thePhilippines. Rev. Fish. Sci. 1: 151-201.

SEAFDEC (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center). 2001.Philippine experiences in stock enhancement and resourcemanagement. SEAFDEC Asian Aquacult. 23 (5-6): 26–33.

Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly. 1997. Status and management of tropicalcoastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p.

Silvestre, G., L. Garces, V. Christensen, L. Lachica-Aliño and D. Pauly.(In press). Coastal fishery resources in developing Asian countries:Analyses of stock decline, species assemblages and trophicstructures. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, C. Luna, M. Ahmed, R.A.V.Santos, L. Lachica-Aliño, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.)Assessment and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia.ICLARM Conf. Proc.

Surtida, M.B. 2000. Trochus: the mollusk for button. SEAFDEC AsianAquacult. 22 (4): 21.

Surtida, M.B. and R.Y. Buendia. 2000. Farming the giant clam. SEAFDECAsian Aquacult. 22 (4): 18-19.

Talaue-McManus, L. 2000. Transboundary diagnostic analysis for theSouth China Sea. EAS/RCU Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 14. UNEP, Bangkok,Thailand.

Ventilla, R.F. 1982. The scallop industry in Japan. Adv. Mar. Biol. 20:309-382.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: FLORES, M.M.M. 2004. Olango birds and seascape tour: A people-oriented ecotourismventure, p. 252-255. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulentseas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 This contribution is updated from Flores (2001).

Olango Birds and Seascape Tour:A People-oriented Ecotourism Venture1,2

MA. MONINA M. FLORESTetra Tech EM, Inc.



Introduction

A large amount of human and financial resourceshave focused on augmenting, supplementing andoffering alternative livelihood to fishers. Theseinvestments have been through both government andnongovernment agencies. Despite some successes,most alternative livelihood activities have not reallyoffered long-term solutions to fisheries managementproblems, such as reduction of effort and offering atotal alternative to fishing.

The Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP)of the Department of Environment and NaturalResources had a series of lessons and experiences inoffering alternative and supplemental livelihoodactivities. Based on the lessons, it was found thatdeveloping the capacity of communities in runningnatural ecotourism activities was the most successfuland sustainable intervention of the project. The OlangoBirds and Seascape Tour (OBST) is one such experienceof the project and the community working together inecotourism.

The Tour

OBST is an ecotourism business venture in theisland of Olango, Cebu Province. Residents of Suba, afishing village in Olango Island, own and operate it.The business successfully integrates the elements offull community benefit and participation, contributionto environmental conservation and education, productdifferentiation and marketability, economic viabilityand promotion of local culture.

OBST started in March 1998 and was madepossible through CRMP which is supported by theUnited States Agency for International Development.The goals of the project were to:

1. develop environment-friendly livelihoodalternatives for resident fishers;

2. model sustainable tourism development inislands as a strategy for improving coastalmanagement by local stakeholders; and

3. promote local cooperation in the conservation ofnatural protected areas.

The ecotourism venture is built around the uniqueenvironmental attributes and serene beauty of OlangoIsland’s coast, seas, reefs and bird life (Sotto et al. 2001).Bird watching, coastal trekking, canoe paddling,snorkeling, swimming, visiting seaweed farms andisland hopping are among the low-impact recreationalactivities offered.

The tour promotes and showcases localconservation of threatened coastal habitats and marineand bird life in particular. Tourists can also snorkeland witness the abundance of fish in a coral reef thathas been declared by the local government, and ismanaged by the community, as a marine sanctuary.

The project showcases the potential viability andbenefits of full community participation in theownership and operation of ecotourism ventures. Byactively managing a portion of the protected area, thecommunity has gained substantial economic benefitsthrough entrance fees and provision of multipleservices. The community also has gained a growingsense of pride, technical skills and confidence in itsmembers’ ability to provide a better future forthemselves and their children.

Olango birds and seascape tour: A people-oriented ecotourism venture 253

Olango Island

Olango is near Mactan Island,the second largest tourist area inthe Philippines (Figure 1). Mactanhas an international airport, five-star resorts and numerous tourismbusinesses. Olango’s proximity toMactan and Cebu City adds to theisland’s potential as a tourismdestination. Mainland Olango’sflat and elongated dry landmeasures about 1,000 ha. Theintertidal wetland, known as theOlango Island Wildlife Sanctuary(OIWS), extends the island furthersouth by 904 ha. The OIWS is thefirst area in the Philippines to belisted in the Ramsar List ofWetlands of InternationalImportance, a recognition of itsimportance as a wetland for birdsbelonging to the East AsiaMigratory Flyway (Figure 2). Anextensive, submerged reef thatconnects the island to other islets,surrounds Olango. One of theseislets is Gilutongan Island, with aprotected reef that serves as astrategic spawning ground formarine organisms and is anincreasingly popular destinationfor diving, snorkeling andswimming.

Of Olango’s approximately23,000 residents, 75% aredependent on fishing and relatedactivities, such as harvesting of shells, starfish, seacucumbers, sea urchins, tropical aquarium fish, live foodfish, corals, mangroves and others. Olango’s fisherieshave declined considerably due to overfishing anddestruction of coastal habitats by cyanide and dynamitefishing. Declining resources, high population densityand insufficient basic service delivery all contribute tolow income, low education and low occupationalmobility of fishing families in Olango (Sotto et al. 2001).Earlier initiatives in coastal tourism developmentmarginalized the community in terms of participationin decision-making and benefit-sharing.

Tour development steps and strategies

In Olango, the challenge was to assist thecommunity and key public and private stakeholders in

the island by introducing sustainable tourism througha participatory development framework (Huttche andFlores 2002). OBST went through five stages ofdevelopment prior to becoming functional in 2000. Thestages ran parallel to a basic coastal managementplanning framework which included participatoryassessments, planning and implementation of coastalmanagement initiatives such as the marine sanctuary inGilutongan. Following are the five stages:

1. Assessment - A rapid survey of Olango’sresources determined product options forenterprise development, including ecotourismproducts that have low environmental impact,marketability and community benefit.

2. Participatory ecotour product development -Meetings and workshops were conducted withcommunity members interested in the project to

Figure 1. Olango Island.


orient them on the nature and potential benefits,constraints and problems related to ecotourismdevelopment.

3. Development of linkages – These wereestablished with public institutions and tourcompanies for marketing, policy, program andpromotional support.

4. Capability-building – The community’s capacityin tour operations and business development wasstrengthened.

5. Transfer of business administration to community- Two years after the project started, thecommunity assumed full control of theadministration of tour operations and formalizedcollective ownership of the business.

The factors that have contributed to the successof OBST were strategies of implementation thatconsidered the sociocultural, marketing,environmental and stakeholder partipation needsand aspects of the tourism enterprise.

Key sociocultural strategies consisted of:1. orientation of the product around the use of local

skills, everyday activities, local crafts/arts andmusic;

2. community ownership of the tour product;3. participatory processes and mechanisms;4. implementation of a training strategy of “learning

by doing”;5. delivery of immediate economic returns;6. spreading benefits through local sourcing of

services and goods;7. support of community organization to influence

planning and policy development through highmedia profile, generation of multi-institutionalsupport and endorsements by visitors; and

8. managing the number, frequency and behaviorof visitors, community users of the natural

resource, and other development interests withinthe locality.Marketing strategies included:

1. tapping the development sector as the primarymarket to jumpstart and test-run the educationaltour with visitors;

2. developing a tour product to capture touristsegments from resorts and hotels in nearby CebuCity;

3. designing the tour product to capture nichemarkets;

4. making OBST different from existing tours byproviding expert interpretation, interaction withcoastal villages, visit to a marine sanctuary andother nature and culture-based activities; and

5. making OBST the country’s leading communityecotourism product.Environmental strategies consisted of:

1. promotion of shoreline management amonglandowners, residents and public resourcemanagers;

2. implementation of participatory resourceassessment, integrated coastal management andecotourism planning;

3. formulation and implementation of resource useguidelines;

4. designing the tour as a low-impact itinerary; and5. a training and accreditation system with strong

emphasis on environmental consciousness andpractice.To ensure sustainability, during OBST’s second

year of operation, CRMP established marketingsupport and environmental management systems, andbegan preparations for its exit from the project.Mechanisms were developed for booking servicesunder co-management by the community and itspartners outside the island; networking with tour

Figure 2. Birds feeding on the mudflats of Olango are a centerpiece of the tour.

Olango birds and seascape tour: A people-oriented ecotourism venture 255

operators, guides, hotels and resorts; and buildingcommunity capability in, and understanding of, themarketing of the product.

Primary emphasis was given to CRM as a motiveand tool for sustainability. A proposal was presentedto the government agency in charge of managingOIWS, seeking to deputize the cooperative to assist inprotection, rehabilitation and research activities at thesanctuary. CRMP saw that the long-term sustainabilityof OBST depended on its integration into OIWS’comprehensive management plan, enforcement ofenvironmental laws outside the sanctuary boundariesand harmonization of land use practices in adjacentvillages.

CRMP phased out from providing technicalassistance to the community tourism project inDecember 2000, allowing the community and localinstitutions to begin to manage the enterprise on theirown. CRMP monitored the project briefly before fullyleaving its management to the community and sharinglessons with a broader audience.

Conclusion

OBST has prospered under its own managementand generated substantial income for the participatingcommunity. It has been able to do this within the legalcontext of a national park under the direction ofDENR. The local community established their ownlinks with the nearby resorts and eventually their ownbooking office both on the island and on MactanIsland.

An important factor in the ongoing success ofOBST organization is its good rapport with nearbyresorts on Mactan Island, which promote the tour

Figure 3. Daily community activities form a key part of the tour, giving it a localflavor.

TouristsLocalForeignTotalNationality

2001 2002196

51247

15

209410619

19

Table 1. OBST visitors since2001.

among their guests (Table 1). The resortmanagers are proud they can send theirguests to a well-managed tour run by thelocal community (Figure 3). Through thiscollaboration, OBST is providing one ofthe few viable options to redistributewealth directly from the larger resorts andtheir occupants on Mactan Island to theOlango Island community.

For coastal and fisheries management, the tourhas succeeded in tying the life of the local resourceusers more intricately with resources around them.The community now has a clear incentive to protectand manage the resources, while making a sustainableincome from them. This is a key factor which shouldsustain the organization and the resources throughthe future.

References

Flores, M.M.M. 2001. Olango birds and seascape tour: A people-oriented ecotourism venture. Tambuli: A publication for coastalmanagement practitioners 7(September): 23-25.

Huttche, C. and M. Flores. 2002. Sustainable coastal tourismhandbook for the Philippines. Coastal Resource ManagementProject, Cebu City, Philippines. 144 p.

Sotto, F.B., J.L. Gatus, M.A. Ross, M.F.L. Portigo and F.M. Freire.2001. Coastal environmental profile of Olango Island, Cebu,Philippines. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City,Philippines. 129 p.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: PESTAÑO-SMITH, R. 2004. Challenging the status quo of marine capture fisheriesmanagement: The need for public education and policy advocacy programs, p. 256-260. In DA-BFAR (Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Challenging the Status Quo of Marine CaptureFisheries Management: The Need for Public Education and

Policy Advocacy Programs1

REBECCA PESTAÑO-SMITHTetra Tech EM, Inc.



Background

Marine capture fisheries management is a complex,often controversial, matter that is affected bybiological, socioeconomic and political factors. Openaccess, overexploitation and overcapitalization offisheries are interrelated issues/problems that havestrong implications in the formulation of nationalpolicies and local implementation initiatives forsustainable fisheries. Failure to appreciate andunderstand the basic concepts, biology and dynamicsof these interrelated issues and the continuedlukewarm implementation of the Philippine FisheriesCode (PFC) of 1998 will only result in continueddepletion of marine fisheries resources, andsubsequently, displacement of commercial fishers andtheir workers and impoverishment of municipalfishers.

The importance of marine capture fisheries to foodsecurity in the Philippines is well documented. In 2000,the Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) ofthe Department of Environment and NaturalResources funded by the United States Agency forInternational Development contributed to this stockof knowledge and information by contracting anindependent private research group to conduct anationwide quantitative survey to benchmark thecurrent fisherfolk’s knowledge, attitudes and practiceson fisheries and coastal resource management (CRM)(CRMP/MBL Trends 2000). A total of 700 fisherfolkfrom 16 provinces in the country were interviewedfor the study. The results affirm the heavy dependence

on fish and fishing as a primary source of daily foodand livelihood, respectively, for Filipinos. Specifically:

• 89% of respondents cited their own catch fromthe sea as the source of their largest portion offood;

• 82% feed their families daily from their fish catch;and

• 60% claim 75-100% of their total income comesfrom fishing.Out of the three most urgent personal concerns,

74% identified having enough to eat every day as theirtop concern, followed by health of family members(64%) and provision of schooling to children (62%).

Majority of respondents cited all major indicatorsof overfishing as becoming worse over the last threeyears with: 70% - increased time to catch a kilo of fish;74% - decrease in the number of fish caught; 68% -smaller fish are being caught; and 74% - decrease inquality of fish caught.

Historically, however, in spite of studies on stockassessments that show major bays in the Philippinesare already overfished, as well as testimonies offisherfolk about declining fish catch and increasedfishing effort, marine capture fisheries issues are notfactored significantly in the food security programsof the national government (Courtney et al. 1999).When compared to the agricultural sector, marinecapture fisheries issues are not perceived as urgentmanagement problems requiring national attention andsolutions. In fact, up to the present time, the responseof government has been largely to promote increasedefficiency in fishing effort or to invest in aquaculture

Marine capture fisheries management: Public education and policy advocacy programs 257

rather than to introduce or enhance managementmeasures.

Philippine sociologists and anthropologists agreethat mindsets and worldviews of fishing communitiesare largely shaped by their natural and ecologicalconditions as well as the need to continually adapt tochallenges of survival. To a large extent, the open accessregime and the element of “uncertainty” thatcharacterizes fishing operations have led toindiscriminate fishing and subsequent deteriorationof fishing grounds and habitats (Ushijima and Zayas1994).

Coastal and marine resources have generally beenviewed as a “common property” to be shared by all.However, as pointed out by fisheries and socialscientists, marine resources are not equally distributedin the sea, with fish tending to aggregate andconcentrate in certain fishing grounds and habitats,not to mention the contributing factors of seasonalityand weather conditions. As such, social scientists saythat given the vagaries of fishing operations, each fishertries to gain the largest profit for himself by employingdifferent strategies to take the most from the sea. Thisis evident in efforts by fishers to continually adapttheir gears towards higher efficiency and the drivefor individual competition to increase productivity tosustain their livelihood (Yano 1994).

It is the premise of this paper that arresting orreversing marine capture fisheries decline will not getanywhere in the Philippines without a paradigm shiftin the management orientation and social normstowards fisheries. Solutions to marine capture fisheriesproblems cannot adequately happen with the existingsocial, political and economic norms and policies thatfavor an open access regime and “efficiency in fishingeffort” mindset. What is urgently needed is tochallenge the status quo of marine capture fisheriesdevelopment and management and move towards aframework anchored on the principles of sustainabledevelopment and social equity. As pointed out byseveral fisheries and social scientists, the resolution ofthe problems facing Philippine marine capture fisheriestoday should be pursued not just by addressingresource decline, but also by aggressivelyimplementing the policy bias in favor of small-scale,marginal fishers.

It is agreed of course that simply mandatingfisheries management as a matter of national policy isnot enough to arrest, much less reverse, continuingfisheries decline. A transformation among all sectorsof society is required, and it demands a goodunderstanding of intended change, exercise of politicalwill and strong leadership. Such transformation

requires a lot of time (Ferrer 1989). It is a race againsttime and a race that must be won.

Challenging the status quo of marine capturefisheries management and development is a task thatcan be jumpstarted by systematic and strategicinformation, education and communication (IEC)programs. IEC plays a key role in helping attainresource management objectives through its ability toprovide information and knowledge on importantecological and resource management concepts, effectindividual and collective action as well as promoteand/or reinforce social norms. IEC is also an effectivetool to help achieve policy goals and promoteparticipation of community members and stakeholdersthrough participatory and informed decisionmakingprocesses. The immediate tasks for IEC in challengingthe status quo of marine capture fisheries managementand development are the demystification of its open-access (Figure 1) and production-oriented paradigm,as well as the provision of research-based informationthat accurately and vividly present the true picture ofPhilippine fisheries. For example, results of stockassessment combined with indigenous knowledge offishers must be made available and understandableto resource users and fisheries/CRM managers.

IEC Tasks at Hand: Mainstreamingand Agenda-Setting

Challenging the status quo of marine capturefisheries management and development calls for thetwin strategies of mainstreaming and agenda-setting(Smith et al. 2000). Traditionally ascribed as a massmedia function, agenda-setting is the process by whichproblems become salient as political issues meritingthe attention of the larger public (Wallack 1992; Cooket al. 1993). Its primary objective is to focus the spotlighton a particular issue and extend the attention to itsillumination (Wallack 1992). The key objective ofagenda-setting is to promote fisheries managementissues into the forefront of national and publicattention.

To begin with, through the use of mass media,large group interventions and popularizedinformation, a generalized belief regarding the trueconditions about declining fish catch and its relatedissues/concerns must be effected to transformperception of these issues into a widely recognizedproblem that warrant political and public attention.As observed by political scientists, “the identificationof a condition such as deteriorating coastal resourcesis not the same as the definition of a problem thatrequires attention and response. Conditions become


defined as problems when we come to believe thatwe should do something about them” (Tobin 1992).

Along this line, systematic, strategic andcontinuous visibility of fisheries/CRM issues/storiesin mass media and public forums must be undertakenand appropriately framed to illustrate the role ofmarine capture fisheries in the Philippine food securityequation. Coastal resource and fisheries managementissues must be presented in various mass, group andspecial media and in messages accessible andacceptable to a broad spectrum of audiences.

Mainstreaming, on the other hand, is a strategyfor making a particular perspective/approach orprogram an integral dimension in all decision-makingprocesses and allocation of resources, therebycontributing to a profound organizationaltransformation (UNDP 1998). Where fisheries areconcerned, efforts must be undertaken to imbuefisheries and CRM-mandated institutions with thenecessary resource management and sustainabledevelopment perspectives and skills to take relevantand management-directed, rather than production-directed actions or programs. Falling within the realmof institution building and capacity development,donor-funded projects and international organizationscan serve as effective catalysts for such organizational

transformation. Mainstreaming fisheries managementis particularly critical in the areas of law enforcementand national policy implementation.

Need for Law Enforcement to GoHand in Hand with IEC

Asking fisherfolk to stop or modify theirbehaviors, though it is in their best interests in thelong term, has instant negative rewards for them(fishing puts food on the table and money in thepocket). It is not a coincidence that the populationsectors with the highest poverty are at the two endsof the watersheds – the forest folk and the coastalfolk – both highly resource-dependent populationswith very little alternatives in the form of secureemployment. It is possible to make minormodifications in individual behavior. For example,persuading fishers to change the size of their nets, tofish seasonally or only keep fish of a particular size, orto limit fishing to a well-defined area to allow otherhabitats to restore themselves, may rely on voluntarychanges in behavior.

However, the “bigger” behavior changes, such asstopping dynamite or poison fishing, or intrusion ofcommercial fishing in municipal waters, are largely

Figure 1. IEC posters, such as this, help demystify the prevailing open-access paradigm of Philippine fisheries.

Marine capture fisheries management: Public education and policy advocacy programs 259

involuntary, triggered by regulatory and enforcementmeasures. These measures can mandate involuntarybehavior change and in the short run, may be the mosteffective way to proceed. When consistently done, itcould effect large-scale involuntary behavior changeto turn around the resource. However, currentpractices on enforcement leave much to be desired,and sustainability is a problem. As such, violations offishery laws continue, with lamentably disastrousconsequences to the resource.

In this regard, efforts to mainstream theenforcement of fishery laws within the framework ofthe Philippines’ national enforcement and policeprogram must be undertaken. Historically, fishery lawenforcement has been a marginal function of lawenforcement agencies. If the trend in the country’sfast declining marine capture fisheries is to be reversed,“selling the law” and aggressive enforcement offishery laws must go hand in hand with publiceducation activities.

Fisheries Policy Implementation: Crossingthe Threshold to Management

The advent of the Philippine Local GovernmentCode (LGC) of 1991 and PFC of 1998 provided thelegal and jurisdictional framework for fisheriesmanagement to be mainstreamed in the country. Whilein the past, efforts have been initiated by the nationalgovernment to address illegal fishing, overfishing andhabitat destruction through donor-funded orinternally generated programs, it was the passage ofthese two codes that seriously opened the doors andwindows of opportunity for the country to crossoverfrom fisheries development towards fisheriesmanagement. The LGC and PFC underscored the roleof local government units (LGUs) in managingmunicipal waters and nearshore fisheries.

Because of the historically limited attention givento fisheries as a resource management area, muchremains to be done to re-engineer national and localgovernment institutions, as well as assistingorganizations towards a more proactive, precautionaryand management approach to fisheries. To date, theweak implementation of PFC has not produced theintended result of managing the country’s fisheries ina sustainable manner while allowing the greatestbenefit to accrue to the largest number of people.Instead, municipal fishers have to continually fight fortheir legally mandated preferential use rights.

As such, a strong and sustained public educationand advocacy program resulting in prioritization of

fisheries issues and problems in national and localagenda is urgently called for. The national governmentshould do well to redirect its efforts and investmentstoward implementing the social equity provisions ofthe code and to capacitate LGUs to effectively managetheir municipal waters.

Moving Towards Behavioral Change

The CRMP/MBL Trends (2000) study showed a60% level of fisherfolk awareness regarding theirfisheries and willingness to embrace the range ofmanagement measures that would help safeguard thesustainable use and management of their resources.Contrary to perceptions of politicians that CRMprograms would not be popular politically, the surveyrevealed that fisherfolk in general were receptive tofisheries management measures and would supportthe following:

• ban on the use of compressors in fishing (76% ofrespondents);

• imposition of heavier penalties for destructivefishing (71%);

• total ban in the entry of commercial fishing within15 km of municipal waters (72%);

• establishment of marine sanctuaries in theirlocalities (71%);

• delineation of municipal water boundaries (68%);• establishment of a closed season during spawning

periods of certain fishes (66%);• delineation of use zones in municipal waters for

specific uses (62%);• restriction of conversion of mangroves into

fishponds (61%);• limiting use of fish aggregating devices, such as

payaw, artificial reefs, etc. (60%); and• limiting quantity of fish that may be captured or

catch ceiling (50%).Results of the study indicated that a shift in the

perspective and mindset of fisherfolk stakeholders isnow occurring, and a behavioral change towards moremanagement measures is forming. The challenges andopportunities to help realize sustained behavioralchanges towards marine capture fisheries now lie inthe hands of Philippine policy/decisionmakers andprogram implementers.

Key Messages for Advocacy

The following facts as summarized from manyposition papers and policy studies continue to berelevant when advocating for marine capture fisheriesmanagement reforms in the Philippines. These can also


serve as underlying themes or key messages in IECmaterials/activities:1. Fisheries are finite resources. We cannot continue

to take too much from the sea. National policiesmust recognize the limits of fish as a biologicalresource.

2. We cannot continue to convert natural coastalecosystems into “food machines” without regardor respect for the ecological laws that govern theseecosystems.

3. Livelihood and fish security for municipal fishersare recognized as the most effective strategies forsuccessful and equitable management of Philippinefisheries.

4. Food security and poverty alleviation in coastalareas will only be achieved when illegal anddestructive fishing is stopped; fisheries and coastalhabitats are managed for sustainable use; andfishing pressure is reduced.

5. Philippine demersal and small pelagic stocks aresubstantively depleted, with current abundancelevels in many fishing grounds down to 10-30%of their original levels recorded in the late 1940s.

6. Overfishing is both a local and global problem.Importing fish is only a short-term solution todwindling domestic fish supply.

7. Too much fishing is killing the fishing. Highlyefficient and indiscriminate fishing practices, gearsand technology contribute significantly todepletion of fish stocks and other marine speciespopulations.

8. Protecting critical coastal and marine habitats is avital component to sustainable fisheries. Healthyhabitats sustain healthy fisheries.

9. The absence of solid data is no longer an excuseto continue with indiscriminate fishing practices.Without solid evidence, a precautionary approachmust be taken.

10.The Philippine Constitution and the 1998 PFCguarantee the preferential use rights of municipalwaters to municipal fishers. The nationalgovernment must exercise its policy bias for small-scale fishers and capacitate LGUs to effectivelymanage their municipal waters.In the Philippines, as is true elsewhere in the

world, time is of the essence. The strategic spread ofsustainable fisheries and CRM is essential to prevent ageneral collapse of fisheries and coastal resources dueto increased population pressure and rapidly risingdemand for marine-based protein. As noted scientist,Dr. Sylvia Earle, observed, “Never before has a wake-up call from nature been so clear, never again willthere be better opportunities to protect what remainsof the ocean’s wealth”.

For the Philippines and its population of almost80 million, “the seas are not yet empty, but the signsare not good”. But it is not too late. With theappropriate sustainable development policies, broadpublic support and political will, we can still do it rightwith our marine capture fisheries.

References

Cook, F., T. Tyler, E. Goetz, M. Gordon, D. Protess, D. Leff and H.Molotoch. 1993. Media and agenda setting: Effects on thepublic, interest group leaders, policymakers and public policy.In L. Wallack, L. Dorfman, D. Jernigan and M. Themba (eds.)Media advocacy and public health. Sage Publications,California, USA.

Courtney, C.A., J.A. Atchue III, M. Carreon, A.T. White, R.P.Smith, E. Deguit, R. Sievert and R. Navarro. 1999. Coastalresource management for food security. Coastal ResourceManagement Project and Bookmark, Inc., Manila, Philippines.

CRMP (Coastal Resource Management Project)/MBL Trends. 2000.A quantitative study of the knowledge, attitudes and practicesof fisher folks. Coastal Resource Management Project, CebuCity, Philippines.

Earle, S. As quoted in “Empty oceans”. Empty Nets Series.www.habitatmedia.org.

Ferrer, E. 1989. People’s participation in coastal area management,p. 117-127. In T.E. Chua and D. Pauly (eds.) Coastal areamanagement in Southeast Asia: Policies, managementstrategies and case studies. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 19, 254 p.

Smith, R.P., C.A. Courtney, M. Grieser and A. Sia. 2000. Paperpresented at the North American Association forEnvironmental Education Conference, August 1999, Ohio,USA.

Tobin, R.J. 1992. Legal and organizational considerations in themanagement of coastal areas, p. 93-105. In T.E. Chua andL.F. Scura (eds.) Integrative framework and methods forcoastal area management. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 37, 169 p.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1998: In L. Corner.Capacity-building for gender mainstreaming in development.www.undp.org/gender.

Ushijima, I. and C. Zayas, Editors. 1994. Fishers of the Visayas.Visayas Marit. Anthropol. Stud. I, 1991-1993. University ofthe Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

Wallack, L.M. 1992. Media advocacy and public health. SagePublications, California, USA.

Yano, T. 1994. The characteristics of fisherfolk culture in Panayfrom the viewpoint of fishing ground exploitation. In I. Ushijimaand C. Zayas (eds.) Fishers of the Visayas. Visayas Marit.Anthropol. Stud. I, 1991-1993. University of the Philippines,Quezon City, Philippines.

Waters of missed understanding 261

Waters of Missed Understanding1

VIRGILIO B. SANTOSLegal Division

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesDepartment of Agriculture, Quezon City

Philippines

Editor’s note: Below is an incisive discourse on fisheries policyspiced with some historical flavor and unorthodoxy. Some readersmight find the author’s opinion strange while some might plainlyagree. The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarilyreflect that of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)of the Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA).

The author first discusses the term “municipal waters” as itevolved in accordance with the overarching policies of the times.“Municipal waters” has been defined in three major laws:Presidential Decree (PD) 704 (Fisheries Decree of 1975), LocalGovernment Code and Republic Act (RA) 8550 (An Act Providingfor the Development, Management and Conservation of theFisheries and Aquatic Resources, Integrating all Laws PertinentThereto, and For Other Purposes) or the Fisheries Code. For theuntrained eye, the obvious change in the definition is the area ofmunicipal waters. PD 704 maintained an area of 3 miles but thiswas expanded by the Local Government Code, and affirmed bythe Fisheries Code, to encompass 15 km. The more sophisticatedwill notice subtle incongruities. The author shows how a seemingly“harmless” terminology can have grave implications on theenforcement of laws and policy implementation.

Towards the end, the author takes on the Fisheries Code andamply scrutinizes its more problematic provisions. He points outthe various imperfections of the code thus providing some guidanceon the elements that need to be changed, refined or improved.

Case 1: Philippine Watersand Municipal Waters

The Fisheries Code (RA 8550), on one hand,defines “Philippine waters” or “waters belonging tothe State” to include all waters within Philippineterritory, such as rivers, streams, creeks, brooks, ponds,swamps, lagoons, gulfs, bays and seas and otherbodies of water now existing of which may hereafterexist in the provinces, cities, municipalities andbarangays, and the sea or freshwater around, betweenand connecting the islands of the archipelago regardless

of their breadth and dimensions, the territorial sea,the seabeds, the insular shelves and all other watersover which the Philippines has sovereignty andjurisdiction, including the 200-nautical mile exclusiveeconomic zone and the continental shelf.

On the other hand, “municipal waters” which isalso part of Philippine waters include not only streams,lakes and tidal waters within the municipality, notbeing the subject of private ownership and notcomprised within national parks, public forests,timberlands, forest reserves or fishery reserves, butalso marine waters included between two lines drawnperpendicular to the general coastline from pointswhere the boundary lines of the municipality touchthe sea at low tide and a third line parallel with thegeneral coastline and 3 nautical miles from suchcoastline (Section 3-p, PD 704).

Rivers within the political jurisdiction of localgovernment units (LGUs) cannot be claimed as partof their municipal waters as the same is found only inthe definition of Philippine waters but not in municipalwaters, a case of “what is not included is deemedexcluded,” similar to the Romanized expresio unius estexclusio alterius (the mention of one thing implies theexclusion of another thing). Lagoons are also foundonly in Philippine waters but not in municipal waters,besides which they are declared as belonging to thestate under the Water Code of the Philippines (PD1067).

Excluded likewise from municipal waters arebodies of water inside titled properties; thus, thephrase “not being the subject of private ownership”in the definition. Waters in fishpond areas covered byfishpond lease agreements are also not part of municipalwaters.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: SANTOS, V.B. 2004. Waters of missed understanding, p. 261-264. In DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


Case 2: Changes in Limitsof Municipal Waters

The 3-mile municipal water radius was increasedto 15 km from the shoreline under the LocalGovernment Code (Section 131-r, RA 7160), which atonce spawned the 15-km commercial fishingrestriction. Although without legal basis, it wasdubbed to be the official stand of DA-BFAR.

At the time the so-called “official stand” came intobeing, the restriction on commercial fishing wasactually pito (seven) and pito-pito (seven-seven). Letus say that pito is “7 fathoms” so that pito-pito willbecome “7 fathoms plus 7 km”. Pito covers allcommercial fishing boats which are prohibited fromoperating in Philippine waters 7 fathoms deep or less(Section 1, PD 1016). Pito-pito applies only to threediscriminated gear: commercial trawl and purse seine(Letter of Instruction 1328; Fisheries AdministrativeOrder [FAO]156) and commercial hulbot-hulbot(modified Danish seine) using fine mesh net (FAO 164)which should operate not only in areas more than 7fathoms deep but also beyond 7 km from the shoreline.If fine mesh net is not used in commercial hulbot-hulbotfishing, the restriction would be downgraded to onlypito, which is for operating in waters only 7 fathomsdeep or less.

The depth factor of “more than 7 fathoms” shouldbe satisfied first before considering the distance factorof “more than 7 km from the shoreline.” If the entire15-km municipal waters are only 7 fathoms deep orless, fishing by means of commercial trawl, purse seineand hulbot-hulbot using fine mesh net should beconducted beyond the said municipal waters wherethe depth is more than 7 fathoms.

It is therefore rather strange how the 15-kmcommercial fishing restriction, bereft of any legal basis,could have become the DA-BFAR official stand andgained acceptance by the elitist academe and evengiven blessing by the officialdom when there is nothingin the definition of municipal waters in the LocalGovernment Code expressly prohibiting commercialfishing therein, nor even a clause providing that onlymunicipal fishing shall be conducted therein to implythat commercial fishing is out, much less acorresponding penalty for the imagined prohibition.Worst, the error has been perpetuated under theFisheries Code.

What everybody missed is that the expansion ofthe municipal waters and the granting of the municipalfishery privileges in the Local Government Code areplaced under Book II on Taxation, clearly suggestingthat the intent and purpose of which is just to widenthe base for the sourcing of local revenues throughthe granting of more fishery rights in the increasednumber of fishery zones or areas of the expandedmunicipal waters, because a bigger budget is essentialto a stronger and better local governance. After all,RA 7160 is about the conduct of local governance andnot for the regulation of fishing, much less commercialfishing.2 Advocates of the false gospel soon foundthemselves in hot water when they tried to implementthe same within their jurisdiction.

“Municipal waters” is now defined in the FisheriesCode as to “include not only streams, lakes, inlandbodies of water and tidal waters within themunicipality which are not included within theprotected areas under Republic Act No. 7586 (theNational Integrated Protected Area System law), publicforests, timberlands, forest reserves or fishery reserves,but also marine waters included between two linesdrawn perpendicular to the general coastline frompoints where the boundary lines of the municipalitytouch the sea at low tide and a third line parallel withthe general coastline including offshore islands andfifteen (15) kilometers from the shoreline” (Section 4-58, RA 8550).

Noticeable are the three deviations in this definitionfrom the previous ones:

• deletion of the phrase “not being the subject ofprivate ownership”;

• delimitation of protected areas under the NIPASlaw; and

• insertion of the words “including offshoreislands.”All the previous definitions of municipal waters

carried the phrase “not being the subject of privateownership” to point out that waters inside titledproperties do not form part of municipal waters. It istrue that waters are owned by the state but once theyenter private lands, ownership by the state ceaseswhere the landowner’s right to his property begins.Thus, cases of electro-fishing are being dismissed bythe courts if it is found out that the venue of the offenseis inside private lands. The water would revert to thestate once it leaves the private land, thus, the ownerof a private fishpond who would use chemicals to

2 Two conflicting opinions on the issue of commercial fishing in the 15-km municipal waters prior to the enactment of theFisheries Code are presented in the Legal and jurisdictional guidebook for coastal resource management in the Philippines(DENR et al. 1997).

Waters of missed understanding 263

eradicate it of predators has every right to do so sincethat is his property, but when the wastewater flowsout of his land and pollutes the neighboring waters,he could be sued for aquatic pollution in violation ofSection 102 of RA 8550, not for illegal fishing by meansof poisonous or obnoxious substances in violation ofSection 88.

Case 3: Archipelagic Principle and the Mapping of Municipal Waters

The most contentious is the insertion of the words“including offshore islands” in the delineation of themunicipal water which the commercial fishing sectoris interpreting as to mean that the 15-km municipalwater radius should be reckoned from the shorelineof the mainland municipality, not from that of itsoutermost component islands and islets.

BFAR contends that the insertion of the subjectwords “including offshore islands” is only agrammatical lapse in its First Indorsement dated 6August 1999, which suggested that the time-honoredarchipelagic principle be observed by the NationalMapping and Resource Information Authority in theguidelines they will put out in delineating the municipalwaters.

Constitutional compliance is mandatory in thehierarchy of laws. There is no legal basis to questionwhy the archipelagic principle is only good in thenational level but not in the local level to justifyabandoning the archipelagic doctrine in the delineationof municipal waters. Furthermore, said principles havebeen enshrined and applied through the fishery lawsince 1986 and implemented via FAO Nos. 156 and164.

Case 4: Misunderstandingsof the Fisheries Code

This section discusses specific provisions of theFisheries Code that may be perceived to be inconsistentwith other provisions of the code as well as otherpolicies, including the Constitution, impractical ordifficult to implement, confusing, or resulting inproblems of access, jurisdiction or enforcement.

First, there is the case of commercial fishing inmunicipal waters. As per Section 16, municipal watersare reserved for fishing by municipal fishers.However, small and medium-scale commercial fishingis allowed in municipal waters from 10.1 to 15 km,subject to certain conditions, notably:

• no commercial fishing in municipal waters withdepth less than 7 fathoms as certified by theappropriate agency;

• fishing activities utilizing methods and gears thatare determined to be consistent with nationalpolicies set by DA-BFAR;

• prior consultation, through public hearing, withthe Municipal/City Fisheries and AquaticResources Management Council (M/CFARMC)has been conducted; and

• the applicant vessel as well as the shipowner,employer, captain and crew have been certifiedby the appropriate agency as not having violatedthis code, environmental laws and related laws.This author opines that the conditions for

commercial fishing in the designated areas areformidable. For one thing, the definition of terms inthe code indicate that small-scale commercial fishingmay use either passive or active gear while themedium-scale commercial fishing boats use only activegear. A condition in allowing this concession is thatthe gear to be used shall be consistent with nationalpolicies, and the use of active gear is banned insidethe municipal waters (Section 90, Supra) whichautomatically disqualifies medium-scale commercialfishing as the same only use active gear. The othercondition that needs to be satisfied is the holding ofprior consultation through public hearing with M/CFARMC, which entails time and resources, and ismarked with continuous debates before the matter isresolved.

A provision that might create anomalous activitiesis Section 18, which says that municipal waters shallbe utilized only by municipal fisherfolk listed in themunicipal registry, i.e., minimum of six monthsresidency requirements. In the case of granting fisheryprivileges for bangus fry concessions or demarcatedareas for mariculture, the LGU utilizes a biddingprocess. While the code recognizes the rightful prioritygiven to local residents, it is likely that whoever putsthe highest bid is a capitalist from the city or a differentlocale.

The foregoing discussion shows how particularprovisions of the Fisheries Code lead to someconfusion. The enforcement of laws in municipalwaters is reserved only for municipal and city LGUs(Rule 16.9 of DA-Administrative Order No. 3, Seriesof 1998) as well as enforcement agencies of thegovernment (Section 124). Under Section 65 (m) ofRA 8550, BFAR which has been reconstituted into aline bureau, and which is the agency most conversanton fishery laws and regulations, is prohibited from


enforcing the law inside municipal waters whereviolations are most prevalent.

