91

CommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunity-----Based ApprBased ApprBased ApprBased ApprBased Approachesoachesoachesoachesoachesto Marine and Coastal Rto Marine and Coastal Rto Marine and Coastal Rto Marine and Coastal Rto Marine and Coastal ResouresouresouresouresourcescescescescesManagement in the Philippines:Management in the Philippines:Management in the Philippines:Management in the Philippines:Management in the Philippines:

A PA PA PA PA Policy Policy Policy Policy Policy PerspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspectiveAntonio G. M. La Viña*

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines

AAAAABSTRACTBSTRACTBSTRACTBSTRACTBSTRACT

This is a study undertaken to ascertain the elements and trends at the local andnational levels, which define the rights and rules that provide the management framework forthe implementation of different types of locally based resources management systems inmarine and coastal areas. The study showed that the existing institutional set-up is notonly complex, confusing and “sectoralized”, but more importantly, it is fragmented, thus,causing the major systemic hindrance to more effective management of the marine andcoastal resources. Hence, there is a strong and urgent need for sectoral integration andcoordination.

Four case studies, which depict community-based systems of management, werepresented to illustrate even more effective modes of administration of the coastal environ-ment than the purely legal system though each had distinct characteristics than theothers. These revealed that even in the face of inconsistency with the national legalsystem, community-based management can survive. However, conflict in the use ofcoastal and marine resources remains a characteristic in the studies. Hence, partnershipamong different sectors is imperative for sustainability. Local governments must supportcommunity initiatives, the national government must ensure that community efforts aresupported. Since local communities have the greatest interest in the conservation andsustainable use of coastal resources, they should have incentives, resources and capacityfor marine and coastal ecosystem conservation.

*Current Affiliation:Biological Resources Program, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

IIIIINTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTIONNTRODUCTION

This paper is an overview of the policy, legal andinstitutional framework for the management offisheries, coastal resources and the coastal environ-ment in the Philippines. The objective of this studyis to look into the elements and trends at the localand national levels which define the rights and rules(laws, customs, traditions etc.) that provide themanagement framework for the implementation ofdifferent types of locally based resource managementsystems in marine and coastal areas such as co-

management, community-based management andintegrated coastal zone management. In identifyingthese elements and trends, a historical perspective isprovided focusing on both the development of lawand policy as well as practices on the ground. Casestudies of community-based practices in coastalmanagement are also presented to further illustratethese elements. In both the historical analysis and thecase studies presented, the author gives particularfocus to identifying and understanding the role ofstakeholders and interest groups in the use of fisher-ies and other coastal and marine resources. The

92

reality is that conflict in the use of marine andcoastal space is frequently the context under whichthe management framework for fisheries, coastalresources and the coastal environment operates.

Competition among resource users is a signifi-cant issue in the coastal zone. Industrial and realestate developments, which require extensive landsin the most scenic or productive areas of the coastalzone, compete with other uses, particularly agricul-ture and conservation. Tourism and recreationactivities, which require high environmental ameni-ties and access to infrastructure (roads, water andwaste disposal), have adversely affected amenitiesthat should have been allocated to coastal communi-ties. There is also degradation of the landscape as aresult of infrastructure developments. The urbaniza-tion of the coast has been disastrous to small-scalemunicipal fishers because of the devastation ofwetlands and the pollution of waterways that threatenimportant cultural, historic and anthropological sitesin the coastal zone. Mariculture and aquaculturedevelopments located in nearshore waters and whichrequire high water quality have affected other usesthat diminish water quality, such as agriculture. Theyalso compete with fishing, conservation andecotourism which have similar requirements.

Emphasis on the conflict over control of re-sources, between modes of use and among stakehold-ers and interest groups is the focus of this paper.This context of conflict makes it possible to findsolutions to problems of environmental degradationand social inequity, which also characterizes the useof marine and coastal resources. The author exploressolutions, some of which are now bearing fruit fromrecent efforts in the Philippines, to ensure thesustainable development of marine and coastalresources. Efforts in the Philippines are also exam-ined in the context of global and regional coopera-tion and the role of international and regionalagreements and arrangements.

MMMMMETHODOLOGETHODOLOGETHODOLOGETHODOLOGETHODOLOGYYYYY

Data for this paper were taken from secondarysources, mainly from government statistical officesand published works of experts in the field. For thecase studies, interviews were conducted with keystakeholders in order to supplement the secondary

information. The analysis, many of the conclusions,and some of the data were products of numerousmeetings and consultations that were done while theauthor was Undersecretary for Legal and LegislativeAffairs of the Department of Environment andNatural Resources (DENR).

UUUUUSESSESSESSESSES OFOFOFOFOF C C C C COAOAOAOAOASTSTSTSTSTALALALALAL R R R R RESOURCESESOURCESESOURCESESOURCESESOURCES

The Philippines is situated in the center ofmarine biodiversity brought about by various geologi-cal and evolutionary processes. Rich and diversenatural ecosystems like coral reefs, mangrove swamps,estuaries, seagrasses, sandy beaches, embayments andsheltered coves abound. These areas contain naturalresources of socioeconomic, cultural and aestheticvalue.

The importance of marine and coastal zones tothe Philippines is readily apparent. Sixty percent ofthe country’s 73 provinces and municipalities arelocated in the coastal zone. In 1997, the CoastalEnvironment Program (CEP) reported that morethan 60% of the 60 million population resides insome 10 000 coastal barangays (smallest political unit)and major urban centers.

The uses of coastal resources may be classified asextractive and non-extractive. The former may befurther classified according to the resource beingextracted, which may be either living (e.g., fisheries,forest products) or non-living (e.g., minerals). Non-extractive uses include tourism, recreation anddesignation as protected areas. Other major activitiesin the coastal zone that impact on coastal resourcesinclude shipping and ports development, industrialand urban development, waste disposal, security andmilitary activities.

FFFFFishing and Aishing and Aishing and Aishing and Aishing and Aquaculturquaculturquaculturquaculturquacultureeeee

Fish is a vital part of the Filipino diet and thecheapest source of protein. The per capita consump-tion of fish is among the highest in Southeast Asia at36 kg per yr (FAO 1997). A significant number ofpeople living in coastal areas depend on fishing fortheir livelihoods either through subsistence fishing,employment in fish trading and processing, opera-tion of fish ports and markets and other supportindustries such as rope and net making, gear manu-

93

facture, boat building and repair. About 1 millionpeople are engaged in fishing or about 5% of thelabor force. Another 300 000 are engaged in theprocessing and manufacturing of fishery products.

There has been a marked decrease in the numberof fishers in the past two decades. In 1975, there wereabout 1.26 million fishers and fish farmers, but in1994, there were only about 1 million. The decreasewas among both full-time fishers involved in marinecapture fisheries and part-time fishers. This may havebeen due to the drastic decline in the abundance offishery resources in the municipal waters of thecountry, discouraging small-scale fishers from con-tinuing their activities (Menasveta 1997).

In 1990, there were about 430 000 vessels in thefishing fleet, mostly open craft. About 3 300 wereofficially classified as commercial vessels with atonnage of 155 GT (Labon 1991). About 85% of themunicipal waters (up to 15 km from the shore) areconsidered overfished. This is supported by data thatshow a steady decline in the contribution of munici-pal fisheries to overall fish production (Figure 4.1).

Aquaculture posted a significant share in fishproduction since the 1980s. This has grown steadilydue to its increased productivity and economicviability. By 1994, aquaculture contributed 30% tothe total fish production (Figure 4.1).

Aside from fish, coastal waters provide a widevariety of edible invertebrates, such as mollusks, seacucumbers, sea urchins and jellyfish. The gathering

Figure 4.1 Fish catch by sector (BAS 1997).

of seaweeds is also common. The culture of seaweedfor extraction of carageenan is extensive in theVisayas and Mindanao. Seaweed farming is verylucrative, bringing in about PhP 1.6 billion inrevenue in 1996 (BAS 1997).

Marine products are also harvested for medicinal,commercial and industrial uses. There are severalongoing studies on bioactive compounds found insponges and tunicates for anti-cancer properties.Despite an existing ban, corals are harvested for saleas decorative items or as construction materials.There is also a growing market for aquarium fisheswhich spurs fishers to gather them in large quantities,often through destructive means.

AgriculturAgriculturAgriculturAgriculturAgriculture and Fe and Fe and Fe and Fe and Forororororestrestrestrestrestryyyyy

The islands composing the Philippines aretypically mountainous or hilly in the central area,with fertile flatlands extending to the sea. The widthof flatlands best suited for agriculture varies. Exceptfor the large islands of Luzon, Mindanao, Palawanand the larger Visayan islands, the agricultural areasdo not extend far inland. For this reason, mostagricultural lands would be considered coastal landswherein coastal agriculture mainly involves growingcereals (e.g., rice, corn). Agricultural lands are beinglost to urbanization at an increasing rate.

Mangrove forests are also threatened. Thereduction of the mangrove forests in the country islargely a result of conversion to fish ponds. It isestimated that there were approximately 500 000 ha

of mangroves in 1918. The area ofthe Philippine mangrove forest hasdecreased at an alarming rate. In1984, only about half remained. Adecade later, 60% of the originalcover had been lost. Mangrove fishpond conversion almost tripled from1952 (>88 000 ha) to 1988 (224 000ha). Figure 4.2 clearly shows the linkbetween mangrove loss and fishpond expansion (Aliño 1997).Between the years 1952 and 1987,fish pond coverage increased at anaverage rate of 3 600 ha per yr.Other factors which have contributedto the depletion are conversion to

94

industrial and urban uses and exploitation for forestproducts such as timber, firewood, charcoal, tannins,tanbark, nipa sap and shingles.

MiningMiningMiningMiningMining

Mining in the coastal zone generally involvesquarrying of sand, stone and rock used in theconstruction sector. White sand and silica areextensively gathered, the former to beautify resortareas which do not have natural white sand cover.Marble mining is also significant. Quarrying contin-ues in spite of serious problems (erosion, siltation)and mine tailings from the more sophisticatedmining operations inland have considerable adverseimpacts on the coastal environment.

As of 1994, there were 8 large scale gold andsilver mines, 20 small scale gold and silver mines, 9large scale base metal mines, 3 small manganeseoperations, 3 large chromite operations, and 21small-scale chromite mines. For non-metallics, therewere 45 limestone quarries, 14 marble quarries, 36silica, 4 dolomitic, 16 rock phosphate, 6 feldsparand 36 clay mines (EMB 1996).

Mine wastes and tailings present the greatestpollution threats from the mining industry. Naturalcalamities such as typhoons and earthquakes causeimpounded materials to be washed away or carried tobodies of water, ultimately to the sea. Mine wastespeaked in 1991 at 47.44 million t. Mine tailings thatyear reached 42.7 million t. However, mine wastes

and tailings decreased an average of 14% from 1990-1994 except for 1991 (EMB 1996). This is largelydue to the closure of several large mining operationsas a combined result of economic and technicalfactors.

PPPPPrrrrrotected Arotected Arotected Arotected Arotected Areaseaseaseaseas

There is a full range of protected areas in thecoastal zone. There are at least 15 major areas underthe National Integrated Protected Areas System(NIPAS), covering an area of more than 1 million haof both land and sea (PAWB 1998). In addition,there are numerous small fish sanctuaries andreserves established by the Bureau of Fisheries andAquatic Resources (BFAR), local governments,people’s organizations and NGOs.

TTTTTourismourismourismourismourism

Tourist attractions in the Philippines have beenidentified by the Department of Tourism (DoT) andare classified as social and cultural attractions,natural attractions and scientific and artificialattractions. In most cases, these attractions arelocated in coastal areas.

Eighteen of the top 25 tourist destinations arecoastal. Natural attractions in the coastal zoneinclude white sandy beaches, submarine gardens,diving grounds and the like. Of these, about 246 or70% are beaches, 77 or 22% are islands and theremaining 30 or 8% are fishing and diving grounds,

submarine gardens and bays (EMB1996). These areas are visited fortheir scenic beauty and because ofthe recreational activities they offer.Tourist arrivals in the country hasreached almost two million peryear.

Shipping and PShipping and PShipping and PShipping and PShipping and PortsortsortsortsortsDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment

In 1995, the Philippines had atotal of 10 072 vessels classified asmerchant or fishing vessels. Themerchant fleet included passengerferries, cargo containers, and

Figure 4.2 Mangrove cover vs. fishpond development (BAS 1997).

95

barges. These comprised 50% of the total number ofdomestic vessels. A larger percentage of the remain-ing half consists of fishing vessels (MARINA 1986).The data do not take into account the more than 400000 small open boats.

Berthing and storage facilities mainly servedomestic vessels engaged in fishing and coastalcommerce. There are 233 enterprises engaged inshipbuilding, ship repair, afloat repair, boat buildingand ship-breaking activities licensed by the MaritimeIndustry Authority of the Philippines (MARINA) asof December 1996. Of this number, 21% or 82 weresmall shipyards, 10 were medium shipyards and 14were large shipyards (MARINA 1986).

IndustryIndustryIndustryIndustryIndustry

The coastal zone has attracted industrial andcommercial establishments because of its accessibilityto raw materials and its proximity to populationcenters. There are five types of industries whichthrive in coastal areas:

! Industries that benefit from a location nearlow cost water transportation and inlandtransportation systems;

! Industries that derive power from or usewater for processing or cooling;

! Industries that are beneficially located nearcenters of population but do not have directdependence on, or need for water or wateraccess;

! Marine transportation industries; and! Industries that depend directly on the

marine environment for raw materials.

In 1983, industrial development density is aminimum of five industries per 1 000 km2. Approxi-mately the same proportion applies in the coastalareas (EMB 1996).

Urban DevelopmentUrban DevelopmentUrban DevelopmentUrban DevelopmentUrban Development

Settlement includes shelter and all other neces-sary infrastructures such as roads, water supply,energy sources, transportation, community buildingsand other facilities. To date, population density hasincreased tremendously from 64.1 in 1948 to 228.7in 1995 (NSCB 1996). Over 60% of the total popula-

tion resides in some 10 000 coastal barangays,including some larger urban centers (CEP 1997).

A number of subdivisions are situated in coastalzones. Some foreshore areas are being reclaimed tohouse residential, commercial and industrial estab-lishments in order to address the increasing de-mands of urbanization. A recent development is thepractice of building resorts, factories and buildingsright on the shore, even abutting the sea, in clearviolation of mandatory easement rules. Together withthe increase in the number of coastal communities isthe need for transportation facilities. Natural land-forms influence the major road networks of thecountry’s coastal provinces. Roads run along thecoastlines which branch out as minor arteries leadinginland.

WWWWWaste Disposalaste Disposalaste Disposalaste Disposalaste Disposal

The problem of waste disposal is especially acutein urban areas. In Metro Manila alone, the per capitawaste generated is about 0.66 kg in 1995. Consider-ing that the metropolis is home to about 10 millionpeople, the total waste generated is more than 6 000t per day. This is expected to increase to 13 300 tper day by the year 2014. The current collectionefficiency in Metro Manila is 85%. Fifteen percent or900 t of wastes is burned, thrown in canals and esterosor deposited in rivers that flow to the sea (EMB1996).

In 1992, about 76% of the population had accessto sanitary toilets. The rest of the population reliesmostly on onsite disposal or septic tanks that draindirectly into existing rivers and creeks (EMB 1996).Untreated domestic sewage is the major source ofwater pollution.

MMMMMANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENT I I I I ISSUESSSUESSSUESSSUESSSUES INININININ THETHETHETHETHECCCCCOAOAOAOAOASTSTSTSTSTALALALALAL Z Z Z Z ZONEONEONEONEONE

In the Philippines and elsewhere in SoutheastAsia, the coastal zone serves as the base for humansettlement and accommodates major industrial,commercial, social and recreational activities. Highpopulation density in coastal areas is not unusualbecause of the wealth of opportunities that coastaland marine environments offer. Families depend oncoastal and offshore waters for their livelihoods.

96

However, driven by purposes other than subsistenceand survival, various types of activities now flourishthere, many are unregulated. Such development isnot without its consequences. The unabated in-creases in urbanization, industrialization andpopulation have severely affected the state of coastaland marine resources. Constant and heavy exposureto numerous artificial and natural pressures havetaken their toll on the ecosystem.

These pressures have caused the rapid depletionof mangroves, destruction of coral reefs and drasticdeclines in fisheries yield. All the major bays in thecountry have now been overfished. Destructivefishing practices like dynamite fishing, muro-ami, useof cyanide and the like, have resulted in the degra-dation of marine and coastal ecosystems. Moreover,upland deforestation, industrial and domestic wastegeneration, mining and shoreline development, anduncontrolled tourism have been identified as theculprits in the continued degradation of the coastaland marine environment. More than 400 km of thecountry’s coastal areas are now heavily eroded, siltedand sedimented.

Pollution increase is a major concern. Pointsources include industrial effluents, water runofffrom urban areas and sewage discharges. Non-pointsources arise from activities such as land clearance,livestock production and agricultural activities,including the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Theeffects are the loss of seagrass beds from coastallagoons, bays and estuaries and the recurrence ofalgal blooms. In Manila Bay, total fecal coliformcounts were shown to be over the standards set bythe DENR.

Industrial wastes were also detected at alarminglevels (EMB 1996). Red tides occur with regularityespecially around the Manila Bay area. In 1992, thegreatest number of red tide occurrences (269) anddeaths (11) were reported. While the figures de-creased in 1993 and 1994, they increased again in1995. At a national level, 758 cases of red tidepoisoning were reported and 49 deaths were noted.Red tide tends to occur at the onset of the rainyseason after a warm dry period and is caused byhigh organic loading from the rivers draining intothe bay (EMB 1996).

Marine based pollution is also significant. Someof the sources include oil spills, release of sedimentsfrom mining, and organic compounds (e.g., anti-fouling paints, ballast water discharges and sewagefrom vessels). Three oil spills were reported from1973 to 1975. One of these was a result of thesinking of the LUSTEVECO barge in August 1975.From 1978 to 1980, four more oil spills were re-ported. During 1990-1995, 75 oil spill incidentswere noted. Of these, 71% were caused by accidentssuch as sinking, collision, and grounding. Theremaining 29% were due to cargo handling opera-tions such as loading, bunkering and discharging(EMB 1996).

Mining is one cause of soil erosion and sedimen-tation of coastal waters. The adverse effect of miningon the coastal environment may be from in situmining operations on the beach zone or from director indirect disposal of mine wastes or tailings intomarine waters. Sedimentation from mining activitiescovers wide areas of corals as was the case involvingthe Atlas Mining and Marcopper Mining Corpora-tion which directly dumped mine tailings into thesea. A large volume of tailings has been dischargedinto the sea particularly in Calancan Bay,Marinduque and at Iba, Toledo City in Cebu,resulting in fish kills and the destruction of fishhabitats.

Poverty in the coastal areas has likewise beenindicated as a source of ecosystem degradation.About 80% of the municipal fishing families in thecountry are estimated to live below the poverty line.These families are dependent on the coastal ecosys-tem for their livelihoods. Increased pressure andcompetition have forced small-scale fishers to resortto more destructive fishing methods. Lack ofalternative livelihoods aggravates the situation andthe cycle of resource destruction and depletioncontinues.

Based on the number of water rights permitsgranted by the National Water Resources Board, agenerally increasing trend in groundwater andsurface water use is noted. There was an increase of11.4% over a six-year period from 129 777.75million m3 in 1990 to 144 622.50 million m3 in1995. In terms of water usage by sector, only 0.3%and 0.03% are attributed to fisheries and recre-

97

ational purposes, with power generation as thebiggest user of water followed by the agricultural,domestic and industrial sectors (EMB 1996).

Philippine marine, coastal resources and envi-ronment are at risk. Foreshore areas are beingreclaimed for residential, commercial and recre-ational uses. Ports and other similar structures arebuilt near these areas to support the transportationsystem and to promote trade. Continued use at thecurrent rate and scale may create irreversibleimpacts.

OOOOOVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEWVERVIEW OFOFOFOFOF THETHETHETHETHE L L L L LEGALEGALEGALEGALEGAL ANDANDANDANDAND P P P P POLICYOLICYOLICYOLICYOLICYFFFFFRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORKRAMEWORK

In this section, the existing legal and policyframework formulated and enforced by the govern-ment and changes over time are discussed. Thissection does not include the rules developed andpracticed by some local communities which are notpart of the formal legal system. Local norms areconsidered in the next section which deals withcommunity-based management.

The Philippine government has always relied onregulatory mechanisms to manage the marine andcoastal zones, particularly to control activities,allocate resources among users and potential usersand resolve conflicts. These regulatory mechanismscan be classified into two broad categories: thoseused to regulate access to and use of public resourcessuch as fisheries, mineral deposits, forestry, floraand fauna and public lands; and those used forenvironmental protection such as the EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS) System, NIPAS and pollu-tion control.

Historical PHistorical PHistorical PHistorical PHistorical Perspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspective

In earlier times, the barangays (villages) hadjurisdiction over coastal resources (Kalagayan 1990).The barangays defined their own fishery limits thatwere exclusive of other barangays. The traditionalrights of barangays over their fishing grounds wereeroded during the Spanish period when all fisheriesand natural resources were held for the Crown(known as the jura regalia or Regalian Doctrine).

Rights to exploit and manage the resources weretransferred from the community to the centralgovernment.

This system of state ownership was introducedto the Philippines as an extension of the Spanishlegal system and continued in force throughout theperiod of Castilian domination (Noblejas andNoblejas 1992). The Regalian Doctrine has beenadopted as the norm. The 1987 Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines claims full control andsupervision over all aspects of use and protection ofmarine and coastal resources.

In practice, some aspects of control over theresources have been devolved to local governments.During the American period, municipalities weregiven the authority to grant fishery privileges withintheir jurisdictions (Kalagayan 1990). Still, policyformulation and general management remained withthe central government. Since then, policy formula-tion and regulation has remained centralized, top-down and non-participatory (Sajise 1995). Controlover the resources is a central issue because the lawsgoverning activities in the coastal zone invariablyinvolve maximizing exploitation of the resources.Those who have control get the most benefit.

Over the years, the laws and policies not onlyevolved as a centralized system, but also a sectionalone. Specific laws were passed to address particularissues and the use of coastal resources and activitiesis governed by separate, often conflicting laws. Forinstance, aquaculture was regulated under thefishery laws, but mangroves were considered forestsand governed by forestry laws that were adminis-tered by a different agency.

There have been attempts to solve these prob-lems through a holistic approach by recognizing theinterconnection of the various component ecosys-tems. Major laws were enacted in the 1990s thatmoved towards integrated management, decentrali-zation of control and recognition of the rights oflocal communities to directly manage the resourcesor actively participate in the decision-makingprocesses.

