ARTICLE IN PRESS

0308-597X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.m

�Correspond13210, USA. T

E-mail addr

Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Resource use conflicts in Mabini and Tingloy, the Philippines

Terhi Majanen�

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, UK

Received 27 October 2006; accepted 9 December 2006

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an analysis of resource use conflicts in areas near marine protected areas in Mabini–Tingloy, the

Philippines. The author found large differences between groups of stakeholders in terms of perceived benefits and costs of conservation

and tourism, and these inequalities have led to conflicts between various stakeholder groups. Marked by unequal power relationships, the

conflicts place subsistence fishers as the weakest stakeholders. Fishers also have the lowest rates of knowledge of and participation in

conservation activities. The study concludes that in order for conservation programs to be effectively transitioned onto the social and

legal fabric of Mabini–Tingloy, resource use conflicts need immediate attention.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Marine conservation; Resource use conflicts; Tourism; Fishing; Philippines

1. Introduction

Coral reefs are among both the richest and mostthreatened ecosystems in the world. Of the estimated284,000 km2 of coral reefs worldwide [1] 58% are atmedium or high risk from human activity [2]. The purposeof this case study is to examine factors that are critical tounderstanding conservation and economic development incoastal environments, focusing specifically on resource useconflicts in areas with coral reefs. Resource use conflicts arecommon in these areas due to competition betweenunderlying environmental, socio-economic and politicalinterests, conflicting uses and multiple stakeholders asso-ciated with these ecosystems [3,4]. As discussed extensivelyin development and conservation literature, ‘addressingthe twin challenges of biodiversity conservation andeconomic development are among the most difficultproblems facing humanity’ [5, p. 1586]. Understandingresource use conflicts is key to cooperation in effectivemarine conservation.

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

arpol.2006.12.006

ing author at: 1301 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY

el.: +1 202 255 3104.

ess: terhimajanen@yahoo.com.

2. Study area

Composed of over 7000 islands, the Philippines is one ofthe richest countries in the world in terms of marinebiodiversity. Due to the large, rapidly growing, coastal andeconomically poor population, 98% of Philippine reefs arecharacterized as being under medium or high threat [6].The neighbouring municipalities of Mabini and Tingloy

are located in the province of Batangas, 130 km south ofManila. Mabini is situated on the Calumpan Peninsula,while Tingloy is located on Maricaban Island, two nauticalmiles from the Batangas mainland (Fig. 1). Mabini–Tin-gloy is well known for its coral reefs and outstandingmarine biodiversity, with 319 species of coral fauna [7] and260 fish species [8]. Due to this rich marine biodiversity, aswell as proximity to Manila, Mabini–Tingloy began toemerge as a recreational dive destination in the 1970s.Tourism became a major industry in the 1990s, andcurrently there are approximately 60 small to mid-scaleresorts in Mabini located in eight out of the 34 barangays,or villages. Although the majority of dive sites are locatedin Tingloy municipal waters, there were no resorts inTingloy at the time of the study. While Mabini has only 15named dive sites, Tingloy has over 30. It is estimated thatthe recreation sector of Mabini contributes at least 40million Philippine pesos (PHP) to the local economy [9].

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Map of study area (modified from Solandt et al. [10]). Mabini is located on the Calumpan Peninsula and Tingloy on Maricaban Island.

T. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487 481

The Philippines was among the first countries in theworld to develop marine conservation strategies, andcommunity-based coastal resource management began inthe Philippines as early as the 1970s [11]. In 1993community-based conservation projects in two Mabinibarangays helped establish three marine sanctuaries inMabini municipal waters, namely Cathedral Rock,Arthur’s Rock and Twin Rocks. In 2003 a fourth sanctuarywas established in Tingloy municipal waters, and is knownas Red Palm or Batalang Bato.

