Evolution and continuing challenges of coastal management in the Philippines



This story spans more than five decades, and tracks the unfolding of coastal resource management (CRM) in the Philippines as the country weathered changes in patterns of resource use and the diminishing overall health of its coastal and marine ecosystems, from its community-based beginnings to its current, still evolving form as an institution-based integrated framework for national development. It will also be published in print form and distributed with the upcoming video documentary “Under Construction: The Making of a Coast-wise Nation” produced by the Fisheries Improved for Sustainable Harvest (FISH) Project.

By Asuncion Sia and Alan T. White

See also Timeline of Coastal Resource Management in the Philippines

The decline

Until recently, the Philippines, an archipelago of more 7,100 islands blessed with highly productive marine habitats and coastal waters, pursued coastal and marine development along the premise that the sea could be exploited without limit, through the use of more efficient gear, in an open access regime. Since 1932, when the Fisheries Act gave most management responsibility to the central government, the national thrust had been largely to promote increased efficiency in fishing effort rather than to introduce or enhance management measures. The accepted viewpoint then was that the problem with Philippine fisheries was not one of resource decline, but a problem of access to the resource, which could be solved by technology.

This framework of development led to excessive fishing pressure, overfishing, stock depletion, and the destruction of freshwater and marine habitats. Thus, most of the extensive shallow seas of the Philippines – once rich in coastal resources, fish and shellfish and the habitats (coral reefs, seagrass beds and mangroves) that nurture them – became severely depleted.

Fishery scientists first sounded the alarm in the late 1960s for fisheries in Manila Bay (Silvestre and Pauly 1989). Over the next two decades, government would operate in a dichotomous state, where it would promote resource protection through various policy statements and legislations, while leaving room for resource exploitation, which would go largely uncontrolled.

In 1975, Presidential Decree 704, the Fisheries Decree of the Philippines, banned destructive fishing and declared “the policy of the state to accelerate and promote integrated development of the fishery industry and to keep the fishery resources of the country in optimum productive condition through proper conservation and protection.” But it also encouraged the “maximum economic utilization” of fishery resources, promoted fisheries as a preferred area of investment, and encouraged the exportation of “fish and fishery aquatic products”.

Also in 1975, the Forestry Code was enacted, which declared “the protection, development and rehabilitation of forest lands shall be emphasized so as to ensure their continuity in productive condition,” and established the need to protect mangrove forests. But it also encouraged the establishment of wood-processing plants.

Several measures would follow, including: creation of a National Mangrove Committee (1976); PD 1058 amending PD 704 and increasing the penalties for certain forms of illegal fishing (1976); PD 1219 limiting coral gathering to scientific research (1977); PD 1586 establishing the environmental impact assessment system (1978); creation of Marine Parks Task Force to recommend sites for marine parks (1978); declaration of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone (1978); organization of the Coastal Zone Management Inter-Agency Task Force with 22 agencies (1979) (White 2002).

By 1981, the Philippines had become a signatory to CITES. In 1986, government banned muro-ami and kayakas fishing; smashing corals with rocks and poles to drive fish into nets, these fishing methods were notorious not only for the trail of destruction they left in coral reefs but also because they employed child labor. In 1988, the first national marine park was established at Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea, a highly biodiverse coral reef atoll that yields the highest fish biomass in the country, recorded at 120 metric tons per square kilometer in 2003. In 1992, the Philippines became a signatory to Agenda 21 and the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development was created (White 2002).

And yet, the degradation of coastal resources continued and in many cases accelerated. The numerous transfers of jurisdictional authority for fisheries from one agency to the next could have been a contributory factor. Since the early 1900s, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) had been transferred numerous times from one agency to another. In 1984, by virtue of Executive Order 967, BFAR was once again transferred from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, but the MNR retained authority over the management of the marine environment, including coral reefs and other habitats. Jurisdictional conflicts created confusion and hindered the implementation of key resource protection laws (White 2002).

By 1993, the year the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) was established through Republic Act. No. 7586 (1992), the area of mangrove forests in the Philippines had declined significantly from an estimated 450,000 hectares at the beginning of the century to approximately 140,000 hectares (DENR 1988; World Bank 1989). Major losses of mangrove areas occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, when the government, in an effort to boost fish production from aquaculture and despite passing a Forestry Code that stated the need to protect mangroves, encouraged the conversion of mangrove forests to shrimp and fishponds.

In the mid-1990s, less than 5% of coral reefs in the Philippines were considered to be in excellent condition (Gomez et al 1994). Siltation from deforested uplands, destructive fishing practices, pollution and physical removal were the major factors that caused their degradation.