98

In 1991, Congress passed the Republic Act (RA)7160, also known as the Local Government Code of1991 (LGC). The law gave back to local governmentunits (LGUs) the primary control over marine andcoastal resources. In the meantime, community-based efforts to revive and protect the resources wereinitiated both by government and non-governmentorganization (NGO) sectors. The devolution ofcertain management and allocation decisions to thecommunity may be more effective than the manage-ment efforts provided by distant, understaffed andunderfunded agencies (Carlos and Pomeroy 1995).In 1998, Congress passed two significant laws: thenew Fisheries Code (RA 8550) and the Agricultureand Fisheries Modernization Act or AFMA (RA 8435)which incorporate measures to curb overexploitationand manage resources sustainably.

FFFFFisheries and Coastal Risheries and Coastal Risheries and Coastal Risheries and Coastal Risheries and Coastal ResouresouresouresouresourcescescescescesManagementManagementManagementManagementManagement

The evolution of the present regulations govern-ing fisheries can be traced as far back as the SpanishLaw on Waters in 1866, which recognized the right ofthe public to fish from the shore and granted rightsto Spanish registered seafarers and merchant sailorsto fish from boats in maritime coastal zones. TheSpanish Law on Waters was extended to the Philip-pines by a Royal Decree in 1866 (Peña 1997). Thedecree declared that the shores, coasts and coastalseas were part of the national domain, though opento public use. As early as 1598, Antonio de Morgademanded that a regulation size net be prescribed foruse and complained that fishing with too closely-knitnets was killing small fry (de Morga 1971). Fisheriesregulation remained relatively unchanged during theSpanish period.

During the American occupation starting in1932, a comprehensive fisheries law (Act No. 4003)was enacted by the Philippine Assembly. TheFisheries Law of 1932 contained provisions for theprotection and conservation of resources such as thedeclaration of open and closed seasons, protectionof fry or fish eggs, prohibition on the use of noxiousor poisonous substances and explosives in fishingand prevention of water pollution. The law alsocontained special provisions for gathering mollusks,sponges and hawksbill turtles. The main regulatory

or management strategy implemented was theselective granting of licenses or permits to qualifiedpersons. The license was coupled with limits onaccess to the resource such as setting minimum sizesfor fish, shellfish or turtles that could be caught orrestricting certain fishing practices to certain placesor times of year.

Goodman (1983) noted that the Fisheries Law of1932 was meant to curb the domination of Japanesecapital in the fishing industry. The Japanese hadmoved successfully into the Philippine fishingindustry before 1930. Four hundred Japanese fisherswere operating 64 powerful fishing boats in ManilaBay and 36 deep sea vessels in the Gulf of Davao.They had brought into the Philippines such innova-tions as swift powered fishing vessels, the beamtrawl, the trap net, as well as scientific survey shipsthat pinpointed from year to year the richest fishinggrounds.

The 1932 Fisheries Law provided that commer-cial fishing vessels of more than 3 t must be licensedonly to Filipinos or Americans, and aliens couldparticipate only by investing in corporations 61%owned by Filipinos or Americans. The law was noteffective in controlling Japanese domination becausethe Japanese merely used Filipino dummies whoowned the boats in name only. The impetus for thepassage of the law was for some people to profit byserving as fronts (Goodman 1983).

In the ensuing years, Japanese interests inPhilippine fisheries were further reinforced by thesigning of a secret treaty between Philippine Presi-dent Manuel Roxas and General Douglas MacArthurrepresenting the Japanese Board of Trade. By virtueof this treaty, the Philippine-Japan Treaty of Amity,Commerce and Navigation was drawn up in 1960.However, it was only in 1973 that the Philippinesratified the treaty because of local opposition. Underthis treaty, the Philippines supplied Japan with tuna,shrimp and other marine commodities, while Japanexported canned mackerel and sardines to thePhilippines.

In 19471, Congress created the Bureau ofFisheries (BoF) under the Department of Agriculture(DA) and Commerce (DAC) to promote further

1 Originally, fisheries management began under the Division of Fisheries in the Bureau of Science in 1907.

99

development of the fishing industry (BFAR 1987).The office was granted broad powers to issuelicenses and permits, conduct studies, supervise andcontrol the demarcation, protection, management,development, reproduction, occupancy and use ofall public fishery reserves and national and munici-pal fisheries and fishery reservations (RA 177,Section 4). The bureau was abolished in 1963 andreplaced with the Philippine Fisheries Commission(PFC) under RA 3512. The commission exercisedeven broader powers than its predecessor. Theseadded powers pertained mainly to increasing fishproduction by encouraging more fishing activitiesand increasing efficiency through better technology.The commission was a collegial body with represen-tatives from the private sector.

Development of fishery resources was acceler-ated further upon the promulgation of the FisheryIndustry Development Decree (Presidential Decree[PD] 43) in 1972. The government sought topromote, encourage and hasten the organizationand integration of the activities of all personsengaged in the industry so that the country couldachieve self-sufficiency in fishery products. Thegovernment committed to help by providing financ-ing, training and extension services towards thisgoal. By this time, the BoF had been restored andthe PFC replaced with the Fishery Industry Develop-ment Council, which included among its membersrepresentatives from government banks and thehead of the Board of Investments. This emphasizedfurther the goal of maximizing the exploitation ofthe country’s vast fishery resources.

In 1975, PD 704 (Fisheries Code) was issuedbecause of an urgent need to revise and consolidateall laws and decrees affecting fishery resources thathave remained largely untapped due to unnecessaryconstraints by existing laws and regulations and by afailure to provide an integrated developmentprogram for the industry. In the declaration ofpolicy, the acceleration of development of thefishing industry is tempered with the policy ofkeeping the fishery resources in optimum productivecondition through conservation and protection asexpressed in the provisions on establishment of fishsanctuaries and prohibitions of destructive fishingmethods.

A more significant impact of the Fisheries Codeof 1975 was on foreign involvement in Philippinecapture fisheries. The code paved the way for thereintroduction of Japanese investment and Japanbecame the dominant partner in joint fisheryventures.

Fishery laws in the Philippines did not changeuntil the Congress enacted the Fisheries Code of1998. While it contains more specific provisions onsustainable development of resources, it has notchanged the orientation of the law in emphasizingexploitation.

The new code emphasizes food security,prioritization of local fishers in the allocation ofprivileges and benefits and sustainable develop-ment, among others. It provides for limiting accessto resources through quotas, closed seasons, restric-tions on the use of destructive fishing gear, anddesignating fishery reserves and sanctuaries. Asignificant change in the new code is the devolutionof management to local governments. Municipalwaters, extending up to 15 km offshore, are underthe control of municipal and city governments. Thenational government retains control of watersbeyond the municipal jurisdictions. This is in linewith the general principle of devolution under theLGC, which was passed seven years earlier. The LGCtransferred to local governments broad powers ofenvironmental protection, but especially controlover the coastal areas within their jurisdictions. TheLGC, however, focused on permits and fiscal mat-ters. Now, with the Fisheries Code, general manage-ment and development powers are given to the localgovernments. A few months before the enactment ofthe new Fisheries Code, Congress passed the AFMA,which focuses on food security and global competi-tiveness in the agriculture and fisheries sector andensures the equitable sharing of benefits amongstakeholders. The act aims to provide financial andtechnical support to the agro-fisheries industry in itsmodernization effort.

Management of the Coastal EnvirManagement of the Coastal EnvirManagement of the Coastal EnvirManagement of the Coastal EnvirManagement of the Coastal Environmentonmentonmentonmentonment

Regulations relating to the management of thecoastal zone are generally incorporated in broadenvironmental laws, such as the environmental

100

impact assessment (EIA) and pollution control laws.

EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Impact Assessment Systemonmental Impact Assessment Systemonmental Impact Assessment Systemonmental Impact Assessment Systemonmental Impact Assessment System

An important legal mechanism for environmen-tal management in coastal and marine zones is thelaw on EIA. In the Philippines, an EIA system wasfirst adopted in 1977 when the National Environ-mental Protection Council (NEPC) was created andgiven the power “to review environmental impactassessments of projects submitted by governmentagencies”2.

Under PD 1586, environmental impact state-ments were required only for undertakings or areasthat were declared by the President as environmen-tally critical. However, the NEPC was authorized torequire non-critical projects or undertakings toprovide additional environmental safeguards as itmay deem necessary3.

In 1981, Presidential Proclamation 2146 wasissued, identifying environmentally critical projectsas heavy industries, resource extractive industries, aswell as infrastructure projects. The environmentallycritical areas (ECAs) were also defined, including alldeclared protected areas, critical habitats of wildlife,prime agricultural lands, mangrove areas and coralreefs, areas of significant historical, cultural oraesthetic value and areas often hit by natural calami-ties. The most important features of the PhilippineEIA system are:

! The distinction made between environmen-tally critical projects and projects in ECAs;

! The decentralization of EIA system deci-sions to regional offices for non-criticalprojects in environmentally sensitive areas;

! The incorporation of the principles ofenvironmental risk assessment in thesystem; and

! The inclusion of social acceptability in thecriteria in the issuance of an environmentalcompliance certificate (ECC).

By requiring an ECC for all projects in allenvironmentally sensitive areas, most activities in

marine and coastal areas require an ECC. Indeed, thehistory of the implementation of the EIA systemwould reveal a continuing process of addition to thelist of projects requiring an ECC. Operation of aferry system in Laguna de Bay and the dumping ofwastewater in the sea are two recent examples of newactivities that have been added to this list. By decen-tralizing these decisions to the regional offices of theDENR, a more efficient implementation of the EIAsystem is possible.

The inclusion of environmental risk assessmentand social acceptability in the EIA system is a potenttool for decision makers. Lack of environmental riskassessment was perceived to be one of the reasons thatresulted in the mining disaster that occurred inMarinduque in 1996, resulting in extensive damageto the Boac River and outlying coastal areas. Theinclusion of environmental risk assessment in theEIA system is a step towards avoiding a repetition ofsuch a disaster. As for social acceptability, its inclu-sion in the criteria for the issuance of an ECC is aresult of many experiences by the DENR of contro-versial projects that generated serious concern, inmany cases outright opposition, among affectedcommunities. By requiring social acceptability4, theexpectation is that most negative environmentalconsequences of a project are avoided or, at the veryleast, mitigated.

In sum, the EIA system in the Philippinesprovides an important tool for effective environmen-tal management of marine and coastal areas. In oneproject involving a proposal to build a cement plantin a coastal area, the DENR denied the ECC. TheDENR cited its failure to fulfill the requirement ofsocial acceptability as one of the reasons for notallowing the project to operate.

As a rule, environmental pollution is regulatedby the DENR. The DENR, through the Environmen-tal Management Bureau (EMB), sets ambient,emission and effluent standards to control thedischarge of pollutants into the air, land and waters.In 1987, the DENR absorbed the powers of theNational Pollution Control Commission (NPCC)created under the Pollution Control Law, when the

2 PD 1121, Section 2(e).

3 PD 1586. Section 5.

4 DAO 96-37, Section 3 (cc).

101

department was reorganized under Executive Order(EO) 192.

PPPPPollution Controllution Controllution Controllution Controllution Contrololololol

Both air and water pollution have significantimpacts on the coastal environment. Pollution ingeneral is governed by PD 984. Under that law, theNPCC formulated the policy, set pollution controlstandards, adjudicated violations and performedother regulatory functions. When the DENR wasreorganized, the regulatory functions were trans-ferred to the regional offices, the policy formulationand standard setting were assigned to the EMB, whilethe quasi-judicial functions were given to the Pollu-tion Adjudication Board.

Marine pollution is regulated by the PhilippineCoast Guard (PCG). Under PD 600, “it shall beunlawful to throw, discharge, or deposit, or cause,suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, ordeposited either from or out of any ship, barge, orother floating craft of any kind, or from the shore,wharf, manufacturing establishment, or mill of anykind, any refuse matter of any kind or whateverdescription other than that flowing from streets andsewers.” The discharge of oil and other noxioussubstances is also prohibited. In cases of oil pollu-tion, the polluter is liable for the clean up in addi-tion to criminal fines and imprisonment.

In PD 984 and PD 600, there is an apparentoverlap. Both laws address the issue of discharge ofpollutants into the waters and seas, whether from aland-based or ship-based source. PD 600 wasamended by PD 979 to delineate the functions ofthe concerned agencies, while retaining essentiallythe same prohibitions. In line with the goal ofavoiding duplication and conflict in functions, theDENR and PCG entered into an agreement wherebythe DENR regulates land-based sources and PCGmonitors and regulates ship-based pollution sources.

Institutional ArInstitutional ArInstitutional ArInstitutional ArInstitutional Arrangementsrangementsrangementsrangementsrangements

An exhaustive review of all government agenciesinvolved in coastal and marine resources manage-ment would require a review of the entire govern-mental machinery since almost every aspect of the

bureaucracy has some direct or indirect participation,from budget management, finance and economicplanning to tourism, agriculture, agrarian reform andeven national defense, foreign affairs, education andlabor.

Assessment of Agencies Involved inAssessment of Agencies Involved inAssessment of Agencies Involved inAssessment of Agencies Involved inAssessment of Agencies Involved inCoastal ManagementCoastal ManagementCoastal ManagementCoastal ManagementCoastal Management

To simplify the distinction between differentgovernment agencies with marine and coastalmanagement functions, four categories may beconsidered:

! Policy-making and general management

(a) The DENR which has overall responsi-bility for environmental protection andmanagement of both marine and coastalenvironment;

(b) The Department of Agriculture (DA)which has jurisdiction over the conser-vation and proper use of agricultural andfishery resources. Under its FisheriesSector Program (FSP), now FisheryResources Management Program, theDA has implemented a managementsystem known as Coastal ResourcesManagement Project (CRMP) that waspilot tested in 12 priority bays; theLGUs, by virtue of the devolved func-tions under the LGC of 1991, had beengiven the exclusive authority to grantfishery privileges in the municipalwaters. The more important power isthe expansion of their jurisdiction overmunicipal waters up to 15 km; autono-mous regions which under the OrganicAct of Muslim Mindanao (RA 6734), theregional government has been given fullcontrol over natural resourcesmanagement, except for some strategicresources; and

(c) The National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (NEDA) coordinates varioussocial and economic plans, policies,programs and projects on a nationaland sector basis.

102

! Scientific Research

(a) The Department of Science and Tech-nology-Philippine Council for Aquaticand Marine Resources Development(DoST-PCAMRD), which is a policyformulating and coordinating body foraquatic and marine science and technol-ogy development;

(b) The DA-BFAR, which is the maincoordinating body for research con-ducted by the DA;

(c) The DENR-Ecosystem Research andDevelopment Bureau (ERDB), which isDENR’s research coordinating unit; and

(d) The University of the Philippines-Marine Science Institute (UP-MSI),which is the national center of excel-lence in the marine sciences.

! Law enforcement and coordinating functions

(a) The Department of the Interior andLocal Government-Philippine NationalPolice (DILG-PNP), which has theresponsibility of crime prevention andthe apprehension of violators;

(b) The Department of National Defense(DND)-PCG, which has the primary rolein the prevention and control of marinepollution;

(c) The Presidential Commission on Anti-Illegal Fishing and Marine Conservation(PCAIFMC) or the Bantay Dagat Com-mittee (BDC), which is the main lawenforcement agency in coastal waters;

(d) The Inter-Agency Task Force on CoastalEnvironment Protection (IATFCEP),which coordinates the departments andagencies enforcing coastal environmentprotection; and

(e) The Department of Foreign Affairs(DFA), which heads the Cabinet Com-mittee on Marine Affairs which ad-dresses the various concerns on theimplementation of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS).

There are other national agencies involved in themanagement of specific resources, like the BFAR,which is the lead agency in fisheries management;the Department of Health (DoH), which is involvedin marine and coastal resources management issuesthat have a bearing on public health; the NationalWater Resources Council (NWRC), which governs theownership, appropriation, use, exploitation, develop-ment, conservation, and protection of water resourceswhether subterranean, surface or atmospheric, freshor sea water; the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA),which is involved in ports development.

The DENR has, in its past and present organiza-tional structure, been recognized as the agency withthe mandate over natural resources use and manage-ment, including marine and coastal resources. Thedepartment has the mandate to design and imple-ment a program that covers the entire spectrum ofcoastal resources management: from wildlife protec-tion, protected areas management, to pollutioncontrol, forests/mangroves conservation, land use,mining regulations, and others.

The management and exploitation of marineand coastal resources traditionally went hand-in-hand with environmental protection under theDepartment of Natural Resources (DNR). As farback as the Fisheries Act or Act 4003 (1934), fisher-ies were under the jurisdiction of the DNR. This wasthe system until 1984 when the BFAR was removedfrom the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) andtransferred to the food production group of theMinistry of Agriculture and Food by virtue of EO967. Interestingly, the management of coastal andmarine habitats was retained in the MNR. The splitbetween use functions on the one hand and conser-vation/protection functions on the other has re-mained to this day.

Programs of the DENR have serious and sub-stantial impacts on coastal zone management.Through its forestry programs, the department hascontrol over mangrove and watershed resources.The department also supervises the NIPAS that canpropose the establishment of coastal and marineprotected areas. Wildlife conservation is a majorconcern of the department. While it does not take

103

the lead role in the protection of marine wildlife, thedepartment has programs specifically aimed at theconservation of marine species such as turtles andmarine mammals. The DA, through BFAR, leads inthe protection of marine wildlife.

Through its environment programs, the depart-ment regulates the discharge of wastes and otherpollutants into the seas. Activities in critical coastalareas are subject to the EIA system. Environmentprograms address environmental impacts broughtabout by industrial activities. The EIA system, beingsupervised and implemented by the DENR, ensuresthat development projects do not become environ-mental threats. Projects which pose serious threatsare denied environmental clearance. Proponents arerequired to submit an Environmental ManagementPlan (EMP) to prevent, minimize, mitigate andmonitor environmental impacts. Monitoring andregulation functions in relation to the implementa-tion of the EIA system contribute to the overallprogram of protecting coastal resources.

The organizational structure of the DENR directsthe implementation of programs to the regionaloffices. Policymaking and research functions areperformed by staff bureaus. In 1993, the DENRlaunched the Coastal Environment Program (CEP)that takes an integrated approach to coastal resourcemanagement. The CEP’s mandate includes thepromotion of the use of environment-friendly coastaltechnologies, expansion of livelihood opportunitiesin, and assures equal access to, coastal resources andupgrading the capabilities of all DENR personnel inthe management of coastal environments5 .

Fisheries, marine and aquatic resources were notincluded in the jurisdiction of the DENR under thedepartment reorganization in 1986 (EO 192).However, under EO 292 (Administrative Code of1987), which was promulgated a month after EO192 was issued, fisheries, marine and aquaticresources were added to DENR’s concerns. Someview this development as a source of confusion andconflict of jurisdictions, but the DENR has takenadvantage of this expanded mandate to undertakethe CEP.

Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the DAis mandated to promulgate and enforce all laws,rules and regulations governing the conservationand proper use of agricultural and fishery resourcesas well as conduct, coordinate and disseminateresearch studies on appropriate technologies for theimprovement and development of agriculturalcrops, fisheries and other allied commodities.

The fragmentation of fisheries administrationbetween various agencies of the DA and otherdepartments is considered the root cause of itsweakness. This is obvious when considering thehistory of the BFAR. The bureau started out as theDivision of Fisheries under the Bureau of Science in1907. In 1933, it was transferred to the Ministry ofAgriculture and Commerce as the Fisheries andGame Administration. Later, it was reorganized asthe Bureau of Fisheries in 1947 pursuant to RA 177.In 1963, it became the PFC. In 1972, it revertedback to the Bureau of Fisheries. In 1974, it took thename BFAR and was placed under the MNR. Adecade later, it was transferred to the Ministry ofFood and Agriculture (BFAR 1987).

Throughout its history, BFAR has moved from ascience office focusing on research to a commerceoffice focusing on trade, to a natural resources officedealing with conservation, to an agriculture officefocusing on food production, not to mention its stintas an independent commission. In every transfer, itsfocus changed as influenced by the mandate of itsparent office.

Under the present system, the DA, throughBFAR, its regional offices and specialized agencies,has jurisdiction over fisheries resources only. Thedepartment coordinates with the DENR whenactivities call for integration of other resources.

In an attempt to create a holistic approach tocoastal resources management, the DA spearheadeda new management system under its FSP, nowknown as Fisheries Resources Management Program,that was being pilot tested in 12 priority bays. Theprogram aims to integrate and coordinate the effortsof national agencies and local governments in themanagement of coastal resources. The department’s

5 DAO 93-19.

104

control of the fishery was seriously eroded with theenactment of the LGC. The code provides for thedevolution of the control over fishery resources withinmunicipal waters to the municipalities. With theenactment of the New Fisheries Code (NFC), theBFAR has been strengthened as an institution, but itspowers are still limited because the code has given tolocal governments the power over the conservationand development of the fishery.

Devolution to Local GovernmentsDevolution to Local GovernmentsDevolution to Local GovernmentsDevolution to Local GovernmentsDevolution to Local Governments

While LGUs have limited jurisdictions individu-ally, their collective impacts have national implica-tions. Local governments play a major role in coastalresources management by virtue of the devolution offunctions under the LGC of 1991 (RA 7160).

The LGUs have considerable control in mattersrelated to environmental protection. The LGCprovides that national government agencies mustconsult the LGUs prior to the implementation ofany project or program. The need to consult isespecially enjoined when the project has significantenvironmental impact.

Local governments have the capacity or thepotential to develop a total approach to coastalresource management within their jurisdictions.While the laws do not provide for comprehensive ordetailed provisions on coastal resources manage-ment, the general provisions can serve as basis forformulating a complete municipal CRMP (La Viña1997). However, it is the common observation thatlocal governments are ill-prepared to take on theresponsibilities. Both expertise and logistics havelong been concentrated with central governmentagencies. Few LGUs are equipped with the financialand technical capabilities to carry on a sustainableprogram of coastal resources management.

To be effective, environmental managementprograms must manage ecosystems that seldomcorrespond to political boundaries making itimperative that local governments jointly manage

common resources. The LGC has provided forinstances where LGUs may cooperate to achievecommon goals6.

Institutional IntegrationInstitutional IntegrationInstitutional IntegrationInstitutional IntegrationInstitutional Integration

The case of the Batangas Bay Region (BBR) is agood example. In theory, each municipality can optto initiate programs for resources within its jurisdic-tion. However, it was determined that an integratedapproach would be more appropriate consideringthat the Bay has a huge potential as an alternativeinternational port. The benefits of having a portwould not accrue if the development plans are notdesigned in an integrated manner with the supportof all local governments having jurisdiction over theshared resource.