Since the establishment of the first sanctuaries in Mabini,a number of non-governmental organizations have beendrawn in to conduct multiple ecological surveys of the area.World Wide Fund for Nature Philippines (WWF-Philip-pines) became active in Mabini–Tingloy in 1997, andinitiated the Mabini Tingloy Coastal Area DevelopmentCouncil. Developments since include the formation of theCoastal Resources Management Board composed of repre-sentatives from the tourism, environment, fishing and dive-boat sectors, and ‘Friends of Balayan Bay,’ an association ofresort owners. As elsewhere, there has been a move towardsmore integrated approaches, and a 25-year IntegratedCoastal Management Plan was finalized in September 2003.

Among the most significant successes in the conservationeffort at Mabini–Tingloy has been the establishment of the

Bantay Dagat, a community-based marine law enforce-ment group, in 1998. Another major development is asystem of collecting fees from the visiting SCUBA divingcommunity, established in 2003. Of the revenue generatedby the diver fee, 85% is earmarked to go into aconservation trust fund and the remaining 15% is reservedfor the local government of Mabini. In 2004 a sum of1,100,000 PHP was collected.

3. Research objectives and methods

Marine protected areas (MPAs) cannot be managedsuccessfully without understanding the potential costs andbenefits of conservation and tourism to local populations.This study aims at understanding the causes, dimensions,and consequences of conflicts in Mabini–Tingloy andfinding ways to ensure equitable and sustainable manage-ment of coral reefs.The methodology of the study combines complementary

quantitative and qualitative techniques. Primary data werecollected in Mabini and Tingloy in June–July 2004 throughthree surveys with a total of 182 respondents and 20interviews with resort owners, Bantay Dagat members,members of local community organizations, and barangayofficials. Six barangays (Table 1) were chosen for this study

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Characteristics of Mabini and Tingloy

No.

households

Population Land area

(ha)

Population

density (persons

per ha)

Mabini 8054 42,801 4296 10.0

Tingloy 3585 17,186 3100 5.5

Source: WWF-Philippines [7,12,13].

T. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487482

due to their coastal locations and proximity to the marinesanctuaries.

4. Results and discussion

The coral reefs of Mabini–Tingloy have traditionallybeen central to the local economy. Today multiplestakeholders have vested interests in the reefs, and severalconflicts marked by clear power imbalances emerged fromthe study results. The main conflicts experienced by thelocal communities are associated with conservation andtourism, and these are examined in this paper. While theconflicts between resorts and local residents have long beenacknowledged in Mabini–Tingloy, the conflicts with con-servation have gone largely undocumented until recently.

This study found the conflict between conservation andfishing to be clearly the most significant conflict perceivedby residents of Mabini–Tingloy, with 25% of respondentsstating that tourism is disadvantageous compared with32% who find conservation disadvantageous. Fishersparticularly report that conservation places unfair limita-tions on their livelihoods, much more so than tourism.While it is important to recognize that the tourism andconservation conflicts are not mutually inclusive, it wouldbe foolish to discuss one conflict outside of the context ofthe other. Sections 4.1–4.3 will discuss the conflict betweenlocal residents and tourism in Mabini–Tingloy, the lessunderstood conflicts with conservation, and conflicts thatinvolve both tourism and conservation.

4.1. Tourism conflict

It is becoming increasingly important for protected areasto generate the funds needed for their maintenance [14],and tourism is one way of producing income and employ-ment. Despite many economic advantages, not all com-munities may welcome a developing tourism industry [15].Tourism can have a variety of negative environmental andsocio-economic impacts, sometimes resulting in conflictsbetween the industry and local populations. In Mabini–Tingloy, a conflict between local fishers and resorts startedemerging as the tourism industry gained strength in the1990s.

While fisheries management in the Philippines generallyinvolves sharing authority between local communities andthe government, and although coastal property rights are

fairly developed, some issues between resorts and fishersremain unclear in the study area. Though over 60% ofMabini fishers report that the resort–fishing conflict hadremained largely stable over the past five years, this studyfound that new problems have emerged, two of which arediscussed below.