In the face of a dramatic increase in population, increasing global demand for marine products, overfishing and habitat destruction, fish stocks dwindled at an exponential rate, with significant declines in municipal fisheries throughout the country. New technology and the expansion of fishpond areas provided a boost to the industry in the late 1970s, but it was short-lived. The once robust growth in fish production from aquaculture eventually turned sluggish.

Seeds of change

Awareness of the worsening coastal resource degradation and its concomitant problems began to emerge in the 1970s, but even then there was a pervasive belief that fish production could be increased infinitely with more efficient fishing technologies. The few activities at the grassroots level that would now be considered as CRM had resource protection merely as an incidental benefit. Over time, however, these community-based efforts would be raised as models of CRM for others to follow.

In 1957, motivated only by their need for firewood and timber, the people of Banacon, a sparsely vegetated island in Getafe, Bohol, began planting mangroves in what is now regarded as the biggest man-made mangrove forest in Asia.

In the mid-70s, Genu Philippines, a seaweed processing firm, introduced seaweed farming to Hingotanan Island in Bien Unido, Bohol, and inadvertently transformed its residents from being dynamite fishers to seaweed farmers.

In 1974, Silliman University, together with a local mayor, established the Philippines’ first marine reserve at Sumilon Island, an uninhabited island off Oslob, Cebu, to answer the question: “What is the maximum fish yield that people can get from reefs?” At Sumilon, scientists discovered that a square kilometer of healthy reef could produce up to 30 tons of fish (six times as much as they first thought). They developed a formula for reversing the decline of fisheries: protect 25% of the reef, harvest the rest with hook-and-line and other non-destructive methods, and the reef will always stay productive and healthy (Rashid 1992). Over 10 years of protection, fish abundance in the reef tripled, resulting in substantial increases in the fish catch of fishers in surrounding areas.

In 1984, a new mayor was elected and promptly revoked Sumilon’s protected status. This caused Silliman to take its research to three small islands in Negros Oriental and Bohol – Apo, Balicasag, and Pamilacan. Under the Marine Conservation and Development Program (1984-86) of Silliman University, USAID and Asia Foundation, the scientists, in an effort to shield their work from changing political biases, began an intensive community-organizing campaign to engage local residents in the management and protection of the island’s reefs and waters.

Of the three islands, Apo proved to be particularly successful, charting a new course in the Philippines that would emphasize community involvement in CRM, make resource users the primary managers and protectors of the coastal resources on which they depend, and get the process of integrated coastal management going (Raymundo and White 2004).

Over the same period, the Central Visayas Regional Project (CVRP, 1984-92) supported by a World Bank loan piloted a community-based rural development effort that included as one of its components nearshore fisheries development in the four Central Visayan provinces (Cebu, Bohol, Negros Oriental and Siquijor) (White 2002). CVRP covered a period of transition from dictatorship to democracy in the Philippines, when a new people power-inspired Constitution was instituted and government began a process of decentralization. By the time CVRP ended in 1992, it had experimented with development approaches at different levels (community, municipal, provincial and regional).

In 1986, the ASEAN/US Coastal Resource Management Project piloted integrated coastal management in Lingayen Gulf. The project, which ran until 1992, was tasked to promote CRM through improved information flow and the design of site-specific plans for selected areas in the ASEAN region.

In 1990, the Department of Agriculture (DA) began testing the community-based approach for wider application through its Fisheries Sector Program (FSP, 1990-97). FSP, which was funded by an Asian Development Bank loan, attempted to generate and implement CRM plans in 12 bays across the country known for their rich fisheries, management problems and the growing poverty of coastal residents.

In 1991, the Local Government Code (LGC) was enacted, fleshing out the Constitutional provision on decentralization and democratization. The LGC would have a major impact on the system of governance in the Philippines, but it was not until the mid-1990s that its influence on CRM would be felt.

In 1995, in response to a clamor from fishers’ organizations, EO 240 institutionalized the Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council (FARMC) to serve as a legal forum for small fishers to participate in the affairs of government.

In 1996, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) introduced a new tenurial instrument on forestlands (including mangroves). Called ‘Community-Based Forest Management Agreement’ or CBFMA, it is a production-sharing contract between a community and the government to develop, utilize and conserve a specific portion of forestland consistent with the principles of sustainable development and pursuant to an approved Community Resource Management Framework Plan. Unlike some of the older tenurial instruments, the CBFMA can be issued only to people’s organizations, and not to companies or individual (Melana et al 2000).

Also in 1996, the Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP) of DENR and USAID embarked on what would become a 9-year effort to take CRM in the Philippines to the threshold of sustainability, expressed as “3,500 kms of shoreline under improved management” by the end of the Project.