In most cases, it would be ideal for the provinceto initiate and implement an integrated programbecause its territorial jurisdiction adequately coverswhole ecosystems. However, while it has supervisorypowers over component municipalities, the realpowers are often exercised by the municipalities. Forexample, the province cannot devise an integratedfisheries program. The problem is complicatedfurther when the resource is also shared by a highlyurbanized city that is independent of the province.In such cases where no local management institutioncan implement an integrated program, a multilat-eral body has to be created with representationsfrom the concerned local governments.

A multilateral body need not be composed onlyof local government representatives. In order to bemore responsive, it should also include representa-tions from key stakeholders making it a multi-sectorbody. Such a body can serve as the policymakingforum where all stakeholders can participate.

In the case of the BBR, it was determined themost feasible organizational structure would be acouncil created through a provincial ordinance withparticipation from local governments, private sectorstakeholders and representatives from national

6 Section 3 (f) provides: “Local governments may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and resources forpurposes commonly beneficial to them”. A procedure in Section 33 which states that LGUs “may, through appropriate ordinances,group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. In supportof sound undertakings, the local government units involved may, upon approval by the sanggunian concerned after a public hearingconducted for the purposes, contribute funds, real estate, equipment, and other kinds of property and appoint or assign personnelunder such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the participating local government units through memoranda of agree-ment”.

105

government agencies. The participation of nationalgovernment agencies is essential in order to coordi-nate efforts of the local council with national plansand programs. A high-level council would not beappropriate body to effectively carry out the programsand actions that have been decided. The council isthere only to guide or set the direction. Day-to-dayactivities have to be delegated to a full-time imple-menting arm. In the case of Batangas, an office calledthe Provincial Government-Environment and NaturalResources Office (PG-ENRO) was created to serve asthe secretariat of the council as well as its designatedimplementing arm.

The creation of a multisectoral council and itsimplementing arm requires legislation. Policiesfollowing the integrated approach also need to betranslated to action plans that likewise requirelegislation in order to be implemented. As thepolicies are translated into action, resources have tobe allotted by the participating local governments aswell as the other government agencies.

At the national level, there have been attempts tocreate multisectoral agencies to manage coastalresources. The PCAIFMC or BDC was formed in1989 and is chaired by the secretary of the DA withmembers consisting of the secretaries of the Depart-ment of Justice (DoJ), Department of EducationCulture and Sports (DECS), DND, DILG, DoT,DENR, Press Secretary and the general manager ofthe Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). This wascreated in response to the “urgent need to coordi-nate the efforts of national and local governmentagencies, civic organizations, and the residents offishing communities for a total and simultaneouscampaign to stop and reverse this destructive trend,and manage our fishery resources to maintain theirproductivity.”

The activities of the committee have mainlyfocused on law enforcement. The committee hasdistributed patrol boats to LGUs to be used forapprehending illegal fishing activities. Much of thefunding has come from the Fisheries Sector Program(FSP) of the DA.

In 1993, another agency, the IATFCEP wasformed by virtue of EO 117 at the initiative of theDENR. This was an extension of the CEP launched

by the department in the early part of the same year.The creation of the task force was intended forcooperation and coordination among the depart-ments and agencies enforcing coastal environmentprotection to strengthen and sustain law enforcementsystems throughout the country. However, it appearsthat the task force only focuses on law enforcementand not on the other aspects of coastal and marineresources management. This is apparent in the initialdesignation of the DND-Philippine Navy (PN) aslead agency, which will be replaced by the DILG-PNPafter a year.

Both IATFCEP and PCAIFMC started with loftyideals. Neither has come up with a comprehensiveprogram to manage coastal and marine resources,not even a program to coordinate and rationalizeexisting efforts. Both bodies focus mainly on lawenforcement. However, other aspects of manage-ment have to be coordinated. For instance, researchefforts on the status and sustainability of use of theresources must be a combined effort of nationalagencies and local governments. Few resources arelimited to a single municipal jurisdiction.

PPPPPublic Public Public Public Public Participationarticipationarticipationarticipationarticipation

Community participation in policy and programformulation was institutionalized with the promulga-tion of EO 240 (1995) which mandates the forma-tion of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Manage-ment Committees (FARMCs) in coastal barangays,cities and municipalities. The executive issuance wasmet with much support from fishers and provedpromising. The FARMC concept has been institu-tionalized and integrated into the new FisheriesCode.

Community participation is crucial to thesuccess of any regulatory program. There is a higherprobability of success when the community isinvolved at the earliest stages of developing theregime. The shaping of the regulations should takeinto account existing practices and inputs from thecommunity.

In Bolinao, Pangasinan (discussed in the casestudy in the next section), the community itselfworked to develop the management program fortheir coastal zone. The scientists and community

106

organizers provided the guidance to ensure that themanagement plan had a sound scientific basis. Thecommunity then lobbied for the adoption of theplan by the local government.

SummarySummarySummarySummarySummary

Though regulatory mechanisms have theirspecific functions, sole reliance on them has provento be ineffective in abating the degradation anddepletion of marine and coastal resources. There aretelling examples of past and present managementfailures. A considerable amount of legislation hasbeen passed, many regulatory mechanisms have beenused, institutions have been reformed, and new oneshave been created. However, these current arrange-ments do not adequately deal with the mountingproblems in the marine and coastal zones.

The use of strategies that would move away fromcommand and control approaches to community-based and market-based strategies needs to beexplored. These strategies may prove practicable andeffective in guiding resource uses in the marine andcoastal zones and in raising revenue for use in themanagement of the resources. The existing institu-tional set-up is complex, confusing, sectoralized andfragmented. Fragmentation is the major systemichindrance to more effective management. There isan urgent need for sectoral integration and coordi-nation.

CCCCCOMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITY-----BBBBBAAAAASEDSEDSEDSEDSED R R R R RESOURCEESOURCEESOURCEESOURCEESOURCEMMMMMANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENT: F: F: F: F: FOUROUROUROUROUR C C C C CAAAAASESESESESE S S S S STUDIESTUDIESTUDIESTUDIESTUDIES

Despite the intricate legal system set up formanaging the coastal environment, other modes ofadministration have grown and become moreattractive. These include community-based systemsof management.

Historical PHistorical PHistorical PHistorical PHistorical Perspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspectiveerspective

Before the arrival of the Spanish, landowningwas communal in character, with the actual titlevested in the barangay. Wealth was determined byhow many dependents a chieftain could muster tocultivate the communally owned lands (Phelan1959). In the maritime sector, endeavors reflective ofthis communal tradition survived into the Spanish

period. In some villages, the leaders united to builda vessel — a pirogue — in which they shipped theirproduce under the conduct of a few persons whowent to navigate and sell the cargo. After the pro-duce was traded at the port of destination, thereturns were distributed to all according to theirshare. Festivities were then held to thank the saintsfor their kindness, and invoke blessings for anotheryear. After this cooperative undertaking, the vesselwas taken to pieces and distributed among theowners to be preserved for the next season (De laCosta 1965).

Throughout the Spanish and American colonialperiods, conflicts between state regulation andcommunity-based practices over the use of coastalresources played a secondary role in the peasant’sstruggle for reform in the agricultural sector. Thiswas mainly because the Filipinos were always farmersas well as fishers. In the provinces, it was rare to seea Filipino who was engaged in only one occupation(Wright 1907).

A common tactic of resistance by the peasantclass in Philippine society is the intentional disre-gard of state regulations that is both non-confronta-tional and can be resorted to most of the time withthe least repercussions because the government wasnever strong enough to enforce absolute compliance.Thus, non-compliance may become a social norm.There are also instances of vocal resistance by localcommunities to state regulation of coastal resourceswhen the latter clash with traditional communityresource use. In 1975, measures were passed banningthe gathering of migratory species in Naujan Lake,Oriental Mindoro in order to cater to the fingerlingdemands of the fish pen industry. Two fishers werecaught fishing in the prohibited area by the parkwarden. The two fishers hacked the warden to deathwhen he refused to allow them to continue (Bautistaand Anigan 1978).

Rationale for CommunityRationale for CommunityRationale for CommunityRationale for CommunityRationale for Community-based-based-based-based-basedRRRRResouresouresouresouresource Managementce Managementce Managementce Managementce Management

Historically, community management developedindependent of and even preceded governmentalregulations and persisted even after formal regula-tory norms were set in place. Years of experience incommunity-based resource management (CBRM),

107

from forestry to fisheries, show the common reasonswhy such approaches are desirable. Batongbacal(1991) summarizes these in the context of coastalresource management as:

! The communities’ dependence on thecoastal zone;

! Inadequacy of traditional systems ofcentralized government management;

! Greater efficiency in planning and imple-mentation;

! Democratization of access to resources;! More prospects of success; and! Failure of previous cooperative activities.

CBRM is intended as an integrated approach toarea development. It is holistic in the sense that itresponds to resolving conflicts over multiple re-source use and attempts to integrate thesociopolitical and the economic aspects with thebiophysical elements of resource management.CBRM emphasizes that environmental problemshave both social and technical aspects. Therefore,CBRM is about letting people make their own rulesand decisions and enforce them. The state’s respon-sibility is to provide the necessary technical andadministrative support to enable the group to carryout these functions, and to ensure the legitimizationor recognition of the group’s policies outside of thegroup so that their measures remain effective evenin the face of interference from nonmembers. Thegeneral concept of CBRM was born out of politicalstruggle; the control of natural resources was adirect manifestation of the distribution of powerand wealth in society. Since the issue of environ-mental management thereby became an issue ofequity, the philosophy and approaches that devel-oped in the Philippines for the application of a newenvironmental agenda emphasized community-based models of resource management

(Batongbacal 1991). The initial successes of thesemodels in community-based forestry projects wereapplied to marine resources.

In this paper, four case studies are presentedcovering the range of experiences in the Philip-pines of CBRM. The Coron Island case involvesindigenous peoples. The Apo Island experience isthe classic example of a community-based approachin fisheries and coral reef management. TheBolinao case study looks into the interface oftraditional fisheries and coral reef managementissues with questions brought about by moderniza-tion and industrialization. Finally, the Batangas Bayexperiment illustrates options as the pressures ofmodernization and industrialization begin toprevail.

CorCorCorCorCoron Island, Pon Island, Pon Island, Pon Island, Pon Island, Palawanalawanalawanalawanalawan77777

Coron Island is home to the Tagbanuas, anindigenous group of some 283 families, all of whomare presently members of the Tagbanua Foundationof Coron Island (TFCI). The island has two settle-ments, one in Cabugao and the other in Banwang-Daan, where most of the town’s Tagbanuas congre-gate. The official population data of the CoronMunicipal Planning and Development Office(CMPDO) shows 4 888 Tagbanuas (18% of totalmunicipal population) living in the municipality8.The Tagbanuas have been on the island since timeimmemorial and consider the land and a portion ofthe sea as their ancestral domain9. The Tagbanuasexercise indigenous resources management prac-tices anchored mainly in their culture and beliefs.

EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Prrrrrofileofileofileofileofile

Coron Island is part of the Calamianes IslandGroup located in Northern Palawan. The island is

7 The information used here was from an unpublished study conducted by Philippine Association for Intercultural Development, Inc.(PAFID) between 1997 and 1998 and funded by the Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, which documents the experience ofPAFID and SARAGPUNTA, a federation of Tagbanua community organizations in Northern Palawan in the delineation of the latter’sancestral domain claim. The study is currently under review and is due for publication soon.

8 The PAFID study notes the significant difference between the 1998 population tally of the Coron MPDO and the 1996 populationfigure of the Institute of Philippine Culture, which was culled from the MPDO records. PAFID suggested that the Tagbanuas’ might havesuffered great mortality or there was a sudden surge of non-indigenous immigration in the Tagbanua barangays.

9 The time immemorial possession of the land and a portion of Coron waters has been recognized by the Philippine government with theissuance of the Tagbanuas’ Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim. Former Undersecretary Antonio La Viña, in his memorandum for theDENR Secretary dated 02 June 1998 recommending the issuance of the CADC to TFCI, recognized the important contribution of thegroups indigenous management system in the sustainable use of their ancestral waters ad the natural resources found therein.

108

about 5 km from the town center of Coron onBusuanga Island and has a total land area of ap-proximately 7 700 ha. Coron Island is blessed withnatural resources and a natural landscape that makesit very attractive for tourism related developmentactivities. There are eight brackish lakes and threesmaller ones located on the island, the largest beingLake Abayok which is 20 km long and 30 fathomsdeep. Lake Kayangan is 12.5 ha in extent. Under-ground connections to the sea have allowed the entryof giant barracudas and octopuses, giving one of thelakes its name “Barracuda Lake.” Climate is dry fromDecember to April and monsoonal the rest of theyear10.

About 5 000 ha of the total land area of theisland are made up of rocky cliffs, which is why theTagbanuas do not depend primarily on agriculturefor their subsistence (IPC 1996). For their livelihood,they depend on fish and other aquatic resources suchas tekbeken (small octopus), balat (sea cucumber), latuk(edible seaweed); and edible birds’ nests or luray forthose who own clan caves. The outer rim of theisland, forming fissures and caves are home to theswiftlets (balinsasayaw) which construct edible bird’snest that the Tagbanuas gather and sell to localChinese traders.

In terms of agricultural production, only a fewfamilies cultivate kuma (swidden farms), which aremostly planted with upland rice and corn. A typicalkuma is good for one harvest of rice which is barelyenough to tide over a typical Tagbanua household tothe next harvest. To supplement income and foodsupply, most families plant cashew trees in backyardlots and the nuts are sold in exchange for rice11. Thejagged terrain and scrub-like vegetation discouragevegetation clearing. Hence, the undisturbed vegeta-tive cover provides protection for wildlife, acts as awatershed and provides natural nutrients to the hillsand small plains below. Some of the water conservedby this mantle of vegetation is stored in the lake.

The island has three vegetation types: forestcovered limestone, beach forest and mangrove. Theisland fauna includes the Philippine macaque, wild

pigs, porcupines, anteaters, lizards, Palawan hornbilland various parrot species. Marine turtles nest onsome of the beaches and dugongs are also seen alongthe coast.

Indigenous Use and Management of theIndigenous Use and Management of theIndigenous Use and Management of theIndigenous Use and Management of theIndigenous Use and Management of theCoastal and ACoastal and ACoastal and ACoastal and ACoastal and Aquatic/Fquatic/Fquatic/Fquatic/Fquatic/Fisherisherisherisherishery Resoury Resoury Resoury Resoury Resourcescescescesces

The Tagbanuas harvest more from the sea thanfrom the forest. They vigorously fought for govern-ment recognition of their claim over ancestral watersas an integral part of their ancestral domain claim.Both land and sea are vital for the daily subsistenceof the Tagbanuas and for the preservation of their wayof life. While the Tagbanuas consider the marineresources as part of their ancestral domain, they donot think this is for their exclusive use. They believethat the sea is a communal property. They “allow”access by outsiders as long as the fishing methods arelegal and are not done in sacred areas.

The Tagbanuas’ resource use and managementsystem is operational within the context of thepanyaan and the amlaran (sacred areas at sea and onland, respectively, which are considered restrictedareas), the observance of customary laws governingresource access and use, and the role of the clanelders in the observance of traditional laws, espe-cially the imposition of sanctions and penalties as ameans of control or discipline.

The panyaan are marine areas traditionallyavoided by the Tagbanuas because of a belief thatthese are inhabited or under the influence of sensi-tive spirits that bring harm on anyone who trespassthe area. The same belief governs the amlaran andthe amuyuk (sacred lakes), which the Tagbanuasbelieve to be inhabited by spirits in the form ofoctopuses. Access and use of resources found in thesacred areas may only be given to a Tagbanua by theelders and the community albularyo (medicine man).When in the restricted zones, the individual muststrictly observe certain behaviors, silence or limitingone’s speech or using an entirely different languageso as not to disturb or offend the spirits. Failure todo so would surely bring misfortune, even death, to

10 This portion was based largely on an unpublished baseline study conducted by PAFID in 1995, which was an attached document to theTFCI’s application for CADC originally submitted in 1993.

11 Taken from PAFID’s unpublished study, 1997-1998, p.16. The information was validated in an interview with Rodolfo Aguilar, Chairof TFCI, in October 1997.

109

12 Based on PAFID unpublished study on mapping of ancestral lands and waters, 1997-1998, sponsored by LRC, p.26. Theinformation was verified by statements of Mr. Rodolfo Aguilar and other leaders as well as community members interviewed for thiscase study during a field research undertaken in October 1997.

13 Mr. Aguilar, however, admitted that on rare occasions some Tagbanuas violate the community’s rule on nest gathering. That is, theycollect nests even before the eggs have been hatched just like what non-Tagbanua gatherers would do. Such behavior is dealt withaccordingly by the community leaders.

14Interview with Mr. Aguilar, Mr. Renato Dacullos and Brgy. Captain Macoy Veloso, October 1997. Mr. Aguilar and Brgy. Capt. Veloso areofficials of TFCI and at the same time respected elders of the community.

the individual. In such a situation, the only way toappease the spirits is for the albularyo to performtraditional rituals. The reason why the Tagbanuasprohibit fishing or gathering of resources in thepanyaan or sacred areas for both Tagbanuas and non-Tagbanuas is also for the welfare of the people. Theprohibition is to protect them from the wrath of thespirits inhabiting the sacred areas12. Their Certificateof Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) application callsfor the respect of all these sacred areas.

The panyaan may be likened to the modern daymarine reserves or marine sanctuaries while theamuyuk, the sacred lakes, are a crucial part of theisland’s watershed and shelter the swiftlets’ caves. Forthe Tagbanuas, these sacred areas are consideredcrucial to the sustainability of their natural resources,their ancestral domain, and the survival of both thepresent and future generations of their people.

The resource management also covers the cliffsof the island down to the valleys and traverses thelakes and rivers as well as the mangroves and the sea.Forest resources are communally owned. No indi-vidual is allowed to own even a portion of the forests.Everyone in the community is allowed access to theseresources for as long as these rights are not abused.

In an interview with Rodolfo Aguilar, the chairof TFCI, he said that the Tagbanuas have a set ofrules for the caves located on the cliffs of the island.The individual who discovers the cave is supposed tohave exclusive rights to harvest swiftlets’ nests in thatcave and such rights are respected by other nestcollectors. Almost all able-bodied persons on theisland participate in the balinsasayaw season. Thispractice has been handed down from generation togeneration and it has been traced back to the comingof the Chinese traders before Magellan. The collec-

tion methods of the Tagbanuas have always beengoverned by an open and closed season in order notto adversely affect the population of the swiftlets13.The season for nest gathering could vary yearly. InBanwang-Daan, it could start as early as Decemberand end in April while in Cabugao collecting beginsin January and lasts until April as well (IPC 1996).

Others seek a livelihood elsewhere throughfishing or diving. The Tagbanuas traditionally use thewaters around the island for subsistence fishing,swidden farming, and other land-based livelihoodactivities. The amount of resources they extract islimited to their own sustenance. They do not engagein commercial harvests. Their fish catch usuallyconsists of reef fishes such as groupers, snappers,rabbitfishes, parrotfishes, (lapu-lapu, maya-maya,samaral, and molmol respectively). Other marine lifegathered are seaweeds (lato), shellfish, lobsters(banagan), eels (indong), mackerels (tanguigue), andanchovies. Seaweed farming has been recentlyintroduced to the Tagbanuas.

Interviews14 with officials of the TFCI andrespected elders of the community revealed that theTagbanuas have in the past used traditional fishinggear such as spears (sibat), bow and arrow (pana),hook and line (kawil) and other less invasive andnon-destructive fishing gear. The Tagbanuas attributethe diminution of their fish catch and the destruc-tion of their traditional fishing grounds to modernand more invasive fishing methods used by outsid-ers, which yield more catch and sometimes are overefficient. They have created rules enumeratingprohibited fishing methods within their ancestraldomain. These rules are also based on the legalregime prohibiting certain fishing practices. TheTagbanuas call these prohibited fishing practicesillegal and these include blast fishing, the use of

110

cyanide, Danish Seine (hulbot-hulbot) and the use ofcompressors. They believe these kinds of fishingpractices deplete the fishing stock and destroy theenvironment.

The Tagbanuas consider the entry of commercialfishing vessels within ancestral domain areas aswrongful because they consider the very large fishcatch of these vessels as unsustainable and depletethe resources rapidly. According to Aguilar andVeloso, TFCI Chair and barangay captain respec-tively, they also consider muro-ami and other illegalfishing methods as wrongful. For them, these kindsof fishing practices deplete the fishing stock anddestroy the environment.

Seaweed farming has been recently introducedto the Tagbanuas. Women are mostly engage in thisactivity. Their harvest of seaweeds is only to theextent that the seaweeds can still regenerate.

The Tagbanuas have traditionally practicedswidden farming. Part of the hilly land of the islandhas been cleared by swidden farming to grow foodcrops. Traditionally, these lands have been left tofallow and recover fertility. Unfortunately, this stablepractice was jeopardized when migrants gainedcontrol of some of the prime farmlands, whichdisplaced the Tagbanuas to move to higher, steeperslopes and to expand the scope and frequency ofswidden methods beyond what is traditionallypracticed. There used to be land erosion due toexcessive kaingin or swidden farming. However, afterthe Tagbanuas entered the stewardship agreementwith the government, they have avoided the practiceof swidden farming. The Tagbanuas recognizeproperty rights in favor of persons who clear an areathrough swidden farming. Persons can only return toareas they previously cleared.

The prime farmlands comprise about 350 ha.The major crops are coconut, cashew, cassava, sweetpotatoe, pigeon beans (kadios), rice and millet. Anumber of the root crops growing in the forests havebeen domesticated and are now planted on levellands.

In general, annual crops are planted by tradi-

tional swidden methods even on level lands. SeveralTagbanua farmers have started using more productivemethods such as tillage and dikes to trap rainwaterfor palay. These are not sanctioned and there arestrong taboos against disturbing the earth.

Cutting trees near streams, springs, wells and thecoast is prohibited. The Tagbanuas recognize thevalue of these resources as watersheds which ensureirrigation of their crops and prevent soil erosion.Tagbanuas recognize the value of the mangroveecosystem to their marine environment. They knowthese are fish breeding areas and have to be pro-tected. Hence, as a rule mangrove trees cannot be cutunless there is consent from the council. Specificproducts including medicinal plants, root crops,trees and other edible resources may be gatheredfrom the forests. The wildlife is sustainably protectedby a policy prohibiting hunting except for maturepigs.