The last paragraph of Section 16, RA No. 8550 onthe jurisdiction of the municipal/city governmentsproviding for the management of contiguous fisheryresources straddling a number of LGUs irrespectiveof political subdivisions of municipal waters wouldpose a problem on the issue of proper jurisdiction.Management would include both enforcement andprosecution until conviction is secured. Questions ofjurisdiction occur when the apprehension is done inone municipality but the filing is done in another, aswould be the understanding of an enforcer in a “jointfishery management area,” leading to immediatedismissal of charges.

Section 97 on the conservation of rare, threatenedand endangered species is weak in the sense that whatis punishable is only the act of fishing or taking thereofwhich presupposes that the venue of the offense is inthe fishing grounds but not the possession thereofwhich could be elsewhere like in the markets and portsof call to make it more effective. The shortcomings ofthis section is amply supported by RA 9147 (An ActProviding for the Conservation and Protection ofWildlife Resources and their Habitats, AppropriatingFunds Thereto and for Other Purposes), whichpunishes the following acts:

1. killing and destroying wildlife species (withexceptions);

2. inflicting injury which cripples and/or impairs thereproductive system of wildlife;

3. committing the following acts in critical habitat(s),including dumping of waste products, squatting,mineral exploration, burning, logging andquarrying;

4. introduction, reintroduction or restocking ofwildlife resources;

5. trading of wildlife;6. collecting, hunting or possessing wildlife, their by-

products and derivatives;7. gathering or destroying of active nests, nest trees,

host plants and the like;8. maltreating and/or inflicting other injuries not

covered elsewhere; and9. transporting of wildlife.

Thus, the imperfections in the Fisheries Code areduly corrected in this section.

There are sections of the Fisheries Code that weremerely copied from its predecessor, PD 704. One ofthese is Section 27: Persons eligible for commercialfishing boat license, which states that no commercialfishing vessel license shall be issued except to citizensof the Philippines, partnerships or to associations,cooperatives or corporations duly registered in the

Philippines at least 60% of the capital stock of which isowned by Filipino citizens. The validity of thisprovision might be questioned due to differentprovisions of the 1987 Constitution, as against the 1973Constitution which was the basis for PD 704, whichallows domestic fishing corporations with not morethan 40% foreign equity participation to engage indeep-sea or offshore fishing, but only if such domesticcorporations could first secure an agreement (meaningcontract) with the State through any of the permissiblemodes of coproduction, joint venture or production-sharing arrangements wherein the best benefitsaccruing thereat shall redound to Filipino citizens(Article XII, Section 2).

Reference

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources), DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources) and DILG (Department of the Interiorand Local Government). 2001. Philippine coastal managementguidebook no. 2: Legal and jurisdictional framework for coastalmanagement. Coastal Resource Management Project, DENR,Cebu City, Philippines. 170 p

Poaching in marine waters 265

Poaching in Philippine Marine Waters:Intrusion of Chinese Fishing Vessels in Palawan Waters1

1 This paper can be cited as follows: BENAVENTE-VILLENA, A.B. and M.D. PIDO. 2004. Poaching in Philippine marinewaters: Intrusion of Chinese fishing vessels in Palawan waters, p. 265-268. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. CoastalResource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

ADELINA B. BENAVENTE-VILLENALegal Services, Palawan Council for Sustainable Development

Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300Philippines

MICHAEL D. PIDOCenter for Strategic Policy and Governance

Palawan State UniversityPuerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300

Philippines

The Poaching Problem

One of the crucial issues identified for Philippinefisheries is the underutilization of its exclusiveeconomic zone (EEZ) (FSP-PMO 1991). Both small-scaleand commercial fishers have not fully utilized thefishery resources within the EEZ region. Ironically,significant portions of the EEZ are being heavilyexploited by poachers from surrounding countries.Geographical intrusions include those by theTaiwanese in the north, Indonesians in the south, andChinese in the west, including Palawan. Official recordsindicate 15 fishing intrusions in Region 2 involving 95foreign fishers from 1998 to 2002 and 46 incidentsinvolving 675 foreign fishers in Palawan from 1995 to2002 (Benavente-Villena 2003). Majority of thesepoaching incidents occurred in the last two years.

Poaching is among the least studied problems inPhilippine fisheries. This is partly attributed to thelinkage of poaching with other illegal activities, suchas smuggling and illegal entry. There are also inherentdifficulties in patrolling the EEZ due to the archipelagicnature of the country. This issue is national in characterand cannot be effectively addressed by thecommunities or the local authorities alone. There areinteresting but undefined linkages among foreignministry officials, poachers, law enforcementauthorities and local leaders. Poaching has several, yetunquantified, negative impacts. One is in terms of lostcatch and/or revenues. Marine resources that could

have been harvested by our municipal and commercialfishers are taken instead by foreign fishers. Anotherimpact is environmental in nature, such as habitatdegradation, through the use of destructive fishinggears and noxious substances.

Aside from poaching, these foreign fishers havebeen violating other Philippine laws. In Region 2,where majority of poachers are Taiwanese (61%),followed by Chinese (26%) and Indonesians (13%),the Regional Committee on Illegal Entrants (RCIE 2003)has filed criminal charges not only for poaching butfor violating various sections of Republic Act (RA) No.8550 (Fisheries Code) as well as other laws, such asthe Revised Penal Code for falsification of publicdocuments.

There are sufficient laws concerning poaching. Theentry of foreign nationals with intent to fish withinPhilippine waters is largely an issue of enforcementand prosecution rather than that of legislation.Notwithstanding, an amendment to the penaltyprovisions of the Fisheries Code of 1998 could givemore teeth and substance to the present legislation onpoaching.

Philippine Policy on Poaching

The policies on poaching may be classified intothree: (1) constitutional mandate, (2) national laws and(3) executive issuances. Article XII of the 1987 PhilippineConstitution stipulates that the state shall protect the


nation’s marine wealth in its archipelagic waters,territorial sea and economic zone. Further, theConstitution reserves the use and enjoyment of suchmarine resources exclusively to Filipino citizens. Section7 of Article XIII provides that the state’s protectionshall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistencefishers against foreign intrusion.

The main national law dealing with poaching isthe Fisheries Code of 1998. Section 3 states that theprovisions of the code shall be enforced in all Philippinewaters and the country’s EEZ and continental shelf.The Philippine EEZ was not established until PD 1599in 1978. Section 1 of PD 1599 established the EEZextending 200 nautical miles (approximately 360 km)from the baselines of the territorial sea. Within theEEZ, the Philippines asserts sovereign rights forpurposes of exploration, conservation, utilization andexploitation of living and nonliving resources of theseabed.

As the main controlling law, RA 8550 largelycodifies most of the previous fisheries laws. Poachingis discussed under Section 87. It states that:

...it is unlawful for any foreign person, corporationor entity to fish or operate any fishing vessel inPhilippine waters. The entry of any foreign fishingvessel in Philippine waters shall constitute a primafacie evidence that the vessel is engaged in fishingwithin the territorial waters. Violation of the aboveshall be punished by a fine of one hundredthousand US dollars (US$100,000.00) in additionto the confiscation of its catch, fishing equipmentand fishing vessel; provided that the Departmentis also empowered to impose an administrativefine of not less than US$50,000.00 but not morethan US$200,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippinecurrency.Fisheries Administrative Order No. 200 provides

the guidelines and procedures for implementation ofthis particular section of the Fisheries Code. As such,poaching is operationally defined as “fishing oroperating a fishing vessel, committed by a foreignperson, entity or corporation; but does not includeforeigners engaged in leisure or game fishing. Primafacie presumption arises when vessel enters Philippinewaters under certain conditions.” These include:fishing gear deployed or not stowed; navigating inirregular track or route; no prior notice to, or clearancefrom proper authority; navigating in a manner thatdoes not qualify as innocent passage; being outsidetraditional navigation routes; being in identified fishinggrounds; and not flying its national flag.

As an institutional response, the NationalCommittee on Illegal Entrants (NCIE) was created byExecutive Order (EO) 656 (1981). It was re-organized

by EO 236 (1995) with a 13-member interagencycommittee. The Department of Foreign Affairs acts aschair with the Department of Justice, Department ofNational Defense and Department of the Interior andLocal Government serving as vice chairs. The poachingsituation was accentuated with the foreign intrusioninto Mischief Reef and Scarborough Shoal in the SouthChina Sea. Hence, the need to protect Philippine watersfrom increasing incidents of foreign intrusions becamemore critical. Guidelines for arrest of illegal entrantsand their vessels are originally contained in NCIEResolution 01-02.

Palawan Case Study

There are no expressed local legislations dealingwith poaching in Palawan waters. However, theProvincial Government through its SangguniangPanlalawigan (Provincial Council) has passed severalresolutions expressing its full support for theprosecution of poachers to the full extent of the law.In February 2002, when some 95 Chinese poacherswere apprehended in the vicinity of Tubbataha ReefNational Marine Park and World Heritage Site, theSangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 4954,entitled “A resolution strongly urging the prosecution,to the full extent of the law, of the Chinese fishermenrecently apprehended poaching within Philippinewaters”.

A similar resolution was adopted by the PalawanCouncil for Sustainable Development (PCSD), a local-based council created under RA No. 7611, expressingconcern for the continued intrusion of foreign fishingvessels in blatant disregard of Philippine laws. ThePCSD was the main complainant in criminal cases filedagainst the poachers for violation of various provisionsof RA 8550. Joining PCSD as co-complainants werethe Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR),the local government of Cagayancillo, the PhilippineNational Police and the Philippine Navy. The PCSDLegal Committee was re-activated to serve as the legalarm of the council in the prosecution of poaching casesand other violations of environmental laws, rules andregulations. When the poachers were convicted, theSangguniang Panlalawigan passed Resolution No. 5253,urging concerned agencies to collect fines imposed bythe court.

A systematic attempt to record poaching cases inthe province came only when NCIE was re-organizedin 1995 by EO No. 236. Immigration data from theProvincial Immigration Office, however, would showthat intrusion of foreign nationals in Palawan waterswas noted even in the early 1970s. Over the eight-year period (1995 to 2002), foreign intrusion reached

Poaching in marine waters 267

46 incidents involving 675 persons, majority of whomare Chinese (70%) (see Table 1).

On a yearly basis, the figures from 1995 to 2002(Table 2) portray a sharp increase in poaching over thelast two years. An interesting fact is that two of theChinese fishing vessels and some of the crew have beenapprehended several times within the last two years.The provincial jail warden attests that some of thedetainees were, in fact, second timers. The most

of marine flora and fauna, such as fan coral and giantclams (Tridacna sp.). Some 30 sacks of dried meat ofgiant clams, 4 sacks of dried sea cucumber and 13 piecesof live wrasses were confiscated, together with noxioussubstances, such as sodium cyanide. There were alsoblasting caps and detonating cords that are prima facieevidence of the use of explosives.

Three months later, the local fisherfolks headed bytheir municipal mayor apprehended 20 Chinese fishersin the act of fishing within the municipal waters ofCagayancillo. In the course of the apprehension, thefishing vessel ran aground damaging some 40 m2 ofcoral reef areas (Sebastian 2002). Various species of livewrasses and grouper estimated to be more than 600 kg(in sizes ranging from 20 cm to 145 cm) were confiscated,together with more than 30 bottles and 3 containers (5-gallon capacity) of solution and 35 tablets of sodiumcyanide. Samples of solution taken from bottles andcontainers were tested at the BFAR Cyanide DetectionTest Laboratory in Puerto Princesa City and were foundpositive for sodium cyanide.

Months later, a research team that visited Tubbatahafound at the south atoll of the reef some 1,500 m offishing net that has trapped and killed 124 marine turtlesand a shark. The net was compared to the confiscatedfishing net from the Chinese poachers and was foundto be identical.

Conclusion

The recurring presence and continuous foreignintrusions in Philippine waters, despite apprehensionsand confiscation of catch, is proof that foreign fishersutterly disregard Philippine laws. Such attitude on thepart of the poachers indicate two things. First, thepotential revenues earned from poaching in Philippinenational waters far outweigh the constant threat ofapprehension. Second, this situation also reflects theweaknesses in the prosecution of cases that hasemboldened the poachers to continuously violatenational integrity. The extent of poaching at the nationallevel in general, and in Palawan in particular,

Table 1. Foreign intrusion in Palawan bynationality, 1995–2002 (PCSDS/PCIE/WESCOM2002).

Nationality

ChineseMalaysianVietnameseIndonesianTaiwaneseTotal

%

7018741

100

Number

469121

492610

675

exploited areas are those in the southern and westernparts of Palawan. In recent years, however, thenorthwest and eastern sides have likewise beenintruded. This makes the municipal waters, as well asthe marine protected areas, vulnerable to exploitationby foreign nationals.

In terms of geographic distribution, records showthat about 37% (17) of 46 intrusions were apprehendedwithin the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality ofBalabac (Figure 1), followed by 17% (8) in the vicinityof the Kalayaan Island Group; 15% (7) in the Quezon-Rizal areas; 15% (7) in Cagayancillo and Tubbatahaareas; 4% (2) in the Malampaya Natural Gas Projectand 11% (5) in the eastern side of the province.

In the case of the 95 Chinese fishers, they werecaught in the act of fishing when apprehended withinthe territorial jurisdiction of the Tubbataha NationalMarine Park. The apprehending officers witnessed thecrew members actually throwing overboard anundetermined number of marine turtles and otherevidence when they were about to be apprehended.Other pieces of evidence include endangered species

Year Chinese Malaysian Vietnamese Indonesian Taiwanese Total

19951996199719981999200020012002Total

76

2346357

108174469

52

609

121

10

18129

49

219 (incl. 2 Filipinos)

5

26

37

10

88712346

12135

117174675

Table 2. Entry of foreign nationals by year and by nationality, 1995-2002.


necessitates that this issue be given more emphasis. Theentry of foreign fishing vessels has led to the destructionof coral reefs and associated marine habitats. The dollarequivalent of illegally harvested fishery resources needto be assessed accurately. There is also a need to lookinto poaching as both enforcement and prosecutionissues.

References

Benavente-Villena, A.B. 2003. The plunder of Palawan’s coastaltreasures. Paper presented at the Second National Training onPoaching in Philippine Waters. Dapitan City, Philippines.

FSP-PMO (Fisheries Sector Program-Program Management Office).1991. Fisheries Sector Program. Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines.

PCSDS/PCIE/WESCOM (Palawan Council on SustainableDevelopment/Philippine Committee on Illegal Entrants/WesternCommand). 2002. Foreign intrusion in Palawan. Unpublishedrecords prepared by the PCIE Secretariat.

RCIE (Regional Committee on Illegal Entrants). 2003. Case of illegalentrants in Cagayan and Batanes. National Committee on IllegalEntrants Meeting, 22 April 2003, Makati City, Philippines.

Sebastian, C.A. 2002. Foreign fishing vessel apprehension. BFARRegional Office No. 2, Tuguegarao City, Philippines.

Figure 1. Distribution of poaching incidents in Palawan waters.

Regional fisheries management planning 269

Regional Fisheries Management Planning:A Work in Progress1

JOEZEN Q. DIZON- CORRALESCoastal Resources Management Section

Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources -VIIArellano Blvd., Cebu City

Philippines

Introduction

As the government agency responsible formanaging the country’s fishery and aquatic resources,the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)of the Department of Agriculture is charged withensuring that those resources are developed, managedand conserved in a manner which is consistent withthe principles of ecological sustainability and socialequity.

The enactment of the Philippine Fisheries Codeof 1998 presented the bureau with great challengesand opportunities to promote the conservation andsustainable development of fisheries resources whilesimultaneously achieving food security andsocioeconomic upliftment of subsistence fishers. BFARregional offices have responded with various programson fisheries management, conservation, research anddevelopment, training, extension and policy review.Despite these efforts, however, problems onoverfishing and conflicts among the different fisherysectors persist. Hence, there is an imperative need forconcerted strategies that focus on sustaining fish stocksand resolving these problems and conflicts. To beoperational, such strategies should be outlined in afisheries management plan.

The Challenge of Planning for a Regionwith Several Ecosystems

Since the enactment of the Local GovernmentCode of 1991 (Republic Act 7160), the responsibilityfor the management of coastal resources has beendevolved to coastal municipalities. While the

devolution of management responsibility and authorityto coastal municipalities is most welcome, there hasbeen a tendency for coastal municipalities to beexclusively concerned with fisheries within theirmunicipal waters. Fish, however, move around, spawnand breed over large geographical areas.

Ideally, an ecosystem perspective should guidefisheries management. This requires, among otherthings, that the boundaries of the planning areacoincide with those of an ecosystem. Using theecosystem as a unit for fisheries management planningat the regional level would not be too difficult inregions that have few embayments or other watersthat may be treated as single ecosystems. For example,most waters of Region XI are within the Davao Gulf,which may be treated as an ecosystem and which maybe the focus of fisheries management. In contrast,Region VII or the Central Visayas region contains avariety of ecosystems and geographically isolatedfishing areas, such as the part of the Visayan Sea,Camotes Sea, Mindanao Sea, Eastern Sulu Sea, Cebuand Tañon Strait all under its jurisdiction (Figure 1).Nevertheless, BFAR-Region VII is embarking on afisheries management planning exercise to cover thewhole of Central Visayas region.

By looking from a regional perspective, the coastalhabitats and fisheries resources can be identified, andextra resources can be allocated towards protectingthe more critical of these resources or areas. Giventhe variety of fisheries management related activitiesand agencies involved in coastal management in theregion, it is important to consolidate these and providea clear, overall direction. The planning process (Figure2) will involve a series of consultations and thedevelopment of a fisheries profile of the area that looks

1 This paper can be cited as follows: DIZON-CORRALES, J.Q. 2004. Regional fisheries management planning: A work inprogress, p. 269-272. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulentseas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


Figure 1. A map showing the different areas in the Central Visayas region that may be regardedas distinct ecosystems. This presents a challenge to fisheries management planning that intendsto adopt an ecosystems approach.

at the needs of each province. The aim of theseactivities is to encourage BFAR and other agencies tostreamline and focus their efforts on priority issuesand problems within the region.

Levels of Issues

Given that on the whole the fisheries resources ofthe region are still in an “open access” regime, it is alsoimportant to identify three major sets of issues.

• Intraprovincial issues: Those issues that are withina province and its composite municipalities and canbe resolved internally within the province, e.g.,

illegal fishing gears, harvesting of juveniles in certainseasons, etc.

• Interprovincial issues: Those issues that are betweenprovinces from within the same region, with fisherscoming in from other areas from within the region,e.g., supplies of dynamite blasting materials,cyanide and placing of fish aggregating devices byoutsiders into municipal waters.

• Interregional (national) issues: Those issues that aredifficult to manage through regional mechanismsbecause these are caused by factors or fisherscoming from outside the region, e.g., commercialfishing boats from outside the region entering the

Regional fisheries management planning 271

region’s waters during spawning and peak fishingseasons.

Goals and Objectives

The following are the goals and objectives of theregional fisheries management planning initiative:

• Consolidate the results of the various initiativesongoing in Region VII and initiated by nationalgovernment agencies, nongovernmentorganizations, provincial and municipalgovernments into a regional fisheries profile.

• Encourage local government units (LGUs) andother agencies to look at the region’s fisheries in amore holistic manner.

• Conduct a series of consultations on fisheriesmanagement awareness with the provincialgovernments and key stakeholders to developprovincial fishery plans and consolidate these intoa regional plan.

• Document the process for possible replication byother BFAR regional offices in and around thecountry.

• Research possible incentives for the provincial andmunicipal governments to develop inter-LGUrelationships and to refocus BFAR efforts onfisheries management for the whole of the region.

• Illustrate that some systems such as commercialfishing will be impossible to manage unless an

incentive or limited access regime is developed forcommercial fishers from the regions where theyare licensed.

Management Concepts for the RegionalFisheries Management Plan

The value of a fisheries management plan is gainingrecognition throughout the world. Such a plan describesthe management of a particular fishery and documentsimportant information relevant to the fishery (Pollock1996). There are three management-guiding themes thatwill be followed to ensure that the fisheries managementplan achieves its objectives.

• Principle 1: Fisheries in Region VII must beconducted in a manner that does not lead tooverfishing. For those stocks that are overfished,the fishery must be conducted such that there is ahigh degree of probability that the stocks willrecover. To do this, we need to:- establish fisheries information management

systems;- conduct stock assessment research regularly; and- implement management strategies to control the

level of fishing effort.• Principle 2: Fishing operations should be managed

to minimize their impact on the structure andfunction as well as biological diversity of theecosystem. Again, there is a need to:

Figure 2. Diagram illustrating the planning process in Region VII.


- establish information management systems onmarine ecosystems and the fisheries activities thataffect them;

- assess major issues and their implications; and- implement management actions that will ensure

the integrity of ecosystems.• Principle 3: Implement a strategic zoning of the

region’s waters, identifying key areas and definingdifferent manageable zones.

Conclusion

The regional fisheries management plan beingdeveloped will be the first of its kind in the country. Ifsuccessful, other BFAR regional offices could replicatethe planning process in their regions. The process couldset a framework for BFAR offices and LGUs to bettercollaborate in an ecosystem approach given thecomplexity of their geopolitical boundaries.

Reference

Pollock, B. 1996.Fisheries management in the Philippines: A briefreview. In Main report of the Second National FisheriesWorkshop on Policy Planning and Industry Development. Vol.2. Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources and Food and Agriculture Organization, QuezonCity, Philippines.

Integration of fisheries into coastal area management 273

1 This paper can be cited as follows: HERMES, R. 2004. Integration of fisheries into coastal area management, p. 273-276.In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 The United States Agency for International Development-funded Coastal Resource Management Project of the Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources initiated the drafting of a National Coastal and Marine Management Strategywhich can be used as a framework for coastal management in the Philippines. The draft document is currently beingreviewed by a group of experts with funding from the United Nations Development Programme.

Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Area Management1




Introduction

This topic is one of the six thematic articles of theCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF)(Figure 1) issued by the Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO 1995) which is based on aframework developed during the InternationalConference on Responsible Fishing in Cancun, Mexico,in May 1992, further refined during sessions of the FAOCommittee on Fisheries, and adopted in 1995.

It is of particular importance to the Philippines,considering the fragile state of coastal ecosystems, theneeds of coastal communities, and the fact that mostmarine fisheries are based on coastal stocks or exploitoffshore stocks, which spend part of their lives in inshorewaters. Activities that result in coastal environmentalchange can have major impacts on the coastal fisheriessector, and the fisheries sector can also affect othercoastal activities, e.g. through competition for space.The development and management of the fisheriessector must therefore be considered within the existingcontext of coastal area management (CAM) anddevelopment planning, taking into account theconservation of resources and environment as well asthe economic activities within the coastal area (FAO1996; Scialabba 1998). Given the intensive competitionbetween resource users and uses in the coastal area,there is a clear need for integration, resulting in a shiftfrom resource-use maximization in one sector toresource-use optimization and balancing betweensectors.

The Four Dimensions of Article 10of the Code of Conduct

Institutional framework

Article 10.1 of FAO CCRF calls for the adoptionof an appropriate policy, legal and institutionalframework to achieve sustainable and integrated useof coastal resources. The Philippine Agenda 21 can beconsidered a suitable starting point or policyframework. The legal framework is still oriented moretowards sectoral concerns, even though the FisheriesCode of 1998 (Republic Act 8550) is already influencedby CCRF. The institutional framework is not yetestablished2, and instruments for valuation andresource allocation still need to be developed, or whereavailable, applied. The guidelines for CCRF (FAO 1996)advocate for a holistic approach and an analysis ofroles and responsibilities of agencies leading toappropriate coordinating and integratingarrangements to ensure coherence in policyimplementation. The need for consultingrepresentatives of the fisheries sector and fishingcommunities in the decisionmaking process and theirinvolvement in other activities related to CAMplanning and development is underlined. In thePhilippines, through the creation of Fisheries andAquatic Resource Management Councils (FARMCs),the necessary conditions for participation have been


created (Guerrero 2002). Further work is required tostrengthen and institutionalize these FARMCs. Coastalpollution, habitat degradation and spatial or resourceconflict are areas of concern where observations andfeedback from fishers are most needed, but also mostsignificant. In addition, FARMCs should play a majorrole in the planning and formulation of policies andprograms for management, conservation, protectionand sustainable development of fisheries and aquaticresources.

While FARMCs are an instrument for fisherfolkparticipation, the National Agricultural and FisheriesCouncil (NAFC), through its Committee on Fisheriesand Aquaculture, ensures private sector participationin policy evaluation and formulation. Like FARMC,NAFC has regional, provincial and municipal levels.However, unlike FARMC, NAFC and its local chaptersare fully funded by the Department of Agriculture.Thus, some FARMC representatives perceive this tobe a disadvantage to activities organized by them, ifthey manage to source funds at all.

Conflicts arising from competition of differentresource uses need to be dealt with through resourceallocation mechanisms and mediation, includingadoption of fishing practices that prevent or avoidconflict among fisheries users and between them andother users. Zoning is a common approach in theresolution of intersectoral conflicts involving fisheries,given the multiple uses of coastal areas. Comprehensiveland use plans are probably in existence in mostmunicipalities. However, up to now, only a minorityof coastal municipalities has drafted coastal zoningplans and is implementing these. Aside from

mandatory fisherfolk registration, FARMCs andappropriate institutions within the local governmentunits should address this area of concern. Thegovernance, including limitation of access, shouldfollow determination of possible, compatible andsustainable uses.

There is a need for alignment between coastalenvironmental or fishery management plans andeconomic/development plans. In the Philippines, thereis a hierarchy of plans from local government units(e.g., barangay, municipal and provincial developmentplans) to regional development and national plans. Theintegration of fisheries in CAM can best be achievedso far on the level of local government units. It shouldbe an aim of planners to integrate further on theregional level, i.e., not to focus foremost on sectoralconcerns on the level of the Regional DevelopmentCouncil. On the other hand, these concerns should alsonot be dealt with by the sectoral line agency, the Bureauof Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, alone, and if so, amajor change in mandate is possibly required. A CAMplan, which attempted to integrate fisheries, wasdrafted for the Lingayen Gulf in northern Luzonthrough the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)-United States Coastal ResourcesManagement Project (Chua and Scura 1992).Recommendations regarding fisheries (e.g., onoptimum effort) were not fully implemented, however.

Policy measures

In order to translate recommendations into action,there is still the need to create more public awareness

Figure 1. FAO has produced a series of technical guidelines for responsible fisheries.

Integration of fisheries into coastal area management 275

of the necessity for protection and management ofcoastal resources and participation in the managementprocess by those affected (Article 10.2, CCRF, FAO1996). Increased awareness and participation will helpensure that the interests of stakeholders are properlyrepresented, but consequently reduce the risk of errorsand alienation and increase compliance. The formationof FARMCs is a step in the right direction, as well asthe relatively active role of nongovernmentorganizations (NGO) in the Philippines and amplemedia exposure. The strengthening of fisherfolk orpeoples’ organizations is another way, taking intoaccount the time-consuming and demanding natureof the fisheries profession. However, the developmentof information materials and proper dissemination onthe need to integrate fisheries into CAM in particular,and CCRF in general, is still very much required.

An inherent difficulty in decisionmaking onallocation of coastal resources is the uncertainty invaluation, taking into account economic, social andcultural factors, as well as both market and nonmarketvalues. Given the highly degraded and overfishednature of Philippine fish stocks, valuation techniquesshould probably include lost economic opportunities,having in mind potential harvests from reconstructedfish stocks. This process consists of two steps. First,select valuation techniques (e.g., Pomeroy 1992) andconduct good valuation studies. This step has alreadybeen accomplished with various reports estimating“opportunity costs” or “losses to fishing” in bothdemersal and pelagic fisheries (Silvestre and Pauly1989; Trinidad et al. 1993). The second step appears tobe more elusive and difficult to handle: translatingthe scientific findings into palatable decisionmakingtools and actually applying or enforcing the resultingrecommendations.

So much damage has already occurred toPhilippine coastal resources; nevertheless, it isimportant to consider pre-emptive action to protectthe fisheries sector from further damage. In order toreduce risks and uncertainties, it is also necessary topromote the establishment of systems to monitor thecoastal environment, as part of the process, usingphysical, chemical, biological, economic and socialparameters. Environmental degradation from allsources should be identified early on, with the policyobjective of prevention, rather than cleanup orreconstruction. Institutional strengthening at all levels(national government, private sector and universities)is still required, as is capacity development in theapplication of necessary tools (e.g., geographicinformation systems or GIS). Multidisciplinaryresearch efforts should be directed towards the

interaction of environmental and economic systemsin support of CAM. Promotion of communicationbetween fisheries policymakers and scientists willensure that research institutions address the key issuesin proper integration of fisheries in CAM and planning.

Regional cooperation

Regional cooperation between states withneighboring coastal areas to facilitate sustainable useof coastal resources and conservation of theenvironment is the concern of Article 10.3 of CCRF(FAO 1996). This article calls not only for theconsultation and timely information in the case ofactivities that may have an adverse transboundaryenvironmental effect on coastal areas, but also forsubregional and regional level cooperation in orderto improve CAM. The Philippines has embarked on aprocess of concluding fisheries agreements withneighboring states (e.g., Indonesia), and also promotesthe sharing of coastal management training andimplementation expertise through various contacts ongovernment, NGO and academe levels. Examples arethe integrated coastal management training links withVietnam and Indonesia through the Department ofScience and Technology-Philippine Council for Aquaticand Marine Research and Development, and thetrinational initiative, Sulu-Sulawesi Marine EcoregionProgramme, spearheaded by the World Wide Fundfor Nature jointly with Malaysia and Indonesia. Withinthe Department of Foreign Affairs, regional linkagesare coordinated through the Maritime and OceanAffairs Committee. Other channels of cooperation thatcould possibly be strengthened further are therespective ASEAN ministerial level processes (e.g.,Committee on Science and Technology, Education,Agriculture and Fisheries). The Philippines has activelyparticipated in ASEAN CAM programs (Guerrero2002).

Implementation

Successful implementation of coastal areadevelopment, planning and management depends onappropriate mechanisms for cooperation andcoordination among agencies involved (Article 10.4,CCRF, FAO 1996). Passing on externalities generatedby one sector to another is often a result ofconventional sector planning. More attention,therefore, needs to be given to cross-sectoral impactsand effects of management interventions. This willusually involve a negotiation process of trade-offsbetween development proposals. Providing a forum


for the resolution of conflicting sector-based actualand proposed actions is therefore a requirement. Atpresent, the Regional Development Councils have tofulfill this role but may also require furtherstrengthening. As earlier mentioned, the NationalFARMC has been created as a body to assist in theformulation of national fisheries policies.

Finally, the FAO guidelines for CCRF also call foradequate technical capacities and financial resourcesfor authority or authorities representing fisheries inthe coastal management process. In terms of humanresource requirements, this refers to the need oftrained generalists and specialists to staff any coregroup which might be established to coordinateintersectoral programs and policies. For fisheriesauthorities in particular, CCRF calls for thedevelopment of strengths in four main areas: (1) skillsand experience in collection and analysis of biophysical,social and economic information, and its use in policyanalysis; (2) establishment of institutionalarrangements at local, national, subregional andregional levels to deal with open access issues andcross-sectoral impacts; (3) skills and experience insectoral planning; and (4) enforcement capacity. It canbe argued that this call for capacity-building alsoapplies to the Philippine setting.

Aside from the needed capacity-building, there isalso still much to be done regarding establishmentand strengthening of a framework which isappropriate for integration of fisheries in CAM. Whilepolicy measures may have already been worked out,their implementation and compliance are still lacking.There is, however, already some encouraging successin the area of regional cooperation, in particular, inview of training and research or assessments.

Bibliography

Chua, T.E. and L.F. Scura, Editors. 1992. Integrative frameworkand methods for coastal area management. ICLARM Conf.Proc. 37, 169 p.

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). n.d.Proposed integrated coastal management policy for thePhilippines. DENR, Philippines.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1995. Code of Conductfor Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome, Italy. 41 p.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1996. Integration offisheries into coastal area management. FAO TechnicalGuidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 3. FAO, Rome, Italy.17 p.

Guerrero, R.D. III. 2002. The implementation of the FAO Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries and related internationalprograms of action in the Philippines. Philippine Council forAquatic and Marine Research and Development, Laguna,Philippines. 20 p.

Pomeroy, R.S. 1992. Economic valuation: Available methods, p.149-162. In T.E. Chua and L.F. Scura (eds.) Integrativeframework and methods for coastal area management.ICLARM Conf. Proc. 37, 169 p.

Scialabba, N., Editor. 1998. Integrated coastal area managementand agriculture, forestry and fisheries. FAO Guidelines.Environment and Natural Resources Services, FAO, Rome,Italy. 256 p.

Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly. 1989. Estimates of yield and economicrent from Philippine demersal stocks (1946-1984) using vesselhorsepower as an index of fishing effort. Univ. Philipp. Vis.Fish. J. 1(2); 2 (1/2); 3 (1/2): 11-24.

Trinidad, A.C., R.S. Pomeroy, P.V. Corpuz and M. Aguero. 1993.Bioeconomics of the Philippine small pelagics fishery. ICLARMTech. Rep. 38, 74 p.

Capture fisheries management in the context of ICM 277

An Overview of Capture Fisheries Managementin the Context of Integrated Coastal Management1

MICHAEL D. PIDOCenter for Strategic Policy and Governance

Palawan State UniversityPuerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300

Philippines

Values and Threats in Coasts

The values of the coastal zone - the dynamicinterface between land and sea – cannot be overstated(Sorensen et al. 1984). The coastal region provides thenatural resource base for economic development, suchas manufacturing industry, maritime trade, energy,fisheries, agriculture and tourism. Many livelihoodsdepend on use of coastal resources, with more than50% of the world’s population inhabiting thisgeographical strip. For tourism and fisheries uses ofhealthy coral reef areas, as example, the estimatedannual economic net benefit per square kilometerranges from US$23,100 to US$270,000 (Burke et al. 2002).The services and protective functions provided by thecoasts are estimated to be more valuable than theirintrinsic resources and may be worth “about US$23trillion a year, only slightly less than the world’s GNP”(GESAMP 2001). In Southeast Asia alone, close to 266million people live within 60 km of the coast (ICLARM1999) and 16 million people are directly involved insmall-scale fisheries (Menasveta 1998).

Despite the vital contributions of coastalecosystems, they have seldom been managedappropriately. Worldwide, the key problemsconfronting the coastal zone are: (1) habitatdegradation, (2) nonoptimal use of resources and (3)pollution. Human activities in the coasts that continueto destroy vital habitats include runoff from improperagriculture and forestry practices, modification ofriverine flows through construction of infrastructureprojects, destruction of mangrove forests foraquaculture, indiscriminate reclamation for settlementsand destructive fishing methods (Chou et al. 1994;Rawlings et al. 1998; Talaue-McManus 2000).

Inefficient use of resources is perhaps most apparentin the case of fisheries where overfishing has led todramatic declines in coastal fish stocks, particularly inSouth Asia and Southeast Asia (Hotta 1996; Silvestreand Pauly 1997). Globally, the quality of coastal waterscontinues to decline, mainly due to discharge of land-based pollutants (Gabric and Bell 1994; Goldberg 1995;Chia and Kirkman 2000). Sewage pollution, for instance,has massive effects on human health. These three keyproblems impinging on the coastal zone often act inconcert. Their combined assaults have reducedproductivity resulting in loss of livelihood options,poverty and poor health of the coastal people.

The Need for Integrated CoastalManagement

The complex problems facing the coastal zone wererecognized during the 1970s (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998)and since then, many initiatives were used to addressthem at various levels. The Land-Ocean Interactions inthe Coastal Zone (http://www.nioz.nl/loicz/welcome.html), for instance, represents a worldwideproject with regional and national representation. TheGlobal Environment Facility (GEF)/United NationsDevelopment Programme/International MaritimeOrganization Regional Programme on Partnerships inEnvironmental Management for the Seas of East Asia(http://www.pemsea.org/) and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP)/GEF South ChinaSea Project (http://www.unep.ch/seas/rshome.html)are regional initiatives. The Coastal ResourceManagement Project in the Philippines (http://www.usaid-ph.gov/crm.html;http:www.oneocean.org)and Indonesia (http://www.crc.uri.edu/field/asia/

1 This paper can be cited as follows: PIDO, M.D. 2004. An overview of capture fisheries management in the context ofintegrated coastal management, p. 277-281. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, CebuCity, Philippines. 378 p.


• Coastal zone management (CZM) was the earliest term usedin the US in 1972. This was followed by integrated coastalarea management (ICAM) in the developing countries. In the1990s, the phrases integrated coastal zone management(ICZM) and integrated coastal management (ICM) were used.Recently, the term integrated marine and coastal areamanagement (IMCAM) has become popular.

• ICM shares conceptual and methodological “overlaps” – butis not necessarily synonymous - with terms such as co-management or community-based coastal resourcesmanagement (CBCRM). Co-management’s emphasis is onpartnership arrangements among various stakeholders utilizingthe resource. CBCRM, on the other hand, is focused on amore defined community of users. Its geographical focus isalso limited, such as a small island, or confined to a particularresource ecosystem, like a tract of mangrove or a patch ofcoral reef.

ICM associated concepts and terminologiesindonesia/index.html) are examples of nationalprograms. The widespread awareness of the problemsnow facing the coastal zone is perhaps best illustratedby the action of UNEP in initiating 14 Regional SeasPrograms in line with implementation of the UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED) Agenda 21 and its Chapter 17 on oceangovernance.

Despite the many international, regional, nationaland local level initiatives, many coastal threats remain.It is now also apparent that a “sectoral and disciplinaryapproach to marine and coastal development does notprovide an effective framework for achievingsustainability and resolving conflicts over resource use”(UN 1993). In general, there is weak institutionalcapacity to identify the multiple problems and providean integrated solution, particularly at the local level.Among the causes of institutional failure in managingthe coasts are: (1) inadequate legal and policy support;(2) lack of technical know-how on the part of managersand political leaders; (3) lack of coordination amongsectoral agencies; (4) limited involvement of coastalstakeholders, particularly the private sector andmarginalized groups; and (5) dependence ofgovernments in developing countries on external aid(Chua et al.1992; Scura et al. 1992; Chua 1996, 1998).

Integrated coastal management (ICM) aims toaddress the limitations of sectoral approaches to coastalgovernance. ICM may be defined as a “continuous anddynamic process by which decisions are made for thesustainable use, development and protection of coastaland marine areas and resources” (Cicin-Sain and Knetch1998). In effect, it is a unifying concept to promoteecologically sustainable development in the coasts. Interms of purpose, “the overall goal of ICM is to improvethe quality of human communities who depend oncoastal resources while maintaining the biologicaldiversity and productivity of coastal ecosystems”(GESAMP 1996). Integration in ICM covers variousdimensions or components. It could be geographical(between land and sea); sectoral (among differenteconomic sectors present); institutional (amongdifferent levels of governance, from local tointernational); temporal (between present and futuregenerations); and policy (between research andmanagement, as well as across disciplines of science).