CRM as a basic service

1998 turned out to be a particularly significant year for CRM in the Philippines. That year, as the nation celebrated with the rest of the world the United Nations International Year of the Ocean, Congress enacted Republic Act 8550, the 1998 Fisheries Code of the Philippines, which reinforced and defined the local government unit’s (LGU) role in CRM, and two new projects began: the Fisheries Resource Management Project implemented under a loan program of the Asian Development Bank to build on past initiatives in bay-wide fisheries management, and the Community-Based Resource Management Project (CBRMP) under a World Bank loan which aimed “to reduce poverty and environmental degradation through support for locally generated and implemented natural resource management.”

In 1999, public awareness of coastal issues reached an all-time high, May was declared ‘Month of the Ocean in the Philippines, and the LMP convened the country’s first-ever conference of coastal municipal mayors. The conference was attended by top national officials including the Philippine President, and more than 700 mayors representing 90% of coastal municipalities in the Philippines, setting the stage for the expansion of CRM across a wider geographical area (CRMP 2000).

Over the next five years, with help from a wide range of institutions and aid programs (see timeline), the effort to build the country’s capacity in CRM gained ground across all levels of government. As they acquired the know-how required to manage their coastal resources, more and more LGUs embraced CRM as a basic service and a mainstream governance function. Meanwhile, at the national level, policies were reviewed and improved to make government more effective in meeting the requirements of CRM.

Subsequently, the provincial government was integrated into the CRM system, thus strengthening the vertical linkages for the delivery of technical assistance and other services necessary for LGUs to manage their coastal resources.

In 2001, the DENR issued an administrative order prescribing the guidelines for the delineation of municipal waters. This move was hounded by controversy, which resulted in the revocation of the order and its subsequent replacement by a similar order issued by the DA. Nevertheless, it gave municipal governments the instrument to define the boundaries of their management area, a key requisite to planning. By the time a new set of guidelines was issued by the DA in 2004, more than 20 municipalities and a few cities had already delineated their municipal waters.

By the end 2002, based on a simple benchmark system that CRMP developed to measure progress in CRM through local government, 101 LGUs representing 13% of all coastal LGUs in the Philippines and covering 3,187 kms of shoreline met all indicators for improved management of coastal resources. That year, DENR established a Coastal and Marine Management Office that institutionalized the CRM functions of DENR in a major program founded on the lessons of CRMP and other CRM initiatives. Also that year, DENR began national level consultations on a draft National CRM Policy that provides a workable policy agenda for catalyzing CRM plans and programs of LGUs and for establishing national support systems for CRM by DENR and other key national government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academe.

As the systems were strengthened, the institutionalization of CRM deepened and broadened across national and local levels, and new models emerged to respond to the demands of resource management.

In Bohol, an inter-LGU, multi-agency, multi-sectoral law enforcement group was created to meet the challenge of coastal law enforcement, waging a successful campaign against illegal fishing in the province.

In Cebu, years of uncertain support for the Gilutongan Island Marine Sanctuary in the municipality of Cordova inspired the installation of a revenue generation scheme that has made the sanctuary self-sustaining.

In Masbate City, the LGU embarked on a truly holistic CRM program that includes the institutionalization of education as an agent of change and sustainability.

By the end of 2004, at least 113 LGUs representing 14% of all coastal LGUs in the Philippines and covering 3,589 kms of shoreline (20% of the total Philippine shoreline of 18,000 kms) met all requirements for improved management of coastal resources (CRMP 2004).

The continuing challenge

The Philippines has reached a stage where there is widespread acceptance among LGUs that CRM is a basic service and an urgent need that requires priority action. Nationally, there is growing recognition of the tremendous and in many cases irreplaceable economic benefits derived from coral reefs, fisheries and mangroves in the Philippines – in 1996, the total annual contribution of these ecosystems to the Philippine national economy was estimated to be at least USD3.5 billion a year (White and Trinidad 1998). Now more than ever, the country has the opportunity to successfully tackle the still daunting challenges remaining, most notably the decline of the economically important fisheries sector. It is an opportunity that must not be squandered, because so much opportunity has already been wasted, and time is running out fast.

Scientists have described the Philippine Islands as “the center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity” (Carpenter and Springer 2005). They theorized a confluence of geologic events led to island integration and the formation of new fish species across the archipelago, and played an important role in shaping such diversity.

At the same time, the islands have been identified as “the most highly threatened center of endemism” (Roberts et al 2002).