Based on unpublished research done by PAFIDbetween 1997 and 1998, ancestral lands are passedon through the women since they are often the onescharged to manage the family’s kuma and taranuman(swiddens and fields). Hence, they are not expectedto just leave the land. In this respect, the women inthe community are crucial to the continuity ofoccupation of the ancestral lands and thecommunity’s claim over the resources therein. Evenmale members of the community acknowledge theeffectiveness of such an arrangement in preventingthe loss of portions of the ancestral domain throughdeceit. There have been a number of instances inthe past when a parcel of land within the Tagbanuaterritory has been signed away to non-Tagbanuasafter the men who have been entrusted with themwere lured to sign waivers of rights or other instru-ments, at times after a good round of gin or inexchange for paltry sums.

Officers of TCFI said another benefit from thestewardship of women of the group’s ancestral landsis preservation of the boundaries of the lands oftenmarked by the source of tubers and other rootcropsusually managed by the women. When gatheringtubers and other rootcrops, the rule is to leavebehind the roots in order for the plant to regener-

111

15 According to the PAFID study, some Tagbanua communities allow private ownership of smaller coral reefs and portions of the forestsby families or clans. In such cases, only family or clan members can fish on those reefs and gather rattan firewood or timber from socalled clan forests. Such arrangements, however, do not exist in the Tagbanua communities in Coron Island. This system was abandonedafter the Japanese occupation, by which time rattan and timber supply in clan forests began to diminish. The study also noted that thereefs started to be used communally after conflicts in use rights were referred to the municipal government, which resolved that,henceforth, coral reefs are communally owned and could not be owned by just one family or clan.

16 These allegations have figured consistently in the interviews with the TFCI officials, Tagbanua elders, local NGOs like Kawil Amianan,International Marinelife Alliance, members of local law enforcement units, and private individuals, who all requested that their identitybe kept in confidence.

ate. The Tagbanuas have a concept of successionincorporated with the concept of ownership andprivate property 15.

Issues in ResourIssues in ResourIssues in ResourIssues in ResourIssues in Resource Use and Managementce Use and Managementce Use and Managementce Use and Managementce Use and Management

Conflict over access, use and management ofnatural resources in Coron Island, especially coastaland aquatic resources, is a matter that has constantlyplagued the Tagbanuas of the island. The strugglebecame more intense once TFCI applied for aCADC for their ancestral lands and waters. Thestruggle for control over the resources of the islandinvolved the municipal government, the indigenouspeople, and private vested rights (individuals,families and business entities). The Tagbanuas scoredtheir initial victory when in July 1990 the localDENR-Community Environment and NaturalResources Office (CENRO) awarded a CommunityForest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA) to TFCIcovering the entire island and a portion of DelianIsland (7 748 ha). The CFSA, however, does notsecure the Tagbanuas’ traditional fishing groundsand the resources therein.

With the issuance of their CADC andgovernment’s recognition of their rights over theirancestral domain, the challenge for TFCI is todevelop an ancestral domain management plan thatwill govern both conservation and developmentactivities within the area. While it has secured theirrights over the area, the issuance of the CADC didnot remove the obstacles and threats posed byprivate claims over portions of lands within thedomain. Sadly, the local government including thelocal DENR has been instrumental in perpetuatingthis situation each time they issue permits forresource use or extraction, or recognize privateclaims based on tax declarations (municipal govern-ment) in the Tagbanuas’ ancestral domain.

The problems are not confined to the terrestrialaspect of the Tagbanuas’ claim. Pearl farming has beenallowed to operate in the surrounding waters of theisland without prior notice to the Tagbanuas. Themunicipal council even issued a resolution, Resolu-tion Number 14, Series of 1997, which allowed themayor to enter into a memorandum of agreementwith a private corporation (Hikari SSP Corporation)for the latter’s lease in the area for the operation of apearl farm.

To date, the municipal government remainsopposed, albeit discreetly, to DENR recognition ofthe Tagbanuas’ ancestral waters. The concept ofancestral waters does not coincide with thegovernment’s plan to promote Coron, especiallyCoron Island as a world-class tourism area. UnderProclamation Number 219, the PTA has jurisdictionover Coron Island and the implementation of theTourism Management Plan (TMP) for the Calamianesarea. More recently, the DoT has identified KayanganLake as a potential tourist area without consulting theTagbanuas. Meanwhile, leaders of the TFCI havealleged that the CENRO, the local DENR officetasked to receive and process CADC applicationsissued certain licenses and permits such as pasturelease agreements within ancestral domain claims.Such actions contradict and undermine its decisionto endorse for approval the CADC application ofTFCI and the still existing CFSA that was issued bythe same office.

Interviews with TFCI officials, Tagbanua elders,local NGOs and others also revealed that privateinvestors and the local elite have been able to securetitle over areas which are allegedly forest lands andwithin ancestral domain claims. Illegal fishingoperators are allegedly able to influence municipalleaders and to evade arrest and prosecution16.

112

Managing Conflicts and Decision-Managing Conflicts and Decision-Managing Conflicts and Decision-Managing Conflicts and Decision-Managing Conflicts and Decision-Making PMaking PMaking PMaking PMaking Prrrrrocessesocessesocessesocessesocesses

The Tagbanua communities on Coron Island arecollectively governed by a council of elders respon-sible for the observance of indigenous laws and theenforcement of customary laws, including impositionof penalties and sanctions for infractions. In the past,the system of panglaw, or corporal punishment wasused against Tagbanuas who willfully committedserious crimes. Over time, the use of panglaw hasdiminished as the roles of mediators (mepet) andkeepers of traditional laws were slowly replaced by thebarangay structure. The barangay organization and thecommunity council of elders add a modicum ofstructure. A number of Tagbanuas serve as barangayleaders as well.

There is an interface of formal and informalstructures where the legal system is beginning torecognize the non-formal management structures ofthe Tagbanuas. The Tagbanua community recognizesthe laws and policies at the barangay, municipal andnational laws.

With the advent of the barangay, the Tagbanuasput in writing the rules of their community withcorresponding fines and sanctions. They imposefines for illegal fishing, cutting mangroves, andviolation of local norms on swidden farming. Thefines are graduated and a higher fine is oftenimposed for non-Tagbanuas.

In the recent past, the elders started to exercisecontrol over resources. They had the right toappropriate the resources to the members of thecommunity. Everyone was free to find their ownplace, however, they were not allowed to sell it. Non-Tagbanuas, on the other hand, did not have anyproprietary rights to resources found within thetraditional ancestral domains of the Tagbanuas. Theelders also had to ensure the resources wouldcontinue to sustain the next generation. Ensuringthat the resources were safeguarded for the use of allcommunity members was a cardinal rule in Tagbanuasociety. The elders had the authority to punishwrongdoers.

Although it may seem that traditional laws andthe laws governing the barangay structure havebegun to overlap with the participation of some

Tagbanua leaders in the barangay political process,the elders and the officials of TFCI continue touphold their traditional laws, culture, belief systemand have chosen to maintain a non-commercialapproach in using their resources. The elders said ininterviews that they believe that it is precisely thisway of life that has sustained them as a people,nurtured by their ecologically intact and resource-rich ancestral domain (Aguilar and Dacullos,personal communications).

The Interface Between the National LegalThe Interface Between the National LegalThe Interface Between the National LegalThe Interface Between the National LegalThe Interface Between the National LegalSystem and the Management System of theSystem and the Management System of theSystem and the Management System of theSystem and the Management System of theSystem and the Management System of theTTTTTagbanuas in Coragbanuas in Coragbanuas in Coragbanuas in Coragbanuas in Coron Islandon Islandon Islandon Islandon Island

In 1977, President Ferdinand Marcos declaredthe entire province of Palawan a game refuge andbird sanctuary and the small islands of Palawan asnational reserves closed to exploitation and settle-ment. In 1978, Coron Island was declared a touristzone and marine reserve under the control of thePTA.

In 1992, RA 7611 or the Strategic EnvironmentPlan (SEP) for Palawan Act was passed. This pro-vides a “framework for the sustainable developmentof Palawan and shall serve as a guide to the localgovernments of Palawan and the local governmentagencies in the formulation of plans, programs, andprojects affecting the province” (Section 5). The lawprovides a graded system of protecting naturalresources in the whole of Palawan including areastraditionally occupied by cultural communities. Thelaw mandates the following:

! Forest conservation through the impositionof a total commercial logging ban in areas ofmaximum protection and other restricteduse;

! Protection of watersheds;! Preservation of biological diversity;! Protection of tribal people and their culture;! Maintenance of maximum sustainable yield;! Protection of rare and endangered species

and their habitats;! Provision of areas for environmental and

ecological research, education, and training;and

! Provision of areas for tourism and recre-ation.

113

It is important to note that the SEP law recog-nizes “tribal areas in land and sea” and shall applythe same graded system upon proper consultationwith the tribe. The Tagbanuas have a managementsystem to ensure that all the above considerationsare met.

The Implementing Rules Regulations (IRR) ofRA 7611 enumerates areas for maximum protectionand buffer zones. Certain categories coincide withthe sacred areas of the Tagbanuas. These areas arerich in biodiversity. Thus, the goal of protecting aresource is achieved in different ways.

The IRR also considers areas of outstandingcultural value such as sacred and burial sites as areasfor maximum protection. The Municipality ofCoron, in Resolution Number 20, Series of 1995,also adopted the guidelines of the EnvironmentalCritical Network contained in RA 7611 and adoptedby the Palawan Council for Sustainable Develop-ment (PCSD). The coastal core zone in the IRR alsocoincides with areas where Tagbanuas restrict accessand use. These are selected coral reefs, seagrass, andmangrove ecosystems.

The municipal government has also enactedseveral municipal resolutions relating to the protec-tion of coastal and marine resources. Most of them,however, are replicas of national laws and policies.They are as follows:

! Ordinance Number 5, Series of 1993 -Prohibits the throwing of garbage in canals,vacant lots, and into the sea. The PCG, PNPand PPA, including all barangay officials, areempowered to implement the ordinance;

! Ordinance Number 4, Series of 1994 -Requires the registration of compressorsused for fishing and other underwateractivities operating in municipal waters;

! Ordinance Number 7, Series of 1994 -Banning hulbot-hulbot, lintig, baby muro-ami,norway, and other destructive fishingmethods within the municipal waters ofCoron, Palawan;

! Ordinance Number 3, Series of 1995 -Requires all fishing operators engaged inthe live fish trade to accredit with thecommunity fisheries board or its dulyauthorized representative in the municipal-

ity; and! Ordinance Number 6, Series of 1996 -

Makes it unlawful for any person to con-struct houses and other structures for thepurpose of dwelling within 10 m from thehigh water level of mangroves,swamps, lakes and other seaside areas unlessintended for development such as markets,ports and the like. Tourism related establish-ments are also exempt from the rule.

The recognition of the traditions of theTagbanuas was further strengthened when Congresspassed the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA),which recognizes the right of indigenous peoples tomanage their ancestral domain. The IPRA has yet tobe fully implemented; but in mid-1998, the DENRissued a CADC recognizing the Tagbanuas’ claim tothe island of Coron and the surrounding waters.

The Tagbanuas’ indigenous management systemwas a great factor in the preservation of the coastaland marine environment in Coron Island. Theirindigenous concept is a precursor of the presentconcept of sustainable management of resources.However, there are numerous threats to theirenvironment and to their way of life. Tenure to theland and waters, which the Tagbanuas and theirancestors consider their home since time immemo-rial, is threatened by current legal regimes andexternal actors. Until now, their ancestral domainrights had not been recognized by the government.Their indigenous management system is now thesubject of incursions by external forces such as thelocal government and the tourism and fishingindustries.

Elders and the leaders of the TFCI explained ininterviews that coastal management is all aboutfinding a balance among the different users of theresources. They claimed they have never excludedother users from their ancestral domain claim.Other users, however, must learn to respect theirindigenous ways and management system, which isabout using the resource in a sustainable manner.

Apo Island, NegrApo Island, NegrApo Island, NegrApo Island, NegrApo Island, Negros Orientalos Orientalos Orientalos Orientalos Oriental

EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Prrrrrofileofileofileofileofile

Apo Island is a 74 ha volcanic island located at

114

the southern coast of Negros Oriental in the middleof the Mindanao Sea. The island is under thepolitical jurisdiction of the Municipality of Dauin,Negros Oriental.

The highest peak is approximately 200 m highon the northern side while a low-lying hill domi-nates the southern half of the island. The rest of theisland is generally flat to sloping. Two small shallowlagoons overgrown with mangroves can also befound on the southeastern side. Little of the originalvegetation remains except in some steep, rockyareas. About one-third of the island has rich soil andis flat enough for cultivation. A narrow but diversefringing coral reef surrounds the island.

The coastline consists of steep rocky cliffs andsmall white sandy beaches. Two principal beachesare located on the southwestern and southeasternshores. Live corals are extensive on the eastern andsoutheastern portions of the reef with much of itsgrowth supported by volcanic rock boulders. Thereef is characterized by steep drop-offs and gradu-ally sloping drops of 20-40º decline.

Northeast (amihan) and southwest (habagat)monsoons affect wave action and fishing activitiesaround Apo Island. The amihan occurs from Novem-ber to March or April and inhibits fishing on thefavored northeast reef. The habagat occurs from Mayto September and October and provides calm seasand favorable conditions for fishing. The current ispredominantly wind driven, strong, non-reversingand consistently flows in a southwest direction atboth ebb and flood tides. Current direction rarelychanges throughout the year. Water visibility isexcellent usually reaching more than 100 ft(Calumpong 1997; DENR-CENRO Dumaguete1995; Silliman University Marine Laboratory SiteDescription Report, n.d.).

ResourResourResourResourResource Status and Demographicsce Status and Demographicsce Status and Demographicsce Status and Demographicsce Status and Demographics

The most significant coastal resource of theisland is its beautiful and abundant fringing coralreefs. About 1.78 ha have been established as a fishsanctuary earlier, before the whole island wasdeclared a protected area by the national govern-ment in 1993. The area has 127 species of reef fishbelonging to 25 families, 7 species of mangroves, 5

species of seagrasses and 23 species of seaweeds.Seagrasses and mangroves are very sparse and occuronly in small patches (Silliman University MarineLaboratory Site Description Report, n.d.).

The reef condition on the sanctuary sidechanged significantly over a 13-year period with atotal coral cover of 68% in 1983 to 78% in 1995.From 1992 to 1995, hard coral cover increased from41.3% to 53% while total sediment decreased from32% to 16%. The total coral cover of Apo Islandincreased from 64% in 1983 to 70% in 1995. Thepercentage of coral rubble is insignificant. Onehundred percent of Apo’s coral cover is in goodcondition (Silliman University Marine LaboratorySite Description Report, n.d.).

The sanctuary also showed a significant increasein fish species diversity and abundance from 1985 to1992. The increase in numbers of all target speciesresulted mostly from the lack of fishing pressure.Large marine life such as groupers, surgeonfishes,parrotfishes and jacks were found in abundantnumbers. Twenty-two species of butterfly fish wererecorded. In terms of fish yield, 16.8 t per km2 peryr was recorded in 1981. During 1985-1986, the fishyield for reef fishes was 31.8 t per km2 per yr and 4.9t per km2 per yr for non-reef fishes. In 1995, the totalcatch recorded was 273.99 t per km2 per yr indicatingan almost eight fold increase from 1985-1986 levels(Silliman University Marine Laboratory Site Descrip-tion Report, n.d.).

Land use in the island includes approximately 4ha for residential use, 4 ha for agricultural ormultiple use, and about 46 ha as a restoration zone.Total land area is 73 ha (DENR-CENRO Dumaguete1995).

About 77% of the population of Apo Island isfishing full time, 21% part time, and 2% fish occa-sionally. Others engage in retail businesses. Averagemonthly income per household is PhP 1 450 or US$33. About 38% of the population has a secondaryincome such as vending, hollow block making andhat/mat-weaving. Fishing involves the use ofoutrigger canoes or motorized pump boats. Themost common fishing method is the hook and line.Other methods are gill netting and spearfishingwhile a few use fish traps and beach seine nets.

115

Farming is also practiced by 70% of the house-holds. Since there is a lack of arable land, crops suchas corn, sweet potatoes, cassava, beans, coconut,vegetables, other fruit trees and ipil-ipil are cultivatedin small farm plots. Livestock is also raised. One ofthe mangrove lagoons was converted into a milkfishpond by a group of local fishers in July 1995(Silliman University Marine Laboratory Site Descrip-tion Report, n.d. DENR-CENRO Dumaguete 1995).Apo Island has become a significant dive tourismdestination.

The island has approximately 250 householdswith an average family size of seven. Most of theparents have only an elementary education. Sixteenpercent of fathers and 11% of mothers went to highschool. Four percent of the mothers went to college.Illiteracy among adults is about 4%. Among thechildren, 60% have gone through or are undergoingelementary education, 20% in secondary, 7% intertiary and 13% are not enrolled in classes. All theresidents are Roman Catholics. The small size of theisland and salinity of the water do not attractmigration from other places so the Apo Islandcommunity is a close-knit traditional fishing com-munity (Silliman University Marine Laboratory SiteDescription Report, n.d.; DENR-CENRO Dumaguete1995).

Educational facilities in the area are limited totwo elementary school buildings. There are privatelyowned beach resort facilities developed for visitingtourists. A lighthouse operated by the PCG is foundon the highest point of the island.

ResourResourResourResourResource Usece Usece Usece Usece Use

Illegal fishing methods such as dynamite fishingand muro-ami were observed in 1977. Dynamite usewas introduced by outsiders from Cebu. Dynamitefishing by outsiders in the southwest reef wasstopped in 1985, but muro-ami still occurred occa-sionally (Calumpong 1997).

Between 1979 and 1980, Silliman University(SU) extension workers conducted informal marineconservation and educational programs with theApo Island residents. In 1982, an agreement wasreached between the island village, SU and theDauin municipal council regarding the guidelines of

the marine reserve. Minimal management andprotection was implemented the next year.

In 1984, the Marine Conservation and Develop-ment Program (MCDP) of Silliman Universityimplemented a comprehensive marine reserve onthe island in collaboration with the residents and theLGU. The entire marine habitat surrounding ApoIsland to 500 m offshore was declared a municipalreserve. The marine sanctuary was established onthe southeast side covering an area of 11.2 ha to 250m offshore or 284 ha to 500 m offshore and border-ing 450 m of shoreline. The sanctuary was markedwith buoys. In 1985, the community education centerwas established. It provided a venue for communitymeetings, workshops, seminars and lectures, and atourist shelter. A core group called the MarineManagement Committee, responsible for the upkeepand enforcement of the marine reserve, was alsoformed. In 1986, the consumers’ cooperative wasstarted (Calumpong 1997; Silliman University MarineLaboratory Site Description Report, n.d.).

Apo Island was declared a Protected Landscapeand Seascape under Presidential ProclamationNumber 438 making it part of the NIPAS. The islandis now under the administration of the PAMB, whichis composed of representatives from the DENR andother government agencies, LGU, the academe andthe community.

CommunityCommunityCommunityCommunityCommunity-Based Resour-Based Resour-Based Resour-Based Resour-Based Resource Managementce Managementce Managementce Managementce Management

The Apo Island experience was one of the firstcoastal management initiatives in the country thatused the community-based approach. Althoughinitially the major agent in this experience,Silliman University (SU) in Dumaguete City,intended to conduct purely academic research attheir project site, their involvement in the island’smanagement of its resources eventually took aradical turn. According to Mr Dado Suan, abarangay official, at the very start the university’sextension workers laid down a basic informationcampaign that would eventually pave the way forthe establishment of a marine reserve. Workshopsand meetings were held using a variety of non-formal techniques to cultivate environmentalawareness.

116

Opposition to the establishment of the sanctu-ary came from the community itself. They were toldthe sanctuary could be disestablished if it did notbenefit the community. Information and educationactivities were held to make the community aware ofthe benefits of establishing the sanctuary. The localgovernment was supportive of the project from thestart because of the technical knowledge brought tothe area by the university. The project was later toserve as the model for other CBRM projects of thelocal government (Calumpong 1997).

With the establishment of the marine reserve, theneed for an organized community to sustain themanagement efforts coincided with the initiation ofthe MCDP of the university. This program aimed tostrengthen the Apo Island Marine Reserve byempowering the community to take responsibilityfor managing the natural resources of the wholeisland. Two community workers were assigned to Apo.They were responsible for organizing and sustainingcommunity participation. By developing relation-ships and strengthening local institutions, they builttrust in the community, introduced new ideas, andincreased the capacity of the people to make manage-ment decisions (Suan and Briones, personal commu-nication).

According to interviews with staff of SillimanUniversity Marine Laboratory (SUML) and SillimanUniversity-Legal Enforcement and Action Program(SU-LEAP), the program sought to identify a groupthat would be responsible for enforcing the regula-tions of the reserve. This core group grew out ofsome of the activities of the program such as thebuilding of a community center. Eventually, ageneral election was held to formalize the coregroup. Officials were chosen and the new group wascalled the Marine Management Committee (MMC).This committee, aside from being responsible forthe upkeep and policing of the marine reserve,proposed resolutions to the municipal council forthe improvement of the reserve and the island’smanagement.

A final component of the project was assistancein alternative livelihoods. Training was held on theestablishment of a cooperative. Mat weaving andagroforestry were strengthened and organizationsformed. A women’s weaving group called ApoWeaving Association enabled the women to earn

extra income by selling woven mats to tourists in theisland or by bringing them to the weekly market atMalatapay. A consumer’s cooperative was formed in1986 initially with 46 members. It now has 80members and runs a retail store (Omilig, personalcommunication).

The Resource Management Division (RMD) ofthe province also entered into a memorandum ofagreement with the DECS with regard to the makingof lesson plans on environment and natural re-sources protection for school children. In theseminars of the RMD, a priest is tasked to deliver alecture on stewardship and uses biblical teachings toincrease the environmental awareness of the com-munity. There are also attempts at integratingresource management efforts by including uplandbarangay officials in resource management seminarswhere they are informed how their activities affectthe coastal area.

The MMC is responsible for the upkeep of thesanctuary as well as collecting donations from thoseusing the facilities. Enforcement is carried out by theMMC. A 10-member barangay tanod team and a 26-member Bantay Dagat team conduct the policing andmonitoring. Violators are approached, given awarning, and assessed a fine. Community supportand successful enforcement over a 10-year periodresulted in very few incidents of violation accordingto Bantay Dagat members.

According to Omilig and Suan, the local govern-ment of the Municipality of Dauin and the barangaycouncil are supportive of the community efforts. TheRMD of the province sends technical assistance.Line agencies of the national government have beeninvolved in the efforts to manage the coastal andmarine resources and environment. One of DENR’smore important projects was its reforestation pro-gram that contributed to the desalination of thewater supply in the island. The people of Apo Islandpreviously brought their drinking water from themainland at a significant cost. Now their water ispotable (Omilig and Suan, personal communica-tion).