ICM adheres to some guiding principles. First isintergenerational equity, which means the futuregenerations are also entitled to current benefits derivedfrom the coasts. Second is the precautionary principleespousing that if there is lack of full scientific certainty,either postpone the project or install immediately cost-effective measures to prevent environmentaldegradation. Third is the polluter pays principle, which

indicates that environmental costs of economic activitiesshould be borne by the developer. Fourth istransparency, encouraging that decisions should bemade with full public involvement.

The major functions of ICM include (Cicin andKnetch 1998):

1.Area planning - aims to map out present and futureuses to provide long-term vision and specificcourses of actions.

2.Promotion of economic development –includesprograms that are appropriate and compatible, suchas ecotourism and environment-friendly fishingpractices.

3.Stewardship of resources – that users must protectthe ecological base of coastal areas and preservebiodiversity.

4.Conflict resolution – aims to harmonize existingand potential uses, as well as to reduce conflictsamong competing stakeholders.

5.Protection of public safety – this is protection fromboth natural and artificial hazards.

The ICM system has two key components: themanagement framework and the systematic processfor preparing, initiating, developing, adopting,implementing, consolidating and refining programsand projects (Chua 1998). ICM does not supplant orreplace sectoral management. On the contrary, ICMintegrates the needs and efforts of the different sectorsto address multiple-use conflicts (Figure 1). The successof ICM is in fact contingent on strong sectoral agencies.In effect, ICM attempts to maximize the positive societalbenefits, and at the same time reduce the negativeenvironmental impacts. Cicin-Sain and Knetch (1998)


Figure 2. The six stages of an ICM process (Olsen 1993; Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998).

Figure 1. ICM as “over-arching” framework in fisheries management.

described a generic, six-stage ICM process from issueidentification/assessment to evaluation (Figure 2).Given this process, ICM provides a synergistic effectby coordinating sectoral efforts, enabling such sectoralintegration to address multiple-use conflicts andcompeting priorities. ICM also harmonizes the differentroles and needs of national, provincial (or subnational)and local governments. Through ICM, linkages withinternational organizations and donor agencies are alsoeffectively established. It was endorsed by internationalbodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange and the Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission, and was adopted by internationalconventions like UNCED in 1992.

Linking Fisheries Management andIntegrated Coastal Management

There is a growing realization on the need for amore comprehensive and integrated approach, suchas the ICM framework, to effectively maintain theecological integrity of coastal areas in general, and topromote the sustainability of coastal fisheries inparticular. Fisheries management is the dual processof conservation and allocation (Smith 1988), andtherefore, it pursues multiple objectives. Conservationasks “how much” fish stocks are available forsustainable harvesting. Allocation is largely the humandimension, pertaining to the who, when, where and

Integrated coastal management

Agriculture Tourism Other sectors

Capture Aquaculture

Heavy industryFisheriesShipping/transport

Stage 1Issue identification

and assessmentStage 2

Program planningand

preparation

Stage 3Formal adoption

and funding

Stage 4Implementation

Stage 5Operation

Stage 6Evaluation


how of fishery management. Fisheries need to beviewed within the broader context of ICM becausethe full attainment of the above objectives lies outsidethe fisheries sector. While Philippine fisheriesmanagement agencies may effectively deal with theregulation of fishing effort and to some extentenforcement, they cannot adequately address othercrucial issues, such as poverty alleviation, limitedutilization of exclusive economic zone water and habitatdegradation (FSP-PMO 1991). Solutions to theseproblems are contingent on the performance of othereconomic sectors. Overfishing, which is partly anoutcome of policies for the entire agriculture sector,has resulted in economic loss that in the Philippinesalone was estimated at US$150 million per annum(Silvestre and Pauly 1997). Further, fisheries are alsoimpacting on other sectors. The effects of fishing onthe environment are among the most serious threatsworldwide (GESAMP 2001).

The need for an integrative framework foranalyzing the key elements of successful fisheriesmanagement is now widely recognized. The dynamicsand complexity of capture fisheries requires anintegrated management to address several constraintsthat are outside the domain of the fisheries industry.In Southeast Asia (Chua et al. 1992), the trend has beentowards ICM. Scura (1993a, 1993b) reviewed theexperiences of some international research institutionson ICM, and also developed a typological frameworkand strategy elements for integrated coastal fisheriesmanagement. Chua (1997) argued for the applicationof an ICM system for sustaining coastal fisherydevelopment. Cunningham (1995) pointed out that thefisheries sector cannot be managed in isolation, andthus, there is a strong need to consider the inter-relationships between fisheries and other users ofcoastal resources. In the Philippines, various programsand projects were initiated using the ICM approach topromote sustainable fisheries development (Muñoz1997; Christie and White 1997; Courtney and White2000). While it is acknowledged that fisheries shouldbe put in context within the broader ICM, marinefisheries can be studied as a distinct but a related partof the entire coastal system. In fact, the integrationwill vary depending on the relative importance offisheries in a particular coastal setting (Figure 3)(Silvestre 1996). Some coastal areas are largelyfisheries-oriented. In San Miguel Bay (Bicol region,Philippines), for example, the fisheries sector isparamount. Many other coasts, however, are movingtowards modernization with fisheries either competingor co-existing with other economic sectors. Examplesare the industrialized coasts of Batangas Bay andManila Bay.

The translation of the ecologically sustainabledevelopment concept in the Philippines into practicalactions to improve the national economy (Cabrido 1997)and the fisheries sector (De Sagun 1992; Barut et al.1997) remains a topic of debate. Incorporating fisheriesmanagement into the ICM framework is difficult andthe process is time-consuming. There are positivedevelopments, though, such as the integration offisheries concerns in Honda Bay in the overalldevelopment concerns of Puerto Princesa City,Palawan. A key challenge is the development ofcomprehensive sea-use zoning schemes where fishingwill operate in appropriate locations that are not inconflict with and/or supportive of other economicactivities. In the case of San Miguel Bay, an integratedcoastal fisheries management plan has been effectivelylinked with relevant municipal and provincialdevelopment plans (Silvestre 1996). It appears thatPhilippines-wide, “without such integration, it is likelythat optimum use of society’s fisheries resources willnot be achieved and, indeed, the future of fisheries incoastal areas is likely to be seriously threatened”(Scialabba 1998). ICM may therefore provide a moredynamic and holistic approach to capture fisheriesmanagement given that the demand for fisheriesproducts is increasing and multiple uses are puttingmore pressure on the coastal resource system.

References

Barut, N.C., M.D. Santos, and L.R. Garces. 1997. Overview ofPhilippine marine fisheries, p. 62-71. In G. Silvestre and D.Pauly (eds.) Status and management of tropical coastal fisheriesin Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53, 208 p.

Figure 3. Typology/spectrum of capture fisheries management inthe Philippines.

Increasing multisectoral use

Coastal system

Increasing role of/dependence on fisheries

Manila Bay,National Capital Region,

Regions III and IV

Honda Bay,Palawan

San Miguel Bay,Bicol Region


Burke, L., E. Selig and M. Spalding. 2002. Reefs at risk in SoutheastAsia. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA. 72 p.

Cabrido, C. 1997. Sustainable development indicators: Philippinegovernment initiatives. SCOPE Rep. 58, 344 p.

Chia, L.S. and H. Kirkman. 2000. Overview of land-based sourcesand activities affecting the marine environment in the EastAsian Seas. EAS/RCU Reg. Seas Rep. Stud. Ser., 74 p.

Chou, L.M., C. Wilkinson, E. Gomez and S. Sudara. 1994. Status ofcoral reefs in the ASEAN region, p. 8-12. In C. R. Wilkinson(ed.) Living coastal resources of Southeast Asia: Status andmanagement. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville,Australia.

Christie, P. and A.T. White. 1997. Trends in development of coastalarea management in tropical countries: From central tocommunity orientation. Coast. Manage. 25: 155-181.

Chua, T.-E. 1996. Lessons learned from successes and failures ofintegrated coastal management initiatives. MPP-EAS Tech. Rep.No. 4, 90 p.

Chua, T.-E. 1997. Application of integrated coastal managementsystem for sustaining coastal fishery development, p. 39-51.In Proceedings of the Workshop of Asia-Pacific FisheryCommission, 15-18 October 1996, Seoul, Korea.

Chua, T.-E. 1998. Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastalmanagement in Southeast Asia. Ambio 27(8): 599-610.

Chua, T.-E., G. Silvestre, J. Paw, M. Pido and C. Luna. 1992. Coastalarea management as framework for sustainable developmentof coastal fisheries: Initiatives in Southeast Asia. FAO Fish.Rep. No. 474. Suppl. 1: 337-377.

Cicin-Sain, B. and R. Knecht. 1998. Integrated coastal and oceanmanagement: Concepts and practices. Island Press,Washington, USA.

Courtney, C.A. and A.T. White. 2000. Integrated coastalmanagement in the Philippines: Testing new paradigms. Coast.Manage. 28: 39-53.

Cunningham, S. 1995. Integrating fisheries into coastal areamanagement. CEMARE Res. Pap. No. 83, 13 p. Portsmouth,UK.

De Sagun, R.B. 1992. The Local Government Code and its provisionson fisheries. Fishery Resources Administration Division, Bureauof Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines.

FSP-PMO (Fisheries Sector Program-Program Management Office).1991. Fisheries Sector Program. Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines.

Gabric, A.J. and P.R.F. Bell. 1994. Review of the effects of non-point nutrient loading on coastal ecosystems. Aust. J. Mar.Freshwat. Res. 44: 261-283.

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP JointGroup of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of MarineEnvironmental Protection). 1996. The contributions of scienceto coastal management. GESAMP Rep. Stud. No. 61, 66 p.

GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP JointGroup of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of MarineEnvironmental Protection). 2001. A sea of troubles. GESAMPRep. Stud. No. 70, 35 p.

Goldberg, E.D. 1995. Emerging problems in the coastal zone for thetwenty-first century. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 31(4-12): 152-158.

Hotta, M. 1996. Regional review of the fisheries and aquaculturesituation and outlook in South and Southeast Asia. FAO Fish.Circ. 904, 45 p.

ICLARM (International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement). 1999. ICLARM strategic plan 2000-2020.ICLARM, Makati City, Philippines. 27 p.

Menasveta, D. 1998. APFIC: Its evolution, achievements and futuredirection. RAP Publ. 1998/15, 114 p. FAO Regional Office forAsia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.

Muñoz, J.C. 1997. Integrated coastal resource management system(ICRM) as a tool for sustainable fisheries, p. 129-141. InProceedings of the Workshop of the Asia-Pacific FisheryCommission, 15-18 October 1996, Seoul, Korea.

Olsen, S.B. 1993. Will ICM programs be sustainable? The constituencyproblem. Ocean Coast. Manage. 21(1-3): 201-225.

Rawlings, B.G., A.J. Ferguson, P.J. Chilton, R.S. Arthurton, J.G.Rees and J.W. Baldock. 1998. Review of agricultural pollutionin the Caribbean with particular emphasis on small islanddeveloping states. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 36(9): 658-668.

Scialabba, N., Editor. 1998. Integrated coastal area managementand agriculture, forestry and fisheries: FAO guidelines.Environment and Natural Resources Service, Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 256 p.

Scura, L.F. 1993a. Review of recent experiences in integrated coastalmanagement: ICLARM and URI. Paper submitted to the UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 20 p.

Scura, L.F. 1993b. Typological framework and strategy elementsfor integrated coastal fisheries management. Paper submittedto the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome,Italy. 20 p.

Scura, L.F., T.-E. Chua, M.D. Pido and J. Paw. 1992. Lessons forintegrated coastal zone management: The ASEAN experience,p. 1-70 . In T.-E. Chua and L.F. Scura (eds.) Integrativeframework and methods for coastal area management. ICLARMConf. Proc. 37, 169 p.

Silvestre, G.T. 1996. Integrated management of coastal fisheries:Lessons from initiatives in San Miguel Bay, Philippines.International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management,Manila, Philippines. 13 p.

Silvestre, G. and D. Pauly, Editors. 1997. Status and managementof tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 53,208 p.

Smith, C.L. 1988. Conservation and allocation decisions in fisherymanagement, p 131-138. In W.J. McNeil (ed.) Salmonproduction, management and allocation: biological, economicand policy issues. Oregon State University Press, Oregon,USA.

Sorensen, J.C., S.T. McCreary and M.J. Hershman. 1984.Institutional arrangements for management of coastalresources. Coast. Manage. Publ. No.1. US National ParkService, USA. 165 p.

Talaue-McManus, L. 2000. Transboundary diagnostic analysis forthe South China Sea. EAS/RCU Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 14.

UN (United Nations). 1993. The global partnerships for environmentand development: A guide to Agenda 21 post Rio edition. NewYork, UN, USA.

Status of Lingayen Gulf fisheries 283

S E C T I O N I V

Case Studies in Fisheries Assessmentand Management


Status of Lingayen Gulf Fisheries - A Brief Update1

GERONIMO T. SILVESTRETetra Tech EM, Inc.



VINCENT V. HILOMENAnimal Biology Division, Institute of Biological Sciences

University of the Philippines-Los BañosCollege, Laguna 4031

Philippines

1 This paper can be cited as follows: SILVESTRE, G.T. and V.V. HILOMEN. 2004. Status of Lingayen Gulf fisheries – a briefupdate, p. 285-291. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas:The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Background

Lingayen Gulf is located in the northwestern partof Luzon bordering the South China Sea, within latitudes16o00’ N and 16o40’ N and longitudes 119o55’ E and120o25’ E (Figure 1). It is bounded in the west andsouth by the province of Pangasinan and in thenortheast by La Union province. The gulf has a totalarea of 2,085 km2 and is mostly shallow, with about90% of its area below 90 m. A series of shoals extendsnearly halfway across its entrance from Cape Bolinao.Its central and northern entrances are also studdedwith coralline growth. From the southern and centralportions of the gulf to the eastern coast, the substrateis generally muddy with occasional patches of hard/rocky bottom. Based on bottom type and ecosystemcharacteristics, the gulf is often subdivided into threesectors (Mines 1986; Silvestre 1990a), namely: (1) SectorI (western coast) – extends from Cape Bolinao to Sual,characterized by coral reefs and seagrass beds; (2)Sector II (inner coast) – extends from Sual to Damortis,characterized by muddy substrate, mangroves and nipaswamps, and where aquaculture activities areconcentrated; and (3) Sector III (eastern coast) –bounded by the coast of La Union, characterized bygenerally soft and muddy substrate. Sixteenmunicipalities and one city (Dagupan) border LingayenGulf from Cape Bolinao to Poro Point.

Lingayen Gulf is a major traditional fishing groundin the Philippines. It supplies fish and fishery products

to coastal inhabitants in the gulf as well as many partsof northwestern Luzon. In 2001, catch was about 6,500t (Hilomen et al. 2002) from fishing operations by about16,000 municipal fishers, 28 commercial trawlers and52 Danish seiners in the area (Hilomen and Jimenez2001). About 47% of municipal fishers are based inSector I, 30% in Sector II and 23% in Sector III (Table1). Most of the trawlers are based in Sual, DagupanCity and Metro Manila (operating seasonally). Mostof the Danish seiners are based in Dagupan City andMangaldan. Over 33 types of municipal fishing gearsare used (Calud et al. 1989). Currently, most of themunicipal fishers use various types of gillnet (52.7%),hook and line (12.2%), baby trawl (8.4%) and fish corral(7.6%) (Table 1). A multiplicity of species comprisescatch in the gulf. Over 159 species belonging to 87 generaand 55 families have been reported to occur regularlyin the catch (Mines 1986).

A substantive body of assessments documents thestatus of coastal resources and fisheries in Lingayen Gulfthrough time (see for example Warfel and Manacop 1950;FIDC-NRMC 1980; Fox 1986; Mines 1986; McManus andChua 1990; Silvestre 1990a and 1990b; Silvestre et al. 1989,1991; Ochavillo and Silvestre 1991; McManus 1996;Hilomen and Jimenez 2001; McGlone and Villanoy 2001;Hilomen et al. 2002). These studies provide detailedtreatments of the main management issues impactingfisheries in the gulf and corresponding options to resolveor mitigate them. This paper draws selectively fromthese studies to provide a brief update and synoptic


picture of the fisheries situation. Interested readers arereferred to these references for more details.

Exploitation Status

The available assessments indicate that the fisheriesin Lingayen Gulf suffer from excessive fishing pressuresince the late 1970s. This has led to biological andeconomic overfishing that has continuously aggravateduntil the present time. As early as 1976, the Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources declared the gulf tobe overfished based on comparisons of catch andpotential production per unit area (Smith et al. 1980).Based on essentially the same approach, the FisheryIndustry Development Council and the NaturalResources Management Center (FIDC-NRMC 1980)

came to the same conclusion. Fox (1986) noted that thegulf is overfished based on countrywide comparisonof fisher density and catch per unit area. Mines (1986)concluded that the fishing sector suffers fromoverfishing, low and declining catch rates, increasingconflict among fishers, and use of explosives andpoisons in fishing.

Figure 2 illustrates relative indices of demersalbiomass and (municipal and commercial) fishing effortin the gulf from the late 1930s to the late 1980s. Thefigure depicts the situation in the late 1980s based onconsolidation by Silvestre (1990b) of availableassessments at the time. Note the rapid increase in thenumber of municipal fishers and trawl units betweenthe late 1970s and the late 1980s. This has led todecimation of resource abundance to as low as 15% of

Figure 1. Map of Lingayen Gulf showing coastal features and subdivision of its internal waters(Sectors I – III). Isobaths indicated are in fathoms.


the original abundance levels reported in the late 1940s.Conventional fisheries models indicate that such lowabundance levels (below 33%-50% of original levels)indicate excess fishing pressure and biologicaloverfishing of the resources. Species-specific

assessments during the late 1980s (see Silvestre 1990b;Silvestre et al. 1991) indicate very high exploitation ratios(mean of 0.61) and confirm the overfishing situation.The problem of overfishing resulting from excess fishingpressure is also aggravated by the capture ofundersized fishes, resulting in losses of about 25% and35% in volume and value of catches, respectively(Ochavillo et al. 1989; Ochavillo and Silvestre 1991).

Economic analyses of fisheries in Lingayen Gulf inthe late 1980s indicate elements of economic overfishing(see Silvestre 1990b; Cruz and Silvestre 1991 andreferences therein). Table 2 gives the results of thesestudies for selected municipal and commercial fishingunits which indicate the following: (1) positive pureprofit (i.e., economic rent) in commercial trawloperations only because of depressed labor cost; (2)negative pure profit in bottom gillnet operations (themost predominant gear in the area); (3) positive pureprofit for other gears only due to depressedopportunity cost for labor in the area. The resultsindicate that fishing continues despite the low incomesderived because of the absence of income alternatives.Note in this context that the sum of labor cost andpure profit ($340-580) is below the mean fishinghousehold expenditure ($750) per year in the area.Moreover, there is substantial underemploymentamong municipal fishers indicated by the low numberof fishing days (109-128) per year.

The decimation of resource abundance andconditions of biological and economic overfishing hasworsened since the assessments noted above were

Baby trawl - baby otter trawl, karkar, taksay, trawland trawl net

Fish corral – pasabing and bakladFish trap – fish pot, kasag and nasaGillnet – surface gillnet, bottom set gillnet, drift gillnet,

tuna drift gillnet, paltaw, sayudsod, sigay and tabaHook and line – longline, baniit, bingwit, kawil, kitang,

short longline and multiple hook-and-lineLift net – bintol and lampSpear – pana and spear with lightDredge – kadkad and cadcadGleanersOthers – beach seine, dakles, jigger, kariskis, legma,

mannunyo, mosquito net, sagap, screen net,shrimp trawl net, sillem, “skylab”, tabukol or castnet, basnig or bagnet and others

Total

0

1,226340

2,759

1,201

480189125191

1,067

7,578

576

00

3,911

57

50000

170

4,764

Province/SectorPangasinan

I IILa Union

III

771

028

1,782

700

0000

413

3,694

Total No. %

1,347

1,226368

8,452

1,958

530189125191

1,650

16,035

8.40

7.652.29

52.71

12.21

3.311.180.781.19

10.28

100.00

Gear Type

Table 1. Number of municipal fishers using various types of fishing gear in Lingayen Gulf, 2001 (Hilomen andJimenez 2001).

Figure 2. Relative indices of demersal biomass and number ofmunicipal fishers and commercial trawlers in Lingayen Gulf from thelate 1930s to the late 1980s (Silvestre 1990b).


Sector Municipality 1985

2,6701,492

288566724

9001,800

56600

1,190

58336464313116532359

10,2865,740

4,546

2,1782,178

12,464

2,9361,054

2362,504

848

3112,946

105753649

2411,2861,478

515174ndnd

12,3427,578

4,764

3,6933,693

16,035

19.9932.02

9.96-29.36-18.06342.4017.13

4.80-65.4463.6887.5025.50

-45.46

69.5769.57

315.52282.66218.5364.3850.00

28.65

2001 % Change

Pangasinan

BolinaoAndaBaniAlaminosSual

LabradorLingayenBinmaleySan FabianDagupan

La Union

RosarioSto. TomasAgooAringayCabaBauangSan Fernando

I

II

I I I

Total

Table 3. Comparison of the number of municipal fishers in Lingayen Gulf in 1985 and 2001(Hilomen and Jimenez 2001).

conducted based on data for the late 1980s. Fishingeffort has substantially increased recently. Hilomenand Jimenez (2001) noted an increase of about 29% inthe number of municipal fishers (Table 3), and anincrease in the number of commercial boats (from 26trawlers in 1987-1988 to 28 trawlers and 52 Danishseiners in 2000-2001). They noted, however, that thegross tonnage of commercial boats have declined and

have increasingly shifted operations outside the gulf.The effect of further increases in fishing effort given

the already overfished conditions has been asubstantive decline in total catch from the gulf (Hilomenet al. 2002) (Figure 3). This has also led to substantivedeclines in catch rates of municipal and commercialfishing units (Table 4), with negative impacts onincomes, fish supply and poverty in coastal

Fishing Sector/Gear Type Total Revenue Labor Costa Operating Costb Pure Profit

Municipalc

Bottom gillnetBaby trawlLiftnetLongline/dynamite

CommercialMedium trawld

4501,120

8701,080

50,40050,400

190220190220

3,900e

5,800f

280710580470

45,50045,500

-20190100390

1,000-900

Table 2. Estimates of annual revenue, costs and pure profit in $ in 1987 for selected types of fishing gearused in Lingayen Gulf (Silvestre 1990b; Cruz and Silvestre 1991).

a Opportunity cost of labor assumed to be $1.70/day of operation (i.e., one-half of mandated minimum wage for nonagriculturalworkers outside Metro Manila), unless indicated otherwise.b Includes all fixed and variable costs, as well as opportunity cost of capital invested (i.e., assumed equal to prevailingsavings interest rate of 5% per year).c Number of fishing days per year were 109, 113 and 128 for bottom gillnet, liftnet, and baby trawl/longline/dynamite fishingoperations, respectively. Mean municipal fishing household expenditure (for food, clothing, etc.) in 1987 was $750/year.d Average of 100 trawl trips per year at 2 days/trawl trip.e Includes managerial opportunity cost ($1,180/year) and labor cost for 8 persons at $340/person/year.f Includes managerial opportunity cost ($1,180/year) and labor cost (average of $578/person/year for 8 persons) based onaverage actual compensation and benefit structure given by trawl operators.


communities. Biological and economic overfishingresulting from excessive fishing pressure has not onlydecimated the fisheries resources and economic benefitsfrom fisheries, but has also altered the composition ofthe resources substantially. Table 5, for example,summarizes the changes observed in trawl surveycatches from the late 1940s to the late 1980s. The evidentstock alterations include, among others, the following:(1) relative increase in squids (cephalopods), triggerfishand “trash” fish components; (2) virtual disappearanceof large species such as rays and lactarids; and (3)relative decrease of slipmouths, lutjanids (snappers)and flatfishes. Overall, these trends indicate severeoverfishing which threatens the sustainability offisheries in the gulf.

Key Fisheries Management Directions

Many ecological, economic, social and institutionalissues impact the fisheries in Lingayen Gulf. The hostof issues has been conclusively documented in detail

by the substantive body of assessments cited above.Appropriate management directions (in terms ofstrategies and actions) to resolve or mitigate the issueshave resulted from these assessments, taking the formof various plans and programs at the municipal,provincial and regional levels. Briefly outlined beloware the key issues and management directions evidentfrom these assessments and management programs.

The main problems impacting fisheries in the gulfare overfishing and degradation of coastal habitats(including reefs and mangroves). These require removalof excess fishing capacity and rehabilitation of coastalhabitats (including wider use of protected areas andreduction of coastal environmental impacts). Addressingoverfishing will also need improved managementincluding, among others, the following: (1) replacementof de facto open access systems with rights-based licensingschemes; (2) redirection of fishing capacity throughalternative livelihood and investment opportunities; (3)regulation of appropriate mix of fishing gears consistentwith sustainable fisheries (including elimination of blast

and cyanide fishing); (4) formulation andimplementation of zonation schemes to minimizegear conflicts and optimize yields and incomes;(5) institutionalization of participation by fishersand other stakeholders in enforcement andmanagement; (6) reduction of environmentalimpacts of fishing and post-harvest (value) losses;(7) upgrading of the policy, regulatory andadministrative system for fisheries in the gulf.These measures require a wider constituency ofstakeholders, necessitating improved information,education and extension programs. Moreover, theyrequire improved research inputs and utilization.Sustaining management efforts over the long-termwill also need strengthening of local capabilitiesin these fields. Overall, the combined managementand rehabilitation efforts should rebuild coastalfish stocks and habitats to more productive

Figure 3. Trend of catch and fishing effort in the Lingayen Gulf fisheries (Hilomen et al. 2002).

Table 4. Comparison of catch rates (kg/trip) for various types of fishinggear used in Lingayen Gulf in 1985-1988 and 2000-2001 (Hilomen andJimenez 2001).

Fishery 1985-1988 2000-2001a % Decrease

A. MunicipalGillnetHook and lineFish corralFish trapBaby trawl

B. CommercialDanish seineTrawl

15.25b

7.08b

4.35b

2.10b

31.30c

26.80b

31.80d

11.043.150.901.75

14.68

14.1715.37

38.20124.50384.6023.20

113.20

89.20106.90

aHilomen and Jimenez (2001).bCalud et al. (1989).cMines (1986).dOchavillo et al. (1989).


Family/Group Probable CauseObserved Changein Relative Abundance

Relative increaseDisappearanceDisappearanceRelative increaseRelative decrease

Relative increaseRelative increaseMassive decreaseRelative increase

Reduced predationRecruitment overfishingRecruitment overfishingSpecies replacementGrowth and recruitment overfishing

Reduced predation, species replacementGrowth overfishingNo straightforward explanationTechnological (higher trawl opening and trawl speed)

CephalopodsLactaridaeDasyatidaeBalistidaeLutjanidae“Trash” fish Low-value species (e.g., Apogonidae) Juveniles of high-value speciesLeiognathidaeCarangidae, Scombridae, Engraulidae and Trichluridae

Table 5. Change in relative abundance of various families/groups in trawl survey catches in Lingayen Gulf from the late 1940sto the late 1980s with increasing fishing pressure and technological innovations (Silvestre 1990b).

levels, thereby restoring catches and incomes andmitigating poverty in the gulf area.

Evidently, the problems persist and have worsenedthrough the years due to mounting use pressures andlack of effective, integrated and sustainedimplementation of requisite management strategies andactions. The greatest challenge lies in overcoming such“paralysis of implementation” in the management offisheries in the gulf. We note, moreover, that the fisheriesproblems represent local symptoms of the wider nationalenvironment and resources degradation resulting frompoverty and underdevelopment. Ultimate solutions,therefore, to the fisheries problems in the gulf alsodepend on the progress made by the country inpromoting wider economic growth, social equity,population management and overall nationaldevelopment in a globalized economy.

References

Calud, A., G. Rodriguez, R. Aruelo, G. Aguilar, E. Cinco, N. Armada andG. Silvestre. 1989. Preliminary results of a study of the municipalfisheries in Lingayen Gulf, p. 3-29. In G. Silvestre, E. Miclat andT.E. Chua (eds.) Towards sustainable development of the coastalresources of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 17,200 p.

Cruz, A. and G.T. Silvestre. 1991. Economic analysis of medium trawlersin Lingayen Gulf. Fish. Res. J. Philipp. 13(1-2): 1-14.

FIDC-NRMC (Fishery Industry Development Council and NaturalResources Management Center). 1980. Assessment of Philippinefishery wealth (marine sector): A Delphi approach. FIDC-NRMC,Quezon City, Philippines. (Unpublished).

Fox, P. 1986. A manual of rapid appraisal techniques for Philippinecoastal fisheries. Research Division, Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources, Quezon City, Philippines. 43 p.

Hilomen, V.V. and L.F. Jimenez. 2001. Status of fisheries in LingayenGulf (Appendix 1). In M. McGlone and C. Villanoy (eds.) Resourceand social assessment of Lingayen Gulf. Project Report submittedto the Fisheries Resource Management Project, Department ofAgriculture. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippinesand the Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, QuezonCity, Philippines.

Hilomen, V.V., W. Licuanan, P. Aliño and L. Jimenez. 2002. Status ofthe fisheries resources in Lingayen Gulf: Easing the pressureand enhancing the resources. Paper presented at the NationalConference on Fisheries Resource and Social Assessments,Development Academy of the Philippines, Tagaytay City. FisheriesResource Management Project, Department of Agriculture,Quezon City, Philippines.

McGlone, M. and C. Villanoy, Editors. 2001. Resource and socialassessment of Lingayen Gulf. Project Report submitted to theFisheries Resource Management Project, Department ofAgriculture. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippinesand the Marine Environment and Resources Foundation, QuezonCity, Philippines.

McManus, J.W. 1996. Social and economic aspects of reef fisheriesand their management, p. 249-281. In N.V.C. Polunin and C.M.Roberts (eds.) Reef fisheries. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

McManus, L.T. and T.E.Chua, Editors. The coastal environmental profileof Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 22, 69 p.

Mines, A. 1986. Assessment of the fisheries of Lingayen Gulf. ProjectReport submitted to the Philippine Council for Agriculture andResources Research and Development, National Science andTechnology Authority. Institute of Fisheries Development andResearch, College of Fisheries, University of the Philippines-Visayas, Quezon City, Philippines. 55 p.

Ochavillo, D. and G.T. Silvestre. 1991. Optimum mesh size for thetrawl fisheries of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. p. 41-44. In L.M.Chou, T. E. Chua, H.W. Khoo, P.E. Lim, J.N. Paw, G.T. Silvestre,M.J. Valencia, A.T. White and P.K. Wong (eds.) Towards anintegrated management of tropical coastal resources. ICLARMConf. Proc. 22, 445 p.

Ochavillo, D., H. Hernandez, S. Resma and G. Silvestre. 1989.Preliminary results of a study of the commercial trawl fisheriesin Lingayen Gulf, p. 31-42. In G. Silvestre, E. Miclat and T.E.Chua (eds.) Towards sustainable development of the coastalresources of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc.17, 200 p.


Silvestre, G.T. 1990a. Capture fisheries, p. 15-28. In L.T. McManusand T.E.Chua (eds.) The coastal environmental profile ofLingayen Gulf, Philippines. ICLARM Tech. Rep. 22, 69 p.

Silvestre, G.T. 1990b. Overexploitation of the demersal stocks ofLingayen Gulf, Philippines, p. 873-876. In R. Hirano and I.Hanyu (eds.) The Second Asian Fisheries Forum. Asian FisheriesSociety, Manila, Philippines. 991 p.

Silvestre, G.T., E. Miclat and T.E. Chua, Editors. 1989. Towardssustainable development of the coastal resources of LingayenGulf, Philippines. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 17, 200 p.

Silvestre, G.T., N. Armada and E. Cinco. 1991. Assessment of thecapture fisheries in Lingayen Gulf, Philippines. p. 25-36. InL.M. Chou, T.E. Chua, H.W. Khoo, P.E. Lim, J.N. Paw, G.T.Silvestre, M.J. Valencia, A.T. White and P.K. Wong (eds.)Towards an integrated management of tropical coastalresources. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 22, 445 p.

Smith, I.R., M.Y. Puzon and C.N. Vidal-Libunao. 1980. Philippinemunicipal fisheries: A review of resources, technology andsocio-economics. ICLARM Stud. Rev. 4, 84 p.

Warfel, H.E. and P.R. Manacop. 1950. Otter trawl explorations inPhilippine waters. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of theInterior, Washington, DC, US. Res. Rep. 25, 49 p.


Status of Fisheries in San Miguel Bay1

GERONIMO T. SILVESTRETetra Tech EM, Inc.



VINCENT V. HILOMENAnimal Biology Division, Institute of Biological Sciences

University of the Philippines-Los BañosCollege, Laguna 4031

andSEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)

College, Los Baños, Laguna 4031Philippines

Background

San Miguel Bay is located in the Bicol region on thePacific coast of Luzon at around 14o N latitude and 123o

E longitude (Figure 1). Recent assessments detailingthe biophysical and socioeconomic background offisheries in the bay are given, among others, in thevarious contributions in Silvestre et al. (1992, 1995a).San Miguel Bay is a shallow, estuarine body of waterwith an area of 1,115 km2. Depth (averaging 7.4 m) andsalinity increases northward from the outfall of the BicolRiver (near Cabusao) to the mouth of the bay facingthe Pacific Ocean. About 95% of the bay has soft (muddy/sandy) substrate, and reef areas (about 38 km2) areconcentrated in the northern part of the bay wheremarine conditions prevail. Remaining mangrove areas(about 14 km2) are found mostly near the outfall of theBicol River, near Mercedes municipality, and the easternparts of the bay. A total of 12 river systems drain intothe bay with a combined catchment area of 3,320 km2.The Bicol River basin comprises about 70% of this totalcatchment area. The entire catchment area consistsmostly of agricultural lands (coconut plantations andrice farms) and secondary forests or shrublands. It alsoencompasses the main population centers of Daet, Nagaand Iriga City.

Seven coastal municipalities border San Miguel Bay,namely: Mercedes and Basud (Camarines Norte

province), and Sipocot, Cabusao, Calabanga, Tinambacand Siruma (Camarines Sur province). There are about79 coastal villages (barangays) in these sevenmunicipalities with a projected population of about115,000 persons in 2001. The coastal villages, occurringin largely rural development settings, are characterizedmostly by depressed socioeconomic conditions,particularly in the eastern parts of the bay. Povertyincidence is above the national average andunderemployment (already at a high 35% in thesevillages in the early 1990s) is believed to have worsenedwith increasing population, limited economicopportunities, and geographic and occupationalimmobility. Fishing is a main source of livelihood forresidents of coastal villages. About 7,000 municipalfishers fish in the bay, 67% of which are fromMercedes, Calabanga and Siruma, 27% from Tinambacand Cabusao, and 6% from Sipocot and Basud(Hilomen et al. 2003). In addition, commercial trawlers(while banned in the bay which consists of municipalwaters) occasionally operate within the bay andcompete with municipal fishers for available resources.

The first investigation of fisheries in San MiguelBay dates back to Umali (1937). Subsequent works (e.g.,Warfel and Manacop 1950; Legasto et al. 1975; Simpson1978) dealt only with selected aspects of the fisheries. Itwas the 1979-1981 investigations of the InternationalCenter for Living Aquatic Resources Management

1 This paper can be cited as follows: SILVESTRE, G.T. and V.V. HILOMEN. 2004. Status of fisheries in San Miguel Bay, p.292-299. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: Thestatus of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Status of fisheries in San Miguel Bay 293

Figure 1. Map of San Miguel Bay showing coastal municipalities and biophysical features.


(ICLARM), however, which provided the first detailedassessments of the biophysical (Pauly and Mines 1982),economic (Smith and Mines 1982), social (Bailey 1982a,1982b) and institutional (Smith et al. 1983) aspects offisheries in the bay. These assessments provided asystematic diagnosis of the fisheries situation(characterized, among others, by overfishing andinequity favoring trawlers over the larger number ofmunicipal fishers) and appropriate research andmanagement options in response to prevailing issues(Smith et al. 1983). Many of the issues were noted tohave persisted due to lack of concerted efforts toimplement management recommendations (Smith andSalon 1987). Subsequent detailed assessments andprovision of management options in 1992-1993 underthe auspices of the Fisheries Sector Program (e.g.,Silvestre et al. 1992, 1995a; PMO/FSP/DA-SMBMC-ICLARM 1995) and in 2001-2002 under the auspices ofthe Fisheries Resources Management Program (Hilomenet al. 2003) indicate, among others, that the problem ofoverfishing has worsened. This contribution attemptsto provide only a brief update of the status of fisheriesin San Miguel Bay. Interested readers are referred tothe assessments cited above for more detailedtreatments.

Catch and Fishing Effort

Numerous fishing gears (as much as 46 distincttypes) are used by fishers to exploit the multispeciesresources in San Miguel Bay (Silvestre et al. 1995b). Table1 gives estimates of annual catch and effort by type offishing gear used in San Miguel Bay based on studiesconducted during the period 2001-2002 (Hilomen et al.2003). A total of 6,712 fishing gear units are used in thebay. The most numerous gears are gillnet, mini trawl,hook and line, scissor or push net and longline. Apartfrom the Norway trawl, the rest of the gears areconsidered municipal gears. The Norway trawl is hereconsidered “commercial” due to the size of the boatsused to operate them. A number of fishing gears arenot included in Table 1. These include blast fishing andcyanide fishing which are illegal but are known to occurin certain parts of the bay. Also, gears which are usedvery irregularly and contribute insignificantly to overallcatch (e.g., cast net and dipnet) are not included in thetable.

Annual catch during the 2001-2002 period was about20,170 t, coming mostly from the use of trawl (52.7%)and gillnet (32.8%) gears. The fisheries in San MiguelBay are essentially a trawl-gillnet fisheries with more

Table 1. Estimates of annual catch and fishing effort by gear type in San Miguel Bay based onstudies conducted in 2001-2002 (Hilomen et al. 2003).