With over 2.2 million square kms of highly productive seas at its disposal, the Philippines has predictably developed fisheries as a major economic sector. The Philippines was the 12th largest producer of fish in the world in 1998 (Garrido 2002), and in 1994, it was 14th among the world’s industrialized fishing fleets. Fisheries support a multitude of stakeholders, including municipal and commercial fishers, canneries, fish markets and various industries. Fish provides direct income to some 1.3 million small fishers and their families (Hancock 1995).

But all of the Philippines’ main fish species and marine organisms are showing severe signs of overfishing. As early as the late 1960s, the country had reached the maximum economic yield of its demersal fish stocks, except in the offshore hard bottoms around Palawan, Southern Sulu Sea and central part of the country’s Pacific coast (Silvestre and Pauly 1989). Lingayen Gulf, a major fishing ground in northern Luzon, Philippines, reached its maximum sustainable yield more than 20 years ago (Hilomen et al 2002; Yap 1997). Overall, fish are being harvested at a level 30% more than they are capable of producing. This excess fishing is resulting in economic losses conservatively estimated at about Php6.25 billion per year in lost fish catch (ICLARM 2001).

It is the Filipino masses who are feeling most of the pinch of a shrinking resource. The Philippines, one of the world’s 40 largest fish-producing nations, is also among the 10 low-income, food-deficit countries of the world (Kurien 2002). In 1997, the National Research and Development Extension Agenda and Program estimated that the Philippines had a national nutritional deficit of 666,140 tons (Garrido 2002).

Fish accounts for more than half of the total animal protein consumed in the country (ADB 2001), but national consumption per capita of fish dropped from 40kg in 1987 (FNRI 1987) to 24kg in 1996 (Bernascek 1996). By some estimates, if no appropriate action is taken to reverse declining fish production trends, only about 10kg of fish will be available annually for each Filipino by 2010 (Bernascek 1996, BFAR 1997).

Fortunately, there is much that can be done to avoid such scenario. The critical issues affecting fisheries are well-understood, if not universally accepted (DA-BFAR. 2004). Worldwide, the reasons for overfishing are the same (FAO 2001; Greenpeace 1999): open access; widespread technological advances; economic development policies of governments, especially those providing subsidies to keep inefficient boats running and encouraging even more investment in fishing technology and boats; growing human population; and insatiable demand for fish from a growing, lucrative global market.

In the Philippines, the issues are similar but somewhat more complex – the problem facing Philippine fisheries is not just one of resource decline; it is also an issue about social equity.

Philippine fisheries have two major sectors: municipal fisheries using boats smaller than 3 gross tons, and commercial fisheries using boats of 3 gross tons and higher. By law, municipal fishers have the preferential right to use so-called municipal waters including coastal waters up to 15 kms from the shoreline, while commercial fishers can fish outside the 15-km boundary, an area covering as much as 83% of the country’s total marine waters.

In the past, the national government held most of the responsibility for fisheries management and its policy was to encourage full exploitation and utilization of the country’s fishery resources by promoting investment in technologically advanced more efficient fishing gears. In a setting where small fishers used to be unorganized and without any means to represent their interests in government affairs, government support was skewed – not quite intentionally – in favor of the commercial fishing sector. As the resource became depleted, competition among fishers intensified, subsequently creating a conflict between small- and large-scale fisheries that pushed many small fishers to the extreme edge in the distribution of fishery resources.

The problem was exacerbated by habitat loss: across the Philippines, coastal habitats were vanishing at a rapid rate under the onslaught of destructive fishing by both small and large-scale fishers, and of their conversion to other uses.

As the problems became known, government responded by adopting a policy of conservation and management, and by passing new laws that banned the use of destructive fishing gears and regulated access to fishery resources. Enforcement, however, was spotty at best and in many cases rendered ineffective by systemic weaknesses.

Today, the picture is somewhat different. In the last decade, the Philippine government went through a major reorganization that saw the ascendancy of the LGU as front-line managers of coastal resources, and caused the institutionalization of ‘people power’ that resulted in a better representation of small fishers in government affairs. Technical assistance projects such as CRMP built capacities in CRM across all levels of government, paying close attention to installing the systems and expertise needed at the LGU level to facilitate the delivery of CRM as a basic government service. As a result, there is now wide acceptance of CRM as a priority program of government at all levels, and more importantly there is sustained action at the local level to address specific CRM concerns.

And there lies the opportunity to avert any worsening of the decline of Philippine fisheries. With the problems known and widely accepted, and with the implementation systems for CRM up and running, there is now much room to turn to the specific causes of the fisheries crisis.