The Legal FThe Legal FThe Legal FThe Legal FThe Legal Frameworkrameworkrameworkrameworkramework

Local and national laws contributed to theprotection of the coral reefs and fishery resources in

117

Apo Island. In 1985, the entire marine habitatsurrounding Apo Island was declared a municipalreserve. Apo Island was also previously declared amarine reserve and tourist zone under ProclamationNumber 1801. Finally, in 1994, the island and itsvicinity (1.5 km of sea) was declared a protectedlandscape and seascape by Proclamation Number438 pursuant to the NIPAS Law.

The ordinance declaring the municipal reserveconsisted of two major parts. The first part prohib-ited several fishing methods within 300 m of thehigh tide mark. The prohibited activities werealready covered by national laws e.g., dynamitefishing, muro-ami and cyanide fishing. Only hookand line, bamboo traps, gill nets, spearfishingwithout scuba, and traditional gleaning are allowed.The second part of the ordinance established a corezone in the southeast corner of the island, which wasto be known as the sanctuary. No fishing or collect-ing activities are allowed in this sanctuary. Theanchoring of boats is allowed so long as the coralsare not destroyed. This ordinance recognized theintersectoral initiative in establishing the reserve aswell as the central role of the community in itsmanagement.

Proclamation Number 438 (issued on 9 August1994) established 691.45 ha of marine area aroundand including the island into a protected landscapeand seascape. This placed the area under theadministration and control of the DENR in coordi-nation with the local government of Dauin pursuantto the NIPAS Law. Sustainable development of thearea is addressed in order to respond to the socialand economic needs of the local community withoutcausing adverse impact to the environment. Destruc-tion of the coral reef or other activities that woulddisturb or destroy the ecosystem was prohibited.

As of 1997, there were still no PAMB regulationsthat would provide guidelines for the different usesallowed inside the protected area. With regard todiving activities, divers are required to register withthe Bantay Dagat but it has been pointed out thatthey seldom do. The proposal is to limit the numberof divers in the sanctuary to 10 at any given time.

Suan said a legal question that confronts thecommunity of Apo Island is security of tenure overthe land. The existing regime of land ownership on

the island is described as traditional rather thanformal. People inherit land from their ancestors andit can be tilled by others if the owner is not capableof tilling the inherited property.

There have been efforts to title their propertiesbut they were advised it is not worth the effortbecause the whole procedure would be costly. Landcan be sold but as much as possible such transactionsare limited to island residents. During the term ofSecretary Angel Alcala in the DENR, a moratoriumon the transfer of land was declared to prevent thefurther development of resorts. At present, there areno efforts in the PAMB to recognize the tenurialclaims of the community through legal instruments.

Management Issues and ConstraintsManagement Issues and ConstraintsManagement Issues and ConstraintsManagement Issues and ConstraintsManagement Issues and Constraints

Probably the biggest problem confronting theApo Island protected area at present is dive tourism.Because of its excellent coral cover relative to therest of the country, Apo has become an increasinglypopular destination for scuba diving. The largenumber of tourists and dive boats has become athreat to reef quality. The problem began to attractattention in 1993 when about 200 divers visited theisland in November and December (Vogt 1996).

The role of the foreign-owned tourist divingschool and shop on the island is being examinedgiven the status of the area as a protected landscapeand seascape. Ironically, the diving school wasgranted an ECC by the DENR although allegedlyfor a different purpose. Student divers are especiallyprone to cause damage to the corals because ofignorance, negligence and inexperience. Theconduct of such activities is highly consequential tothe environmental well-being of the island given itssmall size and fragile ecosystem (Vogt 1996).

The community and LGU, through the PAMBare developing regulations and guidelines for scubadiving at Apo to ensure that the community benefitsfrom the activity and that it can be maintained at asustainable level. The financial benefits of transport-ing tourists to the island are substantial. In theresort and dive shop, jobs have been provided tofour members of the local community (Vogt 1996).

However, it is the dive resort owner and divetour operators who benefit most from tourism on the

118

island. As was the case in commodity resourceextraction, fishpond development, and exportoriented fisheries development, the community wasalways the last to benefit. With this latest pattern ofresource exploitation, the dive resort and touroperators exploit a resource largely owned by thecommunity. According to Omilig, they get well paidby the tourists yet pay only token fees to the commu-nity, PhP 100 per day for big pump boats, PhP 50per day for bancas, and PhP 50 per tourist. Suansaid that another issue which has tested the patienceof Apo residents is the larger lagoon on the islandbeing acquired by an outsider through a fishpondlease agreement with the DA. Aside from deprivingaccess to the whole community, the fishpond ownerhas also cut mangroves replanted by residents undera DENR program. Some members of the communityhave been arrested for illegally harvesting from thelagoon, which was formerly community property.

Another management constraint is the lack offinancial resources. Since the budget is limited, thecommunity adjusts its management strategies to theavailable funds. Once the regulations from thePAMB are implemented, there is also a question ofwhere collected fees will go since the law providesthat a portion go to the national government for theNIPAS administration, and another portion to thePAMB for disbursement to the protected areasuperintendent. There is no provision in the lawthat states that collected fees can go to local POs orNGOs, even if these organizations have beenresponsible for the establishment and sustainabilityof the reserve long before the government came into share in its success.

With regard to the Bantay Dagat, some membersare not as diligent in their duties because they donot receive any allowances or remuneration for theirwork. They claim the job is purely voluntary and thevolunteers still have to earn a living.

Omilig (personal communication) pointed outthat some alternative livelihood projects suffersetbacks. The objectives of the agroforestry projectsare not on schedule because of late disbursement offunds by the DENR. The reason is that the DENRruns out of money and the salary for laborers of thereforestation program are not paid. The hog-raisingproject of the DENR-CEP was not successful because

the hogs died of disease, temporarily suspendingthe project.

The influx of government interventions alsocreated confusion about the roles and responsibili-ties of stakeholders in relation to the community-based management structure. The latest of thesegovernment interventions is the PAMB, which ismandated under national law to be the administra-tive body in charge of the protected area. However,the real powers are vested in the DENR secretaryand the local Protected Areas and Wildlife Division(PAWD) of the DENR.

Even with its tradition of community-baseddecisionmaking, the coastal resource managementregime in Apo Island is legally tenuous in theabsence of clear laws giving the community realpowers of management and policymaking. TheNIPAS law provides the DENR Secretary with thepower to adopt a program of gradual resettlementoff the island of the tenured community, the exer-cise of which is largely discretionary. Though theexercise of such a power is doubtful, given thecrucial role the community plays in the care andprotection of the island’s ecosystem, the present set-up still brings to the fore the lack of legal mecha-nisms to strengthen community-based resourcemanagement institution.

At present, the role of the community under thelaw is limited to participating in the decisionmakingof the PAMB. The law does not distinguish betweenthe major role they play and the supporting role ofthe other represented sectors in the PAMB. Thepresent PAMB is reactive in the conduct of itsmanagement functions. They respond to problemsinstead of establishing guidelines to head offproblems.

Vice-mayor Briones of Dauin, Negros Oriental,said that there are also coordination problemsbetween the municipal government and the RMD ofthe provincial government. As has been observed bythe municipal government, the RMD sometimesgoes directly to the community without coordinatingits activities with the municipal government. Themunicipal government also lacks equipment andresources to conduct monitoring. Capability build-ing initiatives consist of seminars on environmental

119

protection and coastal resources management. Theirextension service to Apo Island consists of a munici-pal health employee. They have not been able toprovide assistance in the community’s livelihoodprograms.

At the provincial level, the resource manage-ment division of the provincial government wasinitiated during the incumbency of GovernorSocrates. The problem of institutionalizing resourcemanagement remains an issue because the presentstaff are population officers from the defunctpopulation program of the national government.With the change in governor, the RMD might beabsorbed by the Provincial Agriculture Office (PAO)that deals with production rather than conservationand resource management. Another layer was addedwith the recent creation of the Provincial Environ-ment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO). Theeffect of the creation of this office with existingfunctions of the RMD is still unstudied. It is fearedthat its functions will overlap with those of theexisting RMD.

The enforcement of national laws and the lackof policy on territorial use rights are a concern.Outside fishers are the major users of destructivefishing practices. Even in a small island communitysuch as Apo, local politics still causes disunity andresource management problems because the island-ers support different politicians or have differentpolitical godfathers.

Bolinao, PBolinao, PBolinao, PBolinao, PBolinao, Pangasinanangasinanangasinanangasinanangasinan

On 6 August 1999, the DENR denied “withfinality”, the application for an ECC of thePangasinan Cement Corporation (PCC) for itsproposed cement plant complex to be located in thetown of Bolinao in Pangasinan. It was a decision thatspelled victory for the environment and advocates ofsustainable development. To the project proponent,DENR’s decision was seen as anti-development. Butthe public saw it as a reaffirmation and advancementof the power of civil society, particularly local POs,to meaningfully participate and influence decisionson matters that have far-reaching implications onthe sustainability of life and the resource base.

EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Prrrrrofileofileofileofileofile

The town of Bolinao is located on a cape at thenorthwestern tip of Pangasinan, bounded on thenorth and west by the South China Sea, on the eastby the town of Anda and Caquiputan Channel, andthe town of Bani on the south. The town has a totalland area of 23 320 ha. The town is 365 km awayfrom Manila by land via Dagupan City (Ferrer et al.1996).

Agriculturally productive land is 47% of thetotal land area. This is made up of irrigated, rainfedand upland or hilly lands. The rest of the area isclassified either as built up (470 ha), pasture, forest-land, institutional or infrastructure (2 529 ha), fishpond (641 ha), open range (1 888 ha), or rivers andcreeks (430 ha). Farmlands are mostly planted to rice,with some corn, cassava and other root crops, coco-nut, fruit trees, fuel wood and others (Yambao andSalmo 1997).

The town of Bolinao is composed of 30barangays, with 22 located along the coast. Thetopography of the town is characterized by rockyand hilly terrain. About 40% (9 099 ha) of the area isflat while the rest is sloping. Limestone is abundantand phosphate is common in the area.

Bolinao has the most extensive coral reefformation in the Province of Pangasinan. The reefstretches to the islands of Santiago and Dewey, andalong the northwestern coast of the mainland, atotal area of about 8 000 ha. The reef consistsprimarily of slopes and flats separated by a wavebreaking reef crest. The average coral cover on theslope is approximately 20-30%. The Bolinao reefsystem serves as a critical support system for theassociated shelf systems in Pangasinan and LaUnion. Substantial amounts of invertebrates,seaweed and fish are found in reef flats. The exten-sive reef cover of Bolinao accounts for about 270 ofthe more than 350 different species of finfish, shells,seaweed and other edible marine organisms that canbe found in the local markets around Bolinao(McManus and Chua 1990).

In 1986, a survey by scientists from the UP-MSIrevealed that 60% of the coral reef is already dead

120

largely due to blast fishing and the use of sodiumcyanide. The condition of the coral reef is furtherreflected in the small number of adult fish and thedecline in average fish catch. According to datafrom the Lingayen port, the Bolinao reef fisheryused to yield an average of 430 t of finfish and30% of the country’s aquarium fish exports(LGCAMC 1996).

Seagrasses are dominant in 27 km2 of the reefflat, interspersed with a few square kilometers ofinter-tidal sand flats. Rabbitfishes andcardinalfishes abound in these areas.Cardinalfishes are known to depend on corals forcover during the day. Substantial change in theseagrass fish community is expected if the coralcover of the area continues to deteriorate.

In the 1960s, mangrove trees covered a largepart of the town’s riverbanks. The coverage startedto dwindle when fishponds were opened in the1970s. The rapid loss of mangrove cover contrib-uted to the rapid decline of bangus fry alreadyimperiled by rampant blast fishing.

Bolinao had a total population of 52 701(1992) or 9 944 households, composed ofBolinaoans, Ilocanos and Bisayans. About 3 000 ofthe local population are small-scale fishers whodepend on the highly diverse coral reef fishery.Analysts project that the population could doublein the next 30 years (Juinio-Menez et al. 1995)which may potentially lead to increase pressures oncoastal resources as opportunities in agricultureand industry remain limited (McManus et al.1992). Without a comprehensive response, thistrend could lead to an acceleration of the environ-mental degradation of the area.

Incomes in Bolinao fall below the povertylevel. Based on 1990 data from the DAR (Bolinaooffice), 49% of the population engaged in farmingand 31% worked in the fishery. The rest of thepopulation engaged in trade and industry (4%),commerce (3%), or services (11%). It was observedthat with the poor performance of agriculture ingenerating significant income more households areexpected to turn to the fishery in order to supple-ment family income. By itself, fishing provides thelowest average monthly income at PhP 1 830. This

is substantially below the 1990 poverty level (PhP 2650) set by the DA (McManus et al. 1992).

In 1992, the combined production fromoffshore fishing activities by motorized and non-motorized boats totaled 1 595 t, mostly tuna. Inthe same year, inland fishponds, which are spreadover 642 ha, had a harvest of 1 339 t. Takentogether, these generated 2 934 t which, at PhP 50/kilo, is a gross sale of PhP 146 700 000. Despitethese figures, there is an occupational immobilityamong the local marginal population.

One-third (35%) of the local population didnot go to school while 7% received trainingbeyond high school. Given the poor condition ofexisting educational facilities or their completeabsence, there is little incentive for a family tosend their children to school. Employing theirchildren in the gathering of marketable reeforganisms supplements family income.

Nearshore, fishing is another popular fishgathering activity and it is undertaken all yearround. Fishers usually use bamboo rafts or non-motorized outrigger boats. The average fish catchis 2 kg, which is sold to neighbors or fish vendorsat the local wet market. Deep-sea fish also aboundin the market and these are especially popular withtourists. Fish catch includes yellowfin tuna, skip-jack, tanguigue and blue marlin. These fish arehighly profitable and are readily shipped toManila by fish dealers.

Bangus fry gathering is also another source oflivelihood for coastal residents. Gathering is donefrom March to August. Fry gatherers sell theircatch to concessionaires who dictate the price per1 000 pieces of fry. Thirty percent of the pricegoes to the concessionaire. At one time, the priceper 1 000 fry was PhP 900 but was reduced to PhP700. Gatherers have opted not to harvest duringmonths when prices are relatively low (McManus etal. 1992).

The shellcraft business is the most lucrative,among the fishery-related activities, providing PhP1 350/month (Juinio-Menez et al. 1995). Most ofthose engaged in this activity are women. Fish,seaweed and various invertebrates are harvested by

121

women and children at low tide since thesemarine products are part of the traditional diet oflocal subsistence communities. Sea urchins alsoabound in Bolinao. The growing local demand forsea urchin roe has led to greater harvesting andimprovisations in harvesting gear.

A study conducted by the UP-MSI revealed thereefs of Bolinao were overexploited and deteriorat-ing because of destructive fishing methods and othercauses. Blast fishing was observed on both the reefslopes and the reef flats (McManus et al. 1992). Thiswas widely used by fishers in the reef areas in order tofacilitate harvest of schools of pelagic fish. This andthe use of sodium cyanide in aquarium fish gatheringcontribute to the degradation of Bolinao’s coastal andmarine ecosystem and the rapid depletion of re-sources. This situation is now taking its toll on thelivelihoods of the local people, threatening thesustainability of the community. Against this back-ground, three development-oriented organizationsundertook various initiatives. Initially workingindependently from each other, they eventuallyforged a tripartite partnership to undertake acommunity-based coastal resources managementproject. The project was undertaken in partnershipwith the local communities and in close coordinationwith the municipal government of Bolinao.

The Bolinao CommunityThe Bolinao CommunityThe Bolinao CommunityThe Bolinao CommunityThe Bolinao Community-Based Coastal-Based Coastal-Based Coastal-Based Coastal-Based CoastalResourResourResourResourResources Management Pces Management Pces Management Pces Management Pces Management Prrrrrojectojectojectojectoject

The Community-Based Coastal ResourcesManagement (CB-CRM) project in Bolinao has thecombined expertise of the UP-MSI (physical sci-ences), the UP-College of Social Work and Commu-nity Development (social sciences) and the HaribonFoundation (community organizing).

In 1976, UP-MSI began its systematic survey ofthe status of coral reefs in the country. This initiativehas already assessed more than 600 sites. In 1985,this initiative expanded and included seagrass andmangrove ecosystems. Their involvement in theLingayen Gulf began in 1986 when they decided tobroaden their research interests to include resourcemanagement of the gulf. Specifically, the projectfocused on the coral reefs located on the Bolinao-Anda shelf. With funds from Australian Center forInternational Agricultural Research (ACIAR), UP-MSI

began a project on the biology and culture of giantclams. A hatchery and an ocean-based nursery wereestablished.

In 1987, UP-MSI launched its seaweed project totransfer seaweed culture technology to local fishers.UP-MSI and International Development ResearchCenter (IDRC) also saw the project as an opportunityfor members of the local communities to be involvedin the management of those resources using thetechnology established through UP-MSI’s scientificstudies. However, the project was met with apathy bylocal fishers. This was perhaps due to the lack ofcommunity involvement in the planning and initialimplementation of the project. The limited success ofthe two projects made UP-MSI realize the need forpeople’s support for project implementation. UP-MSIfelt a socioeconomic study would be helpful infinding the best way to proceed with the resourcemanagement project.

In 1992, UP-MSI, together with a team fromCSWCD, put together a proposal to undertakeparticipatory action research on CB-CRM. Theproposal obtained funding from IDRC of Canada.The main objective of the research project was “todevelop a participatory process of generatingknowledge and understanding of the communities’resources and social system” in a manner that willdraw in community participation in all aspects and atdifferent levels of the project’s implementation”(Ferrer et al. 1996). The project was initially imple-mented in four coastal barangays of Bolinao, namelyArnedo and Balingasay on the mainland and Pilarand Binabalian on Santiago Island.

FFFFFormation of Community Orormation of Community Orormation of Community Orormation of Community Orormation of Community Organizationsganizationsganizationsganizationsganizations

The CSWCD team, using the participatoryapproach, gathered information on the social andresource management system prevailing in theselected sites. Together, the project staff and mem-bers of the community identified critical issuesconfronting the community and formulated possiblesolutions to those problems. Using ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA), the research team made anin-depth examination of the cultural, legal/institu-tional and marketing/technology aspects of localcoastal resource management. The team was able toidentify the best way to organize the community was

122

to introduce concepts in environmental education,skills community members must learn for livelihooddevelopment, skills for resource management, andskills that will help build up the community, estab-lish, and strengthen its links to like-minded groups.Based on the results of the PRA and its subsequentvalidation by community members, UP-MSI andCSWCD saw the need to engage the expertise of theHaribon Foundation for the community-organizingcomponent of the project. Haribon officially joinedthe team in October 1993. The team set out to formcore groups in the selected sites.

The core groups were formed from those whoshowed interest in the initial activities of the project.In Barangay Arnedo, the core group was formed intoa “techno livelihood cell” for the seaweed farmingproject started earlier by MSI. This project wasenvisioned as an economically viable and self-sustaining supplemental livelihood activity. Toensure the success of the project, the cell memberswent through leadership development sessions andtechnical training so they could participate in thefuture management of the resource. It failed toflourish due to technical, economic and socialshortcomings in the project’s design.

Guided by lessons learned from the seaweedproject, the team made the shift from primarily anaquaculture program to a community wide CRMP.Beginning in Barangay Arnedo, the team used theinitial core groups as springboards for the transition.This time the principal goal was the formation of alocal organization of fishers that would take the leadin resource management. Based on the concept“resource user manager,” the project began to focuson the sitios (communities smaller than barangay),where most of the fishers reside, in the middle of1994.

Through continuous environmental education,training in livelihood development, resource man-agement and basic leadership courses, the coregroup was finally ready to formally establish theirlocal organization. On 25 June 1995, the first localenvironmental organization in Bolinao was born.The Samahang Pangkalikasan ng Arnedo (SAPA) beganwith 64 individuals. Local organizations werelikewise formed in the rest of the sites—Samahan ngmga Mangingisda ng Binabalian (SAMMABI),

Samahan ng mga Mangingisda at Mamamayan ngBalingasay (SAMMABAL) and the Samahan ng mgaMangingisda at Mamamayan para sa Kalikasan ng Pilar(SAMMAKA). By October 1996, these four POsdecided to form themselves into a federation andwas initially named Federation of Fishers of Bolinao(FFB). Later the group adopted the name Kaisahanng mga Samahan para sa Kalikasan (KAISAKA). ThesePOs were instrumental in the formulation of theMCDP of Bolinao. The resource use maps theyprepared (with the aid of the CB-CRM projecttechnical staff) became the bedrock of the proposedcoastal development plan that was eventuallyapproved by the Bolinao municipal government.

During the time the project team was facilitatingthe formation of local organizations, a majorenvironmental issue confronted the town. Aninternational consortium submitted a proposal tothe Philippine government to build a cement plantcomplex in Bolinao. The PCC submitted its EIS toDENR to address the potential environmentalimpacts of the proposed project. On 2 November1995, the DENR denied PCC’s application for anECC due to lack of information on three importantissues in their EIS. The PCC made an additionalsubmission to EMB addressing the concerns raisedby the EIA review committee.

The news spread quickly and soon an informalgroup was formed to oppose the project. Everythingthe local fishers learned from the environmentaleducation courses became very important in sustain-ing the campaign and the people’s commitment.The local opposition addressed all the major claimsthat were made in the EIS submitted by PCC. Thiswas the first time for such advocacy before the EIAsystem.

On 6 August 1996, the DENR denied “withfinality” PCC’s application for an ECC. Among thereasons cited by DENR for denying the ECC appli-cation was land and resource use conflicts. In hisletter to Mr. Andrew Wang (6 August 1996), PCCGeneral Manager, DENR Secretary Victor O. Ramosruled that the cement project will “seriously competewith existing and articulated land, marine and waterusage in the area”. Based on the Lingayen GulfCoastal Area Management Plan (LGCAMP), thepreferred activities in the Lingayen Gulf, which

123

includes the town of Bolinao, are fishing andecotourism. To allow the project to proceed wouldadd to resource use conflict, as the project wouldhave to compete for locally available resources suchas non-saline water and limited land availability.Moreover, as far as the DENR is concerned, to issuean ECC for the cement project will be a violation ofthe principles of integrated coastal management.The DENR made the decision as an “ultimateprecautionary measure” since the PCC, even withthe additional information that it submitted, failedto satisfactorily address the threat of serious environ-mental damage posed by the project.