4.1.1. Management rights

Colwell [16] has found that resorts can be beneficial tocoral reef conservation by acting as stewards for small-scale MPAs. Success is possible only under specificcircumstances, and case studies in the Philippines andHonduras show that even where good reef protection isachieved, communities’ participation in management tendsto be limited [16]. Unbalanced power relationships andunfair political alliances are not uncommon between MPAstakeholders. While resorts were influential in the establish-ment of the Mabini sanctuaries, the issue most frequentlycited by Mabini residents was the increasing control ofresorts over the management of the sanctuaries.Although local governments in the Philippines are legally

granted management rights over their municipal waters,the management rights to marine sanctuaries within thosewaters are unclear in Mabini. Resorts appear to have themost power over the coastal zone, and several resorts havebeen able to use this power to become the primarymanagers of nearby sanctuaries. A number of these resortswork actively to prevent fishing in the waters in front oftheir property as a conservation measure, though they haveno legal right to do so. As a similar observation was madeby Milne and Christie [17] in their research in 2002, it seemsthat little has been done to address this issue to date.Fishers and other residents of the coastal communities inMabini report that they strongly feel they should be theprimary managers of the sanctuaries, though at the time ofthis study it was evident that they lacked to power takemanagement from the resorts. As found by Oracion et al.[18], fishers’ support towards MPA management isconsiderably lower than that of other groups, and resorts’increasing control over management may lead to even lesssupport in the future. Since resort owners are mostly notmembers of the local community (only 23% of resorts arelocally owned), the resorts’ control over the sanctuariesmay lead to the weakening of local ownership and support,which are crucial elements to achieving sustainability.In some cases the communities report feeling powerless

even when nearby resorts have a particular aim to besensitive to the needs of these communities. The results ofthis study indicate that there is a substantial misunder-standing between the communities’ real needs and thoseperceived by Mabini resorts. The two groups also have verydifferent perceptions of the conflict between them with40% of fishers saying the resort–fishing conflict is increas-ing, while 40% of resort owners/managers saying it isdecreasing (Fig. 2).Mabini–Tingloy residents express concern over the high

number of divers in the marine sanctuaries, which is an

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Perceptions of resort–fishing conflict, comparing fishers and

resorts.

Impact of tourism on livelihood

Mabini and Tingloy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 5

Tourism impact

Perc

en

t

Fishers

Non-fishers

4

Fig. 3. Perceptions of the impact of tourism on livelihoods: comparison of

fishers and non-fishers. Note: 1, highly disadvantageous; 2, slightly

disadvantageous; 3, neutral; 4, slightly beneficial; 5, highly beneficial.

T. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487 483

issue directly related to resorts’ control over some of thesanctuaries. Although diving generally has a low impact oncoral reefs [19,20], areas of high levels of use do suffer fromdiver damage when critical thresholds are exceeded, andeven low levels of diving can shift biodiversity patterns[21–23]. Perhaps more importantly, enforcement of MPArestrictions is one-sided: diving is allowed while fishing isnot, despite both being prohibited in the sanctuaries.

Though diving is legally prohibited within sanctuaries(Mabini Municipal Ordinance 11-1991, amended 06-1993),it occurs regularly in all three Mabini sanctuaries. Thesesanctuaries are in fact among the most popular dive sites inMabini municipal waters. Red Palm, the sanctuary inTingloy municipal waters, is the only sanctuary where theban on divers is actually enforced. It is also the onlysanctuary that is not adjacent to any dive resort. Theunregulated diving is in part due to confusion over themeaning of the ordinance [24]: Oracion et al. [18] foundthat 50% of stakeholders incorrectly think that divinginside the sanctuaries is legal while fishing is illegal,whereas only about 39% believe both are illegal. Inaddition to genuine uncertainty among stakeholders, theunregulated diving activity is also a result of unfairalliances between powerful stakeholders.

4.1.2. Livelihoods

Another main source of conflict between the localpopulation and the tourism industry is the lack ofsubstantial direct economic benefits provided by theindustry, especially in terms of livelihoods. Local residentsof Mabini enjoy only a small economic benefit fromtourism in terms of their livelihoods, and there aredramatically fewer benefits for the residents of Tingloy.