Gear Type No. of Units

7536

679

1,040841

73249805

3155

41137381

2585444213122204

45582

6,712

1328

217

164144

77186167

31154

14217211372

149174159272198107

--

Trips/year

490.01,318.1

36.6

15.79.6

30.226.97.6

14.613.8

47.61.4

19.861.03.94.7

10.76.1

11.210.4

--

Catch Rate(kg/trip)

Annual Catch(t) (%)

4,851.0379.6

5,392.8

2,677.81,162.6

169.81,245.81,021.7

1.4329.4

277.133.0

852.48.8

339.9363.1362.4202.4452.4

50.1-

20,173.5

24.05 1.88 26.73

13.27 5.76 0.84 6.18 5.06 0.01 1.63

1.37 0.16 4.23 0.04 1.69 1.80 1.80 1.00 2.24 0.25

- 100.00

TrawlBaby trawlNorway trawlMini trawl

GillnetBottomset gillnetCrab gillnetDrift gillnetHunting gillnetShrimp gillnetSurface gillnet (shark)Surface gillnet set

OthersStationary liftnetCrab liftnetBottomset longlineBottomset longline (shark)Hook and lineScissor netFilter netFish corralFish trapCrab potOthers

Total


than 85% of the catch coming from these gears. Table2 gives the most abundant families/groupscomprising the catch. Over 250 species belonging to70 families/groups occurred in the catch of variousgears used. The annual catch was dominated byanchovies (Engraulidae), scads (Carangidae),sardines (Clupeidae), slipmouths (Leiognathidae),and mackerels (Scombridae). Note that the currentcomposition of the catch is dominated more bypelagic families/groups (which are subject to highinterannual variations in abundance) compared tothose reported by Silvestre et al. (1995b) for the 1992-1993 period. Note also the increasing proportion ofsquids and priacanthids and the decline of sciaenidsin the catch. These reflect the heavy fishing pressurein the bay, leading to increased proportion of squidsand pelagics (which recruit from outside the bay)compared to demersals (which are more residentand severely overfished) (see above).

The historical development of catch and fishingeffort in the bay from the end of World War II to theearly 1980s has been reviewed in detail by Pauly(1982). From several hundred municipal fishing units(and the absence of trawling) immediately afterWorld War II, fishing effort expanded to about 307

trawl units (119 commercial) and 3,226 municipal gearunits by 1980-1981. Table 3 gives the trend of increasein fishing effort in the bay from the early 1980s to theearly 2000s. The total number of gear units hasincreased tremendously from about 3,500 in the early1980s to about 6,700 by the early 2000s. The number ofgear units has increased for most gear types comparedto the 1980-1981 base period, with the exception ofcommercial trawl, liftnet and scissor net units.Significantly, trawl and gillnet units more than doubled(from 307 to 790 and 1,345 to 3,409, respectively). Acomparison of intensity of fishing operations (trips/year) between 1980-1981 and 2001-2002 shows increasesfor most gear types, with the exception of slight declinesfor gillnet and longline units and a substantive declinefor commercial trawl (given decreasing intrusion intomunicipal waters) and filter net. Pauly (1982) and Smithet al. (1983) concluded that overfishing was already aproblem with effort levels evident in the early 1980s.The tremendous increase in fishing effort since the early1980s have substantive (long-term) negative implicationson the resource base (see below), as well as on the catchrate, food security, income and living conditions offishers in the bay.

Table 2. Comparison of catch composition in San Miguel Bay based on studies conducted in 1992-1993and 2001-2002 (Silvestre et al. 1995b; Hilomen et al. 2003).

Family/Group

Engraulidae (bolinao, dilis)Carangidae (galunggong, matabaka)Clupeidae (tamban, tunsoy)Leiognathidae (koyog, sapsap, lawayan)Scombridae (kabalyas, hasahasa)Sciaenidae (abo, pagotpot, alakaak)Portunidae (alimasag, kasag)Penaeidae (hipon, pasayan, sugpo)Squid (pusit)Priacanthidae (dilat, burakat)

Rank2001-2002

123456789

10

1992-1993

69

112

20153

18-

37.710.310.27.47.05.92.62.52.42.3

2001-2002 1992-1993

9.03.01.7

12.40.6

13.59.8

11.80.7

-

%

Table 3. Annual fishing effort in San Miguel Bay based on independent studies conducted in 1980-1981, 1992-1993 and 2001-2003 (Pauly 1982; Silvestre et al. 1995b; Hilomen et al. 2003).

Gear Type

Trawl Mini OthersGillnetLiftnetFilter netScissor netLonglineOther gearsTotal

188119

1,345171

60834103713

3,533

191103156

53225150120170

26055

2,67060

260245236953

4,739

202125171115240168156163

679111

3,40941

213444383

1,4326712

217150132157159174

92182

1980-1981 1992-1993 2001-2002No. of Units Trips/year No. of Units Trips/year No. of Units Trips/year


The catch in San Miguel Bay increased dramaticallyfrom about several hundred tons immediately afterWorld War II to about 19,100 t during the 1980-1981period (Pauly 1982). Table 4 gives estimates of annualcatch by gear type in the bay during the early 1980s,early 1990s and early 2000s. Total catch dipped to about17,800 t in the early 1990s from about 19,100 t in theearly 1980s. This increased to about 20,200 t by the early2000s with the trend of increase in fishing effort. Theincreased catch was made possible by shifts incomposition of the catches (as noted above) andsuccessful recruitment from outside the bay. It is noted,however, that the increased catch and fishing pressure(within and outside the bay) is essentially “mining” and(possibly irreversibly) altering the resource base,increasing the risk of wider perturbations in catches,and threatening the long-term sustainability of thefisheries. Currently, a large proportion of trawl catchesalready consist of jellyfishes (Hilomen et al. 2003), notedelsewhere to be symptomatic of excessive fishingpressure and biological overfishing (Silvestre et al.1995b).

The data in Table 4 also confirm the persistence ofthe issue of inequity in catch distribution between thetrawl and other municipal fishing units. In the early2000s, about 53% of catches still go to trawl units. Theintrusion of commercial trawlers into the bay hassubstantially abated, however, and only about 1.3% ofthe catch goes to commercial trawl units in the early2000s compared to about 12.5% in the early 1980s.

Exploitation Status

A substantive body of assessments has accumulatedsince the pioneering work of Umali (1937) in San MiguelBay. These assessments provide conclusive evidenceof excessive fishing pressure and overfishing of the

resources in the bay. As early as 1976, the Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources concluded that the baywas overfished based on comparisons of catch statisticswith potential production per unit area (Smith et al.1983). Following essentially the same approach, Simpson(1978) and the Fishery Industry Development Counciland the Natural Resources Management Center (FIDC-NRMC 1980) concluded that demersal resources in thearea were heavily exploited and overfished. Themultidisciplinary assessments conducted by ICLARMin 1979-1981 (Bailey 1982a, 1982b; Pauly and Mines 1982;Smith and Mines 1982; Smith et al. 1983) documented indetail the issues of overfishing and inequitycharacterizing the fisheries. Based on countrywidecomparison of catch rates and density of fishers, Fox(1986) also concluded that the fisheries resources in thebay were overfished. Smith and Salon (1987) notedfurther increases in fishing effort since the early 1980swhich have aggravated the problem of excess fishingpressure. More recent assessments (e.g., Silvestre et al.1992, 1995a; Hilomen et al. 2003) documented furtherexpansion and shifts in fishing effort – furtherexacerbating the heavy fishing pressure and overfishedcondition of fishery resources in the bay.

The deleterious impact of overfishing on fisheriesresources in the bay can be illustrated by the substantivedecimation of its demersal fish abundance. Table 5 givesestimates of demersal stock density in the bay basedon trawl surveys conducted in the area during the period1947-2002. Demersal fish abundance in the early 1990swas down to only 18.5% of its original levels in the late1940s. Preliminary estimates from surveys in 2001-2002(Hilomen et al. 2003) show that abundance levels havebeen further decimated to only about 2% of originallevels, indicating severe overfishing. Conventionalfisheries models suggest that fish stocks are overfishedwhen their abundance is reduced below 33-50% of theiroriginal levels.

Species-specific assessments (e.g., Cinco andSilvestre 1995) indicate that exploitation ratios for speciesdominating catches in the bay have a mean value over0.65. This is very high compared to optimal values(0.30-0.50) suggested by conventional fisheries models,and implies excessive fishing pressure from the mix ofgears used in the bay. Moreover, such assessmentsshow that most species are caught below sizes whichwill maximize biological yield (Pauly 1982; Cinco andSilvestre 1995; Hilomen et al. 2003). Hilomen et al. (2003)reported that of the 17 species dominating catches duringtheir study, 11 were exploited below 10 cm and 14 werecaught before the onset of first maturity. Otherindicators of overfishing include high yield-to-biomassratios (above 4.0) and catch per unit area (15-20 t/km2)

Table 4. Annual catch by gear type in San Miguel Bay based onindependent studies conducted in 1980-1981, 1992-1993 and2001-2002 (Pauly 1982; Silvestre et al. 1995b; Hilomen et al.2003).

Gear Type

TrawlLarge and mediumSmall and mini

GillnetLiftnetFilter netScissor netLonglineOther gearsTotal

2,385 9,291 4,854 624 295 476 25 1,178 19,128.0

332.6 5,806.1 7,550.0 1,021.2 967.2 823.2 482.3 770.1 17,752.7

1.8732.7142.53

5.755.454.642.724.34

100.00

5,230.65,392.86,608.5

277.1362.4363.1861.2

1,077.820,173.5

25.9326.7332.76

1.371.801.804.275.34

100.00

1980-1981 1992-1993 2001-2002

12.4748.5725.38

3.261.542.490.136.16

100.00

(t) (%) (t) (%) (t) (%)


since the early 1980s (Pauly 1982; Cinco et al. 1995;Hilomen et al. 2003).

The heavy fishing pressure has resulted insubstantive changes in the composition of the catchesand resources (Table 6). The following trends, reflectiveof both recruitment and ecosystem overfishing, areevident from available studies: (1) disappearance orgreatly reduced number of sharks and rays (and otherlarge, long-lived species), as well as Otolithes ruber(formerly dominant in trawl catches); (2) increasedsquid (Loliginidae) abundance; (3) increased shrimpabundance relative to fish biomass; and (4) increasedabundance of cardinal (Apogonidae) and puffer(Tetraodontidae) fishes. Similar trends are evidentelsewhere in the world and accepted as symptoms ofbiological overfishing.

Overfishing, thus, is a serious problem in San MiguelBay. Silvestre (1996) noted that such overfishing leadsto low catch rates and fishing incomes. Most of thefishers in the 79 coastal villages have incomes belowthe poverty threshold (about US$140/month in 1992-

1993), but stay in fishing given limited alternativelivelihood opportunities. Moreover, they keep fishingas their incomes are above the opportunity wageprevailing in the area (about US$40/month in 1992-1993). The evident biological and economic overfishingconditions in the San Miguel Bay fisheries persist amidstissues of high population growth, depressed ruralconditions, habitat degradation, poor infrastructure,limited financial and organizational capabilities, lack ofstakeholder participation in management, andinstitutional inadequacies.

Key Issues and Opportunities

A host of ecological, economic, social andinstitutional issues impact the fisheries in San MiguelBay. Details of these issues are given in the variousassessments noted above, and corresponding strategiesand actions to resolve or mitigate them are given, amongothers, in Smith et al. (1983); PMO/FSP/DA-SMBMC-ICLARM (1995); Silvestre et al. (1995a); and Hilomen et

Table 5. Estimates of demersal stock density in San Miguel Bay based on trawl surveydata collected in 1947-2002 (adapted from Pauly 1982 and Cinco et al. 1995).

SourceYear/Period Stock Density(t/km2)

Relative StockDensity (%)a

19471957-195819671977197919801980-19811992-19932001-2002

10.605.203.913.491.841.892.131.960.18

100.049.136.932.917.417.820.118.51.7

Warfel and Manacop (1950)Pauly (1982)Pauly (1982)Pauly (1982)Pauly (1982)Pauly (1982)Vakily (1982)Cinco et al. (1995)Hilomen et al. (2003)

a Using 1947 as base year.

Table 6. Changes in relative abundance of various families/groups in trawl survey catches in San Miguel Bay fromthe late 1940s to the early 2000s with increasing fishing pressure and technological innovations (adapted fromSilvestre et al. 1995b based on trawl survey data given in Warfel and Manacop 1950; Vakily 1982; Cinco et al.1995; and Hilomen et al. 2003).

Family/Group Probable CauseObserved Change inRelative Abundance

Sharks and raysCephalopodsPenaeid shrimpsPristidae“Trash” fish Low-value species (e.g., Gobiidae) Juveniles of high-value speciesLeiognathidaeTetraodontidae, ApogonidaeSphyraenidae, Drepanidae and SynodontidaeEngraulidae, Clupeidae, Trichiuridae, Carangidae and ScombridaeOtolithes ruber

Massive decreaseRelative increaseRelative increaseDisappearance

Relative increaseRelative increaseMassive decreaseRelative increaseRelative decreaseRelative increase

Massive decrease

Recruitment overfishingReduced predationReduced predationRecruitment overfishing

Species replacement, reduced predationGrowth overfishingNo straightforward explanationSpecies replacementRecruitment overfishingTechnological (higher trawl openingand speed)Recruitment overfishing


al. (2003). The key fisheries management issues andopportunities are outlined below.

Overfishing

As previously noted, the issue of overfishing isserious and evidently requires substantive reductionof fishing capacity. This will need, among others: (1)replacement of current open access system with effectiverights-based licensing schemes; (2) redirection of fishingcapacity through alternative livelihood and investmentopportunities; (3) wider use of marine protected areas;and (4) regulation of the mix of fishing gears used inthe bay (towards more selective nontrawl sections offisheries).

Capture of undersized fishes

The capture of small, immature fishes is substantialparticularly in the trawl, scissor net and filter netoperations. The issue requires technological measures(such as control of appropriate mix of gears and meshsizes used) and regulation of temporal and spatialdisposition of fishing gears. Wider use of spatial (gear)zonation schemes incorporating marine protected areasand seasonal closures need attention.

Gear conflicts

Competition for resources and gear conflicts haveintensified with increased fishing pressure, particularlybetween the trawl and nontrawl sections of fisheries.While the intrusion of commercial trawlers intomunicipal waters has substantially abated, rapidexpansion of the number of municipal trawlers hasincreased competition and conflict among fishers.Innovative management toward the right mix of gearsand spatial (gear) zonation schemes are needed toreduce conflicts and enhance social stability.

Destructive fishing methods

Blast and cyanide fishing persists in certain parts ofthe bay despite being illegal and acknowledged to harmboth resources and coral reef habitats. The problemrequires, among others, enhancement of monitoringand enforcement, alternative livelihood schemes, publicawareness and education, and participation of fishersand other stakeholders in management.

Degradation of coastal habitats

Soil erosion in the catchments and siltation of thebay (with a silt load of 15.5 million m3/year) impact

coastal water quality and habitats such as reefs. Fecalcoliform levels are above national standards inlocalized areas off Mercedes and the outfall of theBicol River into the bay. Reef areas are mostly in fairto good condition, but are impacted by siltation,destructive fishing methods, and excessive fishing andgleaning in the tidal flats. The mangrove area is onlyabout 50% of those during the late 1950s, and presentstands are under heavy pressure from harvesting forfirewood and conversion to other land uses such asfishponds. Destruction of mangroves aggravates thesiltation problem in coastal waters, as well as impactson adjacent reefs. Measures in response to these coastaldegradation issues are given in Silvestre (1996) andPMO/FSP/DA-SMBMC-ICLARM (1995), and includestabilization of critical uplands and mangrove andupland reforestation.

Post-harvest losses

Losses in the value of fish catches are substantialparticularly in isolated eastern parts of the bay.Improved post-harvest handling requires attention,together with improvement of rural road infrastructureand of silted ports and jetties, and ice plantrehabilitation.

Inadequate participation of stakeholders

Enhancing the awareness and participation of fishersand other stakeholders is necessary for better and morecost-effective management of fisheries. Improvedtransparency and institutionalized participation ofstakeholders in key aspects of fisheries managementare needed. Enhancement of fishers’ organizations,education and awareness programs, constituency-building for fisheries reforms, community organizing,and improved extension, training and credit supportactivities require attention.

Research inadequacies

Effective management systems have to be supportedby appropriate research and information. The “feedbackloop” between research and management decision/action processes requires attention. Development of localresearch institutions to provide cost-effective, timelyand relevant inputs to the management process isneeded. While a substantive number of assessmentsexist for the bay, these require extension outside itslimits given the evident resources and fisheriesdynamics. Site-specific research is needed, amongothers, in the following areas: recruitment dynamics;size and siting of marine protected areas; resource


enhancement and habitat rehabilitation; selective fishingand zonation schemes; appropriate fisheries managementreference system; ecosystem modeling; and policy andinstitutional research.

Institutional inadequacies

Many of the issues discussed above persist due tothe inability of existing institutions to resolve or mitigatethem. Upgrading of the policy, regulatory andadministrative system for managing fisheries in the bayneeds attention. Consolidation of fisheries authority andresources across municipalities (and national lineagencies) is needed to allow for integrated, effectiveand cost-efficient fisheries management. Suchconsolidation will have to include areas outside the bay,given the spatial distribution of both resources andfishing effort. Upgrading of the financial, technical andhumanpower capabilities of organizations involved withfisheries management (incorporating participation andcost-sharing by stakeholders) also requires attention.

Overall, it is noted that the host of issues requiresan integrated program of actions on a broad front. It isemphasized that the record in San Miguel Bay is “quitelacking in implementation” despite substantial studiesdocumenting issues and appropriate managementdirections. Moreover, ultimate solutions to issuesimpacting fisheries depend on how progress is made inaddressing national issues related to poverty, widereconomic development, social justice, population andoverall national development.

References

Bailey, C., Editor. 1982a. Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay,Philippines: Occupational and geographic mobility. ICLARM Tech.Rep. 10, 57 p.

Bailey, C., Editor. 1982b. Small-scale fisheries of San Miguel Bay,Philippines: Social aspects of production and marketing. ICLARMTech. Rep. 9, 107 p.

Cinco, E. and G.T. Silvestre. 1995. Population parameters andexploitation ratios of fishes caught in San Miguel Bay, Philippines.In G. Silvestre, C. Luna and J. Padilla (eds.) Multidisciplinaryassessment of the fisheries in San Miguel Bay, Philippines (1992-1993). ICLARM Tech. Rep. 47 (CD-ROM).

Cinco, E., J. Diaz, R. Gatchalian and G. Silvestre. 1995. Results of theSan Miguel Bay trawl survey. In G. Silvestre, C. Luna and J. Padilla(eds.). Multidisciplinary assessment of the fisheries in San MiguelBay, Philippines (1992-1993). ICLARM Tech. Rep. 47 (CD-ROM).

FIDC-NRMC (Fishery Industry Development Council and NaturalResources Management Center). 1980. Assessment of Philippinefishery wealth (marine sector): A Delphi approach. FIDC-NRMC,Quezon City, Philippines. (Unpublished).

Fox, P. 1986. A manual of rapid appraisal techniques for Philippinecoastal fisheries. Research Division, Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources, Quezon City, Philippines. 43 p.

Hilomen, V.V., J. Fragillano, F. Torres Jr., C. Luna, J. Jovellana and R.Crusio. 2003. Post-RSA of San Miguel Bay: Fisheries component.Project Report submitted to the Fisheries Resource ManagementProject, Department of Agriculture. SEAMEO Regional Center forGraduate Study and Research in Agriculture, Laguna, Philippines.

Legasto, R.M., C.M. Del Mundo and K.E. Carpenter. 1975. On thehydro-biological and socio-economic surveys of San Miguel Bay forthe proposed fish nurseries/reservations. Philipp. J. Fish. 13(2):205-246.

Pauly, D. 1982. History and present status of the fisheries, p. 95-124.In D. Pauly and A.N. Mines (eds.) Small-scale fisheries of SanMiguel Bay, Philippines: Biology and stock assessment. ICLARMTech. Rep. 7, 124 p.

Pauly, D. and A.N. Mines, Editors. 1982. Small-scale fisheries of SanMiguel Bay, Philippines: Biology and stock assessment. ICLARMTech. Rep. 7, 124 p.

PMO/FSP/DA-SMBMC-ICLARM (Program Management Office/FisheriesSector Program/ Department of Agriculture - San Miguel BayManagement Council – International Center for Living AquaticResources Management). 1995. The San Miguel Bay integratedcoastal fisheries management plan. PMO/FSP/DA, Quezon City;SMBMC, Camarines Sur; and ICLARM, Makati City, Philippines.ICLARM Tech Rep. 51 (CD-ROM).

Silvestre, G.T. 1996. Integrated management of coastal fisheries:Lessons from initiatives in San Miguel Bay, Philippines. ICLARM,Makati City, Philippines. 13 p.

Silvestre, G.T., C.Z. Luna and H. Montalvo, Editors. 1992. The coastalenvironmental profile of San Miguel Bay, Philippines. ICLARM Tech.Rep. 50 (CD-ROM).

Silvestre, G.T., C.Z. Luna and J. Padilla, Editors. 1995a. Multidisciplinaryassessment of the fisheries in San Miguel Bay, Philippines (1992-1993). ICLARM Tech. Rep. 47 (CD-ROM).

Silvestre, G.T., E. Cinco, R. Gatchalian and J. Diaz. 1995b. Catch andeffort in the San Miguel Bay fisheries. In G. Silvestre, C. Luna andJ. Padilla (eds.) Multidisciplinary assessment of the fisheries in SanMiguel Bay, Philippines (1992-1993). ICLARM Tech. Rep. 47 (CD-ROM).

Simpson, A. 1978. Report of the BFAR/SCS Workshop on the FisheryResources of the Pacific Coast of the Philippines. South China SeaFisheries Development and Coordination Program, Manila. SCS/GEN/78, 48 p.

Smith, I.R. and A.N. Mines, Editors. 1982. Small-scale fisheries of SanMiguel Bay, Philippines: Economics of production and marketing.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 8, 143 p.

Smith, I.R. and O. Salon. 1987. Economic effects of overfishing in SanMiguel Bay, Philippines, p. 196-204. In IPFC Proceedings of theSymposium on the Exploitation and Management of Marine FisheryResources in Southeast Asia, 16-17 February 1987, Darwin,Australia. Indo-Pacific Fisheries Commission (IPFC) and RegionalOffice for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.RAPA Rep. 10, 552 p.

Smith, I.R., D. Pauly and A.N. Mines. 1983. Small-scale fisheries of SanMiguel Bay, Philippines: Options for management and research.ICLARM Tech. Rep. 11, 80 p.

Umali, A.F. 1937. The fishery industries of San Miguel Bay. Philipp. J. Sci.63(2): 227-258.

Vakily, J.M. 1982. Catch and effort in the trawl fishery, p. 65-94. In D.Pauly and A.N. Mines (eds.) Small-scale fisheries of San MiguelBay, Philippines: Biology and stock assessment. ICLARM Tech.Rep. 7, 124 p.

Warfel, H.E. and P.R. Manacop. 1950. Otter trawl explorations inPhilippine waters. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, USA. Res. Rep. 25,49 p.


3. recommend further enhancements, wherenecessary, to the fisheries policies considered.

Bioeconomic Model

Both biological and economic units are includedin models of fishery economics. The biological unitconsists of a growth function relating natural growth(reproduction plus individual growth minus mortality)to the fish population size or fish stock. Suchrelationship is the logistic biological growth function:

(1)

For X >/< maximum sustainable yield,throughout

Where:G is natural growth measured in weight of biomass;X is fish stock also measured in weight of biomass;and K is natural equilibrium stock or carrying capacityof the environment.

The economic unit consists of the relationshipbetween output (catch) and inputs (fishing effort)known as the production function:

(2)

This equation implies that, for any given X, thelarger the effort (E), the greater the catch (Y).Conversely, for any given E, the larger the fish stock,the greater the catch:

1 This paper can be cited as follows: CAMPOS, M.A. 2004. Bioeconomic modeling of fisheries policies in Lamon Bay,Philippines, p. 300-304. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulentseas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 This paper is based on a research project funded by the Economy and Environment Programme for Southeast Asia, andimplemented by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Regional Center for Graduate Study andResearch in Agriculture (SEAMEO-SEARCA).

Bioeconomic Modeling of Fisheries Policiesin Lamon Bay, Philippines1, 2

MARIBEC A. CAMPOSSEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)

College, Los Baños, Laguna 4031Philippines

Introduction

Lamon Bay (Figure 1) is one of the most importantfishing grounds in the Philippines. In spite of this, mostfishers in the area live in poverty, and their plight isgetting worse. Fish catch is declining by 13.5% a year,more than double the decline experienced elsewherein the country. Current fisheries policies for the areahave failed to improve the situation but no researchhas been done to find out why. Are the policies poorlydesigned? Or have they not been adequatelyenforced?

This paper attempts to fill this information gapabout the reasons for policy failure. Drawing on datafrom secondary sources and an original survey, it usesa bioeconomic model to simulate the effects of changesin the enforcement levels of three current policies: banon electric shiners, fish cage regulation and regulationof both electric shiners and fish cages. Investments ofthe government on different levels of enforcementwere assessed using benefit-cost analysis (BCA).

Objectives

The study used bioeconomic modeling to assessfisheries policies that can be implemented in LamonBay. The specific objectives of this study were to:

1. evaluate some of the existing local fisheriespolicies;

2. determine the major factors that influence trendsin fishery catch under different fisheries policies,using a bioeconomic model; and

Y = j (E); لjj/لE> 0, 2لj/لE2 < 0 for X = ¯x

G = G(X); G(X) >/< 0 for X >/< K, لG/لX >/< 0

X2 < 0ل/2Gل

Bioeconomic modeling of fisheries policies in Lamon Bay 301

Figure 1. Lamon Bay, Philippines.


(3)

If we combine equations (2) and (3), the fisheryproduction function is:

(4)

The fish stock (X) in the fishery production function(5) can be assumed to be constant (X =X) and eliminatedfrom the equation as an explanatory factor of variationsin catch, hence,

Y = f (E,X) (5)

Fishing effort is itself an output of various fishinginputs or it is a composite input that can be brokendown into its component elements such as capital andlabor. Capital may be represented by the numbers ofboats and fishing gear while labor can be representedby population and number of fishers. The fishers orfishing units produce effort and each fisher’s catchdepends not only on his own effort but also on theeffort applied on the given fish stock by fellow fishers.

Similarly, an increase in fish prices, without anychange in costs, would induce entry into the fisheryuntil all profits are dissipated. Changes in fish pricesoccur as a result of shifts in the supply of or demandfor fish. With a given demand, a poor catch wouldlead to an increase in price and a higher catch to a fallin price. With a given supply, increasing demand (dueto population growth or increasing incomes) wouldlead to increasing fish prices. Catch rises in the shortrun but falls in the long run if the fishery is biologicallyoverexploited. Daily or seasonal fluctuations of catchesor prices may or may not affect the equilibrium levelof effort depending on the level of exit and re-entry(including the availability of alternative employmentfor labor and capital).

Combining the above elements will producecatching power so that

E = j( POP, FMEN, FTECH, PR) (6)

Where:E = is the fishing effort which can be in the form oflabor and capital inputs;POP = population in the fishing community;FMEN = total number of sustenance fishers affectedby a particular fisheries policy; specified as: MFGAT(total number of sustenance fishers affected by milkfishfry gatherers), ESHINER (total number of sustenancefishers affected by users of electric shiners) and

FCAGE (total number of sustenance fishers affectedby fish cages); andFTECH = level of fishing technology employed bythe fishers. In order to increase catch, they increasethe number of boats.

Specified as HNLINE (hook and line), MHOOK(multiple hooks), GNET (gillnet):

PR = average price of a fish species in P/kgInputs to the bioeconomic model were obtained

through 10-month daily monitoring of fisher-respondents from the coastal municipalities of Infanta,Real and Polillo, Quezon province. The aforementionedmodel was run for the three different policy scenarios.Cross section data on E, POP, FMEN, PR and FTECHtaken from the daily monitoring survey were used inthe model.

The hypothesized values of the partials are:An increase in the population of theLamon Bay watershed will increasefishing effort since the mainlivelihood of the people in the coastalareas is fishing. Fishing is an openaccess livelihood which makes it theprimary source of income in the area.Aside from this, fish is the majorsource of protein of the coastalvillages.An increase in the number of fisherswill increase the rate of resourceextraction in terms of humanresource.An increase in the number of boatswill directly increase fishing effort.An increase in the price of fish willincrease the rate of resourceextraction.

In an overexploited natural resource system,continuous exertion of efforts in the form of an increasein population, number of sustenance fishers, numberof boats in operation and unregulated fishing wouldlikely result in a declining output. Increasing prices,on the other hand, would enable the fishers to doubletheir effort to catch more fish. However, given theoverexploited status of the resource, the fisherieswould collapse.

Results and Discussion

General assessment of yield equations

All equations gave the characteristics of a good fitas evidenced by the consistency signs of coefficients,

Y = r(X); لr/لX > 0, 2لr/لX2 < 0, for E = E

Y = F(E,X); لF/لE> 0, 2لF/لX2 > 0, لF/لE< 0, 2لF/لX2 < 0,

FMEN >0 ل/jjل

FTECH > 0ل/jjل

PR >0ل/jjل

Bioeconomic modeling of fisheries policies in Lamon Bay 303

statistical significance of coefficients, high values andhigh coefficient of determination, R2, except forbanning of fish cages.

The results of the log-linear model for fish catchof municipal fishing gears using present or existingscenario where regulations had been on hand but withvery minimal violators apprehended like 23 electricshiners in the whole Lamon Bay. The yield equationfor mackerels for instance has an R2 of .953 whichimplies that 95 percent of the variation in mackerelyield is explained by all explanatory variables includedin the model. The high F-value (25.84) connotes thatthe random impact of unspecified variables is less,therefore, the derivation of the curve from straightline is likewise less. In the case of other fish caught inLamon Bay, more or less the same independentvariables appear to affect decline in productivity. Thepresence of the three fish cages is not significant,meaning that there are so few that they do not affectyield of other fish species like mackerel, barracuda,yellowbelly threadfin bream, thumbprint emperor,grouper, flame-colored snapper, goatfish, sardines andbigeye trevally. Milkfish is cultured in these fish cages.The sardines equation gave the best fit of data with ahigh R2 (.972) and F value (41.98).

The results of the second model are a regulationscenario for banning of electric shiners. The R2 are allsignificant and high. As in the first model, the presenceof fish cages remains to be insignificant. The best fit isseen in yield of yellowbelly threadfin bream with F-value of 38.74.

For regulation of fish cages, the log-linear resultsare all insignificant, with very low R2 ranging from.159 to .477. This implies that there are moreunexplained variables that have been unspecified inthe equation. The fish cages in the project site have noimpact on fish yield in the bay. Besides, they are locatedin inland waters and involve culture of milkfish ascompared to the other municipal gears which engagein capture fishery.

Seasonal regulation of milkfish fry gatherers showsthat R2 values are high and significant, ranging from.729 to .987. Only the presence of fish cages remainsinsignificant.

The combination of regulating fish cages andbanning electric shiners shows a very high coefficientof determination, R2, ranging from .829 to .952. Theeffect of fish cages is also insignificant. All significantvalues are at 1% level of probability.

Results show that fishing effort of milkfish frygatherers, electric shiners, fish cages, hook and line,multiple hooks and gillnets is negatively related toyields of mackerel, barracuda, yellowbelly threadfinbream, thumbprint emperor, grouper, flame-colored

snapper, goatfish, sardines and bigeye trevally,reflecting the fact that Lamon Bay is overexploited.An increase in the level of fishing effort did notincrease yield in all fishing gears, but instead resultedin a decline in fish catch. The explanatory variablefound to have significant effects on fish yield werethe number of boats in operation and price of fish.The marginal product of each fishing gear with respectto a particular fish species was also determined by themodel. The marginal product was negative in all cases,meaning one additional unit of boat results to adecrease in the average catch per boat. This is justifiedby historical data showing a drop in catch per uniteffort (CPUE) from 1965, 11.86 kg for hook and line,and 52 kg for gillnet, to 2.27 kg in hook and line, and9.52 kg for gillnet in 2001. The model depicted positivecoefficients of prices, which were all significant. Thisimplies that increase in the prices of fish caughtmotivates the fishers to increase their catch. All modelsfor the different scenarios gave the characteristics of agood fit as evidenced by the consistent sign of thecoefficients, statistical significance of coefficients, highvalues and high coefficient of determination, R2 , exceptfor banning of fish cages. This is to due to the smallnumber of fish cages sited at the time of the study,that is, only three units.

Benefit-cost analysis

The yield results of the bioeconomic model wererun for BCA of income and expenditures estimatestaken from the survey of 450 fishing households (Table1). The BCA showed that if there are no regulationsimposed, the net present value (NPV) is negative(_P14.6 million). The losses could be attributed todeclining fish catch in the bay. Accordingly, the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is only 0.85 while the internal rate ofreturn (IRR) is less than zero. With regulation, threepolicy options were tested: with ban on electric shiners,fish cage regulation and regulation of both electricshiners and fish cages. In banning electric shiners, ifthe local government will go on allotting a meageramount for the implementation and monitoring offisheries laws, fish catch will continue to decline in thearea. This scenario of low level of enforcement willresult in a negative net benefit of P10.8 million, a BCRof .89 and a negative IRR. In contrast, high level ofenforcement or provision of additional funds in policyimplementation and monitoring will yield positivegains. The NPV for this condition is P1.4 million. TheBCR is 1.01 and the IRR, 61.73%. The results showedthat imposition of a fish cage regulation is not aseffective as banning shiners. With the current level ofinvestment where there is low enforcement, there is


hardly any difference in NPV, BCR and IRR comparedto the results obtained in the no regulation scenario.Pouring in additional funds or high enforcementimproved NPV (P1.2 million) and BCR (1). Animposition of both controls (ban on shiners and fishcage regulation) yielded best results. Nevertheless,with the current investment levels or low enforcement,outcomes of NPV (-P10.4 million), BCR (0.89) and IRR(less than 0%) are still not favorable. This is becausethe increase in fish catch brought about byimplementation of law is quite small to offset thediminishing productivity of the bay. The provision ofadditional resources or high enforcement, however,generated positive results. The NPV amounted to P2.3million; BCR, 1.02; and IRR, 93.29%. High level ofenforcement or increasing government investmentson monitoring and implementation of the regulationssupport the hypothesis that the policies will increaseincomes of the municipal fishers.

The report assesses the effects of enforcing currentfisheries policies more stringently. It finds that asubstantial investment (P614,000 per year) would berequired to ensure compliance with regulations andthat the benefits of achieving high levels of compliancewould exceed costs by only a tiny margin. The situationwould be transformed into one in which large andperhaps increasing number of people would continueto fish, expending larger amounts of effort to complywith various gear restrictions but, in all likelihood,harvesting fewer fish. Because the bay is alreadyoverfished, CPUE and marginal productivity woulddecrease. Any additional fishing effort in the bay willresult in a decrease in the average catch of all fishers.Enforcement of current policies will not address theunderlying problems of open access and severeoverfishing which is the main problem.

Policy Implications

One policy to deal with the problems of open accessand overfishing is to set a limit on the total number offish that can be caught and divide this quota amongLamon Bay’s fishers. Over time, the total allowablecatch might be reduced. (The easiest way to make theinitial reductions would be to revoke the permits offishers who contravene fishing regulations, e.g.,regarding permissible catch size or seasons). To allowflexibility, the quotas allocated to individual fishersmight be tradeable. This system of individual tradeablequotas or permits has been very successful in NewZealand.

The number of fishers in a given locality is animportant element, giving rise to the community-basedmanagement approach of coastal resources. Ifcommunities are allowed to control resources, thenthey are able to prevent encroachment or even controlthe entry of legal or illegal fishers. They may even beempowered to set the limit on the number of fish catchthat can be allowed. This would strengthenimplementation of Republic Act 8550 not only inLamon Bay, but also in other coastal areas.

The typical Lamon Bay fisher is below the povertylevel, has almost no secondary source of income andhas household members willing but unable to obtainwork. Efforts to reduce overfishing in the bay musttherefore be complemented with measures to promotealternative sustainable livelihoods.

Table 1. NPV, BCR and IRR by scenario/policy option, 2002-2006.

Scenario/Policy Option NPV BCR IRR (%)

No regulationShiner ban• Current or low level of investment/resources• With additional or high investmentFish cage regulation• Current or low level of investment/resources• With additional or high investmentShiner and fish cage ban• Current or low level of investment• With additional or high investment

(14,565,542.83)

(10,838,875.81)1,422,314.36

(14,102,989.61)(1,207,723.15)

(10,356,433.41)2,294,793.92

0.85

0.891.01

0.850.99

0.891.02

<0

<061.73

<0<0

<093.29

Fisheries management in Honda Bay 305

Fisheries Management in Honda Bay1

BENJAMIN J. GONZALESFisheries Resource Management Project

Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesEstuar Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

Philippines

Introduction

Honda Bay is one of the three bays surroundingPuerto Princesa City, the capital of Palawan Provinceon the northwestern portion of the Philippines (Figure1). The city has 66 barangays of which 18 are foundalong Honda Bay, which has an area of about 28,000ha and a coastal population of about 50,000. Extensiveshallow coral reef platforms, seagrass beds, sand caysand mangrove swamps surround the bay and itsislands forming part of the nearshore ecological systemof the larger Sulu Sea marine ecosystem (Sandalo 1994).Eight main rivers drain into the bay: Babuyan,Bacungan, Langogan, Magarwak, Tanabag, Tandayak,Tarabanan and Ulanguan. Some of these rivers carryclean waters, while others carry some industrial wastes(Gonzales 2003).

The semi-enclosed waters of Honda Bay areeconomically and ecologically important, withnumerous marine species being nurtured in its lagoonsand estuaries. In the early 1980s, coastal residents ofthe bay still enjoyed bountiful coastal resources.Average fish catch per fishing trip of fishers was 36.5kg in 1985. Coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroveswere of good quality (Sandalo 1994). Honda Bayprovides a source of livelihood and supports tourism,through its many small islands. Compared to otherbays across the country, some critical littoral ecologicalhabitats of Honda Bay are still in fair condition withrelatively thick mangrove forest, diverse seaweed andseagrass beds (Roleda et al. 2001).

