PHILIPPINE FISHERIES IN CRISIS: A PRESCRIPTION FOR RECOVERY

Declining fish catch is only a symptom of the complex problem that is causing the rapid decline of Philippine fisheries. This article, excerpted from The Philippine Guidebook Series No.6: Managing Municipal Fisheries, describes the problem and three critical results that must be achieved to begin the recovery of this high valuable economic resource.

By Annabelle Cruz-Trinidad, Alan T. White, Mary Gleason, and Leo Pura

hilippine fisheries are threatened and need management. While vast benefits are gained from fisheries in the Philippines, their integrity is threatened because of many decades of poor management. Fisheries contribute significantly to income, employment, foreign exchange earnings, and nutrition and thus the security of the country. However, these benefits are continuously being dissipated due to declining fish catch, habitat degradation, and increasing numbers of people dependent on the resource.

There are two types of fisheries in the Philippines, the municipal fisheries and commercial fisheries. Existing laws categorize these two fisheries in a simplistic manner: municipal fisheries refer to fishing activities which use fishing vessels of 3 gross tons (GT) or less or none at all, while commercial fishing uses vessels greater than 3 GT.

Municipal fisheries are regulated by the local government, while commercial fisheries are regulated by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of the Department of Agriculture (DA-BFAR). In addition, a 15-km expanse of waters has been classified as municipal waters, falling under the jurisdiction of local municipal and city governments. Commercial fishing is not allowed in municipal waters unless special ordinances approving this activity are approved by the municipal or city councils.

Municipal fisheries also include aquaculture operations in ponds either on land or in once mangrove areas, fish pens, or cages in nearshore areas.

The definition of municipal waters is reflected in three major laws: Presidential Decree (PD) 704, the Local Government Code (LGC), and the Fisheries Code. Analysis reveals that the definition of municipal waters from 1932 (Fisheries Act 4003) to the present has changed little except for the area claimed to encompass municipal waters (Table 1). The spatial dimension of these definitions shows that municipal waters and thus, municipal fishing, forms a specific sector within the fishing industry.

Table 1. Perspective on laws affecting zoning of municipal waters.

Coastal waters comprise only about 12 percent of Philippine waters but this is where highly diverse and productive habitats, serving as critical life-support systems for a multitude of aquatic living resources, are found. The most important habitats are coral reefs, mangrove forests, and seagrass beds. In contrast to the high productivity of coastal habitats, nutrients in and productivity of the Philippine offshore waters are low (Megia 1952; Wyrtki 1961). There is, however, a lack of data on municipal fisheries and they are not well understood or managed in the country.

Fishing status and decline
Like many fisheries around the world, Philippine fisheries systems are facing collapse or are generally overfished. Total Philippine fish production has leveled off at around 2.7 million t/year in the 1990s (Table 2; Figure 1). The increase in total production is accounted for by the growth in aquaculture.

Table 2. Philippine fish production by sector, 1996 (BFAR 1997)

Figure 1. Fisheries-related food production for 1951-1996 (BFAR 1997 (Click image to enlarge)

Trends in the fisheries sector covering five decades (1950s to present) show the growth and decline of municipal fisheries. During the early 1950s, municipal fisheries comprised the bulk of fisheries production, which was 150 percent greater than the commercial sector. Fishery production in 1951 was 250,000 tons, doubling after 15 years. Production hovered at 1.2 million tons for almost the entire decade of the 1970s. Then, the contribution of the municipal sector to total fishery production dropped drastically to a little over 30 percent of the total catch.

By 1996, approximately 33 percent was contributed by the municipal sector (Figure 1).

Catch per unit effort as measured in tons/hp for the total small pelagic fish catch from municipal fisheries in the Philippines has declined dramatically from 1948 to the present (Figure 2<link to fig2>). Also, the total catch of small pelagic fish has not increased much since 1975, even with tremendous increase in effort. This indicates that total fishing effort is much higher than can be maintained for sustainable catches both in ecological and economic terms.

Figure 2. Trend of catch per unit effort for municipal small pelagic fisheries since 1948 and total fisheries production (Dalzell et al. 1987; Silvestre and Pauly 1989; Dalzell and Corpuz 1990; BFAR 1997 (Click image to enlarge)

Various other case studies also reveal the declining trend in catch rates (Table 3). Fish catch data from Olango, Cebu and Candijay, Bohol indicate that current catch rates are less than one-tenth of those in the 1960s (Table 3 and Figure 3).

Table 3. Catch rates per fishing vessel in the municipal fisheries sector for various sites.