It was found that 63% of local residents in Mabini–Tingloy would like to work or be involved in tourism, butopportunities to do so are few, and jobs in resorts areespecially scarce. Resorts in Mabini employ approximately400 people full-time and 200 part-time per annum, but themajority of these employment benefits do not go to thepopulation of Mabini. Resort managers have a stated

preference towards employing people who come from thesame province as they do. As only 23% of resorts arelocally owned, and these tend to be among the smallerresorts in Mabini, it was found that nearly 70% of resortemployees are originally from outside Mabini–Tingloy. Ingeneral resort employees have a much higher level ofeducation than the average local resident, especially thosewho are fishers, further decreasing their chances of gettinghired. The sector that shows most promise is the dive boatsector, which is comprised of local families, but at the timeof the study benefits were going to a fairly narrowpopulation.Fishers as a group feel most disadvantaged by tourism.

Thirty-four percent of fishers think that tourism isdisadvantageous to their livelihood compared with only3% of non-fishers (Fig. 3). Although fishers expressedinterest in working in the tourism industry, they were alsofound to be the occupational group with the highestproportion saying that their current job is their preferredjob. Research in the Philippines shows that job satisfactionamong fishers is generally high [25–27], and even ifopportunities did exist, data from this study indicate thatfishers may well prefer their current livelihood.Tingloy residents—for most of whom fishing is their

primary livelihood—experienced virtually no benefits fromtourism at the time of the study. Although the majority ofdive sites in Mabini–Tingloy are located in Tingloy waters,tourists stay in the resorts in Mabini, use the services ofMabini boats, and pay diver fees to the Mabini localgovernment. This is due to Mabini’s convenient locationon mainland Luzon, making it accessible from Manila bycar, and the existing infrastructure there.When asked about the main disadvantages and benefits

of tourism for their community 74% of Mabini residentsresponded that there are no disadvantages. Of those whodid see disadvantages, 20% said that tourism is detrimentalto fishing, and 4% said that tourists take corals. Incontrast, only 12% of Tingloy residents said that tourismhas no disadvantages. Thirty-seven percent think that the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Impact of conservation on livelihood

Mabini and Tingloy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3 5

Conservation impact

Pe

rce

nt

Fishers

4

Fig. 4. Perceptions of the impact of conservation on livelihoods:

comparison of fishers and non-fishers. Note: 1, highly disadvantageous;

2, slightly disadvantageous; 3, neutral; 4, slightly beneficial; 5, highly

beneficial.

Fig. 5. Impact of sanctuaries on fishers’ livelihoods.

T. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487484

main disadvantage is the lack of income for them, 26%said tourism is bad for fishing, 17% mentioned diversspecifically, and 9% mention pressure on carrying capacity.The highly unequal distribution of the already limitedtourism benefits was found to be a cause of tensionbetween the inhabitants of Mabini–Tingloy.

While fishers and non-fishers reported specific disadvan-tages to the community at large, approximately 75% ofthese respondents reported that tourism was either neutralor beneficial to their individual livelihoods. Results showthat contrary to current perceptions the resort–fisherconflict is not the main conflict in the area.

4.2. Conservation conflict

Economic benefits of conservation tend to be limited ona local scale, increase slightly on a regional/national scaleand become substantial on a trans-national/globalscale, while economic costs follow an opposite trend [28].It is therefore local population who tend to bear mostof the costs and receive the least benefits from bio-diversity conservation (e.g. [29,30]). This study foundthat the conflicts associated with conservation have thegreatest impact on a local level. Particularly striking is theperceived high impact that conservation has on fishers’livelihoods.

Despite conservation efforts, 67% of fishers in Mabinireport that their fish catch has decreased compared tocatches five years ago, and 65% in Mabini–Tingloy reportfishing farther from their residence than before. Based onthe findings of numerous ecological assessments, thesenumbers likely do not reflect actual successes or failures ofconservation efforts but do provide insight into the dailydifficulties of fishers. As many fishers feel marginalized byconservation, over-reporting of negative impacts mayoccur as a form of passive resistance. Study respondentsin both Mabini and Tingloy reported conservation to be amore limiting factor to their livelihoods than tourism(Fig. 4). This perceived conflict could well prove detri-mental to the success of conservation efforts in Mabini–Tingloy. For conservation to be effective it has to bedirectly linked to the livelihood needs of communities [31].