The project team considered the decision on thecement plant as a breakthrough in their CB-CRMefforts. As early as 1994, the idea of formulating azoning plan for Bolinao was already on the agenda.The project was focused on the organization of localcommunities and enhancement of their capability todirectly manage their resources within the frame-work of sustainable community development.Progress in putting together a coastal zoning planwas very slow and participation in the formulation ofa proposed plan had been limited to the groupsinvolved in the project. The local government didnot see the need for such a plan until the cementplant proposal. One of the positive things thathappened as a result of the cement plant issue wasthe hastening of the process that eventually led tothe adoption by the local government of the MCDPfor Bolinao. What is even more significant about thisexperience is that the MCDP was formulatedthrough the CB-CRM approach and managed tomake the shift and adopt the ICM approach whichwas particularly crucial to the plan’s institutionaliza-tion and its implementation.

The Bolinao Municipal Coastal DevelopmentThe Bolinao Municipal Coastal DevelopmentThe Bolinao Municipal Coastal DevelopmentThe Bolinao Municipal Coastal DevelopmentThe Bolinao Municipal Coastal DevelopmentPlan (MCDP): FPlan (MCDP): FPlan (MCDP): FPlan (MCDP): FPlan (MCDP): Frrrrrom CB-CRM to ICMom CB-CRM to ICMom CB-CRM to ICMom CB-CRM to ICMom CB-CRM to ICM

Draft reports prepared by UP-MSI in 1997 showthat the idea to develop a zoning plan for Bolinaobegan in 1994. But it was the cement plant issue thathastened the process of formulation. Banking on theresults of its earlier work coupled with their knowl-edge and acquired skill in coastal zoning, the CB-CRM project team offered technical assistance to themunicipal government for the preparation of the

plan (Yambao, personal communications). The initialinputs came from the “ad hoc thematic team” formedearlier (March 1996) by the CB-CRM project team.Their consolidated output included the conceptualand operational framework that guided the formula-tion of the plan.

In order to influence the formulation of theplan, the CB-CRM project staff enhanced theirknowledge and skills in coastal zoning through aseminar conducted in April 1996. The same seminarwas given (May 1996) to the officers and members oflocal community organizations. As with the firstgroup, the participants produced resource use mapsthat were specifically oriented to the marine protectedareas in the municipal waters of the barangays theArnedo, Balingasay and Binabalian and the man-grove rehabilitation area in Pilar and Victory. Thesemaps were refined and later revalidated through aseries of inter-PO consultations and consolidated intoone map which was further refined by the projectteam and packaged as a proposed coastal develop-ment plan (PCDP).

In the meantime, the CB-CRM was carrying onwith their coastal development planning process.Members of the project team had already begun toorient key individuals in the municipal governmentabout CDP and the significant role local governmentsplay in leading the process. The municipal govern-ment was informed about KAISAKA’s initiative andhow that initiative could be transformed into acollaborative effort between the LGU and the localgroups. The municipal mayor took up the idea andgave his support to the local people’s initiative. Apre-consultation meeting was convened (November1996) wherein KAISAKA’s version of the CDP waspresented, validated and refined. This meeting wasattended by representatives of the municipal govern-ment, local groups and concerned individuals.During the same meeting, the preliminary results of astudy on land evaluation were presented and someportions were integrated into the proposed CDP. Theconsolidated version resulting from this exercisebecame the PCDP that was endorsed by the Bolinaomunicipal government and KAISAKA. This consoli-dated version was presented during the multi-sectorconsultation that was held on 5 and 10 December1996.

124

According to Alex Yambao, CB-CRM staff, themulti-sectoral consultation was the first large gather-ing of local officials, community, and PO leadersthat took place after the decision on the controver-sial proposed cement plant project. The consultationwas attended by barangay leaders, heads of barangay-based organizations, members of the local media,representatives of the provincial government,members of other local government agencies andconcerned individuals. This had the support of theLGCAM Committee (LGCAMC), the regional officeof NEDA and the DA, the Provincial PlanningDevelopment Office of the province of Pangasinan,and the support of Congressman Hernani Braganza.

From this consultation, a multi-sector committeewas formed with the principal task of formulating aCDP for the town. To secure this gain and strengthenits mandate, the municipal mayor signed EO 6,Series of 1996, which institutionalized the multi-sector committee on the CDP. In addition to formu-lating the MCDP, it was also mandated to providethe offices of the mayor and the Municipal Develop-ment Council (MDC) information needed for policydecisions. The committee was composed of 21representatives from the municipal government, theLiga ng mga Barangay, the religious sector, commer-cial fishers, small fishers, business, tourism, fishpond operators, fish dealers, fish pen operators,ferry boat operators, and environmental advocates.The four POs that formed KAISAKA were alsorepresented on the committee. The CB-CRM ProjectTeam provided technical assistance to the committee,the office of the MPDC provided logistical support,and the mayor set up a fund to support the commit-tee.

The committee (later known as the CDP-Techni-cal Working Group) formulated its own vision-mission-goal statement. Several amendments andrevisions were made to the draft based on thedocumentation from consultations and meetingsconducted with the stakeholders. After editing andpackaging by the CB-CRM Project Team, the PCDPwas approved by the CDP-TWG on 25 October 1997.It was formally submitted to the municipal govern-ment on 8 November 1997.

Copies of the proposed plan were subsequentlygiven to the mayor and the Sangguniang Bayan (SB)for appropriate action. Copies of the proposed CDPwere given to other government institutions in theregion that expressed interest. Among them were theLGCAMC, DA, DENR and NEDA. The first step wasto get approval and endorsement from the MDC.This was a crucial stage as the MDC reviews andapproves all proposed local development plans andendorses them for legislative action to the SB.

On 6 December 1997, the MDC passed MDCResolution Number 2, Series of 1997, approving theplan and endorsing its legislation by the SB. The SBset a meeting 13 December 1997 to discuss theproposed plan and address some contentiousprovisions. That meeting was attended by membersof the CDP-TWG and the CB-CRM Project. The SBraised concerns about fish pens, fish cages, theMPAs, and the powers and functions of the proposedBolinao Coastal Development Council (BCDC). TheTWG and the CB-CRM Project Team tackled theissues raised. All three parties agreed that issues andmodifications to the plan could be tackled duringthe preparation of its IRR. The plan was officiallyadopted on 19 January 1998 with the passage of SBResolution Number 6, Series of 1998. The SB startedworking on the enabling ordinance. TheSangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Pangasinan has alsoapproved the resolution passed by the SB of Bolinao.

Local Management Arrangement inLocal Management Arrangement inLocal Management Arrangement inLocal Management Arrangement inLocal Management Arrangement inBolinaoBolinaoBolinaoBolinaoBolinao

When the CB-CRM Project began in 1992,resource use conflict was one of the issues thatplagued the fisheries sector and the coastal zone ofBolinao. Fish pen and fish cage operations are thepredominant activities in the municipal waters.Others are siganids and bangus fry concessionaires.In 1997, the municipal government earned PhP 4million from these activities in the form of localtaxes, fees, permits and licenses. This figure reflectsthe heavy reliance of the town’s economy on itsfisheries. There are also non-formal resource useactivities including subsistence fishers who fish tomeet the family’s daily nutritional needs and forsupplemental income. Within this sub-sector, womenand children are significant members of theworkforce.

125

Yambao and Salmo (1997) recalled that in orderto regulate harvesting and sustain the availability ofcommercially important fisheries resources, themunicipal government designated closed seasons forfishery activities. However, municipal control overresource use has been very limited. Licensing, theimposition of fees and the granting of permits areother means used by the LGU to control resource use.These have shown limited impact in terms of chang-ing the behavior of resource users.

The enactment of the enabling ordinance of theCDP gave the municipal government greater “flexibil-ity” and a clearer direction in its exercise of itsdevolved functions of coastal and fisheries resourcesmanagement. The municipal government, in spite ofthe long presence of the UP-MSI laboratory, hadearlier failed to avail of the latter’s expertise incoming up with a “socially appropriate and scientifi-cally sound” comprehensive management response,according to Yambao. This situation was what the CB-CRM program aimed to address when it started in1993.

The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan:The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan:The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan:The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan:The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan:StrStrStrStrStrengths and Opportunitiesengths and Opportunitiesengths and Opportunitiesengths and Opportunitiesengths and Opportunities

The Bolinao Coastal Development Plan (BCDP)is perhaps the first municipal development plan tohave been formulated in a highly participatorymanner and with particular focus on sustainable andequitable coastal resource development and partici-patory environmental management. The plan makesa bold attempt at striking a balance between privi-lege and responsibility. The plan gives preferentialadvantage to small and marginal fishers in the useand management of local fishery resources even as itupholds the rights of other user groups. The planalso expects local resource users to achieve certainskills and knowledge in order to meet the demandfor enhanced capacity in carrying out the task ofkeeping both resources and environment healthyand sustainable.

The plan is replete with provisions on people’sparticipation and emphasizes the value of tradi-tional knowledge and technologies in sustainablemanagement, development and conservation ofcoastal and fishery resources. It also promotes theformation of local POs and cooperatives and their

participation in the tasks of managing, protectingand developing local coastal and fishery resources.Under the BCDP, the municipal waters of Bolinao aredesignated into four zones:

! Zone 1 for Eco-tourism;! Zone 2 for Multiple Use;! Zone 3 for Fishery Management; and! Zone 4 for Trade and Navigation.

This prioritization of use does not preclude theconduct and management of other activities asappropriate within these priority zones (Section 20,BCDP). The plan specifies the boundaries of eachzone, identifies particular areas within each of thosethat have been designated for special uses oractivities, and provides regulations and managementsystems for those activities. For instance, within theEco-tourism Zone, there is a designated bangus frygathering. Access to this area is limited to dulyregistered and accredited groups, i.e. cooperatives ofmunicipal fishers and local POs, and that the grantof exclusive gathering privileges is exercised by theSB.

The plan is a comprehensive document thattackles the many issues surrounding the coastalenvironment and fishery resources of Bolinao. Itdeals with equity issues, user rights and privileges aswell as user responsibilities. It also provides guide-lines for specific activities in areas that have beendesignated for special purposes as well as prohibitedacts. While the task of implementing the plan fallslargely on the municipal government, the planclearly provides for an active and direct communityinvolvement in its implementation. There is animplied recognition in the way the plan has beendrafted with the participation of local fisher groups,organizations in allied activities, communities, andscientists helping to achieve its aims.

The mechanism provided in the plan thatfacilitates consultation and coordination in itsimplementation is embodied in the proposedBolinao Coastal Development and ManagementCouncil (BCDMC). A careful study of this bodyreveals that in almost all aspects of the plan, part-nership between the LGU and local community isstrongly encouraged. There are as many seats fornon-government representatives as there are for

126

representatives of local government offices. AlthoughBCDMC does not have regulatory powers, it is arecommendatory body tasked to coordinate withconcerned LGU and local groups on matters con-cerning law enforcement, dispute resolution, andother activities that promote the plan. The plan offersmany opportunities for innovation in local sustain-able resource use. The challenge is to make thispartnership work effectively for the environment aswell as for building confidence in this newly forgedpartnership.

Batangas BayBatangas BayBatangas BayBatangas BayBatangas Bay, Batangas, Batangas, Batangas, Batangas, Batangas

The Batangas Bay Region (BBR) is located inthe southern portion of the Province of Batangas,which occupies the southwestern part of LuzonIsland. This is one of three demonstration sites of theGEF/UNDP/IMO17 Regional Program for the Preven-tion and Management of Marine Pollution in the EastAsian Seas (MPP-EAS) established in 1993.

EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Ponmental Prrrrrofileofileofileofileofile18

The region has a total land area of 1 460.7 km2

and a coastline of 470 km. This extends to theMunicipality of Tingloy in Maricaban Island in thesouth, while the north, south and west boundariesare delineated by the watersheds that drain into theBatangas Bay. The region has 14 coastal and inlandmunicipalities, including the cities of Lipa andBatangas and portions of Lobo and Verde Island.The bay itself forms a semi-enclosed body of waterwith an average depth of about 200 m making itideal for international port and harbor develop-ment. This bay has a water area of about 220 km2.

The entire BBR is essentially an agriculturalarea. In 1985, about 60% of its total land area wasplanted with sugarcane, rice, corn, coconut andfruits. Secondary forest occupies only 9% and isalmost nonexistent in the coastal areas. Settlementareas constitute less than 5%. Commercial raising oflivestock, especially poultry and pigs, is a growingindustry making BBR a primary supplier of poultryand meat products in the Southern Tagalog Region

and Metro Manila. Livestock growing has grownsuch that it has encroached on some ricefields andcoastal lands. Fish ponds cover about 100 ha, mainlyin Batangas City. This is about a quarter of the areadevoted to aquaculture a decade ago. Some fish-ponds have been converted to commercial, indus-trial and residential use.

Batangas Bay is a growing industrial area. Thecoastline is dotted with companies engaged in oilrefining, chemicals, textile manufacturing and foodprocessing. All of these companies generate efflu-ents or wastes that need treatment. Batangas City isan alternative port to Manila. Between 1985 and1990, the total number of vessels entering the bayrose from 5 052 to 6 776. In 1995, an estimated 15870 ships docked at the port. This raises threeinterrelated issues for the management of the bayresources — the congestion in sea vessel traffic, thepotential for oil spills and ship collision, and marinepollution.

The Batangas Bay supports varied intensiveactivities including municipal fishing, shipping, andport development, causing intense competitionamong these sectors and endangering the marineenvironment. For municipal fishing alone, the ratioof fishing area to fishing boats in the bay stands at0.08 km2 of fishing area per fishing boat. The actualnumber of municipal fishers is estimated to be8 965.

Overfishing in the bay is a growing concern.Seventy percent of municipal fishers are dependentsolely on small-scale fishing. The remaining 30%supplement their incomes with seasonal employ-ment such as carpentry and masonry. Compared tothe total coastal population in 1994 of about360 000, 7% of the coastal residents are dependenton subsistence fishing. The density of fishers in thebay is 41 persons per km2 of fishing ground. Atpresent, there are no available data to assess theimpact of such resource use conflicts on fisheryresources. Inventory of fish stock and other marineresources in the bay is limited.

17 Global Environmental Facility/United Nations Development Programme/International Maritime Organization.

18 The MPP-EAS published a Coastal Environmental Profile of the Batangas Bay Region (CEP-BBR) in 1996, which provides a synthesisof all available information gathered from the government and other sources. The study gives a comprehensive description of theregion including its natural resources, resource use patterns and socio-economic profile. This also identifies the management issues thatneed to be resolved.

127

Urban development and industrialization havealso brought serious pollution problems. The volumeof domestic wastes as well as industrial refuse andeffluents are considerable. Households generate morethan 100 000 t of wastes every year. This is projectedto increase to 120 000 t by the year 2000. At present,only about 60% of domestic waste is collected by theLGU. The remaining waste is burned or dumpedindiscriminately in backyards, streets, and waterways.

Industrial and commercial pollution is a criticalproblem. Sources of pollution include oil refineries,power plants, shipyards, chemical manufacturingplants, alcohol distilleries, food processing plants,livestock farms, hospitals and others. These sourcescontribute pathogenic wastes, nutrients, oil sludge,heavy metals, and others. An inventory in 1995showed that of the 352 485 t of solid wastes gener-ated by industries, 17% came from oil refineries, 78%from chemical companies, and 4% from shipyards.

In addition to domestic and industrial wastes, oilspills from increased vessel traffic are of concern.From May 1986 to September 1993, 11 oil spills wererecorded by the PCG. The increasing occurrence ofthese incidents is alarming from an average of oneper year (1986 to 1990), two in 1991 and 1992, andfour occurrences in 1993. In the case of FilipinasShell Corporation, these incidents have been attrib-uted to structural defects and inadequate internalinspection.

Legal and PLegal and PLegal and PLegal and PLegal and Policy Folicy Folicy Folicy Folicy Frameworkrameworkrameworkrameworkramework

Direct management of the resources in theregion follows the sectoral management approach ofthe national government. The DENR takes charge ofthe use and conservation of land based resourcessuch as forests, foreshore lands, mangroves, miningand quarrying. Pollution control from industries isalso regulated by the DENR through the EMB andthe DENR field offices. The PCG, through itsMarine Environment Protection Office of the 5thCoast Guard District, is responsible for the enforce-ment of pollution laws in the bay area, both fromships and industries along the coasts. The PPAmanages the international port in Batangas City aswell as the numerous private ports belonging to themajor industrial establishments. The MARINA

regulates the shipping industry.

The provincial, city, and municipal governmentshave taken an active role in the management of thecoastal zone by virtue of the powers granted underthe LGC. In 1993, the provincial governmentinitiated a program of environmental awarenessfocusing on elementary school children. They passedan ordinance in 1994 providing for a program ofmaintaining tree nurseries and planting trees.Municipal governments also enacted several ordi-nances dealing with fishery conservation, anti-littering and solid waste management, and land useand zoning.

Despite the number of national and local lawsand numerous regulations issued by specializedagencies, the region’s terrestrial and aquatic environ-ment continues to deteriorate. The general observa-tion is that government agencies have not beenexpeditious and effective in performing their roles.Critical factors that contributed to this problem arethe lack of coordination among agencies performingrelated functions and the lack of participation bylocal communities and the private sector in planningand management.

A study sponsored by the Batangas Bay Demon-stration Project (BBDP) showed that a multi-sectoralbody might be the appropriate mechanism for theintegrated management of the region (La Viña 1995).As a result of this study, the SangguniangPanlalawigan passed an ordinance creating theBatangas Bay Region Environmental ProtectionCouncil. The council is composed of the local chiefexecutives, representatives of the national govern-ment agencies, industry and fisherfolk representa-tives. The council is tasked to develop policies andprograms to ensure and promote the sustainabledevelopment of the natural resources of the region.More importantly, the council serves as the forumwhere the sector concerns of the national agencies aswell as the industry, fishers and other economicinterests are heard and discussed. The idea is to havean assessment of each issue raised by the stakeholdersand a concerted plan of action adopted by thecouncil, which includes the coordinated activities ofeach participating agency or organization. In orderto facilitate and coordinate the day-to-day implemen-

128

tation and monitoring of the council’s activities, theprovincial government created the PG-ENRO, whichalso serves as the secretariat of the council.

The Integrated Coastal ManagementThe Integrated Coastal ManagementThe Integrated Coastal ManagementThe Integrated Coastal ManagementThe Integrated Coastal ManagementFFFFFrameworkrameworkrameworkrameworkramework

The BBR was chosen as a demonstration projectbecause it is an area of rapid economic growthbrought about by competing activities, which aredirectly or indirectly dependent on the coastal zone.Two key conditions also helped in the choice of thesite. First, the enactment of the LGC opened anopportunity for LGUs to implement an integratedmanagement framework and second, there is anactive involvement by stakeholders in environmentalmanagement concerns.

As part of the program for the BBDP, a StrategicEnvironmental Management Plan (SEMP) wasprepared and adopted by the council, which laiddown the major management issues and plan ofaction, which aims to address these issues. The SEMPidentified the following major management issues:

! Improper solid waste collection and dis-posal;

! Water and air pollution;! Declining fish harvest;! Improper mining and quarrying operations;! Expanding shipping and port development

activities;! Deteriorating socioeconomic conditions of

people in the coastal areas; and! Lack of multi-sectoral participation in

environmental management.

After extensive consultations with stakeholders,an action plan was drafted consisting of six specificcomponents:

! Legal and institutional mechanisms;! Integrated policy and planning systems;! Integrated management systems and

technical interventions;! Management and technical capability

building;! Improvement of information base; and! Sustainable financing.

The first component has been partly met by thecreation of the council and PG-ENRO. These bodiesare still in their infancy. At present, the roles andresponsibilities of the members in the council arenot yet optimally played. Perhaps because it is anovel creation, the council has yet to define theextent of its powers and roles vis-à-vis the individuallocal governments and the participating nationalagencies. In pollution control for example, the idealsituation is for the council to adopt a policy anddevise a plan of action where the municipalities, theDENR and PCG would have complementary roles.However, at least one municipality passed anordinance for inspection and monitoring of pollu-tion in industries without consulting the council.The functions of the local government provided inthe ordinance duplicate the regular functions of theDENR.

The problem of defining the role and powers ofthe council stem from its frail legal foundation. Thecouncil was created by a provincial ordinance, whichcannot modify the mandates of the national agen-cies and local governments that have been set bynational laws. The council depends on the coopera-tion of the member agencies and LGUs, but itcannot demand strict adherence to its policiesbecause the agencies and LGUs possess the power tofulfill their own exclusive mandates. The componenton integrated policy and planning systems aims tomake sure that the SEMP fits into the broadersocioeconomic and development plans, not only ofthe region, but the country as a whole. Batangas isfast becoming a major player in national develop-ment, as it is the alternative hub for shipping. Inaddition, it is a major supplier of electricity for therest of Luzon. The challenge to the council is to seebeyond local concerns and integrate its planningwith the national planning framework. There is anexisting mechanism where local concerns are takenup in Regional Development Council (RDC) meet-ings. Much depends on the cooperation within theBatangas council to prepare and adopt the plans.The planning process may also suffer from theweakness of fragmentation discussed above.

The third component on management andtechnical interventions aims to generate options forsolving critical problems such as municipal wastesand pollution. The key to completing this compo-nent is providing the participating local governments

129

with the tools for addressing these problems such asthe development of an integrated waste managementsystem, oil spill contingency planning, establish-ment of sewage treatment facilities, and developmentof control measures for pollution discharge at pointsource.

The fourth component aims to develop themanagement and technical capability of key playersand stakeholders through training programs, com-munity organizing and information dissemination.The objective is to have a common understanding ofthe issues and the various interests of the stakehold-ers.

The fifth component aims to support theexisting data gathering initiatives and generatepreviously lacking information that is critical inmaking decisions. Through the demonstrationproject, a management information system is beingestablished which would collate and sort the data.Finally, the last component aims to develop optionsto finance the other components. The usual excuseof government for its ineffectiveness is the lack ofmoney to implement or enforce policies and laws.Financial mechanisms, such as market-based instru-ments, are explored as alternatives to taxation anddirect appropriation.

“Community“Community“Community“Community“Community-Based” Management-Based” Management-Based” Management-Based” Management-Based” Management

The management of coastal resources in the BBRis not, in the common notion, community-based.The initiative for establishing the norms for use andmanagement came from the local government.However, the experience in Batangas is uniquebecause there is a conscious effort on the part ofgovernment to reach out to the stakeholders andinvolve them directly in the decisionmaking process.In effect, the council serves as the forum where thelarger community of stakeholders, including govern-ment, make the plans for the sustainable manage-ment of the region. In this sense, it is “community-based”.

Proponents of Integrated Coastal Management(ICM) argue that traditional community-basedmanagement, where the people themselves take adirect hand in managing the resources, is notappropriate for a complex system such as Batangas

Bay because there are so many conflicting andcompeting interests involved. The BBR, for ex-ample, is a major port and shipping center. Themanagement of these sectors need special skills andclear legal mandates, especially as they involve notonly local but also national and internationalregulatory measures on shipping routes, maritimesafety, and pollution control. The needed skills maynot be available in the community and the neededpowers cannot be delegated to the community.