Legal Framework forFisheries Management Planning

The main legal and institutional framework thatensures conservation, protection and sustainable

management of the fishery resources of the bay arethe Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 and the StrategicEnvironmental Plan (SEP), Republic Act 7611. The SEPserves as guide to local government units (LGUs) andother concerned agencies in the formulation andimplementation of plans, projects and programsaffecting the environment of Palawan. Puerto PrincesaCity has passed 27 coastal resource management(CRM)-related city and barangay ordinances from 1998to 2002. The bay also has several city governmentoffices, national government agencies (NGAs),nongovernment organizations (NGOs), academe, andfishers’ and other groups who assist in implementationof coastal and fisheries management (Table 1).

Moderately to Heavily Exploited Bay?

Due to its central location and growing urbanizationand population in the area, Honda Bay is being subjectedto increasing resource uses and conflicts, resulting inmore potential for overexploitation. Fishers from otherregions and municipalities migrate to Honda Bay forgreater livelihood prospects. The estimated coastalpopulation has increased from 12,500 in 1990 to 50,000in 2000, with a growth rate of 3,750 persons per year.Like most other bays in the country, Honda Bay hasalso shown signs of fish resource deterioration. Thebay was categorized as lightly fished with a density of3 fishers km-1 in 1980 (Fox 1986), but in 2001, it becamemoderately to heavily fished with a 900% increase tosome 26 fishers km-1 (Aliño et al. 2001a). Average fishcatch per fishing trip declined from 36.5 kg in 1985(Sandalo 1994) to 2 kg in 2000. The increase in catch in2003 was true only in areas near a fish sanctuary (Figure2).

In 2000, the potential demersal yield of HondaBay was 3,430 t.year-1 while the demersal catch was

1 This paper can be cited as follows: GONZALES, B.J. 2004. Fisheries management in Honda Bay, p. 305-311. In DA-BFAR(Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippinemarine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


8,781 t.year-1 (Luna et al. 2001). Annual baywidedemersal catch exceeds harvestable potential yield.These circumstances suggest that the demersal fishesof Honda Bay are being overfished. Several fishspecies exhibit exploitation ratios beyond the optimumrange and the economic value of faunal assemblageshas been declining since 1980, which also indicatesgrowth and recruitment overfishing. If these rates ofharvesting continue, the Honda Bay fisheries is facinga disastrous fate.

The declining demersal fisheries call formanagement measures to reduce fishing effort. Recentanecdotal evidence suggests that there has been adecrease in illegal fishing activities, due in part to anincentive system implemented by the city for illegalfishers to convert to legal fishing gears. However, thefisheries are still in an open access state, with no clearlicensing or limited access regime.

According to fishers in Honda Bay, their shellfishresources were bountiful in the 1970s until traders and

Figure 1. Honda Bay, Philippines.


divers from other parts of the country came to Palawanand harvested different kinds of commercial shellfishes.At present, fishers express apprehension regardingactivities of encroaching fishers using compressor forfishing in Honda Bay.

Although Honda Bay is showing increased signsof fish resource deterioration, Luna et al. (2001) still

categorized it as moderately exploited because of thelow estimates of 17 fishing boats and 26 fishers perkm2 (Aliño et al. 2001a). The coral reef cover is of fairto good quality (Aliño et al. 2001b), and the reef fishesare moderate in terms of diversity, abundance andbiomass (Nañola and Rodriguez 2001). The lownumbersof fishers/fishing boats in the bay may

indicate that they are using very efficientgears. Also, since many fishers aretransient, it is likely that the density of boatsand fishers was underestimated.

Management Issues

Although plans for specific actionmechanisms and implementation areincluded in the Honda Baywide Plan,actual implementation is limited. Themanagement problems of coastal andfishery resources are compounded byconflicts between tourist boat operators’association and commercial resort owners,the presence of transient fishers anddifferent interests of fishers regardingfishing rights.

Monitoring, control and surveillanceneed improvement. Coordination amongthe bay’s stakeholders, includinginstitutions, is improving, through thecreation of sectoral committees in the citygovernment. The Environmental andNatural Resources Sectoral Committeeregularly convenes the agencies involvedin CRM to discuss issues and concerns(Table 2). However, the Integrated CRMNetwork, which is under the committee,needs full support to assign a specific bodyto attend to specific issues (Figure 3).

• Anti-squatting Program• Armed Forces of the Philippines Western Command• Bantay Puerto Program• barangay councils• Barangay Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Councils (BFARMC)• Barangay people’s organizations• City Environment and Natural Resources Office• City satellite hospitals• City Tourism• Department of Agrarian Reform• Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DA-BFAR)• Department of Environment and Natural Resources• Environmental Legal Assistance Center• Fisheries Resource Management Project, DA-BFAR• Haribon Foundation - Palawan• Irish Marine Development Corporation• Kilusan Ligtas Malaria• Liga ng mga Barangay• National Irrigation Administration• Office of the City Agriculturist• Office of the City Health Officer• Office of the City Mayor• Office of the City Veterinarian• Office of Social Welfare and Development• Palawan Center for Appropriate Rural Technology• Palawan Council for Sustainable Development staff• Philippine Coast Guard• Philippine Coconut Authority• Philippine National Police Maritime Group• Philippine Navy• Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod• State Polytechnic College of Palawan

Table 1. List of various government agencies, NGOs and other groups whoassist in implementation of coastal and fisheries management in Honda Bay.

Figure 2. Average fish catch per trip in Honda Bay.


Collaboration among NGOs and LGUs is apparent,e.g., the establishment of fish sanctuaries in thenorthern barangays of Honda Bay was a joint effortof the City Agriculture Office (CAO), the concernedbarangay, Haribon Foundation-Palawan and IrishMarine Development Corporation. Proposed fishsanctuaries in the southern barangays are projects ofCAO, the barangays and Environmental LegalAssistance Center. Although the City Council has yetto approve the establishment of the FisheriesManagement Office, CAO is mandated to directlyimplement and coordinate the fishery managementof Honda Bay. CAO needs sufficient personnel,training and skills to effectively manage the differentaspects of fisheries.

The factors to achieve success in Honda Baymanagement are as follows:

• strong political will;• continuous funding support from LGU and other

sectors;• continuous capability-building and monitoring;• continuous advocacy and awareness activities;• empowerment of coastal communities, with clear

support;• close coordination between NGOs and LGUs;• existence of coastal law enforcement group both at

baywide and barangay levels;• establishment of additional marine sanctuaries;

and

• application of fisheries licencing system.

Conclusion

Palawan is considered “the last frontier of naturalresources in the country”. Various agencies,organizations and funding mechanisms are involvedin the implementation of coastal and fisheriesmanagement in Honda Bay and the province as awhole. Several resource assessments have beenconducted. National recognition has also been given,e.g., Puerto Princesa City was given the “Galing Pook”(excellent place) award for its coastal law enforcementactivities.

Although the coral reef associated fishes, coralcover, diversity of seagrasses and seaweeds, andmangrove swamps of Honda Bay are categorized asbeing in fair and moderate condition, the bay isshowing signs of deterioration of its fish resourcesand ecosystems. Annual baywide demersal catchexceeds harvestable potential yield, several fish speciesexhibit exploitation ratios beyond the optimum rangeand a decline in economic value of the overall faunalassemblage. The bay appears to be on the wholeoverexploited, albeit only moderately according to theliterature. Surveys show that several coastal habitatsin the bay are in moderate and fair conditions, whilemost fish resources are overexploited, indicative of

Figure 3. Key institutions, roles and planning process for the Honda Baywide plan.


Fish

ing

Encr

oach

men

t of

com

mer

cial

fis

hers

with

inm

unic

ipal

wat

ers

of th

e ba

y

Enc

roac

hmen

t of

tra

nsie

nt f

ishi

ng b

oats

:m

odifi

ed m

uro-

ami (

lintig

), m

otor

ized

pus

hnet

(sud

sud)

, ba

gnet

(ba

snig

), da

ytim

e rin

gnet

(pan

gulo

ng) a

nd n

ight

-tim

e on

e (li

kum

-liko

m)

Dec

linin

g/lo

w fi

sh ca

tch:

Sust

enan

ce fi

sher

s are

forc

ed to

fish

in a

reas

farth

er fr

om th

e sh

ore

orou

tsid

e th

e ba

y du

e to

app

aren

t dec

reas

e in

CP

UE

Dec

linin

g vo

lum

e of

cat

ch u

sing

the

sam

e ge

aran

d fis

hing

are

a in

unp

rote

cted

are

as

Ove

rfish

ing:

Push

net (

suds

ud) i

dent

ified

as h

eavy

com

petit

orof

sus

tena

nce

crab

and

shr

imp

fishe

rs (d

ipne

tfis

hers

)

Influ

x of

mig

rant

s, le

adin

g to

furth

er in

crea

sing

pres

sure

on

reso

urce

s

Hab

itat

Deg

rad

atio

n

Use

of

pest

icid

es in

upl

and

affe

cts

livel

ihoo

d of

fis

hers

,e.

g.,

fry

gath

erin

g an

dm

aric

ultu

re

Low

-lev

el

of

com

mun

ityaw

aren

ess

on th

e im

porta

nce

of r

iver

man

agem

ent

as a

nas

soci

ated

com

pone

nt o

fin

tegr

ated

coas

tal m

anag

emen

t

Alm

acig

a an

d ra

ttan

gath

erin

gar

e st

ill o

pera

ting

in s

ome

upla

nd a

reas

of t

he b

ay

Slas

h an

d bu

rn (k

aing

in) i

s stil

lbe

ing

prac

ticed

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

No

info

rmat

ion

data

base

on

rate

of e

rosi

on a

nd s

iltat

ion

in th

e ba

y

Low

-leve

l of

com

mun

ityaw

aren

ess o

n the

impo

rtanc

eof

rive

r m

anag

emen

t as

anas

soci

ated

com

pone

nt o

fint

egra

ted c

oasta

l man

agem

ent

Pres

ence

of

mer

cury

and

cadm

ium

in

bay

wat

ers

(San

tos

et a

l. 20

01)

So

cio

eco

no

mic

/Cu

ltu

ral I

ssu

es

Mor

e tra

inin

g on

rive

r man

agem

ent f

or L

GU

san

d co

mm

uniti

es

Mor

e riv

erba

nk re

habi

litat

ion

activ

ities

Nee

d m

ore

train

ing

on w

aste

man

agem

ent i

nco

asta

l com

mun

ities

Lack

of s

olid

was

te m

anag

emen

t inf

rast

ruct

ure

Inte

grat

ion

of c

onse

rvat

ion

and

enha

ncem

ent

effo

rts

for

mar

ine

reso

urce

s ne

eds

to b

est

reng

then

ed

Inst

itu

tio

nal

/ Leg

al Is

sues

Lack

of s

ecur

e la

nd te

nure

Need

for e

nhan

cem

ent o

f law

enf

orce

-m

ent

thro

ugh

addi

tiona

l per

sonn

el,

equi

pmen

t and

train

ings

.

BFAR

MC

s ex

ist,

but s

till n

eed

mor

eas

sist

ance

in fi

nanc

ial,

tech

nica

l and

inst

itutio

nal a

spec

ts

Tabl

e 2.

Issu

es c

once

rnin

g H

onda

Bay

man

agem

ent.

Tabl

e 2

(con

t.)


Fish

ing

Illeg

al fi

shin

g

Obs

erva

nce

of is

olat

ed ca

ses o

f bla

st fis

hing

.

Res

ourc

e us

e co

nflic

ts b

etw

een:

tou

rism

entit

ies,

tour

ism

and

fish

ers,

and

mun

icip

al a

ndco

mm

erci

al fi

sher

s

Unr

egul

ated

gle

anin

g of

she

llfis

hes

Seve

ral m

unic

ipal

ities

in P

alaw

an (e

.g.,

San

Vice

nte,

Dum

aran

and

Rox

as) h

ave

proh

ibite

dth

e us

e of

com

pres

sor f

ishi

ng in

thei

r mun

icip

alw

ater

s, r

esul

ting

in i

ncre

ase

in n

umbe

r of

com

pres

sor f

ishe

rs in

Hon

da B

ay

Hab

itat

Deg

rad

atio

n

No

reso

urce

and

eco

logi

cal

surv

ey i

n w

ater

shed

s an

driv

ers

Wat

er Q

ual

ity

Occ

asio

nal o

ccur

renc

e of r

edtid

e (B

FAR

-Offi

ce, O

ffice

of

Prov

inci

al A

gric

ultu

re);

mor

esu

rvey

s m

ust b

e co

nduc

ted

for v

erifi

catio

n

So

cio

eco

no

mic

/Cu

ltu

ral I

ssu

es

Lack

of a

ltern

ativ

e liv

elih

ood

Nee

d to

pre

pare

peo

ple’

s or

gani

zatio

ns a

ndas

soci

atio

ns to

han

dle

supp

lem

enta

l live

lihoo

dop

portu

nitie

s; st

rong

er b

ondi

ng a

nd co

oper

atio

nam

ong

mem

bers

; stre

ngth

enin

g of

righ

t atti

tude

tow

ards

the

succ

ess

of th

e gr

oups

; enh

anci

ngsp

irit o

f coo

pera

tion

rath

er th

an s

elf-i

nter

est

amon

g m

embe

rs

Alth

ough

CAO

- Fish

erie

s Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

tP

roje

ct i

s in

itiat

ing

colla

bora

tion

amon

gas

socia

tions

and

org

aniza

tions

thro

ugh

livel

ihoo

dpr

ojec

t tra

inin

gs, a

form

al a

nd in

stitu

tiona

lized

coor

dina

tion

syst

em a

mon

g th

em m

ust b

e in

pla

ce

Low

com

mun

ity a

war

enes

s on

spe

cific

law

ssu

ch a

s Fi

sher

ies

Adm

inis

trativ

e O

rder

208

,Re

publ

ic Ac

t 914

7, R

A 85

50, L

ocal

Gov

ernm

ent

Code

and

Wat

er C

ode

of th

e Phi

lippi

nes,

and

on

som

e C

RM

bes

t pra

ctic

es

Inst

itu

tio

nal

/ Leg

al Is

sues

The F

isher

ies M

anag

emen

t Offic

e und

erCA

O n

eeds

app

rova

l of p

ositio

ns a

ndco

rresp

ondin

g bud

get.

Tabl

e 2

(con

t.)


excessive fishing pressure. Thus, applications oflicencing system and control of open access fisheries(e.g., marine sanctuaries) may help regulate the fishingeffort. This indicates the need for further managementinterventions before it can be said that fisheries andhabitats are being managed at sustainable levels. Froma national perspective, this means that there is still along way to go towards sustainable management offisheries resources of Honda Bay and those of thecountry, which are in a worse condition than those ofPalawan.

This suggests that there are still certain missingelements in fisheries management in the country whichneed to be explored. The correction of the “openaccess” system through licensing and limited accessregimes is essential. We must also look at the largerfisheries ecosystem in management and broaden thescope of coastal management to include uplandproblems and population issues.

Bibliography

Aliño, L.L., E.B. Desabelle, R. Sariego, H. Palla, B. Montaño, R. Creadorand G.T. Silvestre. 2001a. Results of fish stock assessment ofHonda Bay, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan (2000-2001). Resourceand ecological assessment of Honda Bay, Palawan. Vol. II.Chapter 5, Terminal Report. Fisheries Resource ManagementProject. 45 p.

Aliño, P.M., C. Nañola, M. Roleda and V.S. Ticson. 2001b. Highlights ofthe assessment of the coastal habitats in Honda Bay, Palawan(2000-2001). Resource and ecological assessment of Honda Bay,Palawan. Vol. II. Chapter 4, Terminal Report. Fisheries ResourceManagement Project. 11 p.

Arquiza, Y.D. 1999. Rhythm of the sea: Coastal environmental profileof San Vicente, Palawan. Coastal Resource Management Project,Cebu City, Philippines. 131 p.

Fox, P. 1986. A manual of rapid appraisal techniques for Philippine smallpelagic fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,Quezon City, Philippines. 43 p.

Gonzales, B.J. 2003. Puerto Princesa Bay and Honda Bay, Palawan: Anecological profile. Tech. Monogr. Ser. No. 8. Fisheries ResourceManagement Project, Department of Agriculture - Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources, Philippines.

ICLARM (International Center for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement). 1996. Resource and ecological assessment ofHonda Bay, Palawan, Philippines. ICLARM, Makati City, Philippines.

Luna, L.Z., L.R. Garces and G.T. Silvestre. 2001. The resource andecological assessment of Honda Bay, Palawan: Highlights andrecommendations for resource management. Resource andecological assessment of Honda Bay, Palawan. Vol. II. Chapter 1,Terminal Report. Fisheries Resource Management Project. 15 p.

Nañola, C. and E. Rodriguez. 2001. Reef fish communities of HondaBay, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. Resource and ecologicalassessment of Honda Bay, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. Vol. II.Chapter 9, Terminal Report. Fisheries Resource ManagementProject. 11 p.

PIADP (Palawan Integrated Area Development Project). 1988. Socio-economic survey of coastal barangays along Honda Bay. Baselineresource assessment of Honda Bay. PIADP, Palawan, Philippines.71 p.

Roleda, M., L. Alcantara, V.S. Ticson and B. Montaño. 2001. Spatialand temporal variation in the macrophyte community structure ofHonda Bay, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. Resource and ecologicalassessment of Honda Bay, Palawan. Vol. II. Chapter 6, TerminalReport. Fisheries Resource Management Project. 23 p.

Sandalo, R.M. 1994. Community-based coastal resources management:The Palawan experience, p. 165-181. In R.S. Pomeroy (ed.)Community management and common property of coastal fisheriesin Asia and the Pacific: Concepts, methods and experiences.ICLARM Conf. Proc. 45, 189 p.

Santos, R.A.V., M.C. Celso, K.F. Santos, R. Creador and V.S. Ticson.2001. Water quality assessment in Honda Bay, Puerto PrincesaCity, Palawan. Resource and ecological assessment of HondaBay, Palawan. Vol. II. Chapter 3, Terminal Report. FisheriesResource Management Project. 23 p.


1 This paper can be cited as follows: HERMES, R., N.B. ARMADA, R.A. APARRI, E.C. ZARAGOZA and U. LOHMEYER.2004. Overexploitation in the Visayan Sea: Designing a project solution, p. 312-317. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Overexploitation in the Visayan Sea:Designing a Project Solution1

RUDOLF HERMES2, 3

NYGIEL B. ARMADA4

REMIA A. APARRI2

ESTER C. ZARAGOZA5

UWE LOHMEYER3

2Visayan Sea Coastal Resources and Fisheries Management ProjectBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - Region 6

Muelle Loney St., Iloilo City, 5000Philippines

3Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), EschbornGermany

4Institute of Marine Fisheries and OceanologyCollege of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

University of the Philippines in the VisayasMiagao, Iloilo, 5023

Philippines5Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development

Department of Science and TechnologyLos Baños, Laguna,4030

Philippines

Introduction

The Visayan Sea, located between 11 and 12º Nlatitude and 123 and 124º E longitude, is an entirelyneritic body of water measuring approximately 10,000km2 (Figure 1). It is among the top three fishing groundsof the country, producing more than 200,000 t of fishannually (BFAR 2000). About two-thirds comes fromcommercial fishing operations. In recent years, small-scale and commercial fish production has declined(Table 1). More than 18,000 fishing gears are operatingin the area.

The Visayan Sea has been subjected to increasingfishing pressure during the past decades. Fromeconomically very lucrative demersal fisheries like thetrawl, commercial fishing operations have shifted toeven more efficient catching methods like the Danishseine and midwater trawl. The depletion of demersalfisheries has forced most fishing operators to shift tocatching pelagic fishes. Small pelagics have thus become

a logical focus for small and medium-scale fishingenterprises.

In 1998, there were reports indicating overfishing,widespread coastal habitat degradation and intenseconflict over resources of the Visayan Sea. The reports,which were received by the Department of Agriculture– Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)and the Department of Science and Technology –Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Researchand Development (PCAMRD), were confirmed byresults of stock assessment studies of small pelagicfish species (Armada 1999). Recognizing theconsiderable difficulty of implementing traditionalfisheries management measures based on theestablishment of maximum sustainable yield or catchquota in the different administrative subareas, adifferent approach was tried. The ecosystem-basedmanagement, with emphasis on the increasinglyimportant role of local government units (LGUs) inmanaging their coastal resources, is the principle to be

Overexploitation in the Visayan Sea: Designing a project solution 313

Figure 1. The Visayan Sea.

Table 1. Municipal and commercial fisheries production (t) in the VisayanSea, 1992-1995 (BAS 1992-1995).

1992199319941995

Fisheries Production (t)Municipal Commercial Visayan Sea Philippines

TotalYear

92,583100,647 89,695 88,616

165,256131,709134,537120,267

257,839232,356224,232208,883

1,659,5531,748,6251,672,2931,712,256


applied in the form of shared management acrossexisting political and administrative boundaries.

Statistics point to a decreasing trend in volume ofcatch (Table 1) and this can be directly linked tooverfishing, destruction of habitats, and overcapitalization and nonlimitation of effort withinthe Visayan Sea. In 1995, the area ranked first inmarine municipal fishery and third in commercialfishery production, contributing around 12% of thecountry’s total marine catch.

Fishing Activities

Among commercial fishing gears, the purse seine,trawl and modified Danish seine are the mostimportant. Traditional fishing gears, like bagnet,gillnet, liftnet, scissor net, filter net, hook-and-line,pots and traps, continue to be employed by fishers inthe area. Recently, however, an increase in number ofefficient fishing gears like the small-scale Danish seineand baby trawl has been observed. A number of fishinggears have undergone modifications from theiroriginal design and have evolved into species-specificfishing gears with adopted local names.

In 1997, about 78% of the total 1,157 commercialfishing boats counted in the different landing sitesaround Visayan Sea were either trawlers or Danishseiners. Pelagic fishing is seasonal, thus, the operationof ringnets and purse seines follows the pattern ofseasonal occurrence and migration of major pelagicspecies. Fish catch of commercial boats is dominatedby sardines (Sardinella longiceps, Sardinella melanura),Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and bigeye scad(Selar crumenophthalmus).

Also in 1997, a total of 18,650 municipal fishingboats, which employed 21,510 fishing gears wereoperating in the area. Only 36% of these fishing boatswere motorized. The most commonly used municipalfishing gears are the hook-and-line, squid jig, spearand different variations of gillnet. Municipal fishersare relatively flexible in their preference for catchingeither pelagic or demersal species. It is not uncommonfor a sustenance fisher to have different gears to catchdifferent species, depending on the season.

Resource Use Issues

The coastline of the Visayan Sea is shared by 22municipalities, belonging to 4 island provinces(Masbate, Iloilo, Negros Occidental and Cebu) in 3administrative regions of the country (Regions 5, 6and 7). The Local Government Code of 1991 and theFisheries Code of 1998 delegate the management ofaquatic resources within the 15-km zone from the

shoreline to LGUs or municipalities. However,intermunicipal coordination is weak and mechanismsfor interregional resource management have not yetbeen established. The connectivity of the marineenvironment, prevailing current systems and fishrecruitment patterns make it imperative that theresources of the Visayan Sea be managed as onerelatively large marine ecosystem.

Conflicts over the depleting resources are notconfined by administrative boundaries. Solutions tothe issues must therefore be reached throughconsensus-building and a collective effort from allstakeholders. In recent years, only localizedmanagement initiatives have flourished, including theestablishment of small marine protected areas (MPAs)and coastal law enforcement. None of the past orcurrent major national coastal resource management(CRM) initiatives have included the Visayan Sea, anduntil recently no integrated effort has been made toaddress its problems.

Project Concept and Its Early Development

The project concept for an integrated Visayan SeaCoastal and Fisheries Resources Management Project(VisSea) was developed in late 1998. It envisaged the22 LGUs surrounding the Visayan Sea as keyimplementers with technical support from BFAR andthe University of the Philippines in the Visayas (UPV).The initial design was based on a community-basedCRM approach, where collective efforts of thestakeholders result in sustainable resourcemanagement and utilization and, ultimately, inimproved socioeconomic conditions for theparticipating coastal communities.

The project framework evolved through fourprovincial consultation workshops held with keystakeholders ranging from fisherfolk representativesto mayors and provincial governors. A covenant,indicating their interest and readiness to cooperatetowards solving the resource use constraints, wassigned during the fifth workshop. It became clear thatthe costs of a sustained effort of this scale, with a highdemand for capacity-building and institutionalstrengthening, would go beyond the regular budgetsof the envisaged cooperators. PCAMRD through theNational Economic and Development Authority(NEDA) thus endorsed the draft VisSea Project forforeign funding support. In December 1999, theGovernment of Germany expressed willingness tosupport its implementation, pending the positiveresults of an in-depth project appraisal. The DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)was tasked to carry out the appraisal.


VisSea Appraisal Process

GTZ chose a participatory approach, instead of aconventional project appraisal mission. Threeworkshops between May and December 2000 wereheld in three provincial cities where the stakeholdersidentified issues and constraints to better coastalmanagement. This resulted in a project design thatintegrated the local needs as well as the comments ofthe appraisal team. Further inputs for the workshopsand project design came from the original proposal, adesk study on the Visayan Sea and CRM in thePhilippines, commissioned by GTZ and carried outby the International Center for Living AquaticResources Management (Viswanathan et al. 1999), andtwo socioeconomic studies of the project areacommissioned by PCAMRD.

The first “visioning” workshop brought togethermore than 60 participants (from fishers’ andnongovernment organizations, LGUs, the academe andnational government agencies) and determined entrypoints for the proposed project. Aspirations towardsa common vision encompassed ecology andconservation, resource utilization, socioeconomics, andcultural, institutional and governance concerns. Thisparticipatory analysis yielded a wealth of informationon possible collaborators, areas of concern andmeasures to address current issues (Zaragoza et al.2001).

Provincial focal persons identified at the conclusionof the workshop served as links and informationchannels between the appraisal team and nationalcounterparts and local stakeholders. They coordinatedthe gathering of additional background material anddisseminated information on the status of projectpreparation.

The vision which had emerged from the firstworkshop was validated at the start of the secondworkshop in August 2000: “the Visayan Sea as one ofthe richest, sustainable, bio-diverse and well managedcoastal and marine resources of the country, issignificantly contributing to the improvement of thesocio-economic situation of the coastal population.”This vision was adopted as the future developmentgoal of the project. The project purpose, which willaddress the needed change triggered by the project’sexpected impact on present conditions, was definedas follows: “important stakeholders of the provincesembracing the Visayan Sea jointly manage the marineresources to increase its productivity”.

Groups discussed the key concerns of legislationand policy, information and research, and resourceuse. Various issues and gaps were identified, fromwhich five major results or outputs were proposed:

1.a plan for managing the resources of the VisayanSea jointly formulated and implemented;

2. improved CRM practices implemented by LGUsand local communities;

3.an information base for resource management andmonitoring is established and utilized;

4.networking among different stakeholders; and5.alternative income-generating opportunities for

coastal communities are tested and supported.Important discussions focused on the possible

design of the project organization structure, includinga steering committee as the policymaking body, ageneral assembly representing more diverse groupsof stakeholders, and a project management officewhich would manage the ground implementation andcoordination of activities. Implementation at LGU andcommunity levels will largely be done through existingstructures.

In a final workshop, the design of theorganizational structure was finalized and anagreement was reached on the proposed nationalexecuting agency, BFAR. Since final approval andacceptance by the two governments would still takesome time, a plan of operations for a pre-implementation phase (2001 and early 2002) wasdrawn up to ensure a smooth startup. Activities forthis phase included further information gathering andimprovements of the initial database for monitoringpurposes, formation of the interim steering committeeand preparation of budget allocations.

Initial Steps of Project Implementation

A project with this degree of complexity requiresformal structures to facilitate implementation. Thesigning of the Memorandum of Agreement amongthe participants was held in September 2001 in Iloilo,and the start of the German government contributionto the project was launched in May 2002 after theconstitution of the Project Steering Committee (PSC).Project duration of up to eight years is envisaged,consisting of two implementation phases of three yearseach, and two years for any further assistance. As anadvisory group to both PSC and project implementers,a Technical Working Group was constituted.

The need to enhance the capacity of LGUs andother collaborators in the implementation of betterCRM practices was recognized by the PSC. Thus, aGraduate Scholarship Program was initiated in June2002. Five scholarships in Master of Marine Affairs atUPV were awarded to LGU personnel from Iloilo andNegros Occidental as well as BFAR staff.

To realize the five major project results, thestakeholders identified key activities through a series


of provincial priority-setting workshops betweenNovember 2002 and February 2003. Based on theworkshop results, and after including further activitiesfor integration of approaches and improved fisheriesmanagement, a plan of operation was formulated inApril 2003.

Information Base for ResourceManagement and Monitoring

During 2002, PCAMRD through UPV undertook asurvey of existing information on Visayan Sea. Thereference collection resulting from this activity providesinput and guidance for project implementation.However, updated information is still needed on thestatus of fish stocks and habitats and municipal coastalprofiles, including registry of fishers, gears and boats.

In May 2003, the project sponsored a workshopon the integration of data collected by the BFARNational Stock Assessment Project (NSAP) in Regions6 and 7, both of which were collecting data in theirrespective jurisdiction in the Visayan Sea. Theworkshop stressed the need for uniformity in methodsused for data collection, processing and integration.Expected results will include information on maximumsustainable yield, exploitation rates and yields ofcertain species, as well as an inventory of fishing gearsused for the major part of Visayan Sea.

A research cruise in July 2003 was combined withan integrated coastal management (ICM) training togenerate information on hydrobiological parametersand the state of demersal fish stocks. A trawl surveywas conducted that used the data collected in 1976–1977 (Aprieto 1978) as a benchmark for comparison,alongside oceanography and plankton research.Processing and analysis of samples and data, which

will include fisheries information, such as speciescomposition, biomass/density, length frequency andsexual maturity, were started. These data, as well asthe integrated data of NSAP, will be used to pursuethe ecosystem-based approach to management.

Preliminary information indicates a moderatedemersal standing stock of around 2 t/km2, composedmainly of low-value fish species, and the almostcomplete absence of higher-value fish such as groupers,snappers and threadfin bream. Relatively high catchesof squids must be considered further indications ofecosystem overfishing.

These data will lay the base of the Visayan Seajoint management plan alongside the inputs of variousstakeholders and participatory planning workshopsconducted in previous years.

Implementation of Improved CRM Practices

The LGUs identified MPAs, mangroverehabilitation, fishing gear regulation and fisheries lawenforcement, and strengthening of Fisheries andAquatic Resource Management Councils as theirpriority areas. The project has so far co-sponsored aworkshop on the unification of municipal fisheriesordinances in Iloilo and initiated the training needsassessment for MPA establishment in Masbate.Proposals for further activities are being evaluated.

Setting the research trawl for demersal fish stockassessment during the Visayan Sea cruise.

R. H

erm

es

On-board seminar during the Visayan Sea cruise discussing the"mind map" of management issues.

R. H

erm

es


Networking

The need for networking as a requisite for jointmanagement is stressed in all workshops, trainingsand similar activities conducted by the project. A seriesof orientations has been held with LGUs,nongovernment organizations and people’sorganizations to create awareness regarding theproject’s thrust and progress and to solicit insightsamong participants. As part of the information,education and communication campaign, brochuresand newsletters are published for distribution tostakeholders, local media and other interested parties.

Access to alternative income

In 2002, implementation of pilot livelihood projectswas started with financial support from PCAMRD:tilapia hatchery and nursery in Balasan, Iloilo; seaweedculture in Cadiz City, Negros Occidental; grouper cageculture in Balud, Masbate; and crab net fishery inBantayan, Cebu. Both crab net fishery and tilapiahatchery are operational and produce income, whilethe full implementation of grouper culture has beendelayed and the seaweed farming venture is stillrecovering from a disease, leading to slow growthand necessitating early harvest. A proposal fortraining needs assessment and capacity-building in fishprocessing technology and other post-harvest aspectsis under evaluation.

Conclusion

The crosscutting goals of food security and povertyalleviation provide the mandate for all efforts aimedat sustainable management of the coastal resourcesand fish stocks of the Visayan Sea. Given the complexnature of resource use issues and connectivity ofecosystem processes across existing political andadministrative boundaries, this can only be achievedthrough a combination of local interventions withinthe framework of integrated resources managementjointly formulated and implemented by all concernedstakeholders.

References

Aprieto, V.L. 1978. Trawl fishing investigations on traditional andnon-traditional fishing grounds in the Philippines:Hydrobiological studies of the Visayan Sea demersal fisheries.Institute of Fisheries Development and Research, College ofFisheries, University of the Philippines. 52 p. and annexes.(Unpublished).

Armada, N.B. 1999. Preliminary evaluation of possible effect of ElNiño on the small pelagic species in the Visayan Sea, p. 44-54. In H.R. Rabanal (ed.) Impacts of El Niño on Philippinefisheries. PCAMRD Book Ser. 27/1999. Laguna, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 2000. Philippinefisheries profile 1999. BFAR, Quezon City, Philippines. 52 p.

Viswanathan, K., B. Katon and L. Garces. 1999. Integrated VisayanSea coastal resources and fisheries management program(VisSea). Desk review for the Deutsche Gesellschaft fürTechnische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). International Center forLiving Aquatic Resources Management, Penang, Malaysia.40 p. (Unpublished).

Zaragoza, E.C., R. Hermes, N.B. Armada and U. Lohmeyer. 2001.Participatory project design process for coastal resourcesmanagement of the Visayan Sea, Central Philippines.Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Coastal Zone Conference,15-19 July 2001, Ohio, USA.


Danao Bay Community-based Coastal ResourceManagement Project: From Top Down to Bottom Up1



Introduction

Danao Bay is located on the northeastern shoreof Mindanao in the province of Misamis Occidental.The bay is generally shallow but is composed of highlyproductive mangroves, mudflats, coral reefs andseagrass beds. It has an area of about 2,000 habordering the municipalities of Baliangao and Plaridel(Figure 1).

Anecdotal records and historical testimonies claimthat Danao Bay used to be very rich in coastal andfishery resources. In fact, the name of the municipalityof Baliangao is accordingly derived from the Cebuanoterm balay sa langaw meaning house of flies. Thisreferred to the swarms of flies always present in thearea feeding on fish that could not be consumed andso decomposed along the town’s shoreline.

Up until the 1950s, fish were still abundant in thebay and lush mangroves covered 300 ha. In the 1960s,however, things began to change. People from Boholcame to Baliangao to extract tungog from the bark ofthe malatangal, Ceriops tagal, which is used for coconutwine (tuba) as well as to make commercial charcoal,decimating the majority of mangrove trees. Todaythere remain only 20 ha of original (primary) mangrovestand, and this is only due to a private claimant whostood firm in protecting it. About the same time,dynamite fishing became rampant damaging the fragilecoral reefs that fringed the bay. Thereafter everythingchanged in Danao Bay: fish became scarce, seacucumbers and even sea urchins and different speciesof seashells became smaller and less abundant. This

impacted on the 600 fishing households which weresolely dependent on fishing for their source of income(Heinen and Frazer 2001).

Pipuli Foundation

Arriving in Danao Bay in 1991, the PipuliFoundation saw the strong link between thelivelihood of the local people and the state of thebay. Soon it realized that there was an urgent needto protect the resources of the bay from furtherdegradation and destruction. Contacts were madewith local leaders and with the assistance of theparish priest and some lay leaders of Baliangao, Pipuliconvinced the municipal mayor to establish a marinesanctuary in the area. On 31 July 1991, the localgovernment of Baliangao passed a resolutionestablishing a 150-ha marine sanctuary, known asMisom Sea Sanctuary (Figure 1).

The establishment of the Misom Sea Sanctuarygenerated massive opposition and, at times, violentresistance from “displaced” fishers. They said they weresuddenly deprived of their traditional fishing ground.A compromise was finally reached to reduce the areato 74 ha. The four workers of Pipuli, with a few localcoastal resource management (CRM) converts, took itupon themselves to put the sanctuary in place andmanage it. Guarding the sanctuary proved to be themost difficult problem faced by the foundation. Dayand night, trespassers from within and outside the baykept coming and fishing right inside the fenced restrictedarea, threatening the guards.

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ADAN, W.R. 2004. Danao Bay Community-based Coastal Resource ManagementProject: From top down to bottom up, p. 318-321. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project,Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Danao Bay Community-based Coastal Resource Management Project 319

Baliangao Wetland Park

Meanwhile, blast, fine mesh fishing and fishpoisoning continued within the bay. While thesanctuary was in relative safety, it dawned on the Pipulistaff that the whole situation was problematic. Theunilateral and authoritarian creation of the sanctuary,in fact, gave the illegal and destructive fishers morereason to continue their activities. Pipuli tried to correctits steps and pushed for the creation of a managementboard for a more participatory management of thesanctuary.

The board was created in March 1994, chaired bythe municipal mayor. The members includedrepresentatives from the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources, parish church and local fisheryschool, the community at large, four barangay captains,four guards and one Pipuli staff. The foundation hopedthat with the mayor and the barangay captains in themunicipality at the helm of management, resistancefrom the people would dwindle and order wouldprevail in the bay.

Looking forward to its eventual disengagementfrom the Misom Sea Sanctuary Project, and thinkingthat the project would gain further protection andgenerate funding support from the government, during

the mid-1990s, Pipuli applied for the recognition ofthe project as an integrated protected area system(IPAS) under the National Integrated Protected AreaSystem Act of 1992. The DENR facilitated the requestand suggested a mangrove-line river close to thesanctuary as part of IPAS. Henceforth, the Misom SeaSanctuary became known as the Baliangao WetlandPark pending approval of IPAS application. Then somefive years later, on 22 November 2002, Pres. JosephEstrada issued a Presidential Proclamation declaringand renaming the park as Baliangao ProtectedLandscape and Seascape (BPLS), which has amangrove and sea area of 294,998 ha.

Danao Bay Community-based CRM Project

The workers of Pipuli recognized that the top-down approach it had adopted in organizing theconservation and rehabilitation project in the bay justdid not work. They realized that simply policing theconfines of the sanctuary by hired men or volunteerswas not enough and was definitely unsustainable. Itwas perceived that unless all the coastal communitieswould be involved in the management of the bay,nothing much could be done to change its present state.The Misom Sanctuary would remain in constant threat

Figure 1. Location map of Danao Bay in Misamis Occidental showing location of MisomSea Sanctuary.


from concerned fishers if conservation andmanagement efforts were focused mainly on thesanctuary and not on the people using it.