Conservation is perceived as particularly disadvanta-geous by fishers, with over half of the fishers surveyedreporting that the sanctuaries in particular have a negativeimpact on their livelihood (Fig. 5). Conservation laws placelimitations on fishers’ livelihoods by restricting where andhow they can fish. Fishers feel powerless against theMabini sanctuary ordinance, which is not equally enforced.Although the ordinance states that both diving and fishingare prohibited, only the latter is enforced in the threeMabini sanctuaries. Fishers also report that divers in somecases intentionally release their catches or destroy theirequipment in locations outside the protected areas, bothillegal acts that the fishers perceive to be motivated byenvironmental conservation. Whether or not this occurs isnot known at this time, but the fact that fishers associate

this with conservation is indicative of a significantperceived conflict with conservation.Non-fisher residents of Mabini–Tingloy do not seem to

share the fishers’ distrust for conservation, and zero non-fisher respondents reported conservation to be disadvanta-geous for their livelihood.The conservation–fishing relationship is marked to some

extent by fishers’ uncertainty of the motives of conserva-tionists (e.g. [32]). Bunce and Gustavson [33, p. 25] notethat MPA management need to ‘demonstrate its support offishing activities by developing programs that benefit thefishers, rather than programs that have the apparent intentto alienate their way of life.’ As found in their study of aJamaican marine park, tourism operators tend to havestrong and positive relations with conservation bodieswhereas fishers generally feel unfairly targeted in reefconservation attempts and have poor relationships withpark management.Contrary to expectations, fishers living in barangays

directly adjacent to the sanctuaries perceived them to bemost advantageous, and this may be due to differences in

ARTICLE IN PRESST. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487 485

the knowledge of and participation in conservationactivities. In general, 84% of respondents know ofconservation activities, but participation rates are muchlower at 47%, and according to Oracion [34] participationrates in the area are falling. Non-fishers as a group know ofconservation activities more and have higher participationrates than fishers. Participation rates in Mabini are muchhigher than in Tingloy (61% participating compared with17%), possibly due to the fact that the Mabini sanctuariesare older and more established. The majority of localresidents who do not support the sanctuaries are not fromsites where the sanctuaries are located, and thus may nothave a sense of ownership and no direct benefits.

4.3. Conflicts involving both conservation and tourism

To avoid conflict, protected areas should ideally pay forthemselves through donor funding or by the generation ofrevenues, and local communities’ economic losses shouldbe compensated for in the form of cash payments, goods orservices [35]. Providing substitution for specific resources towhich access has been denied and providing alternativesources of income is crucial. In order for conservationefforts to succeed it is important to demonstrate the directlinks between conservation and community benefits, asnegative perceptions of conservation will ultimately lead tolow levels of crucial local participation.

The major development of the diver fee collection hasthe potential to use tourism to at least partially defray thecost of conservation. At the time of the research, the feewas PHP 50 for a diver’s daily pass and PHP 1000 for anannual pass. Of the fee, 85% is intended to go into aconservation trust and 15% to the local government ofMabini. During 2004 over PHP 1,100,000 had beencollected from diving tourists to support both localgovernment and conservation efforts, but at the time therewas no bureaucratic system in place to distribute thesemonies, and no stakeholders were benefiting. There wasalso conflict over how broadly this tourism/conservationrevenue would be disbursed in Mabini–Tingloy. The majorconcern was that only Mabini residents will benefit whileTingloy residents would be left behind as there was noagreement to share revenue with Tingloy municipalities,even though most of the popular dive sites, those that drawdivers and the revenue earned from their dive passes, arelocated in Tingloy waters.