Through the USAID-funded FISH Project, the Philippine government is using the lessons and achievements of past CRM initiatives to launch an assault on the fisheries problem with a new focus. FISH is working locally with LGUs in the Danajon Bank (Bohol), Calamian Group of Islands (Palawan), Surigao del Sur and Tawi-Tawi to take up specific fisheries issues. Simultaneously, it is working at the national level to fill any remaining policy gaps and improve the government’s overall capacity to manage Philippine fisheries in all its complexity.

All told, the task involves strengthening the foundation of CRM built over three decades and building new capacities to meet the key requisites of fisheries management, namely, habitat protection, reduction of fishing effort and sustained management. In specific terms, it involves working out the many small details that together add up to fisheries decline, or to loss of opportunity to reverse the decline. For instance, more than 500 marine sanctuaries have been legally established throughout the country, but less than half are functional – a determined effort to make them work will reap great benefits in terms of fish catch and the overall health of fishery resources across a large geographical area.

The solutions are not always simple, but they are well-understood, available, doable and most urgently needed to save Philippine fisheries, not only for its sake but for the whole world:

“The concentration of limited range endemics in the Philippines poses a danger of mass extinctions on a marine scale similar to endangered Brazilian rainforests… Solely as an example of peak diversity and endemism, there is ample justification to prioritize the Philippines for conservation.” (Carpenter and Springer 2005)

***

REFERENCES

ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2001. Policy on fisheries, the context: Fisheries in the Asian and Pacific region. The recommended strategy for the bank. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 19p.

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 Second National Fisheries Policy Planning Conference, Cavite, Philippines.

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

Carpenter, K.E. and V.G. Springer. 2005. The center of the center of marine shore fish biodiversity: The Philippine Islands. In Environmental Biology of Fishes (2005) 72:467-480

CRMP. 2000. CRMP in Mid-Stream: On Course to a Threshold of Sustainable Coastal Management in the Philippines. Special Mid-term Report (1996-1999), Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 100pp.

CRMP. 2004. Completion Report: The Coastal Resource Management Project-Philippines (1996-2004). Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines.

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

DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources). 1988. Mapping of the Natural Conditions of the Philippines, Final Report. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Swedish Space Corporation, Solna, Sweden.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture (SOFIA).

FNRI (Food and Nutrition Research Institute). 1987. Third national nutrition survey. FNRI, Philippines.

Garrido, M. 2002. Food Security and the World Trade Organization: The prospects for fish food security in the Philippines. Paper presented at World Conference on Science for the Twentieth Century: The New Commitment, London, UK.

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

Greenpeace International. 1999. Global overfishing: It can’t go on forever. Greenpeace International, The Netherlands.

Hilomen, V.V., W. Licuanan, P. Aliño and L. Jimenez. 2002. Status of the fisheries resources in Lingayen Gulf: Easing the pressure and enhancing the resources. Presented at the National Fisheries Resource and Social Assessment Conference, Development Academy of the Philippines, Tagaytay City, Philippines. Fisheries Resource Management Project of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

ICLARM (WorldFish Center). 2001. Sustainable management of coastal fish stocks in Asia. Project Final Report (March 1998-March 2001) ADB-RETA 5766.

Kurien, J. 2002. Does international trade in fishery products contribute to food security? Some analyses: Some thoughts. Proceedings for the FAO E-mail Conference on Fisheries Trade and Food Security. FAO Fish Utilization and Marketing Service, March 1999. 56p.

Melana, D.M., J. Atchue III, C.E. Yao, R. Edwards, E.E. Melana and H.I. Gonzales. 2000. Mangrove Management Handbook. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Manila, Philippines through the Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 96p.

Rashid, R. 1992. The twenty-five percent solution. Discovery, May 1992.

Raymundo L.J. and A.T. White. 2004. 50 years of scientific contributions of the Apo Island experience: A review. Silliman Journal (50th Anniversary Issue), Silliman University, Dumaguete, Philippines.

Roberts, C.M., C.J. McClean, J.E.N. Veron, J.P. Hawkins, G.R. Allen, D.E. McAllister, C.G. Mittermeier, F.W. Schueler, M. Spalding, F. Wells, C. Vynne and T.B. Werner. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1280-1284.

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. Fish. J. 1(2); (1/2); 3(1/2); 11-24. University of the Philippines-Visayas, Iloilo, Philippines.

White, A.T. 2002. History of Integrated Coastal Management in the Philippines. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines.

White A.T. and A.C. Trinidad. 1998. The Values of Philippine Coastal Resources: Why Protection and Management are Critical. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. 96p.

World Bank. 1989. Philippines: Environment and Natural Resources Management Study. The World Bank.

Yap, W.G. 1997. Can the Philippines produce enough fish for the multitude? Aquacult. Asia 2(3): 32-38.