Pipuli re-conceptualized its approach andembarked in a baywide community organizingapproach. It trained community organizers to engagethe coastal folk in a running dialogue and analysis ofecological and sustainability issues on resources. Theeducation and conscientization effort eventually paidoff. A good number of fishers began to recognize thecollective need and responsibility to protect theresources for their sustainable use. After all, theyrealized that they and their families were the mainbeneficiaries of these activities. The positive results ofthe resource assessment of the sanctuary by SillimanUniversity in 1993, 1994 and 1995 provided hardevidence supporting the campaign for resourceconservation.

Eight fishers’ associations from eight coastalbarangays of the bay sprang to life and beganprotecting their coastal waters through organizedvolunteers. Many illegal fishers who used to poach inthe sanctuary became converts to the cause of CBCRMand ardent protectors of the bay. By 1998 after aboutthree years of intense community organizing work,incidents of illegal fishing in the bay had beendrastically reduced.

Danao Bay Resource and EnvironmentManagement Organization

Before its formal disengagement from the area inOctober 2002, Pipuli labored to secure the gains it madein its CBCRM Project by federating the eight fisherfolkassociations under an umbrella organization knownas the Danao Bay Resource and EnvironmentManagement Organization (DBREMO). Since 2000,DBREMO became the de facto manager of the entireDanao Bay that includes the Baliangao ProtectedLandscape and Seascape.

The paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-upapproach in the management of the bay gave moreemphasis on people’s participation with less and lessinvolvement of the local government units (LGUs) andother stakeholders. This imbalance has distanced theorganization from LGUs that, under the LocalGovernment Code of 1991, are mandated to provideleadership in the management of resources in theirmunicipal waters. This development resulted in agrowing unconcern and lack of support andcooperation from LGUs in DBREMO’s managementactivities in the bay.

Recognizing this, DBREMO started repairingbridges and renewed networking and advocacy workwith LGUs. The current crop of government officialsin the municipalities of Plaridel and Baliangao, andthe province of Misamis Occidental are oriented onCRM activities in Danao Bay – the gains, problemsand need for sustainability. Immediately, the twoLGUs responded by each assigning a composite teamof the Philippine National Police and Bantay Dagat,complete with patrol boats and surveillanceparaphernalia.

Danao Bay Declarationas a Special Demarcated Use Area

DBREMO vigorously worked for a comprehensivebaywide ordinance for Danao Bay to gain legal basisfor its activities and for managing the bay. Finally intwo separate ordinances from Baliangao and Plaridel,DBREMO was recognized and tasked with developingand implementing a resource management program forDanao Bay. The ordinance also adopted a color-codingsystem for the bay to monitor and limit the entry offishing boats and the imposition of heavier penalties onviolations committed within the territorial jurisdictionof Plaridel.

The common municipal ordinance (MO), which isMO No. 1, Series 2002 for Baliangao, and MO 5, Series2002 for Plaridel, is entitled “Declaring Danao Bay as aSpecial Demarcated Fisheries Area and Granting anAuthority to Danao Bay Resource and EnvironmentManagement Organization (DBREMO) to be Partnerof the Local Government Units (LGUs) of theMunicipalities of Baliangao and Plaridel, Province ofMisamis Occidental to Implement the ResourceManagement Program of said Bay, and for OtherPurposes in which the Control and Supervision is underLGUs.” The ordinance gives preferential fishing rightto registered fishers for resource use and rehabilitationand conservation, and other related concerns in thebay. The event has institutionalized the partnership ofa cohesive people’s organization (DBREMO) and thelocal government authorities, a crucial development insecuring and sustaining initiatives and gains in CRM.

Lessons Learned

“The bay was almost totally barren in 1991 beforethe Pipuli Foundation came. The establishment of thesanctuary, education and mobilization of the peoplealong CRM are now bearing fruits. The fish, the seacucumbers and the shells are here again. The challenge

Danao Bay Community-based Coastal Resource Management Project 321

now is before us, how to protect and sustain the gainsbrought about by Pipuli now that it has disengagedfrom the area,” said Celso Balabad, a fisher fromBarangay Tinago, and a member of DBREMO.

In less than a decade, about 100 ha of mangrovearea were successfully reforested and another 100 haof second growth mangrove trees were restored totheir natural state by community effort. Theestablishment of a marine sanctuary and the people-imposed regulations in the exploitation of resourceshave gradually brought back the richness of the bay.Corals have regenerated.2 Fish species diversity,particularly in the protected area, has increased from48 (1993), 75 (1994), 85 (1995) to 93 species belonging to25 families in 1997.

The Future

At present, an effort in setting up a supra-management body known as the Danao Bay CRMCouncil (DBCRMC) is ongoing. This development hascreated mixed feelings among DBREMO staff andmembers. They are happy that what they worked foris being realized but are also anxious on the eventualimpact of DBCRMC on the existence and survival ofDBREMO.

This feeling of anxiety is not without basis.Conceived as a blessing, the development of BPLSbecame a thorn of DBREMO. The Protected AreaManagement Board (PAMB) began to impose itsterritoriality in the area in the management of BPLS.Some irritants surfaced in the relationship betweenDBREMO and PAMB, although later PAMBrecognized the existing priority management right ofDBREMO over the bay. No funding support hasresulted from the IPAS declaration. Instead, DBREMOhas to share with the government 50% of the incomeit earns from entrance fees of visitors to the sanctuary.

The eventual creation and operation of DBCRMCcaused apprehension among DBREMO staff as similarconflicts might arise. This apprehension may, however,be unfounded. First, the municipalities of Baliangaoand Plaridel recognize DBREMO as their partner inthe implementation of their CRM program in the bayas provided for in the two common LGU ordinances.Second, in the proposed composition of the newcouncil, not only the chair of DBREMO will sit in the

council, but also the organization will occupy a keyposition as secretariat. As such, it will be in a vantageposition to influence the agenda and policy directionof the council.

It seems that some of the key ingredients for asustainable management mechanism for Danao Bayare coming closer to reality.

Bibliography

Adan, W.R. 2001. Institutionalization of alliances in Region IX andformulation of manual of operations. Project Terminal Report.Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program,Region IX, Dipolog City, Philippines.

Garucho, R.D. 1997. Coastal resource management and localgovernance: A status report on local government supportprogram interventions. Paper presented during the RegionalWorkshop on Integrated Management of the Coastal Zone,26-27 June 1997, Makati City, Philippines.

Heinen, A. and J. Fraser 2001. Power politics of rational resourcemanagement: Fish corrals versus trammel nets in Danao Bay.Tambuli 7:30-34.

2 The Danao Bay reef was selected as the third best managed reef in the Philippines for the International Year of the Reefin 1997. The CBCRM Project of Danao Bay was also among the top four model development projects on environment andnatural resources in the Philippines in the search conducted in 1997 by the Integrated Environmental Management forSustainable Development.


Panguil Bay: Change over Time in Fisheries1

MARCELINO I. TUMANDA, JR.Mindanao State University at Naawan


Introduction

The primary goal of fish stock assessment is toprovide benchmark information on the current statusof the fish stock, compare this with the current levelof exploitation and find the exploitation level thatwould give the maximum yield from the fishery whileensuring that the stock remains intact (Sparre 1987).This information gives appropriate authorities incharge of fisheries management, local governmentunits (LGU) and the Bureau of Fisheries and AquaticResources (BFAR) a specific idea of what the state ofstocks is vis-à-vis fisheries management interventionsin place while giving some ideas on the level of effortoptimal for the resource in question.

This case study gives an interesting overview ofPanguil Bay prior to fisheries managementinterventions of the Fisheries Sector Program (FSP)and its state after the program had ended. It indicatesthat despite the many years of fisheries managementinterventions in Panguil Bay, this program did notachieve the desired goals of optimal use of the bay’sresources and improvement in fishers’ income.

Resource and Ecological Assessment

Towards the end of 1990, Mindanao StateUniversity (MSU)-Naawan was tasked by FSP ofBFAR (funded by the Asian Development Bank andthe Japanese Bank for International Cooperation) toconduct a resource and ecological assessment (REA)of Panguil Bay. The key objective of this assessmentwas to generate baseline information upon which acoastal resource management (CRM) plan and fisheriesinterventions appropriate to the area could bedeveloped. Five years later (1995-1996), a post-REAwas conducted following a similar format to documentchanges since the beginning of the interventions.

The site

Panguil Bay in northwestern Mindanao is sharedby the provinces of Lanao del Norte and MisamisOccidental (Region 10) and Zamboanga del Sur (Region9) (Figure 1). Its narrowest width is about 1.7 kmbetween Silanga, Tangub City and Tubod, Lanao delNorte, while its widest breadth at the bay’s mouth isabout 11.5 km (MSU 1996). Its irregular coastlinemeasures about 112 km, while the distance betweenthe innermost reaches in Lintugop, Aurora,Zamboanga del Sur, to its mouth at Iligan Bay is about41 km. The bottom topography is irregular withaverage and greatest depths measuring about 15.4 mand 55.0 m, respectively. There are 29 major and 46minor river tributaries that transport freshwater,nutrients and sediments into the bay (Figure 1).

Fish stock assessment

The fisheries resources of Panguil Bay are a majorsource of livelihood for sustenance fishers in the area.Approximately 36,000 families from the three provincesreside along the bay (NSO 1994) of which at least 10%depend directly on it for their livelihood. In 1991, somespecies of the bay were already in an advanced stateof being overfished particularly crustaceans wherefishing mortality (F) was, for some species, alreadybetween 55% and 79% of the total mortalities (Z)(Acuña et al. 1992).

Some 120 species of finfish belonging to 65 familieswere identified from landed catches in 1995-1996,which was fewer than the 145 species reported in 1991(Table 1). The most abundantly caught species werethe gray mullet (Mugil cephalus), anchovy (Stolephoruscommersonii) and oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps), with

1 This paper can be cited as follows: TUMANDA, M.I., JR. 2004. Panguil Bay: Change over time in fisheries, p. 322-326. InDA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Panguil Bay: Change over time in fisheries

323

Figure 1. Panguil Bay and the location of monitoring stations (•) used during the 1991 and 1995-1996 fish stock assessments.

Table 1. Profile of landed catches in Panguil Bay in 1991 and 1995-1996.

Group

FinfishCrustaceansTotal

14512

157

12012

132

177.8391.6569.4

763.888.2

852.0

Total No. of Species

1991 1995-1996

Total Landed Catch (t)

1991 1995-1996


an aggregate catch of 34.8 t, representing 27.7% of thetotal recorded catch from 13 stations.

More than 20 different kinds of fishing gear wereoperating in the bay in 1995-1996 while only 17 werenoted in 1991. The number of fishing gear in the baydoubled from 3,208 units in 1991 to 6,494 units in 1995-1996 therefore explaining the huge increase in landedfinfish catch in the latter period. By 1995-1996, therehad been an observed proliferation of giant filter nets(sanggab) (Figure 2)in certain parts of the bay, but mostoperators declined to declare their actual catches, thusthe recorded catches were an underestimate of the totalproduction of the bay.

Socioeconomics

The average gross income of fishers in Panguil Bayin 1991 was estimated at P93 per day or roughly P2,160per month (based on 23 days per month work). Thiswas much lower than the poverty threshold level ofP126 per day as estimated by the National Economicand Development Authority (NEDA) in 1991 (Adan etal. 1992). The average net income of fishers during the1995-1996 NEDA survey was P123 per day or P3,690per month. Despite an increase, these values were stillbelow the poverty level index at that time of P6,000 permonth and barely equivalent to the 1991 income ofP2,160 per month after inflation (MSU 1996).

Crustacean resources

The species composition, total recorded catches andpercentage change in crustacean catch monitored in

1991 and 1995-1996 are presented in Table 2. The largestvolume of crustacean catch usually came from the innerportion of the bay. There was a reduction of about 77%in total crustacean catch in 1995-1996 compared to 1991.Among the different gears, the bottom-set gillnet hadthe highest catch per unit effort (CPUE) (3.52 kg day-1),followed by crab pot (2.24 kg day-1) and fish corral (1.95kg day-1). The average CPUE of 0.87 kg day-1 for all thegear was lower than that in 1991 (1.02 kg day-1),suggesting that the crustacean fishery in Panguil Bayhad declined considerably for reasons not yetunderstood.

Coastal Resource Management Interventions

Since 1991, many CRM interventions had beenimplemented in the bay which can be classified intofour broad categories: (1) enhancement andrehabilitation, (2) community organizing andinformation dissemination, (3) credit assistance and (4)coastal law enforcement.

Enhancement and rehabilitation projects includedmangrove reforestation and deployment of artificialreefs. About 539 ha of mangrove areas were reforestedin Panguil Bay through the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources’ Coastal Environment Project,costing about P4.4 million. This involved about 172family and 10 community contractors. Survival rates ofplanted mangrove seedlings were 45-95% (MSU 1996).A total of 132 artificial reef modules were deployedby local residents with assistance of LGUs all near themouth of the bay only. The artificial reefs were notwell-monitored so it is still unclear whether they

Table 2. Species composition, total catch and percent change of major crustaceans in Panguil Bayduring the 1991 and 1995-1996 surveys.

Species

ShrimpMetapenaeus ensisMetapenaeus sp.Penaeus merguiensisP. monodonP. indicusOther shrimps

TotalAverage % reductionCrabs

Scylla spp.Portunus pelagicusOther crabs

TotalAverage % declineGrand total

Local Name

bagalansudsuronlunhansugpo/pansatputian/lunhan

alimangolambay

1991

106.38 -

45.65 -

15.5245.89

213.44

125.0850.262.83

178.17

391.61

1995-1996

32.8413.4410.504.73

-21.5064.01

11.6911.790.66

24.14

88.15

Change(+/-)

-73.54 -

-32.15 - -

-24.39-149.43

-113.39-38.47

-2.17-154.03

% Change

-69.13

-77.00

-53.15

-66.43

-90.65-76.54-76.68

-81.29

Total Recorded Catch (t)

Panguil Bay: Change over time in fisheries

325

assisted rehabilitation or merely functioned as fishaggregation devices, further depleting the local fishstock.

Community organizing activities were carried outby two nongovernment organizations (NGOs)contracted by FSP beginning in 1990. A total of 72fishers’ cooperatives were organized covering almostall the coastal barangays of the three provincesbordering the bay. The objective was to enable theseorganizations to assist with coastal resource protectionand rehabilitation. However, the cooperatives wereonly active while the NGOs were present. Upon thetermination of the NGO contracts, many of theactivities also slowed down or totally ended.

Credit assistance was provided by various creditinstitutions. Unfortunately, these assistance programsfailed in most cases, primarily because of nonpaymentof loans by creditors.

Various municipal and city ordinances have beenpassed by LGUs to curb illegal fishing and protect theenvironment. Fisheries administrative orders,executive orders, resolutions and other applicablenational laws on fisheries management have not beenenforced in Panguil Bay. Despite the existence of theselaws and enforcement efforts by authorities concerned,illegal fishing practices have persisted, primarily causedby poor community organization, poverty and absenceof strong political will from both local governmentand community.

Conclusion and Management Implications

The information generated by the 1991 REA andthe 1995-1996 post-REA of Panguil Bay has indicateda large increase in finfish catch. The reasons for thisinclude a probable underreporting of catch in 1991

and increasing effort in 1995, in spite of increasingoverexploitation of finfish. There has been a significantdecline in crustacean catch compared to 1991 data. Theclandestine deployment of certain illegal gear (i.e., filternets and trawl fishing), which were earlier bannedeither by local ordinances or resolutions by the PanguilBay Development Council (PBDC) and the proliferationof traditional ones (i.e., fish corrals and encircling gillnets) have contributed to this decline.

There is loss of finfish diversity in the bay. Thehydrobiology and ecology study of Panguil Bayconducted by Sanguila et al. (1984) reported 201 speciesof finfishes. The assessment made in the 1991 REAindicated only 145 species, or a reduction of 56 species.The 1995-1996 post-REA survey listed only 121 speciesof finfishes or a loss in finfish diversity of about 40%from the 1984 records.

The decline in crustaceans can also possibly beattributed to the continued use of highly efficient gear,such as fish corrals (using very fine mesh nets) andsanggab, which can filter even tiny larvae of the species.The sanggab is known to damage the overall fisheriesof the bay. The diminishing population of crabs is alsoattributed to the harvest of juvenile crabs (Scylla spp.)for rearing and fattening projects that were mostlydone outside the Panguil Bay area. Most of the shrimpand crabs in the samples were either of small size orjuveniles, which further indicates that the fisheryshifted to exploitation of young populations. Theremoval of immature crustaceans has contributed todecline of spawning populations, a condition knownas recruitment overfishing.

Analyses of exploitation levels and yieldpredictions using the Thompson and Bell model(Gayanilo et al. 1994) indicate that increasing currentlevels of fishing effort to expand the fisheries is not

Figure 2. Stationary fine-mesh liftnets in Panguil Bay.


sustainable. Fish biomass has already been reducedbelow optimum levels. Management options shouldinclude regulation of the amount of daily catch andtotal closure of certain areas, and closure of other areasat specific times of the year to allow recovery. Thesesteps need to be supported by public education andother forms of advocacy.

The management of fishery resources of PanguilBay requires an integrated multisectoral approachcoupled with a strong and dynamic political structureand organization that can implement the bay fisheriesmanagement plan. Towards this end, PBDC, which iscomposed of provincial and municipal officials aroundthe bay, must be strengthened and revitalized to carryout its fisheries action plan, involving the participationof coastal communities.

The state of the bay shows that despite thepresence of a large, well-funded project that supportedfishers’ organizations and initiated many coastalmanagement practices, there is a long way to go toimprove fisheries management. Evidence suggests thatmany of the fish resources were already overexploitedin 1991 (Acuña et al. 1992). This calls for a strongerpolicy environment, and that five years for projectimplementation is not long enough.

Since FSP was initiated in 1991, the number offishing gears in the bay has more than doubled. Thisshows that the open access nature of the fisheries hasonly become worse. Reducing fishing effort withinthe bay is essential to improve the status of fisheriesresources. Habitat protection and closed areas areessential to rehabilitate the bay.

References

Acuña, R.E., A.E. Openiano and A. B. Apongan. 1992. Resourceand ecological assessment of Panguil Bay: Finfish resources.Terminal Report, Vol. III. 58 p. Mindanao State University,Misamis Oriental, Philippines.

Adan, E.Y., F.M. Valdez, M.Y. Salarda and W.R. Adan. 1992.Resource and ecological assessment of Panguil Bay:Demographic and economic pressures in Panguil Bay. TerminalReport, Vol. I. 75 p. Mindanao State University, MisamisOriental, Philippines.

Gayanilo, F.C., P. Sparre and D. Pauly. 1994. The FAO-ICLARMstock assessment tools (FiSAT) user’s guide. FAO Comput.Inf. Ser. (Fish.) No. 6, 186 p. FAO, Rome, Italy.

MSU (Mindanao State University). 1996. Post-resource andecological assessment monitoring and training project inPanguil Bay. Terminal Report. 343 p. Mindanao StateUniversity at Naawan, Misamis Oriental, Philippines.

NSO (National Statistics Office). 1994. Family income andexpenditure survey. Integrated survey of households. Bull.Ser. 80. Final Report, Vol. II. 378 p.

Sanguila, W.M., H.J. Vicente, N.C. Mendoza, R.E. Acuña, M.I.Tumanda, Jr. and M.T. Daitia. 1984. Hydrobiology and ecologyof Panguil Bay – II. Fisheries resources CPUE. MSU-IFRDRes. Tech. Rep.: 28-104.

Sparre, P. 1987. Computer programs for fish stock assessment forApple II computers. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (101) Suppl. 2: 218 p.

Gingoog Bay Development Council 327

A Local Government Alliance Approachto Integrated Coastal Zone Management:

The Gingoog Bay Development Council Experience1



Introduction

The passage of the Local Government Code (LGC)of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) allows local governmentunits (LGUs) to group themselves and to consolidateand coordinate their efforts, services and resourcesfor purposes commonly beneficial to them (Section33). Moreover, to promote democratic participationin governance, the law provides that LGUs may enterinto joint ventures or cooperative agreements withpeople’s organizations (POs) and nongovernmentorganizations (NGOs) to engage in the delivery ofbasic services that would increase productivity andincome, promote ecological balance and improve thegeneral well-being of the people (Section 35).

In response to this new mode of governance, LGUalliances have begun to sprout in areas usually withcommon resources and ecosystems, such aswatersheds, rivers, bays and gulfs (Adan 2001). Thisecosystem approach in the formation of alliancesaddresses problems in a more holistic manner whichis badly needed for resources that are very mobile,such as pelagic fishes.

Of the eight Local Government Support Program(LGSP)-assisted LGU alliances in Mindanao (Garucho1997), only the alliance in Gingoog Bay was formallyestablished by the national government.2 The rest haveremained in their original state with legal basis in thememorandum of agreement they have entered intoby and among themselves as approved by their

respective municipal/city council (Sangguniang Bayan/Panlungsod). This case study looks at the evolution ofone such alliance.

Gingoog Bay Development Council

The Gingoog Bay Development Council (GBDC)evolved from various consultations held by LGUleaders and concerned citizens in the area on theworsening condition of the fishery resources of thebay and from lobbies on the need to alleviate thesocioeconomic condition of the coastal folk. Variousforms of illegal fishing operations brought havoc tofishery resources of the bay, causing continuing declinein fish catch of municipal fishers. Moreover, keyhabitats of the ecosystem - coral reefs, seagrass bedsand mangroves - have been gradually and insidiouslydamaged by unregulated exploitation, siltation andpollution emanating from land-based human activities.

Recognizing the need to address the problemholistically through participatory and collaborativeefforts, LGUs along Gingoog Bay formed an alliancewith assistance from the Philippines-Canada LGSP ofRegion X, Northern Mindanao. The alliance soughtlegal recognition from the Philippine President toinstitutionalize funding support. The efforts paid offwhen the Office of the President (OP) created GBDCunder Executive Order (EO) No. 234, as amended byEO No. 300, in April 1995. The creation of GBDC is inline with the current thrust of national government,

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ADAN, W.R. 2004. A local government alliance approach to integrated coastal zonemanagement: The Gingoog Bay Development Council experience, p. 327-331. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal ResourceManagement Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.2 The other seven LGSP-assisted alliances in various regions are: Illana Bay Regional Alliance (Autonomous Region inMuslim Mindanao), Illana Bay Regional Alliance (Region IX), Panguil Bay Development Council, Salug ValleyDevelopment Council, Dumanugillas-Maligay Bay Development Council, Murciellagos Bay Management Council andDapitan-Dipolog-Katipunan-Roxas-Manukan Development Council.


that is, “preserving the country’s marine and coastalresources through community-based efforts consistentwith the concept of sustainable development andpeople empowerment” (EO 234).

Development area

The GBDC’s area includes the municipalities ofMagsaysay, Medina, Talisayan and Balingoan and thecity of Gingoog, all of which are located along thecoast of Gingoog Bay (Figure 1). The bay has anirregular coastline of some 81 km and covers coastalwaters of about 546 km2 (GBDC 1996; MSU 2002). A

total of 49 coastal barangays is found along the baywith some 3,200 fishers.

Organization and management

Originally, as mandated under EO No. 234 andamended under EO No. 300, the council is composedof the following: the Cabinet Officer for RegionalDevelopment as chair; the Secretary of the Departmentof Agriculture (DA) as vice-chair; and as members -the Executive Secretary of OP, the Secretary of theDepartment of the Interior and Local Government(DILG), the Governor of Misamis Oriental, the mayors

Figure 1. Location map of Gingoog Bay, Misamis Oriental, Philippines.


of concerned LGUs and three representatives fromthe private sector (one each from NGOs, fishingcooperative/fisherfolk or POs and agribusiness).However, the council has not met even once in suchcomposition. The difficulty of organizing a meetingfor the widely dispersed membership of the councilled to the organization, by local decision, of anExecutive Committee (ExeCom) composed of the fivemayors in the area and local representatives fromvarious sectors (Figure 2).

Henceforth, the ExeCom became the de facto policyand governing body of the council. A technical workinggroup composed of specialists from different lineagencies of the government and their localcounterparts, as well as a secretariat assist the ExeCom.A Project Management Office, which also serves asclearinghouse for development projects in the area,carries out day-to-day operations.

Operational strategy

The GBDC, as an attached unit to OP, had an initialallocation from the national government of P5 millionto support its operation in 1995. Only P300,000 wasreleased through OP. Its allocation for the ensuingyears was to be incorporated in the budget of OP.This funding support did not materialize due to

problems between local politicians and OP.Nevertheless, to pursue the goals of GBDC, LGUmembers of the council have been contributingannually since 1996. The annual contributions are asfollows: Gingoog City, P300,000, and P100,000 eachfrom Medina, Talisayan, Magsaysay and Balingoan.The city of Gingoog, which has a larger internalrevenue allotment, is the seat of PMO and serves asthe conduit of the fund. The council now focuses itseffort on establishing linkages with outside fundinginstitutions to generate funds for its coastal resourcemanagement (CRM) projects. This is done inpartnership with NGOs and line government agenciesoperating in the area.

Success through an integrated approach

The GBDC, with its NGO partners in the forefront,has gone a long way in organizing and mobilizingcoastal communities along CRM. Some 57 fisherfolkassociations, 56 cooperatives and 48 womenorganizations are found along the coastal stretch ofGingoog Bay in various levels of development (MSU2002). All are involved in one way or another ininterventions concerning CRM and in improving thequality of life of coastal dwellers. The following aresome successful interventions in the area.

Figure 2. ExeCom structure of GBDC.


Resource enhancement and rehabilitation. Theestablishment of 12 fully protected, community-managed marine sanctuaries symbolizes the people’sresponse to resource depletion and habitatdegradation in the bay. Nine more protected areasare currently in the process of establishment, helpedalong by the success of the previous 12 sanctuaries,which were established up to eight years prior. TheMagsaysay and Balingoan sanctuaries range from 4.5–21 ha and the total area of the marine protected area(MPA) in the bay is now over 106 ha. Fishers are nowreaping considerable benefits from MPA in the formof fish production spillover.

Based on anecdotal research and communityinterviews, fish catch in waters near MPAs is reportedto have risen from an average of 2 to 8 kg per fourhours of fishing trip after three years since the MPAwas established. The fishers observed that theestablishment of sanctuaries not only has increasedfish stock in their waters, but has also attracted morenonresident pelagic species.

With the guidance of NGOs in coordination withthe Department of Environment and NaturalResources (DENR), fisherfolk associations havereplanted around 120 ha of mangrove seedlings in thebay with a survival rate averaging 70%. Community-enforced regulations in selective mangrove harvesting(allowing trimming and cutting only) are beingimplemented in mangrove-rich communities likePoblacion, Santo Rosario, Magsaysay and Pangasihan-Talisay, Gingoog City. The rehabilitation has restoredsome of the nearshore productivity and has increasedthe nursery and feeding grounds of certain species offish and crustaceans.

Surveillance and law enforcement. While theproposed baywide law enforcement team has yet tomaterialize, barangay-based Bantay Dagat (sea patrol)and civilian volunteer organizations have, nonetheless,been effective in reducing illegal fishing, such as blastfishing, use of fine mesh nets and fish poisoning.Community participation in guarding marinesanctuaries is also gaining ground. Watchtowers,mostly constructed from barangay and municipal funds(50-50 counterpart), attended by volunteerorganizations, are now a common sight in coastalcommunities around the bay. Many of these arealready equipped with searchlights and two-way radiocommunication systems. The approach, however, ismore towards educating and warning possible

offenders before they enter the sanctuaries rather thanfiling cases through local courts. Barangay authoritiesare averse to court litigation as this is expensive andtime-consuming.

Putting an end to whale shark hunting. Whaleshark (Rhincodon typus) hunting was a lucrativelivelihood to some 30 families in Guiwanon, Talisayan,and Misamis Oriental from mid-1980s through late1990s. Gingoog Bay and nearby waters becamenotorious as a killing field for the world’s largest fish.The GBDC, with the able assistance of a private sectorrepresentative from Alibuag Resort in Balingoan, Mr.Rolando Uy, helped put an end to this practice. TheDA-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources finallystopped the capture of endangered species, such aswhale sharks and devil manta rays, through theissuance of Fisheries Administrative Order 193 whichbanned their capture and sale.

The whale shark hunters were encouraged todevelop ecotours in order to augment the income theylost from their former practice. The key fisherseventually became whale shark and dolphin watchingguides. They were also given priority territorial useright to catch milkfish (Chanos chanos) fry in Guiwanon,Talisayan, and helped to culture milkfish in growoutcages to supplement livelihood.

Income augmentation. LGUs, NGOs and POsfocused on land-based income augmentation activitiesto reduce the reliance of families on the bay’sresources. Coastal folks were trained on goat, swineand poultry production, and on contour farming ofsuch cash crops as pineapples, beans, rice, bananas andvegetables. Livelihood assistance was also initiatedthrough establishment of multipurpose cooperativesthat aim to help local fishing communities. Some NGOs,such as the Mindanao Lumad DevelopmentCorporation (MILAMDEC) Foundation andHagdanan sa Pag-uswag Foundation, even offeredmicrocredit services patterned after the Grameen Bankof Bangladesh.2 This project offers skills training andsmall credit facilities particularly to housewives so theycan enhance household income. The funds came fromCare Philippines, People’s Credit Corporation andother funding institutions based in New Zealand,Australia and USA. Some were successful and otherswere not, but on the whole the local communitiesappreciated the interventions. Fishing families inBonifacio, Magsaysay, who went into pineapplefarming in their contour farms, as well as those who

2 The concept is for borrowers to form a cell of five members to avail of a loan for such livelihood activities as fish and foodvending, establishing a variety store, pedicab-for-hire and the like. The cell members are collectively responsible for loanpayment performance of each. They are also encouraged to save parts of their income. Loan payment is weekly.


engaged in vegetable farming in Balingoan, disclosedthat the livelihood opportunity has augmented theirincome significantly while minimizing their relianceon the sea.

Land management and reforestation. To integratethe whole ecosystem, upland communities in theGingoog Bay development area were also organizedalong sustainable agriculture and agro-reforestationprojects. Upland farmers were encouraged to planthard woods and fruit trees to replenish lost forestcover in their respective farm lots. In Magsaysay, acooperative was even contracted to plant trees byDENR under its reforestation project. This upland tree-planting project is expected to enhance the watershedof Gingoog Bay and curb soil erosion and siltationproblems.

Waste management. The GBDC embarked on anintegrated waste management project to address theworsening problem of waste in the coastal areas. Theproject is funded by the Philippine-AustraliaCommunity Aid Program. The concept of zero wastemanagement is now being promoted in coastalbarangays through trainings and seminars. Thedevelopment of an environment-friendly wastedisposal system (sanitary landfill) in each municipalityor one in adjacent municipalities is the subject of afeasibility study also funded by Australian Aid andCanadian International Development Agency, withGBDC providing counterpart funding.

Lessons Learned

The Local Government Code of 1991 grants morepowers and authority to LGUs to create and broadentheir own sources of revenue. They may use theircorporate power to engage in business or income-generating projects, or borrow money from or accessexternal sources of funds to implement theirdevelopment plans and programs. Likewise, theFisheries Code of 1998 and the LGC of 1991 encourageinter-LGU alliances, given the fact that bays are a singleecosystem and their management is thus ideally donefrom a wider perspective. The GBDC proves that inter-LGU collaborations can be very effective mechanismsfor CRM.

Local government alliances need to explore thesame avenues in generating funds to implement theircommon projects. To remain dependent and hopefulon support from the national government is passé. Inan era of decentralization, even a mandate from thenational government on the creation of a localmanagement body is not anymore a guarantee ofsuccess. Also, reliance on external sources (outside of

the national government) does not result in certaintyor sustainability. One of the key lessons learned bythe council is self-reliance. In the end, it had to abandonits hope for government support and to realize that ithas to dig deeper from its own reserve and theindividual resources of the members to pursue itsvision and goals.

However, one of the keys, if not the strongest, tothe success of the council has been the partnershipthat it has forged with NGOs in the area. Thispartnership allows the council to pursue community-based coastal and upland projects, which otherwisecould not have been done with its limited human andfinancial resources.

References

Adan, W.R. 2001. Institutionalization of alliances in Region IX andformulation of manual of operations. Project Terminal Report.Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program,Region IX, Dipolog City, Philippines.

Garucho, R.D. 1997. Coastal resource management and localgovernance: A status report on local government supportprogram interventions. Paper presented during the RegionalWorkshop on Integrated Management of the Coastal Zone,26-27 June 1997, Makati City, Philippines.

GBDC (Gingoog Bay Development Council). 1996. Gingoog Bayarea strategic development plan: 1997–2007. GBDC, GingoogCity, Philippines.

MSU (Mindanao State University at Naawan). 2002. Resource andsocial assessment of Gingoog Bay. Project Terminal Report.Fisheries Resource Management Project, Department ofAgriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,Quezon City, Philippines.


Fish Resource Assessment and ManagementRecommendations for Davao Gulf1




Introduction

The fishery resources of Davao Gulf (Figure 1)are shared by the provinces of Davao del Sur, Davaodel Norte, Compostella Valley, Davao Oriental, DavaoCity and Island Garden City of Samal. Total annuallandings by the capture fisheries sector from the gulfincreased slightly from 18,000 t in 1987 to about 21,000t in 1995. The increment was primarily due to increasein harvest by commercial fishing vessels, from 3,000 tin 1987 to 6,000 t in 1995. Landings by municipal fishersremained unchanged and their relative contributionhas therefore declined.

Davao Gulf is a large waterbody of 3,087 km2 anda wide-range of marine ecosystems support fisheriesactivities in its 17 coastal municipalities (Armada 2002).At present, management of the gulf is doneindependently by each local government unit (LGU).There have been isolated attempts, though, to integratemanagement initiatives among various localities in thegulf. Being a semi-enclosed body of water, Davao Gulfcould be regarded as one marine ecosystem which isrelatively easy to manage, unlike most other areas inthe Philippine archipelago.

Fishing Activities

Estimates from a recent inventory showed a totalof 13,930 municipal fishing crafts and 289 commercialfishing vessels (Armada 2002). A total of 115commercial vessels (operated by 866 fishers) and13,752 municipal boats (18,393 fishers) are directlyused in fishing. Municipal fishers still make use oftraditional fishing gears that have undergone very little

modification. These are primarily the spear, scoop net,fish corral, barrier net, traps, pots, cast net, push netand beach seine. Some fishing gears, however, haveevolved into species-specific fishing gears bearingspecific names. Gillnets, for example, have beenmodified to catch specific target species. Bottom-setgillnets are designed to catch crabs and shrimps, suchas panglambay and pamasayan, respectively, while driftor surface gillnets, such as pambolinao or panamban, aredesigned to catch anchovies and sardines, respectively.The same is true with hook-and-line fishing.

Davao Gulf has roughly 25 generic types of fishinggears which can be broken down further into about200 specific types. Over 500 different fish andinvertebrate species are caught in the gulf. Eachmunicipal fishing boat has between two and fourfishing gears. Usually, two fishing gears are carriedon board during an operation. The most common gearsused are the multiple hook-and-line, pasol, simple hook-and-line, squid/octopus jig, drift/surface gillnet andpalangre/longline. The least commonly used gearsinclude the hand spear, barrier nets, cast nets, crabliftnets, seine nets and fish corral. Beach seine, at anaverage of 26 kg/day, has the highest catch per uniteffort (CPUE). This is followed by liftnet (17 kg/day)and push net (14 kg/day). The different traps and potshave the lowest CPUE, with averages of 2.4 kg/dayand 2.9 kg/day, respectively (Armada 2002).

The commercial fishing crafts, on the other hand,were primarily operating bagnets, ringnets and purseseines. They are operated by 5 fishers each, on average.About 85% of this workforce is employed full-time.The estimated average catch per day of commercialoutfits are 622 kg (for ringnet) and 59 kg (for bagnet).

1 This paper can be cited as follows: ARMADA, N.B. 2004. Fish resource assessment and management recommendationsfor Davao Gulf, p. 332-335. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). Inturbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.378 p.

Fish resource assessment and management recommendations for Davao Gulf 333

The estimated total annual landed harvest by allgears in 2001 amounted to 24,400 t, relatively higherthan the 1987 and 1995 estimated landings (Figure 2).The multiple hook-and-line, being the most numerous,contributed 29.8% to total annual harvest,followed by ringnet (27%), simple hook-and-line and pole-and-line (11.7%), various hook-and-line types lumped under the local namepasol (10%), and drift and surface gillnets(6.6%). Also quite substantial were thecontributions of squid and octopus jigs (4.8%),bagnet (3.6%) and surface set longline (1.9%).

Fish Stock Assessment

Population analysis was conducted on 8of the most abundant fish species (Table 1),altogether, comprising over 60% of the total

catch landed. All of the species showed high extractionrates (E), ranging from 0.58 to 0.70. Conventionaltheory suggests that optimal E values should bebetween 0.3 and 0.5 to be able to maximize biological

Figure 2. Total annual fish landings from Davao Gulf for 1987, 1995 and 2001.

Figure 1. Davao Gulf and adjoining provinces , Philippines.


yield (Gulland 1971; Beddington and Cooke 1983).Relative yield-per-recruit analysis (Beverton and Holt1957) further confirmed that, with this mix of fishinggears and intensity of fishing effort, the currentexploitation rates are already way above the maximum

level for these species (Table 2). The ratio of relativelength at first capture over the length at infinity (L50/L ) indicates that, with the exception of Selarcrumenophthalmus and Rastrelliger kanagurta, all otherspecies investigated were already subject to highfishing intensity even during their early stages. Thisis primarily due to exploitation of relatively smallindividuals by beach seine, bagnet and fish corral(Figure 3).

Recommendations for Management

The current fishing pressure is quite high, andthe annual level of harvest cannot be sustained. Amoratorium on licensing of new crafts and gearsis recommended to avoid displacement of existingfishers. However, it should not stop there. Results ofstock assessment revealed that a number of fishinggear, namely, bagnet, beach seine and fish corral, werecatching small individuals of most major species in thegulf or, simply said, are contributing tremendously togrowth overfishing. These fishing gears are impactingnegatively on the yield of the bay. There is a need toreplace destructive fishing gears with nondestructiveones. Beach seine (both sensuro and baling), bagnet(basing) and fish corral (bungsod) have to be graduallyreplaced by hooks-and-lines and gillnets. A gear-swapping program should be initiated and designedto ultimately eliminate all destructive fishing gears.

A sustained information and education campaignas well as mechanism for awarding of governmentincentives should be set in place to encourage use oflegal mesh sizes and nondestructive gears.Strengthening of fishery law enforcement capabilities

Figure 3. Length ranges of Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger brachysoma and R. kanagurta) caught by variousfishing gears in Davao Gulf, May 2000 - April 2001.