The continuing decline in fish catch poses a grave threat to food security and results in greater poverty and conflicts between commercial and municipal fishers. A result of declining fish catch and increasing population is also a decline in per capita consumption of food fish. In 1988, per capita consumption was about 40 kg/year (includes consumption of fresh, dried and processed fish); ten years later, this figure had decreased to 36 kg/year and is continuing to drop. The decline is much more pronounced in fishing communities that make consumption of fish possible for urban consumers. This is because fishers tend to sell most valuable fish for cash income as prices rise in the cities, thus leaving only small and poorer quality fish for their own consumption.

If population growth continues at its current rapid pace and nothing is done to arrest the overfishing and habitat destruction patterns prevalent in the country, it is estimated that by the year 2010, only 10 kg of fish will be available per capita (Bernascek 1996. While the country has embarked on various food security programs, not enough importance has been given to fish compared to rice, corn, chicken, and other livestock.

On extreme days when bad weather precludes any fishing from the small barrios of Ilocos Norte, Philippines, the day’s meals consist of rice and salt and nothing more. Even on good days the catch is so low that it does not go far when sold in order to purchase other necessities. It means that some families have never consulted a doctor, even though several are located only a few kilometers away, because they cannot afford the nominal fee. It means that the family’s sole possessions, besides its single room nipa palm house and the clothes they are wearing, are cooking utensils and some sleeping mats. It means that, with no savings and material possessions, the poorest fishing families can never hope to secure loans for gear purchase from collateral-minded banks, whose experience with previous loans to fishermen has been anything but rewarding. It means that with little or no education, and few non-fishing skills, the poorest fishermen have little hope of shifting to another occupation.

In 1996, socioeconomic reports for the Fishery Sector Program (FSP) noted 80 percent of fisherfolk households were living below the poverty threshold. Indeed, income estimates from various studies in different years indicate that fishing income has stayed below poverty levels for all years. In 1985 the annual net household income (including non-fishing activities) of municipal fishers was estimated at PhP5,000 (US$676; PhP7.40 = US$1) (Librero et al. 1985). This was slightly lower than coconut farmers and lower than the rural average of PhP8,500. In 1989, average net returns from fishing in the Lingayen Gulf area were estimated at PhP344/month or US$206/year (Añonuevo 1989). When annual income levels are adjusted for peso valuation changes over time, we see that real income to fisher families remained low (Table 4).

Table 4. Annual income estimates for municipal fishers from various case studies. (Variations may reflect differences in sampling and geography and fishing grounds.)

Issues and causes
The decline of capture fisheries in the Philippines is a symptom of many complex problems that have no easy solutions. The following are the primary culprits: open-access regime, too much fishing effort, too many people dependent on fishing, and an overall lack of integrated planning and management of coastal resources. More descriptive statements of the factors that contribute to fisheries decline include:

• Continued increases in commercial and municipal fishing effort due to population growth, migration to coastal areas, and use of more efficient gear;
• Generally slow economic development in coastal areas providing few viable other sources of income to municipal fisher families and communities;
• Continued use of habitatand fisherydestructive fishing practices;
• Commercial fishing in municipal waters;
• Open access to fishery resources with few practical limits to entry in place;
• Degradation of coastal habitats from various causes, including pollution;
• Loss of naturally productive mangrove habitat to aquaculture and other land uses; and
• An overall lack of effective integrated coastal management programs at the local and national levels that address issues across sectors and for broad areas and that place fisheries management in the context of coastal resource management.

Any or a combination of these factors continues to degrade coastal resources in many places, decreasing fish catch and thus resulting in severe poverty in coastal areas throughout the country. Only a balanced and focused management approach for all coastal resources, including fisheries, can achieve food and coastal environmental security and poverty alleviation. Fisheries management must start with the people who affect the condition and use of these resources. Such management must be integrated, cross sector boundaries, and have clear objectives to be effective.

Reversing downward trends
The issues confronting municipal fisheries are very serious. Local governments, with support from national agencies, are faced with the difficult challenge of reversing the trends of destruction. In an effort to clearly define objectives for fisheries and coastal resource management, three critical results are needed to achieve sustainable resource use. These critical results and the interventions supporting them are:

Critical Result 1: Fishing effort reduced to sustainable levels. Overfishing inside, and to a lesser extent outside, municipal waters is the primary cause of the serious decline of capture fisheries in the Philippines. To reduce fishing effort, government must:

• Improve license, permit, fee, and regulation system for commercial fishers;
• Initiate and make effective registration, licenses, and regulation for municipal fishers;
• Identify other sources of income that target reducing the number of municipal fishers or by their time spent for fishing;
• Limit all fish-aggregating devices and other gear that directly cause overfishing in municipal waters;
• Regulate fishing effort by establishing fishing zones; and
• Reduce population pressure in coastal areas.

Critical Result 2: Illegal and destructive fishing practices stopped. Illegal fishing in municipal waters has resulted in relatively small economic gains to a few individuals and large economic losses to the majority of coastal stakeholders. To stop illegal fishing in municipal waters, government and other concerned sectors must:

• Conduct public education campaign in fishing communities;
• Enforce fishery laws;
• Pass municipal ordinances that prohibit destructive fishing practices; and
• Identify other sources of income (fisheries or non-fisheries related).