Summary of Lessons LearnedSummary of Lessons LearnedSummary of Lessons LearnedSummary of Lessons LearnedSummary of Lessons Learned

The four case studies presented in this sectionare examples of the many experiences and initiativesthat have been and are currently being undertaken inthe Philippines. They were chosen because theyrepresent the range of community-based optionsavailable given a particular set of circumstances. Thelessons learned from these experiences shouldtherefore be seen in their specific contexts.

The Coron Island experience is that of anindigenous people struggling to maintain theirtraditional management system in the face of chal-lenges from migrants and interventions of the LGUand the national government. The Apo Island casestudy illustrates an island community’s efforts, inpartnership with academic institutions and govern-ment programs, to protect its fisheries and coral reefresources. The Bolinao experience appears to bemuch more sophisticated given the set of challengesthat face the local ecosystem and the community.Finally, the Batangas Bay initiative is noteworthygiven the complexity of the issues which accompanyrapid industrialization and urbanization. A fewgeneral themes can be identified as running throughall these experiences.

First, whether national law provides for it or not,community-based systems exist. As the Coron andApo Island experiences show, community-basedmanagement can survive in the face of inconsistencywith the national legal system. Second, the reality ofconflict in the use of coastal and marine resources,in economic interests, and in political power, is adominant characteristic in all the case studies. Howthis conflict is managed, not necessarily resolved, bythe different stakeholders is important in determin-ing the success of a community-based approach to

130

coastal management. Third, an imperative for thesustainability of a community-based system is apartnership among different sectors within a commu-nity, including academic institutions, non-govern-ment organizations and government agencies. Fourth,the role of local governments is crucial in commu-nity-based resource management. A non-supportiveLGU can doom community initiatives. Finally, thequality of the interventions of the national govern-ment play a central role in ensuring that communityefforts are supported in order to succeed and besustained. These interventions are influenced byexternal factors including global and regionaldevelopments.

RRRRROLEOLEOLEOLEOLE OFOFOFOFOF I I I I INTERNANTERNANTERNANTERNANTERNATIONALTIONALTIONALTIONALTIONAL ANDANDANDANDAND R R R R REEEEE-----GIONALGIONALGIONALGIONALGIONAL A A A A AGREEMENTSGREEMENTSGREEMENTSGREEMENTSGREEMENTS

This section examines the impact on the policy,legal and institutional frameworks for the manage-ment of fisheries, coastal resources, and the coastalenvironment in the Philippines due to a growingbody of international principles and norms govern-ing the global environment in general and themarine environment in particular. Regional agree-ments and arrangements are also included in thisexamination.

The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21The Rio Declaration and Agenda 21

The best summary of general principles ofinternational environmental law is found in the RioDeclaration of 1992 and, with respect to the marineenvironment, Agenda 21. Both documents wereadopted during the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED), held inRio de Janeiro in 1992. While non-binding instru-ments, the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 consti-tute “soft law”. These documents do not imposeobligations on states, but they will certainly have theeffect of legitimizing and encouraging initiativesand set the agenda for further development ofinternational law.

The Rio Declaration on Environment andDevelopment is a non-binding statement of 27

broad principles for guiding environmental policythat emphasizes protecting the environment as partof economic development, safeguarding the ecologi-cal systems of other nations and giving priority tothe needs of developing countries, the most environ-mentally vulnerable. While the original intentionwas to draw up an Earth Charter, at the insistence ofdeveloping nations, negotiations were directedtoward development concerns. The final product islargely a political and economic document centeredalmost exclusively on human concerns.

Among others, the Rio Declaration establishesthe right of human beings, “who are at the center ofconcerns for sustainable development”, “to a healthyand productive life in harmony with nature.” Thecall is for states and people to “cooperate in goodfaith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfillmentof the principles embodied in this declaration andin the further development of international law inthe field of sustainable development.”

The Rio Declaration confirms the sovereignright of states to exploit their own resources pursu-ant to their own environmental and developmentalpolicies, which must be fulfilled to equitably meetthe needs of present and future generations19.Likewise, it recognizes the key role of stakeholders inthe decision-making processes, especially indig-enous peoples20. In addition, it encourages states todevelop national legislation regarding compensationfor victims of pollution and other environmentaldamage, the use of economic instruments to takeinto account the polluter-pays principle21. Further-more, it stresses the importance of EIA as a tool forplanning as well as the adherence to the precaution-ary approach in deciding on and devising measuresto prevent environmental degradation22.

Agenda 21 is a program also approved at theRio summit, listing 40 actions that are designed topromote sustainable development on earth. Theagenda raises the need for making changes in alleconomic activities with a view to improving stan-dards of living and conserving natural resources.This is a non-binding 800-page blueprint to clean up

19 Principles 2 and 3, Rio Declaration.

20 Principles 10 and 20, Rio Declaration

21 Principles 13 and 16, Rio Declaration.

22 Principles 15 and 17, Rio Declaration.

131

the global environment and encourage developmentin an environmentally sound manner. Among others,Agenda 21 seeks to ensure the protection of oceans,seas, freshwater sources and coastal zones through arational use of living resources and their habitats.

For the marine environment, Agenda 21 isespecially relevant. In particular, Chapter 17 entitled“Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, includingenclosed and semi-enclosed seas and coastal areasand the protection, rational use and development oftheir living resources”, occupies an important place.The most significant element in Chapter 17 is its callfor the adoption of “new approaches to marine andcoastal management and development at the na-tional, sub-regional, regional and global levels,approaches that are integrated in content and areprecautionary and anticipatory in ambit”.

Chapter 17 calls for initiatives under severalprogram areas:

! Integrated management and sustainabledevelopment of coastal areas, includingexclusive economic zones and marineenvironmental protection;

! Sustainable use and conservation of marineliving resources in the high seas and areasunder national jurisdiction;

! Critical uncertainties for the management ofthe marine environment and climate change;

! The institutional framework for strengthen-ing international, including regional,cooperation and coordination; and

! Sustainable development of small islands,calls for state cooperation (as appropriate) inthe preparation of national guidelines forintegrated coastal zone management anddevelopment, drawing on existing experi-ence.

Agenda 21 has become a major influence in thedevelopment of marine environmental law. It hasresulted in global conferences on Coastal ZoneManagement (November 1993) and SustainableDevelopment of Small Island States (1993). This hasbeen influential in the United Nations sponsoredAgreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory FishStocks (concluded August 1995) and the UNEP-sponsored Global Programme of Action on Protec-

tion of the Marine Environment from Land-basedActivities (now in the final stages of preparation).

In the Philippines, Agenda 21 is being imple-mented through Philippine Agenda 21, which,among others identifies issues and concerns affectingthe coastal and marine ecosystems, and proposesstrategies to deal with such issues and concerns,including specific targets and timetables. Philippineenvironmental laws have adopted the precautionaryprinciple and the polluter pays principle in theirprovisions. The EIA system has been in place for twodecades and is continually being strengthenedthrough more stringent enforcement, while at thesame time, clarifying and simplifying procedures inorder to facilitate compliance.

The UN Law of the Sea ConventionThe UN Law of the Sea ConventionThe UN Law of the Sea ConventionThe UN Law of the Sea ConventionThe UN Law of the Sea Convention

UNCLOS, signed in 1982 and came into effectin 1994, is the international framework agreementthat regulates all aspects of the various uses of theworld’s oceans, including rights of navigation,fisheries conservation and management, marinescientific research, and the regulation of pollutionfrom all sources. With respect to the marine environ-ment, UNCLOS provides the legal basis to pursuethe protection and sustainable development of themarine and coastal resources.

Although the obligation to protect and preservethe marine environment is global, the UNCLOSdivides the ocean into a variety of jurisdictionalzones based on distance from the baseline, generallythe low-tide line. These include internal waters; the12 mile territorial sea; the 200-mile EEZ; and theHigh Seas. While the UNCLOS grants coastal statessovereign rights over the natural resources of theirEEZ, a coastal state’s competence to prescribe andenforce marine environmental pollution standardsdiminishes with distance from shore. Thus, themarine jurisdictional zones recognized by UNCLOSmake arbitrary divisions in ocean ecosystems therebyhampering a holistic approach to management. Thisis an important limitation to bear in mind regardingprotection of the marine environment from sea-basedactivities and pollution.

While UNCLOS states that the conservation ofmarine resources is a fundamental obligation,

132

fisheries conservation and management measureswithin the territorial waters of the coastal state areentirely the responsibility of that state. UnderUNCLOS, coastal states must ensure, through properconservation and management measures, that theresources in the EEZ are not endangered byoverexploitation. States are further obligated tocooperate with each other for the conservation andmanagement of the living resources of the high seas.

Within the EEZ, the coastal state is to ensure theconservation and optimum use of fishery resources.To this end, the coastal state is to adopt conservationmeasures and determine the total allowable catch(TAC) for each stock. The TAC for each stock is totake into account fishing patterns and the interde-pendence of stocks, as well as the impacts on associ-ated or dependent species with a view to maintainingor restoring the population of such species above thelevel where their reproduction may become seriouslythreatened.

The coastal state can determine the quantity itwill allow to be accessed and to whom it will provideaccess. The coastal state is the main judge of theconservation measures required. The state also hasthe legal authority to introduce conservation measuresthat provide explicitly for the protection of marineecosystems or species biodiversity within the EEZ.With respect to transboundary fishery resources,coastal and fishing states are to cooperate on theexploitation of transboundary and associated stocksin two or more EEZ and in EEZ and adjacent highseas areas. The states are also obligated to cooperatewith respect to highly migratory species, marinemammals, anadromous stocks and catadromousspecies.

UNCLOS calls on states to adopt laws andregulations to prevent, reduce and control land-based pollution by taking into account internation-ally agreed rules, standards, and recommendedpractices and procedures. The convention obliges allstates to minimize, to the fullest possible extent, therelease of toxic, harmful or noxious substances,especially those that are persistent, from land-basedsources, from or through the atmosphere or bydumping. Likewise, UNCLOS imposes an importantobligation to protect from pollution rare or fragileecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted,threatened or endangered species and other forms

of marine life. It also requires states to take allnecessary measures to prevent the intentional oraccidental introduction of species, alien or new, intothe marine environment that may cause significantand harmful changes.

Moreover, UNCLOS calls on states to takeaction, at the international level, to establish rulesand standards to prevent, control and reducepollution and to promote the use of routing systemsdesigned to minimize the threat of accidents thatmight cause pollution. The vessel’s state of registry(i.e. the flag state) is charged with primary responsi-bility for implementing and enforcing such rulesand standards. A coastal state’s competence to takeunilateral measures to regulate foreign vessels forenvironmental purposes (e.g. vessel discharges,routing) is, however, limited by foreign vessels’ rightto innocent passage and freedom of navigation. Portstates may, on the other hand, impose and enforceunilateral requirements, including design, construc-tion, manning and equipment standards, as acondition of entry into its ports, provided it givesdue publicity to such requirements. With regard topollution from offshore structures, states are re-quired to adopt measures designed to minimizepollution that are no less effective than internationalrules, standards and recommended practices andprocedures.

Furthermore, UNCLOS allows states to adoptlaws affecting the preservation of the environmentand prevention of pollution in their 12 mile territo-rial sea provided such laws do not have the practicaleffect of denying or impairing the right of innocentpassage. Within the 200 mile EEZ, coastal states mayonly adopt laws and standards conforming to andgiving effect to generally accepted internationalrules and standards established through the compe-tent international organization or diplomaticconference. The “competent international organiza-tion” is generally understood in this context to meanthe International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The Philippines has ratified UNCLOS and isimplementing it through a Cabinet Committee onthe Law of the Sea. However, the work of thiscommittee has tended to focus on political issues(i.e. boundary delimitation) and not much attentionhas been given to marine resource and environmen-tal issues.

133

IMO ConventionsIMO ConventionsIMO ConventionsIMO ConventionsIMO Conventions

A number of IMO conventions are relevant to theuse and protection of the marine environment. Theseinclude:

! International Convention for the Safety ofLife at Sea (SOLAS), 1974;

! Convention on the Prevention of MarinePollution by Dumping of Wastes and OtherMatter (LDC), 1972 and Protocol, 1996;

! International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution from Ships, as modified by theProtocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL73/78);

! International Convention Relating to Inter-vention on the High Seas in Cases of OilPollution Casualties (INTERVENTION),1969 and Protocol, 1973;

! International Convention on Oil PollutionPreparedness, Response and Co-operation(OPRC), 1990;

! International Convention on Civil Liabilityfor Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969 andProtocols 1976 and 1992;

! International Convention on the Establish-ment of an International Fund of Compensa-tion for Oil Pollution Damage (FUND), 1971and Protocols 1976 and 1992; and

! Convention Relating to Civil Liability in theField of Maritime Carriage of NuclearMaterials (NUCLEAR), 1971.

The Philippines is a party to most of theseconventions. Noteworthy among those conventionsnot ratified by the Philippines, is MARPOL, althoughratification is expected in the near future. Despitebeing a party to many IMO Conventions, implemen-tation is frequently inconsistent and requires extensiveeffort and attention.

The Convention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)was signed in 1992 and came into force 29 Decem-ber 1994. The strength of this convention lies in itscomprehensive approach to species and ecosystems,promoting both conservation and sustainable use.The CBD applies to waters within national jurisdic-tion, including the EEZ. This also applies to activi-ties that are carried out under national jurisdiction

or control. Thus, CBD extends to fishing andpolluting activities occurring on the high seas. Statesare required to implement the provisions of the CBDconsistently with the rights and obligations of statesunder the UNCLOS. The CBD is potentially apowerful instrument to deal with environmental issuesbecause of its comprehensive approach (i.e., terres-trial and marine ecosystems are given equal impor-tance). Indeed, the first conference of the parties ofthe CBD has prioritized actions to deal with threatsto biodiversity. The Philippines is a party to the CBDand has begun implementing its provisions. Empha-sis has been given to marine protected areas such asthe Turtle Islands, Coron Island, Apo Island andTubbataha Reef.

Other AgrOther AgrOther AgrOther AgrOther Agreementseementseementseementseements

The Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran,1971) obligates contracting parties to designate forconservation at least one wetland of internationalimportance, and to use wisely all wetlands resourcesunder their jurisdiction. Wetlands as defined underthe convention may include areas of marine water thedepth of which at low tide does not exceed 6 m. Ifdeeper marine water lies within the wetlands, theymay also be included. In addition, islands, riparianand coastal zones adjacent to wetlands may beincorporated. As of 30 September 1999, the 116contracting parties have designated 1 005 sites, whichcovers more than 71.7 million ha (Ramsar Conven-tion Bureau 1999). At least 270 of these sites havecoastal and marine components. Although initiallyfocusing on wetlands of importance for waterfowl, thecriteria for listed sites have been expanded to includeother features of significance to the marine andcoastal environment. This now includes sites ofspecial value for maintaining the genetic and ecologi-cal diversity of a region, or as the habitat of plants oranimals at a critical stage in their biological cycle.

The Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastesand their Disposal is important with respect tomovement of hazardous wastes. A system of permitsis used to regulate the transport of hazardousmaterials to and from a contracting state. ThePhilippines is a party to both the Ramsar and BaselConventions. This has enacted the RA 6969 toimplement the latter.

134

RRRRRegional Agregional Agregional Agregional Agregional Agreementseementseementseementseements

International conventions often set the globalframework for action for environmental manage-ment. However, regional initiatives provide a moreconcrete basis for cooperative action betweenmember countries. Indeed, the UN SecretaryGeneral has recognized the importance of settingregional bases of cooperation in the protection ofthe environment. “A comprehensive and coordi-nated approach at the global level must be comple-mented by comprehensive and integrated strategiesat the regional and national levels. Regional goalswhich concentrate on key stresses can encourageharmonized rules and standards at the regional levelfor individual sources of stress...” (United Nations1997). Furthermore, Article 197 of UNCLOSprovides that “states shall cooperate on a globalbasis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis,directly or through competent international organi-zations, in formulating and elaborating interna-tional rules, standards and recommended practicesand procedures consistent with this convention, forthe protection and preservation of the marineenvironment, taking into account characteristicregional features.” In addition, UNCLOS encour-ages states bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seasto cooperate on a regional basis regarding themanagement and conservation of marine livingresources, and the protection and preservation ofthe marine environment. Regional conventions andassociated action plans have since been developed in12 regions, at least two are in development, and onehas failed to progress beyond the action plan phase.Most of these Regional Seas Programs were devel-oped under the auspices of UNEP. Other than theMediterranean, however, these regional initiativeshave not progressed to the stage where they developcommon regulatory or other implementing mea-sures. This is also true for Southeast Asia.

In the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) region, the importance of cooperation isborne by the fact that they are enjoying the use of ashared resource. The adjacency of ASEAN membercountries around a semi-enclosed sea and theirextension of maritime jurisdictions dictate that someof actual or potential coastal resources managementissues will be transnational, as will their resolution.Such transnational issues include transboundary

pollution effects from land-based sources, spills fromoil wells, and oil and hazardous cargo spills fromvessels; sealane siting; transboundary pollutioncontrol-harmonization policies and regulations;transboundary fisheries management of migratoryspecies, shared stocks and illegal foreign fishing;conservation-coordination of national and regionalconservation schemes; cooperation or harmonizationof monitoring, surveillance and enforcement; andmanagement of islands and marine areas of uncertainjurisdiction.

The maritime states of the East Asian region haveone-third of the world’s population and its coastalzones are heavily populated with more than halfconcentrated along coastal areas. These coastal areasare also characterized by diversified economicactivities. The natural resources in these coastal areasare vast and varied consisting of productive ecosys-tems such as coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroveswith numerous coastal landforms such as estuaries,beaches, deltas, tidal flats, embayments and islands.Economic activities to meet the growing demand forfood, employment and shelter have resulted inenormous pressures on the region’s coastal andmarine environments. Diversification and intensifica-tion of these activities, among others, have resulted inpollution, which, in turn, has degraded valuable andproductive ecosystems.

Marine pollution is only one of the consequencesof economic and development pressures. The coastalwaters, including estuaries, bays, gulfs and congestedstraits and semi-enclosed sub-regional seas in theregion are relatively polluted compared to open seasand oceans. Among others, the coastal waters of theregion are contaminated by untreated sewage, gar-bage, sediments, oil, pesticides and hazardous wastesfrom land-based and sea-based activities. While theopen seas and oceans are, by comparison, cleaner,increasing maritime activities such as offshoreexploration and production activities, make thesewaters vulnerable to pollution, especially oil andchemical spills and discharges.

Growing awareness of the state of the marineenvironment, coupled with the realization thatpollution has severe effects on the sustainability ofeconomic development, have convinced manymaritime states in the East Asian region to pay

135

closer attention to the management of their coastaland marine resources and invest in their protectionand conservation. For example, there are efforts inChina and the ASEAN states to develop and imple-ment Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)programs. On the legal side, most nations haveenacted the necessary laws and regulations to controlor prevent discharges into the marine environment. Anumber of countries have also established the regula-tory and organizational structures to implement theserules.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of financial re-sources, an inadequate technical capacity, andpolitical sovereignty issues such as boundary disputes,many countries in the region remain unable toadequately address marine pollution problems withintheir territorial jurisdiction. The lack of resourcesfrequently makes it impossible to formulate and installenvironmental programs to manage and mitigatemarine pollution. For example, many countries havenot yet established effective pollution assessment andmonitoring stations, although ad hoc surveys andstudies have been undertaken in some coastal waters.On the international side, only a few countries in theregion have ratified and are implementing therelevant IMO conventions and other marine pollutionagreements.

While there is a seeming lack of regional conven-tions on the protection of the marine environment inthe region, this should not be taken to mean thatthere is little regional cooperation. Countries in theregion prefer guidelines of action instead of manda-tory obligations imposed by conventional law. This isless intrusive to the sovereignty of member countriesbut also compatible with the preference for subtlety.This preference against the possibility of a modelstatute on the marine environment is borne out “bythe diversity of the ASEAN member nations and thepast success of coordination policies”.

Various initiatives have been undertaken in theregion. Some are purely regional in nature. Othersare joint undertakings between the region andanother country or between the region and aninternational organization.

In the early 1980s, ASEAN recognized that therewas continued depletion and degradation of theenvironment through the misuse and indiscriminateexploitation of resources. Hence, ASEAN came upwith the integrated and coordinated ASEAN Environ-ment Program (ASEP). ASEP sought to achieveecological, technological, and sanitary security in theregion. The program was designed to view theecological system in a holistic and comprehensiveway rather than to treat resources as separate anddistinct. This approach to environmental manage-ment and use was believed to be the key to sustainabledevelopment.

In 1981, member-states identified a number ofpriority actions to be implemented under the ASEP,including sub-programs for sustained developmentand protection of marine environments and coastalareas involving pollution control, resource manage-ment, institutional management, information ex-change and training; integration of environmentalmanagement with development planning using EIA;and nature conservation and protection of the naturalresources.

In 1985, ASEAN adopted the ASEAN Agreementon the Conservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources. The agreement provided a framework for theprotection of the environment as well as specificobligations such as the prohibition of the taking ofthe listed endangered species. In 1990, the fourthASEAN ministerial meeting on the environment,held in Malaysia, adopted the Kuala Lumpur Declara-tion on Environment and Development and acommon ASEAN stand on global environmentalissues. The ASEAN environment ministers agreed toinitiate efforts on environmental managementincluding: the formulation of an ASEAN strategy forsustainable development and a corresponding actionprogram; the harmonization of environmental qualitystandards; the harmonization of transboundarypollution prevention and abatement practices; theinitiation of efforts leading towards concrete stepspertaining to natural resource management, includ-ing the harmonization of approaches in naturalresource assessments and the development of jointnatural resources management programs.

136

In 1993, the Asia-Pacific Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Port State Control was signed by18 states. It set up a system to ensure that foreignships comply with the regulations of MARPOL (73/78), the International Convention on Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeeping forSeafarers (1978), the Convention on InternationalRegulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972)and the ILO -Minimum Standards for MerchantShips (1976). A Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) wasalso developed in the Straits of Malacca andSingapore to reduce accidents in the area.