Table 1. Population parameters for selected species in Davao Gulf,as estimated from catch monitoring data gathered from May 2000to April 2001.

Selar crumenophthalmusRastrelliger brachysomaRastrelliger kanagurtaDecapterus kurroidesMene maculataAuxis thazardAuxis rocheiSiganus canaliculatus

L (cm)

26.528.028.539.026.040.533.029.0

K

0.851.001.301.151.100.850.751.25

Z

4.104.495.965.435.863.963.427.01

M

1.661.822.151.821.981.481.442.09

F

2.442.673.813.613.883.261.984.92

E

0.600.590.640.660.660.630.580.70

Population ParametersSpecies8

Table 2. Important population parameters of selectedspecies caught in Davao Gulf used for comparativeassessments.

Species

Selar crumenophthalmusRastrelliger brachysomaRastrelliger kanagurtaDecapterus kurroidesMene maculataAuxis thazardAuxis rocheiSiganus canaliculatus

L(cm)

26.528.028.539.026.040.533.029.0

E

0.600.590.640.660.660.630.580.70

Emax

0.610.540.590.470.550.490.520.49

L50

14.811.914.911.411.611.814.49.1

L50/L

0.560.420.520.290.450.290.440.31

8 8

(cm)

(year-1)

8

Fish resource assessment and management recommendations for Davao Gulf 335

of LGUs and consolidation of forces among theirclusters will make enforcement agencies more visiblein fishing grounds and discourage illegal fishingactivities.

The current catch monitoring activities of theNational Stock Assessment Project in the region shouldalso be institutionalized. Collection and analysis of datashould focus on biological reference points to monitorthe effects of interventions (fisheries managementmeasures, e.g., ban on certain fishing gears) on thestock. Estimation procedures used and parametersderived from this study can serve as bases foradjustments of allowable fishing effort. However, theestimation of benchmarks should be done every year,and the results regularly disseminated to stakeholdersand resource users. This will sustain awareness andhelp refine procedures and estimates, while givingfisheries management interventions a scientific basis.

Complementary management measures

Control of fishing effort is one major interventionthat is needed for the management of fish stocks inDavao Gulf. However, it is not enough. At the LGUlevel, a number of measures pertaining to restorationand protection of marine habitats of commerciallyimportant fish and invertebrate species should alsobe in place. There is a need to regulate fishing activitiesin reef areas and to disallow use of entangling nets,trammel nets and hookah, and allow only hook-and-lines and traps (Ingles 2002). Like elsewhere in thecountry, there is also a tendency towardsindiscriminate establishment of marine protected areas(MPAs) in Davao Gulf for livelihood purposes (Ingles2002) and simply to conform to government policies.

The establishment of a properly networked set ofMPAs for the entire gulf is recommended to achievethe essence and function of a protected area (Nañola2002). MPAs are likely to succeed in the gulf becauseof the presence of other habitats and the wide oceanicarea where displaced fishers can go. There is also aneed to conserve and protect existing mangrovecommunities and to consider the ecological andphysical attributes in the rehabilitation of degradedmangrove areas (Flores 2002).

Fisheries and coastal habitat management can beorchestrated at various levels. An integrated coastalmanagement plan and an implementation unit areneeded for the entire Davao Gulf to provide policiesand guidelines for sustainable exploitation of fishstocks, a basis for broad allocation of coastal resources,and reasons for the establishment and maintenance ofa network of MPAs. LGUs need to focus on coastal

habitat restoration, implement control of fishing effort,support responsible fishing practices and enforcefishery laws. These can be done by individualmunicipality, but forces can be consolidated by formingalliances among clusters of LGUs.

References

Armada N.B. 2002. Fishery resources assessment of Davao Gulf,Philippines, p. 1-33. In University of the Philippines-Visayas(UPV) Foundation. Resource and ecological assessment: Part1. UPV Foundation, Iloilo, Philippines.

Beddington, J. and J. Cooke. 1983. The potential yield of fishstocks. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. (242), 47 p.

Beverton, R.J.H. and S.J. Holt. 1957. On the dynamics of exploitedfish populations. Fish. Invest., Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food, London. (2 Sea Fish.) 19, 533 p.

Flores, J. 2002. Status of mangrove ecosystem in Davao Gulf,Philippines, p. 83-117. In University of the Philippine-Visayas(UPV) Foundation. Resource and ecological assessment: Part1. UPV UPV Foundation, Iloilo, Philippines.

Gulland, S. 1971. The fish resources of the oceans. FAO/FishingNews Books Ltd. Surrey, England.

Ingles, J.A. 2002. Status of coral reefs of Davao Gulf, Philippines,p. 35-72. In University of the Philippines-Visayas (UPV)Foundation. Resource and ecological assessment: Part 1.UPV Foundation, Iloilo, Philippines.

Nañola, C. 2002. Assessment of existing and proposed fishsanctuaries in Davao Gulf, Philippines, p. 73-83. In Universityof the Philippines-Visayas (UPV) Foundation. Resource andecological assessment: Part 1. UPV Foundation, Iloilo,Philippines.


1This paper can be cited as follows: INGLES, J.A. and R.B. TRONO. 2004. Ecoregion fisheries management: A newapproach to address biodiversity loss caused by fisheries in the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas, p. 336-341. In DA-BFAR (Departmentof Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine fisheries.Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.

Ecoregion Fisheries Management: A New Approachto Address Biodiversity Loss Caused by Fisheries

in the Sulu-Sulawesi Seas1

JOSE A. INGLES2, 3

ROMEO B. TRONO2

2Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion ProgramWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) - Philippines

LBI Bldg., 57 Kalayaan Ave., Diliman, Quezon CityPhilippines

3Institute of Marine Fisheries and OceanologyCollege of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences

University of the Philippines in the VisayasMiagao, Iloilo, 5023

Philippines

Introduction

Ecoregions are large units of land or water thatare biologically distinctive and harbor a characteristicset of species, ecosystems, dynamics andenvironmental conditions (Olson and Dinerstein1998). Using these large biologically distinct areas asunits of management is being undertaken by the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF) to overcomeconstraints inherently present when using small areaapproaches. The ecoregion approach is currently beingundertaken in one of the most biodiverse areas of theworld, the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion (SSME).In SSME, capture fisheries overexploitation isconsidered one of the leading causes of biodiversityloss. A WWF program envisions that managingfisheries will help conserve the biodiversity of theregion. This paper discusses the merits of using anecoregional approach, a concept best suited to addressfisheries and biodiversity conservation issues overlarge areas, particularly transboundary issues.

The Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion

In 1998, the conservation organization WWFconvened biodiversity experts and scientists fromaround the world to identify and map out large areaswhere biodiversity is threatened. These large units of

land or water called ecoregions are biologically distinctareas that harbor characteristic set(s) of species,ecosystems, dynamics and environmental conditions(Olson and Dinerstein 1998). More than 200 areasaround the world called the Global-200 have beenidentified and mapped out as ecoregions. Some 60 ofthese were high priority marine ecoregions, and oneof these is SSME.

The geographic setting of SSME is unique as itincludes portions of three countries, namely,Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines (Figure 1). Thearea includes 2 provinces of Indonesia (North Sulawesiand East Kalimantan), 10 coastal districts of Sabah,Malaysia (Kudat, Kota Marudu, Pitas, Sandakan,Kinabantangan, Beluran, Tawau, Lahad, DatuSemporna and Kunak) and 44 provinces of thePhilippines.

Two large basins, the Sulu Sea and the SulawesiSea (Celebes Sea) with an aggregate area of almost 1million km2 comprise the ecoregion. The SSME isidentified as one of the priority ecoregions forconservation, not only due to its high biodiversity andendemicity but also because of the seriousness ofthreats to its biodiversity caused mainly by fisheries-related activities.

Fisheries are an important economic activity in thearea. Relative to the respective country’s production,these are placed at 11% for Indonesia (Kahn and Fausi

Ecoregion fisheries management: Sulu-Sulawesi Seas 337

Figure 1. Geographic location of the Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion.


2001), 15% for Malaysia (Biusing 2002) and 45% forthe Philippines (Muñoz 2001). SSME’s total fisheriesproduction is around 1.8 million t, representing about2% of the world’s total fisheries output (Biusing 2002).An undetermined but significant portion of the 35million people living along the coastal fringe is directlyor indirectly dependent on the biological resourcesfor livelihood (Cola 2001).

The sustainability of fisheries resources, however,is fast yielding to increasing and uncontrolled fishingactivities, destructive fishing practices, lack of policiesand weak or ineffective law enforcement regimes. Thismeans that fishing, despite its economic importance,is one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss. Iffisheries will be managed in a sustainable manner,biodiversity conservation will significantly improve.

Establishing an Ecoregional FisheriesManagement Program

The establishment of a fisheries managementprogram (FMP) for the ecoregion underscores theimportance of fisheries as an economic activity in SSME.The overarching goal of FMP is to address proximateand long-term causes of biodiversity loss due tofisheries. Its general objective is to improve thecondition of fisheries and their habitats throughsustainable and collaborative management. Theobjectives of the program are to:

1. improve the status and management of fisheriesin critical sites and marine protected areas;

2. develop and operate a mechanism to addresstransboundary fishery issues in SSME;

3. reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishingand other destructive fishing practices;

4. enable stakeholders to build their capacity infisheries management;

5. increase public awareness on fisheriesconservation;

6. generate and use information for bettermanagement of fisheries and their habitats; and

7. develop financing mechanisms for sustainableconservation and fisheries management.The FMP is guided by four governing principles.

First, it is stakeholder-based, i.e. all stakeholders arepart of program formulation, planning andmanagement. Second, it embraces an adaptivemanagement strategy. This means approaches (e.g.,ecosystem-based management) are tested, as they aredeemed suitable based on scientific knowledge, andare constantly monitored and evaluated, with resultsfed back into the project management cycle. Third,the program adheres to the precautionary approachto fisheries management and works within the tenets

provided by the International Plan of Action of theFood and Agriculture Organization, and the Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries. Lastly, as aworking principle, the role of WWF is to serve ascatalyst for change, providing advisory assistance,both technical and scientific, and to help governmentsand institutions achieve their goals of sustainablefisheries use.

Central to the successful implementation of SSMEFMP are three core activities: (1) determination of thestate of fisheries and management regimes in the area;(2) development of an ecoregional fisheries frameworkthat is compatible with the existing framework of thethree countries; and (3) establishment of an institutionalmechanism to implement the program at the ecoregionlevel while effectively linked with national and localsite programs.

Country reports and fisheries studies werecommissioned to achieve the first core activity. Thesevalidated existing information and identifiedknowledge gaps, particularly those on priorityfisheries issues and problems.

The development of the fisheries frameworkinvolved four sequential activities (Figure 2). First isthe drafting of the framework strategy and objectivesby a seven-member core team composed of fisheriesexperts and focal persons from each of the threecountries. The next three steps involved theparticipation of key stakeholders. After reviewing thestatus and management of fisheries in SSME andvalidating the issues, the stakeholders ratified the draftframework strategy and objectives. Finally, theyformulated the SSME FMP. These activities wereundertaken during the First Regional Stakeholders’Workshop held in early 2002 in Manado, Indonesia.

While the task of framework development wasstraightforward, the work towards the creation of aninstitutional mechanism involved a complex diplomaticprocess among the three countries. Envisioned forSSME was a tri-national working group in fisherieswhich will serve as a steering body to act on fisheriesmatters of transboundary nature. To overcome themonumental task of establishing a new regional body,an existing one with a fisheries agenda was found tobe the best institution to work with. The BruneiDarussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines EastAsian Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) was chosen as thekey platform upon which the trinational group wouldbe formed. The choice of BIMP-EAGA was ideal forthree reasons: it already deals with fisheries tradematters; it encompasses the Sulu and Sulawesi Seas;and three of the four country-members are part ofSSME.


Delivery mechanism

While SSME FMP is regional in scope, activitiesand interventions are initiated (Figure 3) at the local,national (country) and regional (ecoregional) levels.Development and implementation of fisheriesmanagement initiatives are more at the local level.Common to all three levels are policy review,formulation and advocacy, information, education andcommunication (IEC) programs, and monitoring and

evaluation of all initiatives in the respective countries.The task at the ecoregional level is to coordinate andliaise with the three countries on transboundary issuesand initiatives.

The ecoregion as an approach to management

The use of a stakeholder-grounded frameworkgave the element of flexibility for the program to fitinto existing fisheries frameworks of the countries.

Figure 2. Framework development process of SSME FMP.

Figure 3. Delivery mechanism of SSME FMP.

• Policy review, formulation and advocacy• Development and implementation of fisheries management initiatives• Implementation of IEC and capacity-building programs• Formulation and implementation of monitoring and evaluation system

• Policy review, formulation and advocacy• Collaboration and liaison with country initiatives• Development and implementation of IEC and capacity-building programs• Formulation and implementation of monitoring and evaluation system

• Policy formulation and advocacy• Establishment of Ecoregional Working Group and coordination with other marine

ecoregions• Collaboration and liaison with existing multilateral fisheries management groups

and exploring the need and feasibility of creating a trinational management authority• Formulation and implementation of the program's monitoring and evaluation scheme


Table 1. Fisheries issues requiring transboundary actions as identified by stakeholders.

IssuesShared stock management

Shared stocks (yellowfin, dolphin, finfish, anchovies, elasmobranchs, cephalopods, shrimps, lobster, other crustaceans)Lack of tri-national institutional mechanism (e.g., Working Group, discussion with BIMP-EAGA)Transboundary fishing operationsLack of coordination and joint operation in enforcementTrade issues, such as live fish marketing; market forces management; influx of raw supply; seaweeds; crustaceans; mollusks; dried, chilled, fresh products; nonexistence of common standardsFish quarantine and disease introduction to fish stocksHuman migration

Fish for food security or income (mariculture)Culture of carnivores using fishTransshipment in live fish tradeGrow-out type of culture (e.g., groupers, Napoleon wrasses, lobsters)Impact of mariculture on marine environment

Role of gender and development in fisheriesIllegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries

Environmentally destructive fishing methods (e.g., use of explosives, toxins, ghost fishing)Intervention to improve monitoring of fisheriesStatistics for management purposesBy-catchHealth hazard in fishingEncroachment in national waters of foreign fleets

Marine debris (e.g., fish aggregating devices, drift gillnets)Post-harvest and marketing

Value added, processingQuality controlQuality standardsCertification of fishery products

Network of no-take zones/protected areasFish spawning aggregationsFish corridorsLack of understanding and appropriate management of marine corridorsLimited to national effort

Economic instruments in fisheries developmentRole of subsidies in fisheries in SSMELicensing agreements in fisheries

Enforcement issuesEffectiveness of enforcement initiativesLack of coordination/joint patrollingLegal loopholesMonitoring and surveillanceLack of capacity

Lack of awareness on fishery issuesResearch and information management

Lack of reliable data and information sharing (e.g., bioreproduction, population dynamics, stock abundance)

Indonesia

X

X

XXX

X

XXX

X

X

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XX

XXXXXX

X

Malaysia

X

X

XX

XX

XX

X

X

X

XXX

XXX

X

X

XX

XXX

X

Philippines

X

X

XXX

XX

XXXX

X

XXXX

X

XXXX

XXX

XX

XXXXXX

X


This broad-based approach has circumvented probablelimitations of other approaches (e.g., community-basedmanagement) that are already used in the area. Astakeholder-based program fits well into currentgovernment thrusts and programs and is unlikely torun counter to any government initiative.

One of the primary advantages of using theecoregional approach is that it manages fisheries froma much larger perspective and scope, similar to otherlarge-scale approaches to management such asbioregions and large marine ecosystems. It tries tomanage fisheries beyond national jurisdictions andcover the whole geographic range of particularpopulations of concern or include set or sets of criticalhabitats. The ecoregional approach is ideal for issuesthat may be national yet require solutions that aresupranational in level, such as addressing IUU (illegal,unreported and unregulated) fishing and live foodfish trade (Table 1). It also provides the venue toaddress transboundary fishery issues which traversenational boundaries and where solutions requirecomplementary actions from more than onegovernment or the region. Transboundary concernsinclude IUU fishing and illicit trade of noxioussubstances used in fisheries.

Conclusion

The FMP is one of the key projects implementedunder the SSME Program, which draws its mandatefrom the Ecoregion Conservation Plan that wasrecently endorsed by representatives of thegovernments of Indonesia, Malaysia and thePhilippines.

However, fisheries management on an ecoregionscale has its drawbacks. It would have to contend witha very large area, with the dynamics of largemulticultural, highly diverse stakeholders, each withits own agenda to pursue and, depending on theecoregion, the number of governments to deal with.Problems inherent to managing large areas, such asinadequate communication facilities and languagegaps, are also present.

Taking all these factors into consideration, thesuccess of the program depends highly on the stabilityof the political climate, i.e., the harmonious relationshipamong countries that comprise the ecoregion. Even asingle non-fishery issue between countries could haltor worse, even negate all past achievements. Focusneeds to be on strategic issues of mutual concern.

Given this situation, the most difficult hurdle ofthe program is the establishment of a mechanism toaddress fisheries concerns at the ecoregion level. TheBIMP-EAGA was identified as the best platform for

this endeavor. Through BIMP-EAGA, SSME-FMP caninstill awareness of governments about thesignificance of ecoregion-based fisheries managementand can help develop partnerships with the privatesector.

Fisheries management at the ecoregion level is anuntested approach. The recent successes however ofthe Multilateral High Level Convention onManagement and Conservation of Migratory Speciesin the Western and Central Pacific (mostly for tuna)and the unique collaboration between the Philippineand Malaysian governments towards management ofthe Turtle Islands provide a strong precedent uponwhich to build FMPs in larger marine ecosystemcontexts.

References

Biusing, R. 2002. Fisheries of Sulu-Sulawesi Seas: Malaysian countryreport on the assessment of the state of fisheries of Sabah,Malaysia. World Wide Fund for Nature - Philippines Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion Program, Quezon City, Philippines.178 p.

Cola, R. 2001. People of the cross current: Social profile of theSulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion. Final report. World Wide Fundfor Nature - Philippines Sulu-Sulawesi Marine EcoregionProgram, Quezon City, Philippines. 107 p.

Kahn, B. and A. Fauzi. 2001. Fisheries of Sulu-Sulawesi Seas:Indonesian country report on the assessment of the state ofbiophysical, socio-economic and institutional aspects of coastaland pelagic fisheries in the Indonesian part of SSME. Finalreport. World Wide Fund for Nature - Philippines Sulu-SulawesiMarine Ecoregion Program, Quezon City, Philippines. 148 p.

Muñoz, J. 2001. Fisheries of Sulu-Sulawesi Seas: Philippine countryreport. World Wide Fund for Nature - Philippines Sulu-SulawesiMarine Ecoregion Program, Quezon City, Philippines. 78 p.

Olson, D.M. and E. Dinerstein. 1998. The global 200: Arepresentation approach to conserving the earth’s mostbiologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol. 12: 502-515.

343Sustaining Philippine marine fisheries beyond “turbulent seas”

S E C T I O N V

Conclusionand Recommendations


Sustaining Philippine Marine FisheriesBeyond “Turbulent Seas”: A Synopsis of Key Management

Issues and Opportunities1

CESAR Z. LUNAGERONIMO T. SILVESTRE

MARCIANO F. CARREON IIIALAN T. WHITE

STUART J. GREENTetra Tech EM, Inc.



Introduction

The preceding chapters provide detailed reviewscovering various aspects of Philippine marine fisheries.Collectively, the contributions describe a wide rangeof issues and problems that impact the sector.Possibilities for remedial action are also suggested,particularly in the contributions covering policies andmanagement tools. In this last section, we review therelevant facts from the various contributions and takean integrative view of coastal resources with a focuson marine fisheries. Our objective is to identify criticalactions to steer the marine fisheries sector towards apath of sustainability.

In sketching the path towards sustainable marinefisheries, we begin by reviewing its status, focusingon the issues and opportunities in this sector. Afterdescribing Philippine marine fisheries at present, wepoint to where it needs to go and present the strategicobjectives of fisheries management and thereby definewhat we mean by sustainable marine fisheries. Finally,we present six critical actions to achieve the fisheriesmanagement objectives.

Key Issues in Philippine Marine Fisheries

The contributions in this profile are all fairly

consistent in highlighting certain issues and trends inthe coastal resource and fisheries sector. The consensusis that Philippine marine fisheries today arecharacterized by the following:

1. depleted fishery resources;2. degraded coastal environment and critical fisheries

habitats;3. low catches/incomes and dissipated resource rents;4. physical losses and/or reduced value of catches

due to improper post-harvest practices andinefficient marketing;

5. inequitable distribution of benefits from resourceuse;

6. intersectoral and intrasectoral conflicts;7. poverty among small-scale fishers; and8. inadequate systems and structures for fisheries

management.The first 2 issues are biophysical impacts, issues 3-

4 are economic in nature, issues 5-7 are social, and thelast issue is institutional. Below we examine thesecharacteristic issues.

Depleted fishery resources

In general, the various types of marine fisheryresources of the country—reef fishery resources,invertebrates, demersals and small pelagics—are

1 This paper can be cited as follows: LUNA, C.Z., G.T. SILVESTRE, M.F. CARREON III, A.T. WHITE and S.J. GREEN. 2004.Sustaining Philippine marine fisheries beyond “turbulent seas”: A synopsis of key management issues and opportunities,p. 345-358. In DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In turbulent seas: The status ofPhilippine marine fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 378 p.


biologically overfished, often severely in traditionalnearshore fishing areas. In the case of demersals,biomass levels are today only 10-30% of the levels inthe late 1940s. Fishing has resulted not only in greatlyreduced demersal biomass but also in shifts in speciescomposition that include, among others, the generaldecline of larger-sized and commercially valuablespecies. The latter indicates profound changes in theecosystem (Armada, this vol.; Silvestre and Pauly, thisvol.; Barut et al., this vol.). For small pelagics, by the1980s, the level of fishing effort was already twice themagnitude necessary to harvest maximum sustainableyield (Barut et al., this vol.) while the average catchrate during the same period was only one-sixth of therate in the 1950s (Zaragosa et al., this vol.). In reeffisheries, the catch rates that have been documentedrecently are among the lowest in the world (Aliño etal., this vol.).

Figure 1 shows the factors that result in depletion.The primary reason for the widespread depletion isthe lack of access controls that tends to induce more

fishing until catch rates become unprofitable. Whilesome fisheries may take decades to reach the point ofbiological overfishing, for other fisheries boom andbust cycles are not uncommon. Examples includefisheries for blue crabs, sea urchins and other lessmobile invertebrates (Juinio-Meñez, this vol.). Thelatter are particularly vulnerable to overharvestingsince little or no fishing implements are required fortheir collection. Typically, the fishery expands rapidly,sometimes in response to an export market. Onceresources are fished down, buyers and processors moveon to other areas where the cycle begins anew. AsJuinio-Meñez (this vol.) noted, the events that led tothe collapse of the sea urchin fishery in Bolinao areprobably a common pattern of invertebrate exploitationelsewhere in the country.

Often closely related with excessive fishing is theharvesting of immature fish. This practice has two majorconsequences: (1) fish are caught before they attainsizes that would maximize physical yield and commandhigher prices, thus reducing the weight and value of

Poaching and othertransboundary issues


Harvesting immature/undersized fish

Destructive fishing

Harvesting/conversion ofmangroves

Siltation and pollution

Typhoons/othernatural stresses

El Niño

Open accessDepleted fishery

resources

Degraded coastalenvironment and critical

fisheries habitats

By-catch

Figure 1. The factors leading to the depletion of fishery resources and the degradation of coastal environmentand critical fisheries habitats.


the catch accruing to the producer (fisher) and theconsumer; and (2) the number of individuals enteringthe parent stock is reduced and consequently,populations of succeeding generations tend to decreaseprogressively (Armada, this vol.). Ingles (this vol.)provides an example in the crab fisheries, noting thatfrom one-fourth to one-third of crab gillnets and crabpots caught immature individuals. More disturbing,however, is the intentional targeting of immature fish,such as local fisheries for juvenile siganids (padas)(Hermes, this vol.). Fishers also target juvenile tunasin payaos (Babaran, this vol.; Zaragoza et al., this vol.).Likewise, in certain areas, immature groupers aretargeted for the live reef food fish trade (Mamauag,this vol.).

Fishing results in by-catch, which may comprise aconsiderable portion of the catch if nonselective gearsare used (as is often the case in the country). In frygathering for aquaculture, which is a problem in itselfbecause it targets fish larvae, the push nets used alsocollect nontarget species that are discarded. The impactof fry gathering on local diversity has not been studiedbut is probably considerable (Hermes, this vol.). Inthe Visayan Sea, the by-catch of crab gillnets can be ashigh as 45% of the catch, with a considerable amountrelegated to discards (Ingles, this vol.). Theunintentional catching of endangered marine mammalsby drift gillnets and other gear is one of the mostsignificant threats to their existence (Alava and Cantos,this vol.).

As discussed below, the coastal environment isdegraded in many areas of the country. Degradedhabitats impact the quantity and quality of harvestableresources. Other reasons for depleted resources includedestructive fishing, such as the use of poisons, nearshoretrawling and explosives as well as increasing pollutionfrom shoreline development and upland runoff,physical damage from boats among other causes. Nearthe country’s boundaries, poaching and othertransboundary issues can also contribute to the problem(Ingles and Trono, this vol.; Villena and Pido, this vol.).

Degraded coastal environmentand critical fisheries habitats

Coastal habitats, such as mangroves, seagrass bedsand coral reefs, are degraded in many areas of thecountry. Less than a third of mangroves remain of theoriginal 450,000 ha in 1918. Today 95% of the remainingmangroves are secondary growth of much lowerquality. Between 230,000 ha and 260,000 ha ofmangroves were lost to fishpond conversion before itwas banned in 1980. Harvesting of mangroves forfuelwood and charcoal, however, still continues (White

and de Leon, this vol.).With regard to seagrass beds, it has been estimated

that about half were lost or severely degraded duringthe past 50 years. It is projected that a significant portionof the remaining seagrass beds will be lost in the nextdecade or two from increasing shoreline developmentand its impacts (Fortes and Santos, this vol.).

In the early 1990s, a survey of 85 coral reefsindicated that half of the sites had less than 50% livecoral cover while about a quarter of the sites had lessthan 25% live coral cover (Gomez et al. 1994). Fishingpractices that are particularly destructive to coralsinclude blast fishing, reported in almost every fishingground in the country, and the use of poisons. Ochavilloet al. (this vol.) note that about 70% of ornamental fishare caught with cyanide. Poisons are also used to catchcertain juvenile fish (Hermes, this vol.) and fish for thelive fish food trade (Mamauag, this vol.).

Other factors that impact on the coastalenvironment and impede its ability to support fisheriesthat are not directly related to fishing are shown inFigure 1.

Low catches/incomes and dissipated resource rents

Depleted fishery resources and degraded habitatshave led to low catches and incomes for fishers.According to fisheries economics theory, fisheries thatare biologically overfished are necessarily economicallyoverfished as well, with aggregate “profits” or resourcerents (total revenues less total costs includingopportunity costs of labor and capital) either close tozero or considerably less than what they could be. Inthe fisheries described earlier, the total economicresources expended on fishing can be reducedconsiderably to obtain the same or even higher levelof catch. Thus, fisheries that are biologically andeconomically overfished represent continuing lossesfor the marine fisheries sector and for the country as awhole. Annual rent dissipation in the demersal andsmall pelagic fisheries has been estimated at US$130million and US$290 million, respectively (Barut et al.,this vol.). While the dissipation of resource rentsdescribes the situation for an entire fishery, at the levelof individual fishers, rent dissipation translates togreatly reduced incomes and poverty among fishingcommunities.

Physical losses and/or reduced value of catchesdue to improper post-harvest practicesand inefficient marketing

Fish, once caught, must be handled properly toretain market and nutritional value. Improper handling


can lead to spoilage, which will render fish unfit forhuman consumption or reduce its value. On theaverage, about 25-30% of total catch is lost due toimproper handling (Espejo-Hermes, this vol.).Inadequate cold storage and poor roads contribute tothe inefficient marketing of fish and the consequentreduction in their value. Inefficiencies in marketing alsoresult from economic—as opposed to purely physical—factors. Many intermediaries are typically involved inthe marketing of fish. This suggests that priceinformation does not flow freely to fishers (Santos,this vol.).

Inequitable distribution of benefits from resource use/intersectoral and intrasectoral conflicts

In many areas, commercial and municipal fishersare locked in an intense competition for nearshorefishery resources. Although current laws prohibitcommercial fishing within 15 km from the shore,compliance with the laws is still very limited. First,most commercial fishing boats are not large enough tooperate beyond 15 km and the common fishing gearsthey use (e.g., trawl, ring net and purse seine) areunsuitable for such depths. Second, although there islittle information about fishery resources beyond 15km, it is reasonable to assume that there are not manyadditional resources since tropical fisheries tend to beconcentrated in shallow depths. Third, the lack ofenforcement capabilities in many areas suggests thatat most commercial fishers have become hesitant, butnot deterred, from operating in nearshore areas wherethe likelihood of catching fish is higher. Thus, theintense competition between municipal andcommercial fishers in nearshore fishing grounds is likelyto continue.

This nearshore competition often intensifies intoconflicts. In trawlable areas, for example, the draggingand destruction of municipal fishers’ gillnets bycommercial trawlers are a common occurrence thatprecipitates conflict. Inequity in the distribution ofcatches between commercial and municipal trawlers isexpected given the fishing power utilized in commercialoperations. Such inequity has been documented in manyfishing grounds. The observations of Silvestre andPauly (this vol.) in San Miguel Bay, though dated, isillustrative:

“The trawlers, consisting of 89 units andbelonging to only 40 households, obtain 85%of pure profit, 42% of catch value and 31% ofthe total catch. The rest goes to 2,300 small-scale fishing units owned by 3,500 householdsand employing about 5,100 fishers.”

The obvious consequence of this gross inequity isgreatly reduced incomes for municipal fishers. Theinequity also makes for a highly emotional issue thatoften polarizes the two sides as well as their respectivesupporters in government, nongovernmentorganizations and the academe. Increasingly, itbecomes difficult to bring the two parties together inan atmosphere of principled negotiations where bothparties can explore possibilities of mutual gains.

Poverty among artisanal fishers

The depletion of fishery resources has led to verylow catch rates. One estimate places the average catchof a municipal fisher at 2 kg per day, down from 20 kgper day in the 1970s (Israel, this vol.). Despite suchlow catch rates and consequent low incomes, fishershave few alternatives to fishing and thus continue theactivity to survive. Post-harvest losses and inefficientmarketing exacerbate the problem (Figure 2). Withthese factors combining to reduce incomes of smallfishers, it is not surprising that poverty among artisanalfishers is widespread. An estimated 80% of fishers aresaid to live below the poverty threshold (Santos, thisvol.).

Various authors explain how poverty amongartisanal fishers is not caused solely by factors withinthe fisheries sector. In the fisheries “system” frameworkpresented in Section I, we emphasized that the marinefisheries exist within the country’s larger socioeconomicdevelopment context, which is itself characterized bygenerally low productivity, high unemployment andunderemployment, rapidly increasing population andwidespread poverty. As long as the Philippineeconomy remains in this state, the marine fisheries willcontinue to absorb excess labor from other sectors.Thus, although measures within the fisheries domainto alleviate poverty among fishers must be undertaken,these will have a limited effect and cannot solve thelarger problem of poverty and unemployment. Theultimate solution to poverty among fishers lies outside(and inside) the fisheries sector.

Inadequate systems and structuresfor fisheries management

The Philippine government has inadequate capacityto manage fisheries on a sustainable basis. At theminimum, the sustainable management of a fisheryrequires: (1) a system to monitor fish stocks anddetermine sustainable catch levels on an annual basis,and (2) a system to control the amount of fishing sothat it does not exceed such sustainable levels.Furthermore, the two systems must be linked so that


information from the first feeds directly into thesecond. With regard to the first element, there areattempts to establish continuous monitoring of fishstocks in particular areas under the National StockAssessment Program (Carreon, this vol.) and theFisheries Resources Management Project of theDepartment of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources (DA-BFAR). At best, such effortsare in their infancy and their continued existence is indoubt. Yet the more important concern relates to ourserious inability to control the amount of fishingthrough effective localized management.

At both national and local levels, the maincharacteristics of our present systems for fisheriesmanagement are as follows:

••••• inadequate policies for fisheries and coastalresource management (CRM);

••••• weak interagency coordination and weak lawenforcement; and

••••• inadequate human resources and capacity,infrastructure and equipment (Figure 3).As examples of inadequate fisheries policies, we

can cite the limitations of the Fisheries Code discussedby Santos (this vol.), the national government’spromotion of payaos (Babaran, this vol.) and the lack ofclear policies on capture fisheries for larval and juvenilefish (Hermes, this vol.). Sometimes, the information

that should have informed the policy process isinsufficient or absent. In other cases, information thathas been available for years has been ignored bypolicymakers. Such is the case, for example, withdemersal stocks where clear evidence ofoverexploitation was presented as early as the 1960s(Armada, this vol.).

In contrast to other countries that have one agencyto enforce fisheries laws, the Philippines has severalagencies charged with this function, and they oftenoperate without protocol for enforcement response(Guidote, this vol.). There is also significant relianceon the Bantay Dagat (sea patrol) or volunteer groupswith their predictable limitations (Trudeau, this vol.).

Local governments units (LGUs), which have beengiven the responsibility to manage fisheries in theirlocalities, are limited by inadequate human resources,infrastructure and equipment. The situation withnational agencies like BFAR, which should support localgovernments, is not much different. The primaryreason is inadequate funds as well as efficient andeffective operating systems within the agenciesconcerned. Funds for fisheries management areinadequate not only because the country is poor butalso because low priority is given to fisheries relativeto other concerns of the government, especially withinDA.


Losses/reduced value of catches

Inefficient marketing


Few supplemental/ alternative livelihood

options

Inequitable distribution of benefits from resource use

Degraded coastal environment and critical

fisheries habitats


Improper post- harvest practices

Low catches/incomes and dissipated resource rents

Intersectoral and intrasectoral conflicts

Open access

Lack of collaborative arrangements among

stakeholders

Figure 2. The economic and social issues in marine fisheries, which are driven in part by degraded coastal environment anddepleted fishery resources. Note how most issues ultimately contribute to perpetuating poverty among artisanal fishers.


Figure 3. The overall features of the present systems and structures for fisheries management. Inadequacies in thesesystems ultimately lead to an inability to control access to the resources, prevent destructive and inappropriate resourceuse, and minimize conflicts among resource users.

The interconnected issues

Figure 4 shows the interconnections among theissues described above. The eight issues characterizingPhilippine marine fisheries today appear with darkenedoutlines on the right side of the diagram while theircauses generally appear on the left. The maininterconnections among the issues described earlierare worth reiterating:

••••• Open access ensures that levels of fishing effortwill be excessive, which leads to depleted fisheryresources.

••••• Degraded coastal environments and criticalfisheries habitats exacerbate the depletion of fisheryresources.

••••• The depletion of fishery resources intensifiesconflicts and results in low catches/incomes anddissipation of resource rents.

••••• Dissipated resource rents imply greatly reduced(if not negative) pure profit for individual fishersand entire fisheries; pure profits or rents whichwhen captured could be used to improvemanagement, enhance occupational mobility andfight poverty among municipal fishers.

••••• Reduced incomes from fishing coupled with fewsupplemental or alternative income sources inducefurther increases in fishing intensity, thus lockingthe situation in a downward spiral of increasingfishing effort.

••••• The systems and structures for fisheriesmanagement that should arrest the above issuesare inadequate for these tasks.

••••• Systems and structures for fisheries management

are inadequate because funds to support them areinadequate. The latter reflects the low priority thatthe government gives to fisheries.The interconnections among the issues negate a

piecemeal approach to fisheries management, whetherat the national level or at specific fishing grounds. Onemight succeed in temporarily arresting a particularsubset of issues in Figure 4, but sooner or later theimpacts of the other neglected issues will intensify andeventually overwhelm the system again, thus nullifyingthe short-term gains. The implication is clear: the issuesmust be tackled simultaneously within an integratedmanagement framework. Fortunately, some examplesof integrated fisheries and coastal resourcesmanagement exist in the Philippines. Lessons from theseexamples can point the way for the future.

Opportunities for Fisheries Management

Given the many intense issues in the marinefisheries sector, it is easy to miss its potentials, yetopportunities for improved management do exist. Ingeneral, tropical fisheries are characterized by manyspecies with fast growth and turnover. This suggeststhat if pressure on fish stocks is reduced, recoveryperiods will be shorter than in temperate areas. Thus,if the right investments are made, tangible benefitscan be realized within relatively short periods of time.

With regard to coral reefs, Aliño et al. (this vol.)hypothesize that local reefs are resilient because of theirhigh diversity, which suggests that the situation couldbe worse if not for this natural characteristic ofPhilippine reefs. Aliño et al. (this vol.) caution, however,

Harvesting/conversion of mangroves

Destructive fishing

Harvesting immature/ undersized fish


Poaching and other transboundary issues

Open access Inadequate

fisheries policies

Weak law enforcement

Information/research inadequacies

Inadequate equipment, infrastructure, etc.

Weak interagency coordination

Low utilization of research/ information Inadequate systems

and structures for fisheries management

Inadequate human resources Inadequate funds

Low priority given to fisheries



Siltation and pollution

Losses/reduced value of catches

Harvesting/conversion of mangroves

Destructive fishing

Harvesting immature/ undersized fish

Inefficient marketing


Few supplemental/ alternative livelihood

options

Inequitable distribution of benefits from resource use

Degraded coastal environment and critical

fisheries habitats


Improper post- harvest practices

El Niño Low catches/incomes and

dissipated resource rents


Typhoons/other natural stresses

Poaching and other transboundary issues

By-catch

Open access

Lack of collaborative arrangements among

stakeholders

Inadequate fisheries policies

Weak law enforcement

Information/research inadequacies

Inadequate equipment, infrastructure, etc.

Weak interagency coordination

Low utilization of research/ information Inadequate systems

and structures for fisheries management

Inadequate human resources Inadequate funds

Low priority given to fisheries

Figure 4. The interconnected issues in Philippine marine fisheries.


that there is probably a time lag before the full impactof accumulated stresses on reefs is manifested. Thus,actions to protect coral reefs are urgent but can providesizeable rewards.