Critical Result 3: Coastal habitats protected and managed. The quality of critical coastal habitats, in particular, coral reef, seagrass, and mangrove habitats, must be maintained and improved for sustainable coastal resource use. To achieve this, government and its development partners must:

• Strictly enforce laws protecting coastal habitats;
• Establish marine sanctuaries to rehabilitate habitats and increase fisheries production; community-based forest management areas (CBFMAs) for sustainable mangrove resource use;
• Revert abandoned fishponds to mangrove areas to increase fisheries production;
• Develop and implement local-level CRM plans; and
• Establish functional Protected Area Management Boards (PAMBs) for marine protected areas, parks, and seascapes under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS).

It is crucial that local governments are supported in their efforts to manage coastal resources. Recent legislation recognizes the expanse of municipal waters that is clearly under the jurisdiction of local governments, who are mandated to manage their coastal resources. Clearly, local governments have a critical role to play in the management and protection of coastal areas. Through stewardship, partnerships, and multisectoral collaboration, the three critical CRM results fishing effort reduced, illegal fishing stopped, and critical coastal habitats protected will achieve a positive and measurable impact on food security today and into the future. ¶

Añonuevo, C. 1989. The economics of municipal fisheries: the case of Lingayen Gulf, p.141-157.

Bernascek, G. 1996. The role of fisheries in food security in the Philippines: A perspective study for the fisheries sector to the year 2010. Paper presented during the 2nd National Fisheries Policy Planning Conference, Puerto Azul, Cavite, Philippines.

BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). 1997. 1996 Philippines profile. Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Manila, Philippines.

CRMP (Coastal Resource Management Project). 1998. Results of the Participatory Coastal Resource Assessment in Olango Island, Cebu. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

Dalzell, P. and P. Corpuz. 1990. The present status of small pelagic fisheries in the Philippines, p. 25-51. In C.R. Pagdilao and C.D. Garcia (eds.) Philippine tuna and small pelagic fisheries: Status and prospects for development. Proceedings of a Seminar-Workshop, 27-29 July 1988, Zamboanga State College of Marine Science and Technology, Zamboanga City. Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.

Dalzell, P., P. Corpuz, R. Ganaden, and D. Pauly. 1987. Estimation of maximum of sustainable yield and maximum economic rent from the Philippines small pelagic fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Tech. Pap. Ser. 10(3), 23 p.

Herrin, A.N., M.L. Fabello, C.E. Fabello, and L.C. Palma. 1978. A social and economic study of selceted municipal fishing communities in Misamis Oriental, Philippines. Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier University, Cegayan de Oro City, Philippines.

Katon, B.M., R.S. Pomeroy, M. Ring, and L.R. Garces. 1998. Mangrove rehabilitation and coastal resource management: A case study of Cogtong Bay, Philippines. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 21(1):46-52.

Librero, A.R., R.F. Catalla, and R.M. Fabro. 1985. Socioeconomic conditions of small-scale fishermen and fish farmers in the Philippines. In T. Panayotou (ed.) Small-scale fisheries in Asia: Socioeconomic analysis and policy. International Development Research Center. Ottawa.

Megia, T. 1952. Oceanographic background of Philippine fisheries. Bureau of Fisheries Handbook, p. 10-19.

Parras, D.A., M.F. Portigo, and A.T. White. 1998. Coastal resource management in Olango Island: Challenges and opportunities. Tambuli 4: 1-9.

Pauly, D. and A.N. Mines, Editors. 1982. Theory and management of tropical fisheries. Proceedings of the ICLARM/CSIRO Workshop on the theory and management of tropical multispecies stocks. ICLARM Technical Report 7. Manila, Philippines.

PRIMEX. 1996. Fisheries Sector Development Project, Philippines (ADB TA No. 2236-PHI) Phase 1 Report, Vol. 1, Fisheries Sector Review and Proposed FSDP Framework.

Silvestre, G.T. and D. Pauly. 1989. Estimates of yield and economic rent from Philippine demersal stocks (1946-1984) using vessel horsepower as an index of fishing effort. University of the Philippines Visayas Fisheries Journal 1(2); 2(1/2);3(1/2):11-24.

Smith, I.R. 1979. A research framework for traditional fisheries. ICLARM Studies and Reviews No. 2. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Manila,Philippines. 45 p.

Wyrtki, K. 1961. Physical oceanography of the South East Asian waters. University of California, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California.

Trinidad: Policy Advisor, Coastal Resource Management Project

White: Chief of Party, Coastal Resource Management Project

Gleason: Consultant, Coastal Resource Management Project

Pura: Policy Research Assistant, Coastal Resource Management Project

***