International organizations also initiate thedevelopment of regional schemes. The GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Program for the Prevention andManagement of Marine Pollution in the East AsianSeas has been very active in encouraging cooperationin the region for coastal and marine resourcesmanagement. Among others, the development andestablishment of regional networks for environmen-tal management is a goal of the regional program.The network approach is justified so that there iscross-fertilization of disciplines, concepts andexperiences as well as the formulation and adoptionof regional legal and policy initiatives, whereappropriate, such as harmonization of standards.Under the program, four interlinked regionalnetworks are established. These are:

! The Network of Local Governments for ICZMDemonstration Sites: Composed of participat-ing local governments and intended toensure political commitments and promoteinstitutional and organizational arrange-ments for the planning and implementationof ICZM programs;

! The Network of Research/Academic Institutions:Provides technical inputs for policy, manage-ment and technological interventions;

! The Pollution Monitoring and InformationManagement Network: Ensures regularmonitoring of environmental changes aswell as efficient use of information formanagement interventions; and

! The Network of Legal Experts on MarinePollution: Serves as a catalyst to country andregional efforts to develop, enact andimplement national and international lawson marine pollution.

Other regional initiatives include:

! ASEAN Committee on Science and Technol-ogy (COST) with Canada, US, EU, andJapan developing a program to manageregional pollution;

! The ASEAN Expert Group on Environmenthas projects dealing with oil pollution andhealth. They initiated an oil spill contin-gency plan in 1970;

! ASEAN-Australian Marine Science Projectdeals with ocean dynamics and livingresources;

! ASEAN-Canada Marine Pollution Project todetermine the criteria for the protection ofmarine resources and monitoring pollution;

! ASEAN-US Coastal Resources ManagementProject aims to develop a multidisciplinarycoastal area management plan;

! APEC has working groups concerningmarine environmental issues;

! UNEP-Regional Seas Program set up theCoordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia(COBSEA), which is developing pollutionprevention programs;

! ASEAN Council on Petroleum (ASCOPE),which was created to address environmentalissues,related to oil and natural gas exploration;

! ASEAN Senior Officials in the Environment(ASOEN) formed in 1990 to ensure aregional oil spill contingency plan is devel-oped and implemented; and

! Oil Spill Response Plan (OSPAR) initiatedwith Japan to provide technical assistanceand equipment to ASEAN to combat oilspills.

The ongoing territorial disputes in the regionhave initiated the creation of the South China SeaWorkshop on Conflict Resolution. The workshop isdivided into four technical working groups ofvarying official nature:

! Legal;! Safety of navigation;! Marine research study; and! Marine environment protection.

137

While initially it has been seen as a mechanismto settle territorial issues, the scope of concern of thegroup has widened to include areas of cooperation inmarine environment protection. For example, there iscurrently a proposal for a project on ecosystemmonitoring in the region.

SummarySummarySummarySummarySummary

The threat of environmental degradation to thevitality and biodiversity of the coastal zones of theregion cannot be overstated. At present, many of theestuaries, lagoons and bays in the region have beenproclaimed biologically dead or severely depleted ofaquatic life. Ensuring a cleaner and safer coastal andmarine environment in the future is one of the mostdifficult of the challenges facing states andpolicymakers in the region.

While there are numerous initiatives beingimplemented, it remains to be seen whether thesewill be effective and whether they can be sustained.For example, a review of the impact of these initia-tives on the Philippines does not, except in a fewinstances such as the Batangas Bay project and somebilateral initiatives such as the Philippines-Malaysiaproject on the Turtle Islands, appear to have muchof an impact on the ground. Perhaps it is too early toevaluate the success of these initiatives but clearlymore efforts are needed.

With respect to the role of CBRM, there is aclear recognition of this principle in the more recentinternational environmental and agreements such asthe Rio Declaration and Agenda 21. However, this isnot reflected in most of the regional initiatives that,with a few exceptions, are centered mostly in the roleof national governments. A few do emphasize localgovernment participation but clearly, this is notenough. In this sense, regional initiatives andprograms, if they do not incorporate the experiencesof community-based approaches in their design andimplementation, may result in adverse consequencesleading to further inequity and environmentaldegradation in the marine and coastal zones of theregion. This is certainly true for the Philippines.

IIIIINTEGRANTEGRANTEGRANTEGRANTEGRATINGTINGTINGTINGTING C C C C COMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITYOMMUNITY-----BBBBBAAAAASEDSEDSEDSEDSEDRRRRRESOURCEESOURCEESOURCEESOURCEESOURCE M M M M MANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENTANAGEMENT:::::TTTTTHEHEHEHEHE S S S S STTTTTAAAAATETETETETE OFOFOFOFOF P P P P PLLLLLAAAAAYYYYY INININININ THETHETHETHETHE P P P P PHILIPPINESHILIPPINESHILIPPINESHILIPPINESHILIPPINES

The strategy of CBRM has been proposed as abetter alternative to command and control or freemarket approaches to environmental regulation.The strategy is based on the insight that, contrary tothe widely held belief that all communally heldresources are doomed to suffer, it is now known that awide variety of sustainable community resourcemanagement systems do exist. The recent rediscov-ery of communal institutions as an effective solutionto the commons dilemma is significant in a varietyof ways. These institutions may have a valuable roleto play in sustainable use planning but have usuallybeen overlooked or underused in the planningprocess. This has happened because of overemphasison the kinds of resource management practicesdominant in the Western industrialized world inwhich the significance of common property institu-tions has declined over time.

CBRM systems can range from the right of thecommunity to be consulted before any developmentproject is imposed to actually recognizing commu-nity control and management of natural resources.Recognizing these systems would also mean devel-oping and accepting common property regimes ininternational and national legal regimes by recogniz-ing communal title to lands, ceding the control andmanagement of rainforests to the communities thatoccupy them, protecting the intellectual propertyrights of indigenous and local communities to theirtraditional knowledge, and in institutionalizingcommunity participation in environmental risk andimpact assessment.

From a policy point of view, with respect to theletter of the law, one finds enough text to justify thatthe Philippines gives due consideration and empha-sis to the principle of CBRM, indeed not only in themanagement of coastal and marine resources but ofall natural resources. The Philippine law on pro-tected areas, the policy which enshrines community-based forestry as the strategy for forest manage-ment, the concept of social acceptability in environ-mental impact assessment, the principle of prior

138

informed consent in bioprospecting and mining, andthe recently enacted law on the rights of indigenouspeoples are all examples of the acceptance of thisprinciple. With respect to marine and coastal areas,two important policy texts also reflect acceptance ofCBRM—Philippine Agenda 21 (PA 21) and the newFisheries Code.

At the outset, PA 21 recognizes that basic sectorscan serve as managers and controllers of communityresources. This acknowledges that communitiesresiding within or most proximate to an ecosystemof a bio-geographic region will be the ones to mostdirectly and immediately feel the negative impactsof environmental degradation and should, therefore,be given prior claim to the development decisionsaffecting their ecosystem, including management ofthe resources. Thus, PA 21 has called for the follow-ing:

! The passage of a fisheries code that recog-nizes the primacy of fishing communities inthe management and access to marineresources;

! The preparation of a coastal managementplan at the national, regional and locallevels with genuine participation of commu-nities;

! The development of mechanisms to provideequity to coastal resources;

! The promotion of the active participation ofall sectors in planning for the managementof coastal resources and ecosystems; and

! Capacity building and information supportthat would enable communities to partici-pate in the management of the coastal andmarine ecosystem.

The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 adopts asa state policy the protection of the rights of fishers,especially of the local communities with priority tomunicipal fishers, in the preferential use of themunicipal waters. In access to fishery resources,preference is given to resource users in the localcommunities adjacent or nearest to the municipalwaters. According to Section 68 of the code, fishersand their organizations residing within the geo-graphical jurisdiction of the barangays, municipali-ties or cities with the concerned local governmentunits shall develop the fishery and aquatic resources

in municipal waters and bays. The provision ofsupport to municipal fishers through appropriatetechnology and research, credit, production andmarketing assistance, etc. is mandated by the code.Incentives for municipal and small-scale fishers arealso provided.

The most significant community-based mecha-nism in the Fisheries Code is the creation ofFARMCs. These shall be established at the nationallevel and in all municipalities and cities abuttingmunicipal waters and shall be formed by fishersorganizations and cooperatives, NGOs in the localityand be assisted by the LGUs and other governmententities. Before organizing FARMCs, the LGUs,NGOs, fishers and other concerned organizationsshall undergo consultation and orientation on theformation of FARMCs. At the national level, aNational Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Manage-ment Council (NFARMC) is created while barangay,lakewide, municipal and city FARMCs shall becreated at the local level. Essentially, the localFARMCs perform advisory and assisting roles togovernment bodies in the preparation of fisherydevelopment plans, the enactment of legislativemeasures and the enforcement of fishery laws, rulesand regulations.

While the new fisheries law clearly recognizescommunity-based approaches in fisheries manage-ment, it represents in many ways the continuinginadequacies of national law and policy.

First, and this is true for many other policyissuances, there are, within the same law or policy,inconsistencies between what is articulated as policyand the details of specific provisions. For example,under Section 18 of the Code, all fishery relatedactivities in municipal waters, defined generally as15 km from the coastline, are supposed to be usedsolely by municipal fishers and their organizations.However, under the same section, the law alsoprovides that the municipal or city government may,through its local chief executive and acting pursuantto an appropriate ordinance, authorize or permitsmall and medium commercial fishing vessels tooperate within the 10.1 to 15 km area from theshoreline in municipal waters under certain condi-tions. This exception, which was a compromisebetween those who wanted exclusive access for small

139

fishers and those who wanted unrestricted entry by thecommercial fishing industry, may effectively destroythe preferential rights given to small fishers.

A second inadequacy of national law and policy isits failure to fulfill the promise of its policy rhetoric.While the creation of FARMCs can be considered aprogressive step, for many advocates, this new mecha-nism does not go far enough in ensuring community-based resource management. After all, the FARMCsare merely advisory and recommendatory. The realpowers are still lodged in the local and nationalgovernment agencies. On the other hand, as manyexperiences in the Philippines would attest, theFARMCs, under certain conditions, may acquire “livesof their own” and may yet prove to be good startingpoints for effective and sustainable CBRM. Thechallenge is for communities to maximize the oppor-tunities provided for by this mechanism.

Another inadequacy is the continuingsectoralization and lack of integration. While theFisheries Code contains some provisions on theprevention of marine pollution and the protection ofmarine biodiversity, the approach that it takes iscentered mainly on fisheries. In this sense, the newlaw is a step backward as it does not incorporate theprinciple of integrated coastal management.

Finally, it remains to be seen whether national lawand policy can and will be implemented in a mannerconsistent with its spirit and intention. The reality isthat it will take time before one can conclude thatCBRM has been truly integrated into the policy, legaland institutional framework of managing the fisheries,marine resources and coastal environments of thePhilippines.

CCCCCONCLONCLONCLONCLONCLUSIONUSIONUSIONUSIONUSION

The Philippines has done pioneering work inestablishing community-based management. Thispeople centered approach relies on indigenousknowledge and expertise in the development ofmanagement strategies. The aim is to ensure wiseand equitable use of resources on a sustainable basisthrough proper exploitation and protection. Itrequires maximum participation of coastal communi-ties to ensure that benefits will accrue to the majorityof the people.

The premise of CBRM is that local communitieshave the greatest interest in the conservation andsustainable use of coastal resources and thus shouldhave incentives, resources and capacity for marineand coastal ecosystems conservation. The CBRM callsfor:

! Community empowerment;! Provision of environmentally sound tech-

nologies and financing;! Recognition and enforcement of community

property rights over local fishing groundsand other resources; and

! The reform of national policy and legalframework.

The range of experiences of community-basedsystems in the Philippines illustrates that no onecommunity-based approach can be a model for allcommunities. The role of communities changesdepending on the state and condition of the ecosys-tem, the characteristics of the marine and coastalresources, the profiles of the stakeholders and thenature of the relationships among the key players.Thus, national law should provide only for a legaland institutional framework in the management ofmarine and coastal resources. Such a frameworkshould include principles of use and management(such as sustainable development, ICM and recogni-tion of community-based systems). The frameworkshould also establish democratic and participatoryprocesses for policymaking and conflict resolution.

An important insight is that community-basedapproaches are applicable to not only small-scalecoastal resources and traditional artisanal communi-ties but can play an important role as industrializa-tion and urbanization sets in. On the other hand, associety changes rapidly and pressures mount andbecome more complex, ICM becomes imperative.Under such circumstances, traditional managementsystems, even community-based ones, are no longeradequate. The danger — and potential tragedy — isto disregard completely the community-basedapproaches and rely completely on command andcontrol or market based strategies. The challenge ishow to build on local experiences and integratethem into the national management framework as itevolves through time and circumstances. Developinga community-based ICM is therefore imperative.

140

The CBRM assumes that the solution to thecommon problems start with:

! control over access to the resource;! increasing production from a common

property resource depends on the conserva-tion of the resource base;

! the sustainable use of a resource is closelyconnected to the use of simple and appro-priate technology for the harvest of thatresource; and

! local level management through communityorganization improves prospects for thesustainable use of a common resource.

Thus, democratization of access to the resourceslies at the core of an effective CBRM approach. Atruly effective management framework for fisheriesand coastal environment management must beconsistent with this underlying philosophy andshould not be grounded merely on the improvementof management of resources by reinforcing controland enforcement mechanisms through greaterparticipation. Above all, it should be rememberedthat the rationale for CBRM is equity and justice. Sothat it can be supported and sustained, CBRMshould be understood in the context of the socioeco-nomic and political development of societies.Ensuring equity and justice do not necessarily resultin environmental sustainability, but at least in thePhilippines, these are necessary conditions for itsattainment.

AAAAACKNOWLEDGMENTCKNOWLEDGMENTCKNOWLEDGMENTCKNOWLEDGMENTCKNOWLEDGMENT

While preparation of this report required theusual tasks that come with policy research andanalysis, I also had the fortune of being a partici-pant in many of the cases and processes describedand examined in this work. I am truly grateful forthe opportunity to have been both a participantand observer during the years in the Philippineswhen community-based management of naturalresources, including marine and coastal resources,emerged as a viable alternative to conventionalforms of management. In this context, I feelcompelled to acknowledge the communities ofBolinao and Coron: their courageous exampleshave inspired many other communities and haveshaped so much of my thinking on marine andcoastal issues.

I also acknowledge the many lessons andinsights I have learned from interacting andworking with colleagues from all over the world. Inparticular, I would like to thank colleagues from theIMO/UNDP/GEF Regional Programme for thePrevention and Management of Marine Pollutionin the East Asian Seas, the Marine Science Instituteof the University of the Philippines, the Institutefor International Legal Studies of the U.P. LawCenter, ICLARM and the World ResourcesInstitute (WRI).

Finally, I acknowledge that this work is theoutcome of a collaborative effort. I wrote thisreport while I was serving as Undersecretary ofLegal and Legislative Affairs of the Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources (DENR). Itwould not have been possible for me to have donethis if I did not have the support of a competentand committed staff. In particular, I would like tothank Pinky Baylon, Eunice Agsaoay, Jojo Garcia,Ingrid Gorre, Suzette Suarez, and, above all, JamesKho.

While I take responsibility for all shortcomingsin the report, what is good and valuable here is aresult of collaboration. To them and to the other“legal eagles” of the DENR, and all those whoworked with me “when they were all young and fullof hope”, I dedicate this work.

141

RRRRREFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCESEFERENCES

Aliño, P.M. 1997. Implementation plan for national programson the marine environment. A synoptic review on themarine resources and environment. Unpublished.

BAS. 1997. Fisheries Statistics of the Philippines, 1992-1996.Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Department of Agricul-ture, Quezon City.

Batongbacal, J. 1991. The coastal environment and the small-scale fishers: advocacy for community-based coastal zonemanagement. Philippine Law Journal 66:149-245.

Bautista, F. and J. Anigan. 1978. The Japanese and Philippinefisheries: perpetuating the lopsided partnership. Impact13: 10.

BFAR. 1987. Profile of the different divisions of the BFAR.Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Department ofAgriculture, Quezon City.

BFAR. 1994. Philippine fisheries management and develop-ment strategies for the year 2000. A paper submitted tothe Conference on Fisheries Management and Develop-ment Strategies for the ASEAN Region for the year 2000,26-29 July 1994. ASEAN/CONF/ POLICY/4. Bangkok,Thailand.

Calumpong, H.P. 1997. Write-up on Apo Island, adopt a reefprogram. Unpublished.

Carlos, M. and R. Pomeroy. 1995. Review and evaluation ofcommunity-based coastal resources management in thePhilippines, 1984-94. Research Report. InternationalCenter for Living Aquatic Resources Management, MakatiCity.

CEP. 1997. 1997 Annual Report. Coastal EnvironmentalProgram, Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Quezon City, Philippines. Unpublished.

De la Costa, H. 1965. Readings in Philippine history. Ateneo deManila University Press, Manila.

De Morga, A. 1971. Sucesos de las islas Filipinas. Trans. J.S.Cummings. Hakluyt Society edition. Cambridge Press, UK.

DENR-CENRO Dumaguete. 1995. Initial protected area plan ofApo Island. Unpublished.

EMB. 1996. Philippine environmental quality report 1990-1995. Environmental Management Bureau, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, Philippines. QuezonCity, Philipines.

FAO. 1997. Fishery Statistics Yearbook 1995. Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome. 81 p.

Ferrer, E., L.P de la Cruz, M.A. Domingo. 1996. Seeds of hope:a collection of case studies on CB-CRM in the Philippines.CSWCD, University of the Philippines/NGO TechnicalWorking Group for Fisheries Reform and Advocacy.Quezon City, Philippines.

GEF/UNDP/IMO MPP-EAS. 1996. Coastal environmentalprofile of the Batangas Bay Region. GEF/UNDP/IMORegional Programme for the Prevention and Manage-ment of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas TechnicalReport No. 5. Quezon City, Philippines.

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

Goodman, G. 1983. America’s permissive colonialism: Japanesebusiness in the Philippines, 1899-1941. In N.G. Owen(ed.) The Philippine economy and the United States:studies in past and present interactions. The University ofMichigan, Center for South andSoutheast Asian Studies, Ann Arbor. 208 p.

IBON. 1996. The Philippine profile. IBON. Quezon City,Philippines.

IPC. 1996. Tagbanuas in Coron. Institute of PhilippineCulture. Ateneo de Manila University Press, Manila.

Juinio-Menez, M.A., N.N.D. Macawaris and H.G.P. Bangi. 1995.Potentials of sea urchin culture as a resource managementstrategy, p. 219-227. In M.A. Juinio-Menez and G.F.Newkirk (eds.) Philippine coastal resources under stress.Coastal Resources Research Network,Halifax and Marine Science Institute, Quezon City.

Kalagayan, B.N.V. 1990. Institutional and legal framework. p.44-62. In L.T. McManus and T. E. Chua (eds.) The CoastalEnvironmental Profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines.ICLARM, Manila, Philippines.

La Viña, A. 1995. Determining the appropriate organizationalstructure with the responsibility and authority toundertake and implement the environmental manage-ment plans for the Batangas Bay Region and strengthen-ing of the Batangas Coastal Resources ManagementFoundation. Regional Programme for the Managementand Prevention of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas(MPP-EAS), Case Study No. 2. Quezon City, Philippines.

La Viña, A. 1997. The role of local government in environmen-tal management: focus on coastal management in theBatangas Bay Region. In Proceedings of the workshop onthe Implementation of the Local Government Code inrelation to Integrated Coastal Management in theBatangas Bay Region. GEF/UNDP/IMO RegionalProgramme for the Prevention and Management ofMarine Pollution in -the East Asian Seas (MPP-EAS).Quezon City, Philippines.

Labon, A.L. 1991. Executive summary-draft final report forinstitutional strengthening of the Philippine fisheriessector. RDA International Inc./PRIMEX. Unpublished.

LGCAMC. 1996. Annual report of the Lingayen Gulf CoastalArea Management Commission. LGCAMC, Pangasinan.

MARINA. 1996. Unpublished data. Maritime IndustryAuthority of the Philippines.

142

McManus, L.T. and T.H. Chua (Editors). 1990. The coastalenvironmental profile of Lingayen Gulf, Philippines.ICLARM Technical Reports 22. International Center forLiving Aquatic Resources Management, Manila. 69 p.

McManus, J.W., C.L. Nanola, R.B. Reyes, and K.N. Reyes. 1992.The Bolinao Coral Reef Systems, pp. 193-204. In M.A.Juinio-Menez and G.F. Newkirk (eds.) Philippine CoastalResources under Stress. Coastal Resources ResearchNetwork, Halifax and Marine Science Institute.

Menasveta, D. 1997. Fisheries management frameworks ofthe countries bordering the South China Sea. FAORegional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. RAPPublication 1997/33: 94-111.

Noblejas, A.H. and E.H. Noblejas. 1992. Registration of landtitles and deeds. 1992 Revised Edition. Rex Bookstore,Manila.

NSCB. 1996. Philippine statistical yearbook. NationalStatistical Coordination Board, Manila.

PAFID 1998. Mapping the ancestral waters of the CalamianTagbanwa. Philippine Federation for InterculturalDevelopment, Manila. Unpublished.

PAWB. 1998. The first Philippine national report to theConvention on Biological Diversity. Protected Areas andWildlife Bureau, Department of Environment and NaturalResources, Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines.

Peña, N. 1997. Philippine law on natural resources. 1997Revised Edition. Rex Bookstore. Manila.

PG-ENRO Batangas. 1996. Strategic environmental manage-ment plan for the Batangas Bay region. GEF/UNDP/IMO Regional Programme for the Prevention andManagement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian SeasTechnical Report No. 3. Quezon City, Philippines.

Phelan, J.L. 1959. The hispanization of the Philippines:Spanish aims and Filipino responses, 1565-1700.University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin.

Ramsar Convention Bureau. 1999. The Ramsar convention onwetlands. 30 September 1999. Available: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ramsar/ index.html [1999, October01].

Reyes, A.B., R.B. de Sagun and J.C. Munoz. 1994. Fishingeffort restriction policies: the Philippine situation. InProceedings of the IPFC Symposium in conjunction withthe 24th Session of the IPFC, 23-26 November 1993,Bangkok, Thailand. FAO Regional Office for Asia and thePacific, Bangkok. RAP Publication 1994/8: 191-205.

Sajise, P. 1995. Ecology in the Philippine setting: issues andchallenges. Philippine Geographical Journal 19(2): 99-104.

Silliman University Marine Laboratory-Site DescriptionReport. n.d. Apo Island, Dauin, Negros Oriental: SiteDescription Report. Unpublished.

United Nations. 1997. Report of the UN Secretary-General onOceans and the Law of the Sea, 20 October 1997, A/52/487. United Nations, New York.

Vogt, H.P. 1996. The economic benefits of tourism in themarine reserve of Apo Island, Philippines. Sea Wind:Bulletin of Ocean Voice International 10:4.

Wright, H. 1907. A handbook of the Philippines. AC McClurgand Co., Chicago.

Yambao, A. and S. Salmo III. 1997. A preliminary assessment ofthe coastal development planning in the municipal watersof Bolinao, Pangasinan. CB-CRM Project Report.