In recent years, community and stakeholderparticipation in resource management has beenincreasing. This has been facilitated in part by recentlaws such as the Local Government Code and theFisheries Code as well as several major donor-assistedCRM projects. The nation has invested in theseregulatory frameworks and projects, and with morestrategic investments (e.g., full-blown integratedmanagement of pilot areas), the benefits of theseregulatory schemes can be demonstrated, at least inpilot areas. The management systems currently beingtested in selected areas can pave the way forwidespread adoption of decentralized, stakeholderstewardship of local resources.

Lastly, the rent dissipation of at least US$420million annually can be viewed another way. The sizeof this economic loss is the same amount that can bepotentially generated by the marine fisheries sector ifallowed to recover over a long period and managedsustainably. This long-term prospect suggests that itis possible to have a marine fisheries sector that willprovide decent incomes for its fishers and have enoughrevenues left to finance a functioning managementsystem.

Fisheries Management Objectives

To resolve the issues and take advantage of theopportunities, the Philippine marine fisheries sectormust have a clear vision of where it needs to go. Oneway to articulate this vision is to define strategicobjectives for the sector (Figure 5). An earlier versionof this objectives tree was one of the outputs of aNational Workshop in September 2000 sponsored bythe Philippine subproject under the Asian DevelopmentBank Regional Technical Assistance 5766 - SustainableManagement of Coastal Fish Stocks in Asia Project.That objectives tree was used as basis for Figure 5,which was presented and deliberated upon byparticipants during the Third Workshop conducted aspart of the profiling process (see Section I).

The overall goal is to achieve sustainable utilizationof marine fisheries. This goal is to be pursued withinthe framework of integrated coastal and marineresources management (see Hermes, this vol. and Pido,this vol.). The latter is suggested in the objectives treeby the higher goal of “optimal utilization of coastaland marine resources” enclosed in dashed lines.

The goal of sustainable utilization of marineresources is elaborated by environmental, economic,

social and institutional objectives. The environmentalobjectives distinguish between fishery resources andthe environment that sustains them. This distinctionmay seem unnecessary, since fishery resources are partof the environment, and therefore a single objective toprotect the environment will cover fishery resourcesas well. However, the intent is to emphasize the needto broaden the scope of traditional fisheriesmanagement, which tends to regard such things aswater quality and habitat management as outside itsscope.

The single, all-encompassing economic objective isto maximize economic benefits from utilization offishery resources. This objective is a less technical versionof the standard economic objectives to “maximizeresource rents” or “maximize economic yield”. Thesocial and institutional objectives are self-evident.

On the right side of Figure 5 is a set of objectivesthat will address all eight characteristic issues describedearlier. This set checks whether the set of strategicobjectives is complete.

Six Critical Actions to Reverse the Declineof Philippine Marine Fisheries

Earlier, we argued that the interconnections amongthe issues, which are depicted in Figure 4, necessitatean integrated approach to fisheries management. InFigure 6, we have reconstructed Figure 4 by reversingthe issues, thus, revealing the various steps necessaryto initiate the recovery of Philippine marine fisheries.The various steps are grouped into six critical actionsthat together comprise an integrated fisheriesmanagement approach. Each of the critical actions isbriefly described, as follows.

Reduction and rationalization of fishing effort. As mostof the country’s fisheries are either fully exploited oroverfished, reduction of fishing effort is somethingthat should have been done a long time ago. It isimportant to realize that the amount of effort reductionrequired will be huge in most cases. For small pelagicsas a whole, effort should be decreased by an estimated50-65% (Zaragoza, this vol.). This implies that in mostfishing grounds, reduction of effort to sustainable levelswill be a long-term goal. The full range of measuresshould be tested and employed if applicable, includingarea and seasonal closures, gear restrictions andlicensing. In particular, the development of a fullyfunctioning licensing system for commercial andmunicipal sectors should be given priority because itcan be used to facilitate the implementation of gearrestrictions and area and seasonal closures (Trudeau,this vol.).


Protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of coastalhabitats. In the Philippines, the rehabilitation ofmangroves and the establishment of marine protectedareas (MPAs) are perhaps the most widelyimplemented interventions among the suite of CRMmeasures. Successful examples of community-basedstewardship of mangroves should be replicated widely,with priority given to saving existing mangroves (Whiteand de Leon, this vol.). MPAs are increasing inpopularity, yet only about 16-38% of them are strictlyenforced and many are too small (Aliño et al., this vol.).More functioning MPAs are needed, particularly toprotect spawning areas and other fish aggregationsites. The MPA rating system described by White et al.(this vol.) can assist to improve the quality andeffectiveness of MPA management nationwide. Also,integrated planning for and among MPAs is essential

to provide larger overall benefits to habitat protectionand thus fisheries management.

Improved utilization of harvests. Losses due to spoilagecan be reduced through provision of post-harvestfacilities and training of fishers in proper post-harvesthandling. Training should focus on women since theyare more involved than men in post-harvest activities(Siason, this vol.). Improvements in gear technology(and their spatial and temporal disposition) are in orderto reduce by-catch and discards.

Enhanced local stewardship and management of resources.At the moment, the concept of empoweringcommunities to manage local resources is well-knownbut not as widely adopted as it should be. Localstewardship and management of resources must beinclusive and based on the LGU throughcomprehensive CRM planning and implementation. It

Integrity of resources

Integrity ofenvironment that

sustains resources

Integrity of criticalfisheries habitats

Acceptable waterquality

Biodiversity

Environmentalobjectives

Optimal utilizationof coastal and

marine resources

Sustainableutilization of marine

fisheries

Economic objective: Maximize economic benefits fromutilization of resources

Promote equity in sharing benefits fromutilization of resources

Minimize resource-use conflicts

Minimize poverty among artisanal fishers

Address institutional inadequacies insystems, structures and mandates

Develop capabilities for fisheriesmanagement

Socialobjectives

Institutionalobjectives

Depleted fisheryresources

Degraded coastalenvironment and critical

fisheries habitats

Low catches/incomes anddissipated resource rents

Losses/reduced valueof catches

Inequitabledistribution of benefits

from resource use

Intersectoral andintrasectoral conflicts

Poverty amongartisanal fishers

Inadequate systemsand structures for

fisheries management

Figure 5. Strategic management objectives to address the characteristic issues.


Reduce fishing effort to sustainable levels

Minimize siltation and pollution

Reduced losses/increased value of catches

Rehabilitate and conserve mangroves

Minimize destructive fishing

Determine and enforce optimal size limits

Improve marketing Inefficiency


minimized

Provide supplemental/ alternative livelihood options

More equitable distribution of benefits from

resource use

Recovery of coastal environment and critical

fisheries habitats

Recovery of fishery resources

Improve post harvest practices

Increased catches, incomes and resource rents

Minimized intersectoral and

intrasectoral conflicts

Minimize poaching and other transboundary issues

Minimize by-catch

Control access

Functioning systems and structures for fisheries

management

Reduction and rationalization of fishing effort

Protection/ rehabilitation of coastal habitats

Capacity building and institutional

strengthening

Improve utilization of

harvests

Enhance local stewardship and management of

resources Develop collaborative arrangements among

stakeholders

Supplemental/ alternative

livelihood for fishers

Appropriate fisheries policies

Effective law enforcement

Minimize information/ research inadequacies

Provide adequate infrastructure, equipment,

etc.

Strengthen interagency coordination

Maximize utilization of research/ information

Develop/improve human resources

Provide adequate funds

Assign appropriate priority to fisheries

Figure 6. Six critical actions (listed on the right) to reverse the decline of Philippine marine fisheries. The “reversed issues”on the left (compare with Figure 4) suggest the components that should comprise these critical actions while the “reversedcharacteristic issues” in darkened outlines indicate the end results of these actions.

Improve post-harvest practices

i

Protection/rehabilitation and

enhancementof coastal habitats

Improvedutilization

of harvests

Enhanced localstewardship

and managementof resources

Minimize poaching and othertransboundary issues

Minimize destructive fishing

Provide supplemental/alternative livelihood options


should not be equated solely with organizing smallfishers to better repel commercial fishing boats thatintrude into municipal waters. Efforts should be madeto involve all stakeholders in constructive planning andactions.

Supplemental/alternative livelihood for fishers. The needto provide supplemental and alternative livelihood forfishers cannot be overemphasized, particularly in thecase of small fishers who are mired in poverty and arefishing to survive. Asking the latter to give up or reducetheir fishing is equivalent to inviting them to starve. Agood argument can be made for facilitating suchlivelihoods as a first or parallel intervention in site orfisheries management.

Here, fisheries researchers and resource managersneed to become creative and to reach out to andnetwork with development experts, particularly thosein rural medium and small-scale industries and inprovision of alternative (agricultural) credit facilities.While ecotourism in MPAs is an attractive concept, notall coastal areas possess tourism potential. Fisheriesplanners must be open to linking their efforts withongoing integrated area development or regionaldevelopment planning in their areas.

Capacity building and institutional strengthening.Capacity building in resource assessment, managementplanning, implementation and enforcement is neededat national and local levels. Training in skills forintegrated coastal resources planning and managementis essential to build up a system that addresses thecomplexity of issues.

The six critical actions to reverse the decline ofPhilippine marine fisheries need to be implementedwithin a framework that reflects an ongoing processfor fisheries and coastal resources management. Asystem that is beginning to work at the localgovernment level for jurisdictions within 15 km reflectsa planning and implementation framework thatencompasses the needs of fisheries management. Thebasic steps and processes that accommodate the criticalactions elaborated above include:

••••• resources assessment in a manner that providesuseful information for management planning andthat informs and educates the stakeholders ofconcern;

••••• coastal resources and fisheries managementplanning at a scale that facilitates coordination,implementation and feedback into themanagement planning cycle within and amongLGUs;

••••• institutional capacity building at various levels ingovernment to facilitate the management planningprocess and to catalyze implementation usingtested techniques and successful field projects;

••••• facilitating coordination and participation amongand by all concerned stakeholders in thegovernment, nongovernment and private sectors;

••••• raising awareness of the management rules andthe process of implementation through variouseducation and media programs;

••••• enforcement of rules set by management throughmultisector teams; and

••••• research, monitoring and evaluation thatcontinue to inform management planning andimplementation.

Reviewing Our Thought Process

This paper began by considering the issues, thefisheries management objectives to address the issuesand the critical actions to achieve the managementobjectives. Figure 7 reviews our thought process andindicates that we followed a simple and logical planningframework. Thus, we first took stock of “where weare now” by analyzing the issues and opportunities infisheries. This provided a basis upon which we couldreflect on “where we want to go,” whichwas articulated in terms of fisheries managementobjectives. Finally, having defined where we wantedto go, we outlined six critical actions to get there.

Similar to Figure 7, the Consensus Statement inAnnex 1 summarizes the main points of this paper.It is intended for busy policymakers who do nothave the time to go through this book. But suchpolicymakers are the ones who are most in need ofrealizing the situation of Philippine marine fisheriesand the critical actions to arrest its decline. Thethird and final Multisectoral Workshop held inconnection with this book was devoted to finalizingthe fisheries management framework in Figure 7and the Consensus Statement in Annex 1.

Concluding Remarks

Decades of neglect have brought Philippine marinefisheries into its present state of being “in turbulentseas”. Undoing decades of damage is definitely a long-term undertaking, but it can be hastened and mademore effective by actions that are executed strategicallywithin an integrated management framework. Weneed to demonstrate that the issues in fisheries can bereversed. We can start by implementing the six criticalactions in demonstration sites. At the national level,coastal resource and fisheries policies should be alignedto support area-specific efforts and to address theissues discussed, particularly those related toinstitutional weaknesses and constraints.

The main aim of this profile is to provide a synoptic


Issu

es“W

here

are w

e righ

t now

?”M

anag

emen

t Obj

ectiv

es“W

here

wou

ld we

like t

o go?

”C

ritic

al A

ctio

ns“H

ow do

we p

ropo

se to

get th

ere?

”

Poa

chin

g an

d ot

her

tran

sbou

ndar

y is

sues

Exc

essi

ve f

ishi

ng e

ffort

Har

vest

ing

imm

atur

e/un

ders

ized

fis

h

Des

truc

tive

fishi

ng

Har

vest

ing/

conv

ersi

onof

man

grov

es

Silt

atio

nan

d po

llutio

n

Typh

oons

/oth

erna

tura

l st

ress

es

El

Niñ

o

Impr

oper

pos

t-ha

rves

t pr

actic

es

Inef

ficie

nt m

arke

ting

Lack

of

colla

bora

tive

arra

ngem

ents

am

ong

stak

ehol

ders

Few

sup

plem

enta

l/al

tern

ativ

e liv

elih

ood

optio

ns

Ope

nac

cess

Info

rmat

ion/

rese

arch

inad

equa

cies

Low

util

izat

ion

ofre

sear

ch/in

form

atio

n

Inad

equa

tefis

herie

s po

licie

s

Wea

k in

tera

genc

yco

ordi

natio

n

Inad

equa

te e

quip

men

t,in

fras

truc

ture

, et

c.W

eak

law

enfo

rcem

ent

Inad

equa

tehu

man

res

ourc

esIn

adeq

uate

fund

s Low

prio

rity

give

n to

fishe

ries

Dep

lete

d fis

hery

reso

urce

s

By-

catc

h

Deg

rade

d co

asta

len

viro

nmen

t an

d cr

itica

lfis

herie

s ha

bita

ts

Low

cat

ches

/inco

mes

and

diss

ipat

ed r

esou

rce

rent

s

Loss

es/r

educ

ed v

alue

of c

atch

es

Ineq

uita

ble

dist

ribut

ion

of b

enef

its f

rom

reso

urce

use

Inte

rsec

tora

l an

din

tras

ecto

ral

conf

licts

Pov

erty

am

ong

artis

anal

fis

hers

Inad

equa

te s

yste

ms

and

stru

ctur

es f

or f

ishe

ries

man

agem

ent

Inte

grity

of

reso

urce

s

Inte

grity

of

envi

ronm

ent

that

sust

ains

reso

urce

s

Inte

grity

of

criti

cal

fishe

ries

habi

tats

Acc

epta

ble

wat

erqu

ality

Bio

dive

rsity

Env

ironm

enta

lob

ject

ives

Opt

imal

util

izat

ion

of c

oast

al a

ndm

arin

e re

sour

ces

Sus

tain

able

utili

zatio

n of

mar

ine

fishe

ries

Eco

nom

ic o

bjec

tive:

Max

imiz

e ec

onom

ic b

enef

its f

rom

utili

zatio

n of

res

ourc

es

Pro

mot

e eq

uity

in

shar

ing

bene

fits

from

utili

zatio

n of

res

ourc

es

Min

imiz

e re

sour

ce-u

se c

onfli

cts

Min

imiz

e po

verty

am

ong

artis

anal

fis

hers

Add

ress

ins

titut

iona

l in

adeq

uaci

es i

nsy

stem

s, s

truc

ture

s an

d m

anda

tes

Dev

elop

cap

abili

ties

for

fishe

ries

man

agem

ent

Soc

ial

obje

ctiv

es

Inst

itutio

nal

obje

ctiv

es

Red

uctio

n an

dra

tiona

lizat

ion

offis

hing

effo

rt

Pro

tect

ion/

reha

bilit

atio

nof

coa

stal

hab

itats

Impr

oved

util

izat

ion

ofha

rves

ts

Enh

ance

d lo

cal

stew

ards

hip

and

man

agem

ent

of r

esou

rces

Sup

plem

enta

l/al

tern

ativ

e liv

elih

ood

for

fishe

rs

Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g an

din

stitu

tiona

l st

reng

then

ing

Figu

re 7

. A fi

sher

ies

man

agem

ent f

ram

ewor

k ill

ustr

atin

g th

e es

sent

ial c

once

ptua

l ste

ps th

at le

ad to

the

iden

tific

atio

n of

crit

ical

act

ions

.


picture of the status, problems and directions forimproved management of Philippine marine fisheries.To reiterate, its specific objectives are to:

••••• provide a concise yet comprehensive view of thestatus of the country’s marine fisheries— resources,environment and resource users, as well as policiesand currently available tools for resourcemanagement;

••••• identify appropriate management directions orobjectives for Philippine marine fisheries given itscurrent status and evident future trends; and

••••• explore viable interventions to achieve our fisheriesmanagement objectives and sustain the benefitsderived by the country from its marine fisheries.Through the collective efforts of the coastal and

fisheries researchers and managers who came togetherto produce this profile, it has indeed achieved the aboveobjectives. The many who were involved should takepride in this success. Yet as valuable as this achievementis, it will remain hollow if the recommendations ofthis profile fall on deaf ears and no concrete actionsare implemented. The time for reflections, studies anddebates is over. Let us unite behind the simple truthsoutlined in this contribution concerning the depletedstatus of Philippine fisheries, continue local efforts toimprove conditions in particular fishing grounds inwhatever way possible at the regional and nationallevels, and become active advocates for sustainablemarine fisheries.

Reference

Gomez, E.D., P.M. Aliño, H.T. Yap and W.Y. Licuanan. 1994. A reviewof the status of Philippine reefs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 29(1-3): 62-68.

Annex 1. The 2003 Call to Action by thePhilippine Fisheries and Marine Science

Community for Improved Management of theCountry’s Fisheries and Coastal Resources

Fisheries in the coastal and marine waters of thecountry provide substantial benefits to the Filipinonation. Among others, these fisheries provide foodand essential nutrients that are a daily part of the Filipinodiet; substantive employment and sustenanceparticularly in rural coastal areas; and valuable foreignexchange for the country’s developing economy. In2001, these fisheries produced 1.8 million t of fish andother fishery products valued at P67.4 billion. Exports

of fish and fishery products was 289.4 thousand tvalued at P10.7 billion. Per capita fish consumptionduring the same year was 26.4 kg per year, which isamong the highest in the world. In 1997, a total of732.4 thousand fishers were employed in these fisherieson full and part-time bases. More than these benefits,fisheries in coastal and marine waters are particularlyimportant to food security and social stability in thecountry’s rural coastal areas.

Apart from fisheries, the country’s coastal resources(including mangroves, seagrass beds and coral reefs)provide considerable benefits and services to thenation. Mangroves and seagrass beds stabilizecoastlines, serve as nursery habitats for variousorganisms, export nutrients to adjacent habitats andperform various other ecological functions. Thecountry’s coral reefs, which total area is equivalent toabout 10% of the total land area, support highly diversecommunities of marine organisms and provide coastalprotection and opportunities for tourism. The annualcontribution of coral reefs and mangroves to thenational economy in terms of harvestable resources,tourism, coastal protection and other uses areconservatively estimated at P54 billion and P3.4 billion,respectively.

Sustaining the numerous benefits derived by theFilipino nation from the country’s fisheries and coastalresources is seriously threatened by a host of problems.Having reviewed the status of these resources basedon the best available scientific evidence, we havearrived at the following conclusion:

••••• The marine fishery resources of the country areseverely depleted. In the case of demersals, forexample, biomass levels are today only 10-30% ofthe levels in the late 1940s. For small pelagics, bythe 1980s the average catch rate was only one-sixthof the rate in the 1950s. In reef fisheries, the presentcatch rates are among the lowest in the world.

••••• Coastal habitats that are critical for supportingfisheries are severely degraded. Less than one-third of mangrove areas remain of the original450,000 ha in 1918, and 95% of the remainingmangroves are secondary growth of much lowerquality. An estimated half of seagrass beds havebeen lost or severely degraded during the past 50years. Over 70% of the coral reefs in the countryare in a poor state, while less than 5% are in excellentcondition.

••••• On the average, about 25-30% of total catch is lostdue to improper postharvest practices. Inefficientmarketing results in further economic losses.

••••• Commercial and municipal fishers remain lockedin intense competition despite laws designed to


separate their fishing grounds. Conflicts betweenand within these sectors are severe and continueto escalate.

••••• Poverty is a ubiquitous feature of coastalcommunities. As high as 80% of small fishers livebelow the poverty threshold.

••••• At both national and local levels, our systems forfisheries management are characterized by: (i)inadequate policies for fisheries and coastalresource management, (ii) weak interagencycoordination and weak law enforcement; and (iii)inadequate human resources and capacity,infrastructure and equipment.Sustaining the host of benefits obtained from the

country’s fisheries and coastal resources requires urgentand concerted action by responsible authorities andthe wider community of stakeholders at the national,regional and local levels. Action is required in thefollowing areas:

••••• Reduction and rationalization of fishing capacity,including

replacement of open access systems with rights-based licensing schemes;removal of subsidies (both direct and indirect);regulation and rationalization of use anddeployment of fishing gears to reduce bycatchand environmental impacts of fishing;effective banning of illegal and destructivefishing gears;responsible fisheries monitoring andenforcement schemes;fishing zonation schemes to reduce municipaland commercial conflicts;exploring the use of fishery product certificationschemes;

••••• Rehabilitation of coastal habitats andenvironmental quality, including

wider use of systems of aquatic protected areas;resources enhancement and rehabilitationprograms;reduction of coastal environmental impacts fromland and water-based activities;

••••• Improved utilization of harvests, includingimprovement of postharvest methods/practices;improvement of marketing systems;

••••• Enhanced local stewardship and management ofresources, particularly

increased participation by fishers in all aspectsof fisheries management;

••••• Alternative and supplemental livelihood andinvestment opportunities, particularly

provision of alternatives to capture fisheries intandem with closed seasons, gear restrictions

and other measures to ease pressure on fisheryresources;

••••• Capacity-building and institutional strengthening,including upgrading of the policy, regulatory andinstitutional systems for fisheries and coastalresources management.Programs of action in these areas should be built

into integrated fisheries and coastal resourcesmanagement plans that should be urgently formulatedat the local, regional and national levels. These plansshould be put into action by responsible authoritiesjointly with the wider community of stakeholdersusing fisheries and coastal resources.

We appeal to responsible authorities and agenciesto take stock of the problems and urgently put in placethe necessary programs of action for the benefit ofcurrent and future generations of Filipinos. Recognizingthat progress in sustaining the benefits from our coastalresources will take time and sustained collaborativeefforts, we appeal to the wider community ofstakeholders for unity in meeting the challenges ahead.

Adopted at the Workshop on Managementof Philippine Fisheries and Coastal Resources

15 May 2003, Quezon City, Philippines

Directory of contact persons and participants 361

Appendix and Index


Appendix I. Directory of Contact Personsand Participants during the Profiling Process

Acosta, Rene B.Local and National Government AdvisorUnited States Agency for International Development8/F PNB Financial Centre, Roxas Blvd., Pasay CityPhone/fax no. (02) 552-9829/551-9081 loc. 5412Mobile no. 0917-8471286E-mail: [email protected]

Adan, William R., Ph. D.ProfessorDevelopment Communication and ManagementMindanao State University at Naawan9023 Naawan, Misamis OrientalPhone/fax no. (08822) 720-553/720-552Mobile no. 0917-7064565E-mail: [email protected]

Aguilar, Glenn, Ph. D.Associate Professor/Vice Chancellor for Planningand DevelopmentInstitute of Marine Fisheries and OceanologyCollege of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of the Philippines in the Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo 5023Phone/fax no. (+6333) 315-8312/315-8381

Alava, MoonyeenConsultantFishBase ProjectWorldFish Center-Philippine OfficeKhush Hall, IRRI College, Los Baños, Laguna 4031Phone/fax no. (049) 536-0168/536-0202

Alesna, EdwynSenior Fishing Regulation OfficerBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources860 Arcadia Bldg., Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 372-5046/373-7453

Aliño, Porfirio, Ph. D.Marine EcologistPhilippine Environmental Governance Project3/F M&L Bldg., 29 Road 1, Project 6, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 927-9190/927-8836Mobile no. 0917-8387042E-mail: pmaliñ[email protected]

Almocera, MarioProfessorUniversity of the Philippines – VisayasCebu College, Gorordo Ave., Lahug, Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (032) 233-8396Mobile no. 0917-3206194E-mail: [email protected]

Arcamo, Sandra Victoria R.ChiefFisheries Resource Management DivisionBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources860 Arcadia Bldg., Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 372-5044/372-5049E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Armada, Nygiel B.Associate ProfessorUniversity of the Philippines - Visayas, Miagao, IloiloPhone/fax no. (033) 315-8312/315-8381Mobile no. 0917-6090834E-mail: [email protected]

Atrigenio, Michael P.Country Grant ManagerCritical Ecosystem Partnership FundConservation International5 South Lawin, PhilAm Homes, Quezon CityMobile no. 0918-9119117E-mail: [email protected]

Babaran, RicardoProfessorInstitute of Marine Fisheries and OceanologyCollege of Fisheries and Ocean SciencesUniversity of the Philippines in the Visayas, Miagao, Iloilo 5023Phone/fax no. (+6333) 315-8312/315-8381E-mail: [email protected]

Ballesteros, JamesProject AssistantWorld Wide Fund for Nature – PhilippinesLBI Building, 57 Kalayaan Ave., Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 436-7311/433-0911E-mail: [email protected]

Barangan, Florendo B.DirectorCoastal and Marine Management OfficeDepartment of Environment and Natural ResourcesVisayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 926-1004/926-1004E-mail: [email protected]

Barut, Noel C.ChiefMarine Fisheries Research DivisionNational Fisheries Research and Development InstituteBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesKayumanggi Press Bldg., 940 Quezon Avenue, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 373-6336/372-5063Mobile no. 0917-8385701E-mail: [email protected]


Baylon, Maria L.Program ManagerEnvironmental Science for Social Change1/F Manila Observatory Bldg., Ateneo University CampusLoyola Heights, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 426-0554/426-5958E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce, Lina ManaloConservation International5 South Lawin, PhilAm Homes, Quezon CityMobile no. 0918-9119117E-mail: [email protected]

Cabangon, Romelo P.Project Development Officer IVCoastal and Marine Management OfficeDepartment of Environment and Natural ResourcesVisayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no.(02) 929-6626 loc. 2186/925-1182Mobile no. 0919-7864736E-mail: [email protected]

Campos, MaribecConsultant Resource EconomistSEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Researchin AgricultureSEARCA, College, Los Baños, 4031 LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-2290

Campos, Wilfredo L.Assistant ProfessorDivision of Biological Science, College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of the Philippines - Visayas, Miagao, IloiloPhone/fax no. (033) 315-9271E-mail: [email protected]

Carreon, Marciano III F.Deputy Chief of PartyCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-5276508E-mail: [email protected]

Castillo, Gem B.Resource Valuation/MIS SpecialistPhilippine Environmental Governance Project3/F M&L Bldg., 29 Road 1, Project 6, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 927-9190/927-8836

Corrales, Joezen D.Aquacultural TechnologistBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - VIIArellano Blvd., Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (032) 256-1666/256-2773Mobile no. 0917-4688205E-mail: [email protected]

Cruz-Trinidad, AnnabelleTask Leader, Policy ComponentCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-5299041E-mail: [email protected]

Dela Cruz, Emmanuel V.ChairMAMAMAYAN – PAKISAMA59 Salvador St., Loyola Heights, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 436-1689/436-3477

Dela Cruz, Marlyn V.National Council, MAMAMAYAN56 Salvador St., Loyola Heights Subd., Quezon City

Dichoso, Maximo O.Deputy Executive DirectorDepartment of Environment and Natural ResourcesVisayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 926-1004/926-1004Mobile no. 0919-8944782E-mail: [email protected]

Dickson, JonathanChiefTechnological DivisionBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources860 Arcadia Bldg., Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 372-5046/373-7453

Dugan, Chito E.R&D OfficerSIKAT, Inc., Unit 338, Eagle Court Condominium26 Matalino St., Brgy. Central, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 922-5911/433-9106

Eisma, Rose-Liza V., Atty.Executive DirectorCoastal Conservation and Education Foundation, Inc.PDI Condominium, Banilad, Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (+6332) 233-6909/233-6891E-mail: [email protected]

Eleserio, Fileonor O.ChiefFishing Gear and Method SectionCapture Fisheries DivisionBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources860 Arcadia Bldg., Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 372-5044/372-5049

Encabo, SheilaSupervising Economics and Development SpecialistNational Economic and Development AuthorityNEDA Building, Jose Ma. Escriva Drive, Ortigas Center, Pasig CityPhone/fax no. (02) 631-2187


Evacitas, Florence C.University Research AssociateUniversity of the Philippines – VisayasCebu College, Gorordo Ave., Lahug, Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (032) 233-8396Mobile no. 0916-5207487E-mail: [email protected]

Fabres, Boris A.Officer-in-ChargeWorldFish Center – Philippine OfficeKhush Hall, IRRI College, Los Baños, Laguna 4031Phone/fax no. (049) 536-0168/536-0202E-mail: [email protected]

Feibel, Charles, Ph. D.Chief of PartyGrowth with Equity in Mindanao Program2/F, 1 Ladislawa Bldg., Ladislawa Ave.Buhangin Rd., 8000 Davao CityPhone/fax no. (+6382) 225-1569 to 71; 225-1470/225-1479

Floren, Jessie O.GIS SpecialistCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0919-6706463E-mail: [email protected]

Flores, JimelyFishery BiologistCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-4394945E-mail: [email protected]

Garces, Len R.Fisheries/Marine BiologistCoastal and Marine Resources Research ProgramWorldFish Center - MalaysiaJalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung11960 Bayan Lepas, Penang, MalaysiaPhone/fax no. (+604) 626-1606/626-5530E-mail: [email protected]

Garcia, Jeneen R.Science Researcher/WriterEnvironmental Legal Assistance Center354-P Betty Lu Compound, Queens Road, Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (0632) 2533833/2561495Mobile no. 0917-5488879E-mail: [email protected]

Gonzales, Benjamin, Ph. D.Assistant ProfessorState Polytechnic College of PalawanSta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan 5300Phone/fax no. (048) 434-3908/433-4480/433-4367

Green, Stuart J.Task Leader, Fisheries Management ComponentCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0918-9036008E-mail: [email protected]

Guerrero III, Rafael D., Ph. D.Executive DirectorPhilippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Researchand DevelopmentLos Baños, LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-5579/536-1582E-mail: [email protected]

Guidote, MarlitoTask Leader, Law Enforcement and Delineation ComponentCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0919-2929716E-mail: [email protected]

Hermes, JasminFisheries Consultant6 Sorsogon St., Levitown Executive, 1700 Parañaque CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 824-2027E-mail: [email protected]

Hermes, Rudolf, Ph. D.GTZ Project AdvisorVisayan Sea Coastal Resources and FisheriesManagement ProjectMuelle Loney St., 5000 Iloilo CityPhone/fax no. (+6333) 336-2708/336-2708Mobile no. 0917-7411225E-mail: [email protected]

Hilomen, Vincent V., Ph. D.Assistant ProfessorInstitute of Biological SciencesUniversity of the Philippines - Los Baños, College, LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-2843/536-2517Mobile no. 0919-2097438E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Hodgson, Gregor, Ph.D.Reefcheck DirectorUniversity of California at Los AngelesCalifornia, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Ingles, Jose A., Ph. D.DirectorWWF-SSME Fisheries Management ProgramWorld Wide Fund for Nature – PhilippinesLBI Building, 57 Kalayaan Ave., Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 436-7311/433-0911E-mail: [email protected]


Israel, Danilo, Ph. D.Senior Research FellowPhilippine Institute for Development StudiesNEDA sa Makati Bldg. 106 Amorsolo St.Legazpi Village, Makati City 1229E-mail: [email protected]

Jatulan, WilliamTask Leader, Institutional Development ComponentCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-3217592E-mail: [email protected]

Jensen, Catalina C.Management and Monitoring SpecialistGrowth with Equity in Mindanao Program2/F, 1 Ladislawa Bldg., Ladislawa Ave.Buhangin Rd., 8000 Davao CityPhone/fax no. (+6382) 225-1569/225-1479E-mail: [email protected]

Juinio-Meñez, Marie Antonette, Ph. D.CRM SpecialistPhilippine Environmental Governance Project3/F M&L Bldg., 29 Road 1, Project 6, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 927-9190/927-8836Mobile no. 0917-2742443E-mail: [email protected]

Lagura, Nelia C., Atty.Legal StaffEnvironmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc.354-P Betty Lu Compound, Queens Road, Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (032) 253-3833/256-1495; Mobile no. 0917-7616101E-mail: [email protected]

Leask, Karen D.Marine BiologistEnvironmental Science for Social Change1/F Manila Observatory Bldg., Ateneo University CampusLoyola Heights, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 426-5921/426-5958Mobile no. 0918-5509879E-mail: [email protected]

Licuanan, Wilfredo Y., Ph. D.DirectorShields Marine Station, De la Salle University2001 Taft Ave., ManilaPhone/fax no. (02) 524-0451E-mail: [email protected]

Luna, Cesar Z.Fisheries SpecialistCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0916-4112542E-mail: [email protected]

Mamauag, Samuel S.Grouper Fishery BiologistInternational Marinelife Alliance83 West Capitol, Kapitolyo, Pasig CityPhone/fax no. (02) 635-3530/638-7119; Mobile no. 0917-7496905E-mail: [email protected]

Muñoz, Jessica C.Project DirectorFisheries Resource Management Project2/F Estuar Bldg., 880 Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 410-9990/372-5008E-mail: [email protected]

Ochavillo, Domingo, Ph. D.Marine BiologistReefcheckMarine Science InstituteUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 920-5301 ext. 7426/924-7678Mobile no. 0917-2420285E-mail: [email protected]

Pacunio, VirginiaExecutive DirectorTouch FoundationM.H. del Pilar St., Cagayan de Oro CityPhone/fax no. (+6382) 724-663E-mail: [email protected]

Pagdilao, Cesario R.Deputy Executive DirectorPhilippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and DevelopmentLos Baños, LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-5578/536-1582Mobile no. 0917-9775644E-mail: [email protected]

Panorel, ApronianoExecutive DirectorPipuli FoundationDy Apartments, Bernard Subd., Postal Road, Ozamis CityPhone/fax no. (+6388) 521-1992, 521-1928E-mail: [email protected]

Pido, Michael, Ph. D.ProfessorGraduate School, Palawan State UniversityManalo Campus, Mendoza St., Puerto Princesa CityPhone/fax no. (048) 433-5303Mobile no. 0919-4308206E-mail: [email protected]

Rayos, Joseph C.AquaculturistNational Fisheries Research and Development Institute940 Kayumanggi Bldg., Quezon Avenue, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 372-5063E-mail: [email protected]


Reid, Heather L.Fisheries Licensing InternFisheries Resource Management ProjectPuerto Princesa City, PalawanPhone/fax no. (048) 434-4924E-mail: [email protected]

Rodriguez, Marita P.Project Development OfficerCenter for Empowerment’s Resource Development102-E R.L. Mendoza Bldg., Kamuning, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 9251642/9240944E-mail: [email protected]

Sadorra, Marie SolConsultant, Information, Education and CommunicationTetra Tech Environmental Management, Inc.17/F OMM-Citra Condominium, San Miguel Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 634-1621/365-8669Mobile no. 0918-6913234E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

San Diego-McGlone, Maria LourdesProfessorMarine Science InstituteUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 920-5301 ext. 7426/924-7678

Santos, Ronet S.Regional Program Coordinator – SPARKVoluntary Service Overseas20 South Lawin Ave., PhilAm Homes, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 927-3304/426-2761E-mail: [email protected]

Sayson, Protacia R.ChiefFisheries Resource Management DivisionBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - VIIArellano Blvd., Cebu CityPhone/fax no. (032) 256-1666/254-8492; Mobile no. 0916-5367400E-mail: [email protected]

Serrano, Rommel R.Research AssociateSEAMEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in AgricultureSEARCA, College, Los Baños, 4031 LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-2290E-mail: [email protected]

Silvestre, Geronimo T.Fisheries SpecialistCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-5362377E-mail: [email protected]

Smith, Rebecca P.Task Leader, Information, Education and Communication ComponentCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032) 232-1821/232-1825Mobile no. 0917-5466929E-mail: [email protected]

Swerdloff, Stanley N.Philippine AdvisorGrowth with Equity in Mindanao Program2/F, 1 Ladislawa Bldg., Ladislawa Ave.Buhangin Rd., 8000 Davao CityPhone/fax no. (+6382) 225-1569/225-1479Mobile no. 0917-7141295E-mail: [email protected]

Tan, MarfeinoPresidentSouth Cotabato Purse Seiners AssociationGeneral Santos CityPhone/fax no. (+6383) 380-7255/380-7253

Torres, Francisco Jr.AquaculturistNational Fisheries Research and Development InstituteBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic ResourcesKayumanggi Press Bldg., 940 Quezon Ave., Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 373-7451Mobile no. 0919-3406855E-mail: [email protected]

Townsend, Ralph, Ph. D.ProfessorUniversity of MaineOrono, Maine, USAPhone/fax no. (207) 581-1110E-mail: [email protected]

Trudeau, HughLicensing Specialist/Fisheries Management ConsultantFisheries Resource Management ProjectPuerto Princesa City, PalawanPhone/fax no. (048) 434-4924/26Mobile no. 0917-9966359E-mail: [email protected]

Tumanda, Marcelino I., Ph. D.ChancellorMindanao State University at Naawan9023 Naawan, Misamis OrientalPhone/fax no. (08822) 720-553/720-552Mobile no. 0917-7065565E-mail: [email protected]


Uychiaoco, Andre Jon, Ph. D.Project ManagerMarine Environment and Resources FoundationMarine Science InstituteUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 920-5301 ext. 7426/924-7678Mobile no. 0916-3815673E-mail: [email protected]

Villanoy, CesarAssociate ProfessorMarine Science InstituteUniversity of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (02) 920-5301 ext. 7426/924-7678

Vitug, Annie, Atty.Division ChiefLicensing and Quarantine DivisionBureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources860 Arcadia Bldg., Quezon Ave., 1103 Quezon CityPhone/fax no. (+632) 372-5044/372-5049

White, Alan T.Chief of PartyCoastal Resource Management Project5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. B.L. Briones Sts.North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000Phone/fax no. (032)232-1821/232-1825E-mail: [email protected]

Zaragoza, Ester C.Officer-in-ChargeMarine Resources DivisionPhilippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and DevelopmentLos Baños, LagunaPhone/fax no. (049) 536-5579/536-1582E-mail: [email protected]

Zhou, WeidongSenior Agriculturist and Natural Resources OfficerSoutheast Asian Department, Asian Development Bank6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 0401 Metro ManilaPhone/fax no. (+632) 632-4444/636-2444E-mail: [email protected]

In Turbulent Seas-The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries

Documents

Transcript of In Turbulent Seas-The Status of Philippine Marine Fisheries