Much like the local stakeholders, conservation effortswere also not benefiting from the dive fee as intended. InMabini–Tingloy enforcement of fishing regulations andmarine sanctuaries were estimated at PHP 80,000 permonth, and the cost of one patrol boat at PHP 200,000.During the study, outside funding had largely ended, andnone of the PHP 1,100,000 collected from the diver fee hadbeen disbursed to fill the gap. In the summer of 2004 theTingloy Bantay Dagat had ceased to operate as there wereinsufficient resources to repair the engine of the patrol boator to pay for fuel. The effects of decreased enforcement

were already being perceived in Mabini–Tingloy, as illegalcommercial fishing was encroaching on municipal waters.At this stage, without external support, maintenance of theBantay Dagat was not possible.The conflict over how to disperse funds from the diver

fee was more than just a perceived one, and had very realimplications for tourism, conservation and local stake-holders. Of all the resource use conflicts in Mabini–Tingloy, this is perhaps the most indicative of themisunderstanding between conservation efforts and localstakeholders, especially fishers.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

This study found large differences between groups ofstakeholders in terms of perceived benefits and costs ofconservation and tourism, and discussed the main conflictsresulting from these inequalities. Conflicts involving con-servation in Mabini–Tingloy have not been given necessaryattention until recently.The study found conflicts associated with conservation

to be the most significant. A major part of this conflict isperceived limitations that conservation efforts impose onfishers’ livelihoods. Conflicts related to tourism are alsoimportant, and occur primarily due to disagreements oversanctuary management, associated ownership and userrights, as well as the lack of tourism benefits for localresidents, especially in providing jobs. Unequal powerrelationships mark all of these conflicts, and fishers areamong the weakest stakeholders and have the lowest ratesof knowledge of and participation in conservation activ-ities. Based on these findings the author can make twomain recommendations.Firstly, sanctuary management and user rights need

urgent clarification. Sanctuary ordinances should berespected and equally enforced. Enforcing the existingban on diving within the Mabini sanctuaries will help avoidfurther resort–fisher conflicts. If local communities favoura decision to allow diving in sanctuaries, the ordinanceshould be amended to clearly state which activities areallowed and the ordinance should be enforced consistently.In the summer of 2006 both Mabini and Tingloy

proposed zoning their municipal waters into three mainzones: restricted use, controlled use and multiple use [36].The zoning would greatly clarify the uses of the municipalwaters in Mabini–Tingloy. For example, if the ordinance inMabini is passed, checkout diving would become prohib-ited in the Mabini sanctuaries and experienced diverswould pay a premium to visit these sites. Batalang Batosanctuary in Tingloy is proposed to open for divers. Priorto passing these ordinances, all stakeholder groups shouldbe consulted carefully, and if passed they need to be pairedwith comprehensive education campaigns in the localcommunities to avoid the serious confusion that followedordinances in 1991 and 1993.Secondly, livelihood issues in Mabini–Tingloy need

further study. As fishers are the group that feels most

ARTICLE IN PRESST. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487486

disadvantaged by both tourism and conservation, it wouldbe valuable to explore strategies that would increasebenefits to them. Although fishers expressed interest inworking in the tourism industry, they were found to bethe occupational group with the highest proportion sayingthat their current job is their preferred job, meaningthat alternative livelihood strategies should be carefullyexamined before they are introduced. While the diveboat sector may continue to experience growth and maybe an industry that appeals to fishers, other ways ofsatisfying the fishers should be examined. The possiblenew zoning ordinances may be one such way. Commu-nication and education programs are also needed toclarify the objectives of conservation and the impacts thatthese will have on the livelihoods of fishers and otherresidents, especially if the ordinances are changed. Inaddition, few local people are employed by the resorts, andways to encourage resorts to hire locally should beexplored, especially as the great majority of studyparticipants express an interest in working in the tourismsector.

Since the completion of this study, the diver fee schemewas unified between Mabini and Tingloy in September2005, with monthly collections being split equally betweenthe two municipalities. The unified dive pass gives diversaccess to dive sites in both municipalities, and costs PHP100 for a daily pass and PHP 1800 for a yearly pass [37]. Inaddition, the Mabini Municipal Government has spentapproximately 75% of funds collected to date, with themajority of funds going to the Bantay Dagat for expensesincluding fuel, uniforms, and salaries/stipends, which arenow issued [38]. Tingloy has recently begun to use theirfunds, and will hopefully follow the recent example set bythe Mabini disbursement strategies. The total collected bythe municipalities from September 2003 to March 2006 wasPHP 3,900,000.

Despite these highly positive developments, resource useconflicts need immediate attention in order for the existingconservation programs to be effectively transitioned ontothe social and legal fabric of Mabini–Tingloy. As long as alarge number of fishers perceive economic injuries due toconservation and resorts, effective stakeholder dialogueand cooperation, essentials in community-based conserva-tion, will not be possible. For continued success andsustainability, resource use conflicts must be promptlyaddressed.

Acknowledgements

The research was kindly supported by the Jean MitchellFund, Reef Conservation UK, and the Philip Lake FundII. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect the views of thesupporters. The author wishes to express her appreciationto the communities in Mabini and Tingloy who partici-pated in the study, the staff of WWF-Philippines, MelanieUmaclap, and Dr. Tom Spencer at the University of

Cambridge. Special thanks go to Alexander Yates forresearch and editorial support.

References

[1] Spalding M, Ravilious C, Green E. World atlas of coral reefs.

Berkeley: University of California Press; 2001.

[2] Bryant D, Burke L, McManus J, Spalding M. Reefs at risk: a map-

based indicator of threats to the world’s coral reefs. Washington, DC:

World Resources Institute; 1998.

[3] Buckles D, Rusnak G. Conflict and collaboration in natural resource

management. In: Buckles D, editor. Cultivating peace: conflict and

collaboration in natural resource management. Ottawa: International

Development Research Center; 1999. p. 1–10.

[4] World Bank. Voices from the village: a comparative study of coastal

resource management in the Pacific Islands. Washington, DC: World

Bank; 2000.

[5] Salafsky N, Cauley H, Balachander G, Cordes B, Parks J, Margoluis

C, et al. A systematic test of an enterprise strategy for community-

based biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 2001;15(6):

1585–95.

[6] Burke L, Selig E, Spalding M. Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia.

Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2002.

[7] WWF-Philippines. Coastal resources management plan, Tingloy,

Batangas (2004–2010). Unpublished Report, 2004.

[8] Tongson E. ICM as a strategy to enable MPA management: the case of

Balayan Bay. ITMEMS II (online), 2003. Site accessed 2003-8-11.

hwww.icriforum.org/itmems/presentations/T4_BalayanEdTongson.doci

[9] Ateneo de Manila University. An economic assessment of the

municipality of Mabini, Batangas. Unpublished Report, 2002.

[10] Solandt J, Comley J, Hunt A, Raines P. Mabini–Tingloy Marine

Biodiversity Conservation Project: Pilot Phase Project Report.

Philippine Reef and Rainforest Conservation Foundation, Coral

Cay Conservation, WWF-Philippines (online), 2002. Site acc-

essed 2006-10-1. hwww.coralcay.org/science/download_reports.php#

philippines_marinei

[11] Alcala A. Community-based coastal resource management in the

Philippines: a case study. Ocean & Coastal Management 1998;38(2):

179–86.

[12] WWF-Philippines. Municipality of Tingloy socio-economic profile

1999. Unpublished Report, 1999.

[13] WWF-Philippines. Coastal resources management plan, Mabini,

Batangas (2004–2010). Unpublished Report, 2004.

[14] Wilkie D, Carpenter J. Can nature tourism help finance protected

areas in the Congo Basin? Oryx 1999;33(4):332–8.

[15] Crawford B, Balgos M, Pagdilao C. Community-based marine

sanctuaries in the Philippines: a report on focus group discussions.

Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island; 2000.

[16] Colwell S. Dive-tourism and private stewardship of small-scale coral reef

marine protected areas. In: ITMEMS 1998 proceedings, 1998; p. 217–21.

[17] Milne N, Christie P. Financing integrated coastal management:

experiences in Mabini and Tingloy, Batangas, Philippines. Ocean &

Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):427–49.

[18] Oracion E, Miller M, Christie P. Marine protected areas for whom?

Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean

& Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):393–410.

[19] Walters R, Samways M. Sustainable dive ecotourism on a South

African coral reef. Biodiversity and Conservation 2001;10(12):2167–79.

[20] Hawkins J, Roberts C, Hof T, Meyer K, Tratalos J, Aldam C. Effects

of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish commu-

nities. Conservation Biology 1998;13(4):888–97.

[21] Tratalos J, Austin T. Impacts of recreational scuba diving on coral

communities of the Caribbean island of Grand Cayman. Biological

Conservation 2001;102(1):67–75.

[22] Davis D, Tisdell C. Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity

in marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 1995;26(1):

19–40.

ARTICLE IN PRESST. Majanen / Marine Policy 31 (2007) 480–487 487

[23] Hawkins J, Roberts C. Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral

reefs: trampling on reef-flat communities. Journal of Applied Ecology

1993;30(1):25–30.

[24] Eisma R, Christie P, Hershman M. Legal issues affecting sustain-

ability of integrated coastal management in the Philippines. Ocean &

Coastal Management 2005;48(3–6):336–59.

[25] Pomeroy R, Pollnac R, Katon B, Predo C. Evaluating factors

contributing to the success of community-based coastal resource

management: the Central Visayas Regional Project-1, Philippines.

Ocean & Coastal Management 1997;36:97–120.

[26] Katon B, Pomeroy R, Salamanca A. The Marine Conser-

vation Project for San Salvador: a case study of Fisheries Co-

Management in the Philippines. Philippines: International Center

for Living Aquatic Resources Management and Haribon Founda-

tion; 1997.

[27] Pollnac R, Pomeroy R, Harkes I. Fishery policy and job satisfaction

in three Southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management

2001;44:531–44.

[28] Wells M. Biodiversity conservation, affluence and poverty: mis-

matched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. Ambio

1992;21(3):237–43.

[29] Cartwright J. Is there hope for conservation in Africa? Journal of

Modern African Studies 1991;29(3):355–71.

[30] Hulme D, Infield M. Community conservation, reciprocity and park-

people relationships: Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. In: Hulme

D, Murphee M, editors. African wildlife and livelihoods. Oxford:

James Currey; 2001. p. 106–30.

[31] Panini D. Addressing livelihood issues in conservation-oriented

projects: a case study of Pulicat Lake, Tamil Nadu, India. In: Jeffery

R, Vira B, editors. Conflict and cooperation in participatory natural

resource management. London: Palgrave; 2001. p. 63–74.

[32] Oviedo P. The Galapagos Islands: conflict management in conservation

and sustainable resource management. In: Buckles D, editor. Cultivating

peace: conflict and collaboration in natural resource management.

Ottawa: International Development Research Center; 1999. p. 163–82.

[33] Bunce L, Gustavson K. Coral reef valuation: a rapid socioeconomic

assessment of fishing, watersports, and hotel operations in the

Montego Bay Marine Park, Jamaica and an analysis of reef

management implications. World Bank Research Committee Project

#RPO 681-05, 1998.

[34] Oracion E. The dynamics of stakeholder participation in marine

protected area development: a case study in Batangas, Philippines.

Silliman Journal 2003;44(1):95–137.

[35] Brandon K, Wells M. Planning for people and parks: design

dilemmas. World Development 1992;20(4):557–70.

[36] WWF-Philippines. Mabini and Tingloy waters zoned: municipal

ordinances underway. Batayan (online) 2006;May–June:1–2. Site accessed

2006-10-1. hhttp://www.mabini.gov.ph/batayan/06may_june.pdfi

[37] Municipality of Mabini. Coastal resource management: dive fee

collection—a summary. Municipality of Mabini (online), 2006. Site

accessed 2006-10-1. hhttp://www.mabini.gov.ph/mab_crm.htmi

[38] WWF-Philippines. Mabini–Tingloy show the way with diver’s fees.

WWF-Philippines (online), 2006. Site accessed 2006-10-1. hhttp://

www.wwf.org.ph/newsfacts.php?pg=det&id=13i